In_The_Gray

I agree, they are definitely not deliberately intended end results. But are terrible end result, nonetheless. You make good points to justify a lesser of evils. And anarcho-capitalism is exactly that. A lesser of evils. But to fight against the status quo, would you willingly fight for the lesser of evils (anarcho-capitalism) when you truly believe that there is an approach that is significantly less evil than even that (true anarchy, in my opinion)? I'm not saying that YOU actually believe this, of course. I just mean that as a question for you if you were in my position. I am not manipulating the word “required”. If the necessities of life (food, shelter) must be purchases, then bowing to the rules of capitalism is REQUIRED to sustain your life. The “VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE OF VALUE” is only voluntary in the sense that you are able to negotiate said value. The exchange is a requirement if you want to afford life's necessities. The voluntary exchange of value is an excellent concept when applied to common goods and services (paying for someone else to build my house, buying food because I don't want to grow/hunt it on my own, etc…). It is a terrible concept when it is a requirement to sustain your life and, more specifically, when your perceived value is unsustainable in affording the basic necessities. Just because a bunch of people got lucky and bought a home for a meagre amount and can therefore survive off of very low pay doesn't mean I will have the same luck. Some people might require $2 an hour to survive due to buying/renting their home when it was cheap, which drives down worker pay rates for all. Other's might required $10 an hour to survive because living costs (land ownership OR rent) have risen since then based on market value (higher population, higher demand). Guess who's out of luck in that example? That goes for working for someone else's gain, as well. I don't mind working for someone to earn money. I have issues with it when I MUST work for someone so that I can earn enough money to survive, rather than going out and surviving with my own skills outside of capitalist rule. Since when did anarchism become Marxism? You live in a black and white world, my friend. There are not only two options for society (capitalism vs. collectivism). There are countless variances outside of these concepts and an infinite number of combinations between them. Is it really me that is blind to the truth? A “Marxist” who believes in freedom from all forms of rule? A “Marxist” that believes government control needs to end? An anarchistic “Marxist”?

The benefit is that these forests are massive and the payoff they would provide would be huge for many years. Lumber is renewable, specifically softwoods which can be regrown after decades. Valuable hardwoods are thousands of years old and cannot be regrown to their same beneficial state in our lifetime, and not with the same natural diversity. The effects of replacing old growth hardwood trees with new trees are environmentally damaging, but financially profitable. But again, deforestation is not the primary impact of greed over need. There are plenty. Yeah, the state is responsible for a great deal of environmental damage. This doesn't mean that the private sector is angelic in that regard. I don't aim for a system that is “not as bad”, I am for one that is all encompassing and that promotes true freedom. And saying “without ownership, nobody has the incentive to replenish and plan for sustained crop” is complete bullshit. The sustainable crop is the incentive. In anarcho-capitalism, money is the main resource and it is that which would be most protected. In Anarchism it would be the sustenance of your crops that is most valuable to the individual because money wouldn't be a necessity -- unless, of course, they willingly chose to live their life by trading currencies for necessities, which is fine. Division of labour is still possible in an anarchistic society, but it is by collective choice that is not forced upon anyone. If you believe it makes life more rewarding then that's fine. That doesn't mean it should be imposed on me. Yes it is about needing food. And it is about needing to bow down to a system of capitalist ownership in order to obtain that food. I don't believe everyone has the right to sit on a their ass and wait for food and entertainment to be delivered to them. I do believe they need to work for it. However, this does not mean they should be required to labour for someone else's gain so that they can afford to survive. It means they should be free to work the land, hunt, build, or even go out and labour for someone else's gain willingly, if they see the benefit in that. Money is not optional in anarcho-capitalism. It is necessary for survival. It is not "volunteering" if it is a requirement to live. Stop ignoring my contempt for the state. I said over and over that I don't agree with the state and that I want drastic change. Just because it's not anarcho-capitalist change doesn't make it invalid. And to blame your parents is the ultimate cop-out. I have no control what my parents chose to do. I can blame them for giving birth to me in poverty but that doesn't change the fact that I am still at a huge disadvantage. No amount of hate or complaining is going to change that. To shed new light on your parent argument; why aren't you blaming your parents for your current slavery to the government? It was your parents choice to give birth to you while political power exists. They willingly gave birth to you without any exemptions from government law, like having political power of their own, or being status indian, etc… Your parents must be total assholes and they should be blamed for everything you disagree with... Ridiculous argument, isn't it? And yeah, I've “accepted” property rights. That doesn't mean I agree with them or that I should be forced to agree with them. If I were to not "accept" property rights in our current state of society I would be shelter-less and without food. “Accepting” property rights is a strategic choice in life, not a desire. Though the “moral ownership” i discussed technically would still allow me to trade (i.e purchase) goods if I chose to do so. There would be no legally binding contract, but there would be a moral ownership of sorts.

