Congafury

Let's say dominance being "utilizing your power and influence over others to their detriment." Exploitation being "the acquisition of resources from another to their detriment." I'm sure an Acom might have better definitions, but that's what I'm thinking they mean. I am hesitant to answer this because that seems more of a logistical question that would be solved once the moral idea is established. Similar to, "what are we going to do about the roads?" I would assume for the same reasons that people are entitled to be treated without force and aggression? Entitlement just means a right to something. If we are looking at rights being based on UPB then if it is universally preferable to not be dominated and exploited by those with the capital, then the entitlement comes from that. I think there is this assumption that our business dealings are voluntary when they are not. As I said in the first post you must enter into a business arrangement with someone in order to survive, meaning business arrangements are not voluntary. Sure you can chose which one you want to engage in, but you must engage in one. And you must engage in one with someone who is going to profit off of your labor, putting that person in a higher position. It seems that it is universally preferable to not be in this situation. So abolishing the acquisition of capital sounds like the moral thing to do. When a baby is born they can not survive without the assistance of others. This assistance does not have to be dominating or exploitative. I think Stefan makes many points about how domination and exploitation as parents is an awful thing and immoral. Hierarchies are bad in families. By my definition, feeding a dependent baby is not "to [the baby's] detriment" and thus not dominance or exploitative. Now, if you forced the kid to do your dishes with use of fear and punishment, then that is dominating, exploitative, and immoral.

I've been a long time libertarian and have flirted with anarchism in the past, but it wasn't until reading Stefan's books recently on anarchy that I realized I can't go back to the state. The moral argument is what converted me, because even though I don't have all the answers, I can understand the moral argument and trust that anarchism would work out somehow. However, now that I am open to these new possibilities of social order, I can't shake the possibility that anarcho-communism (Acom) is more morally right than anarcho-capitalism (Acap). I find it disconcerting that Stefan has never mentioned (at least in my 3 months of listening to random podcasts) the counter argument to Acap given by Acoms (particularly arguments made here http://www.infoshop.org/AnAnarchistFAQ on hierarchies). Acoms argue that hierarchies are morally wrong and that capitalism creates hierarchies. I have tried to look at the counterargument for this and I just keep finding Acaps say, "Hierarchies are unavoidable," or "Hierarchies are NOT immoral," or "How could a society run WITHOUT hierarchies?!" These arguments sound very much like the arguments I hear for the use of the state. So, I turned to the theory of UPBs to see if the use of hierarchies are indeed immoral as Acoms say. Well, hierarchies are not a behavior, so I believe that is the first problem. However, "dominance" is and I think that dominating another person is the essence of creating a hierarchy. If you use the step-by-step analysis in Stefan's UPB book it looks quite similar to rape, ending in dominating another person as morally evil. If this is the case, then if Capitalism is deemed to be a system that fosters dominance of one person to another than capitalism would need to be thrown out as a morally wrong system. It sounds like an Acom would argue that capitalism is inherently domineering because those with no capital starting out in life are dependent on those with capital. I can hear an Acap argument go something like, "You can choose not to do business with someone else if you don't want to, you are not physically forced to do that, so therefore it is not morally wrong." However, it is my understanding that if you chose not to do business with anyone you will die in a society of Acaps (or will be dependent on charity, which is still a dominant/dependent relationship). Therefore, you are forced to do it by the system. Maybe not by another person pointing a gun at you, but the system, "capitalism" is the inherent force that will kill you if you do not participate in a fully capitalistic society where all land is owned and you are thus dependent upon the will of another. Also, a similar and relevant argument against capitalism is that it is exploitative. Which when thrown into the UPB I think exploitation can be considered evil. If those with capital exploit those without capital, then that is evil. Acoms argue that the full product of the workers are not split among the workers but is taken by those who own the capital and given to the workers as they see fit, which is exploitative. To be not exploitative, all of the profits would need to be split with all the workers. Please feel free to poke holes in this argument as I am recently leaning towards Acom and away from Acap and I dread having to tell my communist friends that I disagree with capitalism now, that would be somewhat embarrassing, but I'll do it if I think its moral. However, although there are plenty of other arguments against communism that might come up here please stick to the moral argument of dominance/exploitation is evil, capitalism relies on dominance/exploitation, capitalism is evil. Thanks