Access to land (garden, hunt, shelter) is the absolute basic requirement to meet the essential needs of life. Not everybody wants to live off the land and not everybody should. That doesn't take away from the fact that I shouldn't be born into a world where I must work for a company, pay rent, and save up until I can afford access to land that isn't even being used in the first place. In a truly anarchistic world all of the benefits of capitalism would still be possible. Currencies would exist for those that choose to use them. These currencies just wouldn't have as much power over people as they would in an anarcho-capitalist society because they wouldn't be required to sustain life. Under anarchism I could live off the land if I need to, or I could work for a currency (like bitcoin, for example) and buy my food from someone who trades their goods. I could also rent from someone who built a rental building and allows me to live in it. All of this is possible without strict capitalist rule. I do not want to be born as a trespasser on private property working as a slave to earn enough to make life sustainable. I want to be born free. There is nothing collectivist about what I said. The point I make is that anarcho-capitalism is seemingly best early on, but more harmful as generations pass. Non-ownership (based on my examples) is not collectivist. It is anarchistic. There is nothing being forced on anybody in my example. The point about the future is just to not think short-sightedly about our change to how society functions. Not thinking about the big picture (which includes the future) is a bad idea. And talking about “imposing” — an anarcho-capitalist society would be imposing a capitalist lifestyle on those who don't necessarily want it. If you want capitalism as part of your way of life, fine. I don't.

The example I use of someone who has monopolized an industry of land ownership is a very realistic one. And the distinction between un-used and un-owned is one of the major flaws of capitalism, in my opinion. In a true anarchistic society all people would be free to wander the land as they see fit. I could garden on un-used land, hunt on un-used land, and build shelter on un-used land at no expense other than my own physical labour. Using our rational thinking skills, when I encounter crops in a man-made garden that wasn't made by me, I would morally acknowledge the fact that this belongs to someone else, even though there is no technical rule of “ownership” If I were to come across a man-made shelter, I would not take it as my own because I did not build it, unless the “owners” of that shelter gave me permission to do so. These decisions are made with moral rationality rather that capitalistic rules. All are free to live their lives however they see fit. The obvious “right” and “wrongs” still exist but are entirely based on our empathetic and logical thinking skills. Theft is one of those “wrongs” even though ownership is now a very different concept. Suddenly “ownership” now directly relates to what is being used by others, rather than what has been “bought” by others, which entirely prevents the issue of large amounts of land being owned but not used. Using your example of environmental conservation; a group of like-minded people could come together to protect an area of land if they choose to do so. They could put up signs that border the protected area, they could build fences, etc… But in true anarchy they could not claim that land as their own just because they think it should be protected. Many people would pass by that protected area and acknowledge their cause, and continue on to other land that seemed less significant to protect. Others might happen to really like an aspect of that land, such as the clean water source, and they may choose to oppose the wishes of the conservationists. Since the land is technically not being used (i.e nothing is being “stolen” from others simply by inhabiting that land) there is really no issue here. They might build a house on that land, and the conservationists might complain. That's it. If that land was of utmost importance to the conservationists then they should move there themselves, building temporary shelters that do not harm what it is they protect. Set up a community dedicated to the protection of this land. If they don't care enough to do that then who are they to prevent others from making use of it? It doesn't cost them money (which they would have to save up for their entire lives in a capitalist world), it costs them dedication. With this version of moral ownership it would be impossible for humans to own more than they use. Environmental destruction can and most likely would still occur, but there would be less motivation to, for example, cut down a rain forest and ship it across the ocean. Environmental destruction would occur based on direct need rather than greed, which is much more justifiable. The vast majority of privately owned land is not used (not including occasionally being walked on). The vast majority of government land is also not used and is illegal to use. If it were not owned by government it would eventually be owned by private buyers (obviously). An important thing to keep in mind is that the world today is not the same as the world tomorrow. As the population increases there will be less and less un-owned land. And more and more of that owned land would likely be bought up by a monopoly for their financial gain. Think about several generations in the future. Think about how much land will be left to buy and how expensive that land would become. A good life for people in the future is just as important as it is for people in the present. We would be at an advantage if society were to switch to anarcho-capitalism today, but it seems likely that every year that goes by would get harder and harder.

I am not saying that someone who grows food owes me a piece of what they grow. I'm saying that nobody should have the right to prevent me from growing my own food as a result of them having bought up all the land that food can be grown on. Especially in the case of the land being bought up long before i was even born. In this case, I am born into a world as a trespasser on private property with no means of attaining my own other than “voluntarily” being a slave to the owners of the land. It should not be impossible for me to grow my own food on un-used land (note: “un-used” does not mean “un-owned”). The necessities of life should be attainable to all by default. Not “earned” after a lifetime of slavery to land/business owners.

I have responded to the comment regarding the distinction between voluntary and coercive, you just ignore my points. Voluntary suggests partaking in something that is not necessary to my health and well-being. It becomes involuntary as soon as it becomes critical to my life. Such as food, shelter and land. If everything in the world can be owned, it will inevitably all be owned. The earth itself is a limited resource that can be easily abused when people take way more than what they need (multi-billionaires owning hundreds of thousands of acres, etc…) So what happens when you are born into a world owned by the rich? You may claim that you have the “freedom” to offer them money for a piece of their land, but financially it makes more sense for them to continue owning it and renting it at excessively high rates, if they choose to do so. Without enough funds to buy from the rich we are left renting from the rich with funds earned by working for the rich. This is not voluntary even though there is no gun to our heads. Our lives are at risk (no land = no garden, no hunting, no shelter). That is the repressive tactics I speak of, which you refer to as “voluntary” acceptance. I call into question the very idea that capitalism can be used together with the concept of anarchy. An anarchistic world would be a world with no rules and no ownership whatsoever. The rules of capitalism contradict the philosophy of anarchy. You keep accusing me of not focusing on the state, seemingly as a way of distracting from the flaws of capitalism that i propose. I said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not in favor of the state. I don't believe in being controlled by anyone. Ever. There is such thing as a non-violent threat, though. The fact that you ignore this is telling, in it's own right. You can manipulate my comments with purposefully artificial examples all you like, such as the “If you don't stop abusing heroin, we can't be friends” remark. But that does no justice to your argument. How about “If you don't work 60 hours a week for $2 an hour I will make sure you don't work in this town again”. Keep in mind that the “work” in this example is necessary for the individual to survive in a world where they are unable to afford to buy any land. How do they get a job elsewhere if the job supplier hold the monopoly of the industry? This is the point that you just don't get. If money is necessary for survival (which it is if ownership is necessary to have access to land, food, shelter, etc…) then the threat of joblessness, being denied the ability to rent, being denied access from the fruit, vegetables, and wildlife on forest land -- these are all real threats and apply to an anarcho-capitalist world. I am not in favor of the state. I am in favor of anarchy. True anarchy. Free from state laws and free from those who own and control the necessities of life by taking advantage of the rules of capitalism.

By all means, continue with the insult-based approach of debating. It is well known to be very successful. The problem is being controlled by a greater power. Government is a greater power and uses more forceful methods of control Large monopolies are a greater power and use repressive tactics to force my involvement. To use the analogy you seem to love so much, you are comparing violent rape to manipulative rape (date rape drug, non-violent threats, etc…). My fear is that anarcho-capitalists seek a distorted version of freedom that is really nothing but slavery wearing a different mask. That majority of consumers are the ones the support the oil industry, even more than government does. Am I to believe that just because we switch to an anarcho-capitalist society that our entire history of violent-based actions is erased? Are the roads that we drive no more? Do consumers have no more reason to support what they already willingly do? My example may be partially incorrect because it really is a vague and messy subject. But your response is equally stretched and one-sided. But what about my other examples? Pesticide companies make billions and dominate the entire agricultural industry because of some tax breaks? Give me a break. And what about the other two? You just don't agree? Quote from previous examples: "Undervaluing wages often confines workers to their current status-quo, leaving them unable to afford a way out. Such as moving to a more livable area (this requires excess money), finding an alternative job (nearly impossible when the competition exercises the same repressive tactics), living off un-owned land (impossible if all land in the area is owned), etc... Factory farm conditions literally inflict physical and psychological torture on innocent creatures. And to be clear, I am not speaking of killing to feed families. I am speaking of brutal torture to cut costs." And no I did not lie. I prioritize my arguments in this message board. I'm not going waste time complaining about the evils of government when you're basically on the same page as me on that one. It is the issues I have with anarcho-capitalism that is debatable with you, and it is debating those issues that will allow me to learn more about the flaws of my arguments and/or validate my hesitation of anarcho-capitalism.

I appreciate your response. But I actually do believe that the examples I gave are some that could very well be considered as the highest priority, in a way. Or, at the very least, extremely important issues that should not be ignored. Oil companies are literally destroying the world we live in. Literally. The very air we breath is at risk. Private sector-caused deforestation is major cause for alarm. Privately run pesticide companies are literally causing the extinction of pollinators that we require for our survival and that will likely have an impact on countless other species that will, in effect, damage us even further. I didn't mention the pesticide companies earlier, but I'll just add it to the list. Undervaluing wages often confines workers to their current status-quo, leaving them unable to afford a way out. Such as moving to a more livable area (this requires excess money), finding an alternative job (nearly impossible when the competition exercises the same repressive tactics), living off un-owned land (impossible if all land in the area is owned), etc... Factory farm conditions literally inflict physical and psychological torture on innocent creatures. And to be clear, I am not speaking of killing to feed families. I am speaking of brutal torture to cut costs.

I have no more prejudice on this issue than you and I'm not pretending to have a conversation. I am genuinely in search of validation for anarcho-capitalism and I do admit that I am currently opposed to it based on the many reasons I've already mentioned (specifically related to power and control). If I'm putting words in your mouth it is entirely unintentional and means that I apparently misunderstood a point you were attempting to make. Correct me, don't insult me. And again, I am pointing to the effects of coercion and calling it the effects of power, not just free market. Money is power, and power gives those who attain it a powerful weapon that can (and often is) used to the detriment of mankind for the benefit of the few with power. And I do focus on State coercion on a regular basis. I hate government and I hate what they force upon me. But the free market doesn't solve many of the issues we face today. Many issues it might even make worse. The examples I used with the oil industry, inadequate wages overseas, factory farm cruelty, insurance loopholes, these are just some examples that exist with or without government support. Indeed, government influence is always at play, but it doesn't act as a game changer in these areas I mention. The free market would fix none of this. So even though I am against the government's impact, I don't see the logic in pushing for a drastic change towards anarcho-capitalism when it is only slightly better than the current state of affairs. If a drastic change is to be made (which I hope there is), so far I am not convinced that anarcho-capitalism is what should be considered as the end goal. I might seem unreasonably firm on this subject, as do you, but that is because I came to my current conclusion after a great deal of thought and have not yet seen valid evidence that disproves my beliefs.

You speak of coercion as something exclusive to government power, but I don't think that is entirely true. The assumption is that it is my choice whether or not I support a company and that they can't forcibly sway my decision. I don't believe this assumption to be true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a wealthy individual or company buys all the land in my area and drives up costs of the surrounding areas, do I really have a choice whether or not I'm able to use that land? I have the choice to trespass on their property and risk being punished. I have the choice of paying them to have the right to use it myself. And I have the choice to purchase a vehicle, pack up my belongings, and travel a far enough distance to escape the company's reach, assuming they haven't spread out across the entire country (which is technically possible). Based on these choices, I wouldn't refer to this as freedom. To reiterate my ongoing point, I I00% agree that the government is the worst, most repressive form of power that we face today in our society. My argument is that financial power also has the potential to be coercive, specifically due to the fact that wealthy people are able to secure the necessities of life (land/food, shelter, transportation) and prevent others from accessing it if they choose not to cooperate (i.e pay for it), thus forcing us to work for them to be able to afford their necessary services. If I were rich and powerful I would be able to bid up their wages. If I am a commoner and there is a monopoly in that sector (due to extremely successful and strategic businessmen) then I have no hope of bidding up the wages of thousands of people. That is unrealistic and is exactly why monopolies are dangerous.

No, I'm watching the impact of political power and financial power and proclaiming that they are both terrible. By removing political power you are just replacing it with more financial power, unless financial power is also removed.

Apologies, I meant to say "companies" instead of corporations. It occurs in private companies and governments alike. Pulling at the heart strings is exactly the point. People are suffering. Some people care, some people don't care. The ones that promote the suffering of others by paying them inadequately even though they can easily afford to pay more is what I'm referring to as evil. A liveable wage is an amount of money earned that allows the earner to afford healthy meals and a private, safe, warm shelter, in addition to being able to cover any other necessary costs that apply to the average person in that location. And I'm not saying the company "must pay" more just because that company has enough money to do so. I'm saying that if they choose to pay a less-than-adequate amount then they are morally wrong or "evil" to some extent. These are examples of how even a company can be "evil", just like the government can be.

Yes, it is the squelching of competition that is evil This occurs in government and corporation alike. Regarding the poor workers who are unable to live in adequate living conditions and barely able to support there family, if that isn't evil than this is where we must agree to disagree. Companies are taking advantage of someone's unfortunate situation even though they can afford to pay a fair and livable wage. Not seeing an issue with taking advantage of those less fortunate is exactly the problem that most people have with anarcho-capitalism. As for the loophole clarification, I'm referring to any method used to trick insurance customers into thinking they have coverage when they actually don't. And any method of delaying, hiding, or outright violating contractual obligations for the company's gain.

It is an example of a negatively impactful act that is fuelled by the philosophy of capitalism as a whole, and is potentially more extreme under anarcho-capitalism because of the shift in power from politics to money. Anarcho-capitalism makes money even more valuable (because it is THE source of power) which makes financial gain that much more of a driving factor in a companies decisions, rather than human well-being.

Unfortunately public desire and competition allow quite a bit. The majority of people willingly support the oil industry, fully aware it is contributing to disease and unhealthy living conditions for future generations. There is competition but it grows very slowly because the power players (oil and gas industry) do their best to stay at the top. These companies could pour their money into renewable energy and become the number one in that category, but there is less financial gain so they stick with the current destructive course. And the people support it because it's a bit cheaper than the competition. If a company wasn't in search of more and more power they would be much more inclined to act based on what is right as opposed to what it profitable. Great, I look forward to your thorough examination of my thoughts. I'll also check out the book when I get a chance.