Chompsky on Anarcho-Capitalism

[Mishelle]

Do y'all think global government will bring us closer to anarchy in future, or will it be a big step back considering the further centralization of power?

 

I get the impression Chomsky is an elitist even as he constantly speaks "for the people" -- same thing with PJ.  It's seems like a self-knowledge contradiction.  It's like "I believe in democracy and the power of the people" People over Profit! and in the next breath--"OK, get your notebooks, here's how we're all going to live as one in peace and harmony. . ." 

 

"And furthermore, I want freedom from the 'systemic violence' so I can better assert my intellectual superiority!"

[june]

I consider, that voluntary interactions, however repulsive I find them personally, cannot be unjust. I do not judge others for their voluntary interactions. Their freedom (as well as mine) to live their lives as they see fit, is of absolute importance to me. Everything else is secondary.

voluntarism shouldn't simply be about a person having a literal choice of "job; starvation; leave town". i think that's an incredibly sick notion that is used to evade culpability and suppress the bearing of circumstance: "oh that person chose to be a prostitute, so it's all good."true voluntarism isn't about a person having a literal choice, true voluntarism is about having a wealth of options to choose from.

[Mishelle]

In a free society, I struggle to see why a corporation would raise an army and start a war, unless they are hellbent on forming another government. I suppose that is possible, but the shareholders have far more to lose than they would likely gain. If the shareholders can afford to raise an army they must already be really, really rich. Doing so risks their wealth and their lives. Surely whomever they are going to war with would defend themselves by raising their own army, and would likely have the support of the rest of the population. I can't see how a cost benefit analysis would result in this scenario.Can you provide a thought experiment on how you think it could come about?

 

This is a great question and harder to do than I expected.  I consider myself quite creative, but this is like trying to visualize what aliens look like!

 

I was researching the history of the corporation and see it cannot by definition be separated from the State. The original corporations served the needs of the State, who in turn served the needs of the people, at least on paper.  The corporations were gradually able to usurp State power by applying individual's rights to those of the corporation, to create the system we have today where the corporations write their own legislation and are a big part, if not the biggest part, of the shadow government.

 

So first we need another word for corporation, right?  Is there one? Because what we now think of as a corporation couldn't at all be possible in a free society. 

Still, someone has the guns, who?  Someone is paid to protect the rights of the individual and the interests of the enterprise. 

 

Say it's a power company, global, and the latest technology will put them out of business if they don't adapt it more quickly than their main competitors--they altogether have a huge incentive to disappear those techies, quietly, just like happens today.  It's so easy!  I don't see how that changes before a fundamental shift in human consciousness--where suddenly power has no ability to corrupt and is no longer like heroine to those who covet it.  Until then I have a very hard time seeing how right will ever trump might.

 

It's a lack of imagination I think.  Should try this exercise after a puff and cocktail   might get much better results!

[cynicist]

So first we need another word for corporation, right?  Is there one? Because what we now think of as a corporation couldn't at all be possible in a free society. 

Still, someone has the guns, who?  Someone is paid to protect the rights of the individual and the interests of the enterprise. 

 

Say it's a power company, global, and the latest technology will put them out of business if they don't adapt it more quickly than their main competitors--they altogether have a huge incentive to disappear those techies, quietly, just like happens today.  It's so easy!  I don't see how that changes before a fundamental shift in human consciousness--where suddenly power has no ability to corrupt and is no longer like heroine to those who covet it.  Until then I have a very hard time seeing how right will ever trump might.

 

It's a lack of imagination I think.  Should try this exercise after a puff and cocktail   might get much better results!

 

Yeah, I don't like to use 'corporation' when talking about a theoretical future society, it's just too tainted of a word for most people. I use 'company' sometimes but it doesn't sound right for a large international organization. 'Business' is probably my favorite, seems ambiguous enough to work for both mom & pop stores and more professional ventures.

 

As to your example, I see it a little bit differently. Say the power company succeeds in erasing evidence of this newer technology (and spending resources to do it), that's a far better situation than having that technology legally banned (like marijuana/hemp) or the old one subsidized (corn/oil/telco) because there will always be another person coming up with ideas for improvements to what exists, whereas today it's almost meaningless due to patents, evil subsidies, and tax exemptions. I would rather see an engineer bribed in order to slow innovation than threatened with violence to completely stop it. 

 

The potential for corruption/evil will never go away, least we can do is make it harder. 

[LifeIsBrief]

For some reason my browser won't let me quote or paste arguments on this message board, so I have to rewrite them all, and interacting with nonsense becomes even more laborious than it should be.  Still, I'll give it a shot.

 

"Thank you for the outburst. I prefer honesty over the pretense of a conversation."

 

Don't worry, you never offered any pretense of a conversation.  I wrote about the hypocrisy of "libertarian republicans" fighting for jobs where they stole your money.  I wrote about the insanity and double speak of "capitalists" buying slaves from dictators, and then suggested that self respect, self reliance, and avoiding "victimization", were the keys to overcoming the violent and destructive situation we find ourselves in.  You called me "wretched", for "blaming the victim"... Not exactly rational discourse, no matter how down voted I get.

 

"You didn't suggest defying authority, you suggested not trading with people simply because they're victims"

 

No... I suggested not sending money to dictatorships, so that people eventually revolt against dictators.  You're suggesting that paying a warlord, to force children to make your shoes, or farm diamonds, is a "secondary effect of your purchase", and "not propping up a totalitarian state"... also known as double speak. So, being taxed, makes you a victim, but paying a warlord to enslave children is a "secondary effect"... I understand, and that logic is horrifying.

 

"Is it okay to disagree for reasons I have rationally explained?"

 

If you rationally explained how buying diamonds from African children paid by warlords, or buying oil from Islamic theocracies that stone people to death is somehow moral... That would be quite a feat.  Still, it's okay for you to disagree for any reason... even insane ones, so long as you don't want to force me to agree with you.  Your explanations lack any morality, or rationality, of course.  To have a rational moral code, one would have to include some of the "secondary effects" you scoff at... but you can disagree with anything you like, you own you.

 

Aggression, is a natural force among chimpanzees fighting over scarce resources.  Like gravity, in order to overcome it, human beings must be incredibly rational.  We didn't get to the moon, or launch satellites by crying about how we're all victims.  Are we victims, of natural forces like aggression?  Yes... I only argued against victimization.  I did not argue that government is treating us fairly, only that in order to overcome it, you have to think like a rebel, not a victim.

 

It is empowering to see yourself as the controller of your own life, and the author of your story, and no amount of threatening violence can take that away from you.  If all people saw themselves this way, they would become ungovernable, and win the war against aggression, insanity, and doublespeak.  Your focus, and then rebranding of this one, very small aspect of my argument (which was about how "Republican libertarians" are hypocrites fighting to steal your money and there's no such thing as free trade with dictatorships), proves to me that you don't want to deal with the implications of those arguments.  You don't want to admit, that at the same time you're a "victim", you're also buying slaves and financing warlords, and that is inherently immoral.  I'm sorry that those things are inherently immoral, and that makes you sad... but it's the objective truth.  All of humanity, must become ungovernable, in order to overcome tyranny.  We can't just say were "capitalists", while financing violent monsters.

 

There are only two votes that matter in this world... where you spend your money... and who you have sex with.  Everything else is window dressing, back slapping, and complaining.  Still, down vote my "outburst", if it makes you feel better.  After all, what matters are your emotions, not what terrorists and psychopaths, you choose to fund

 

PS... Yes, most human beings fund psychopaths, fundamentalists, governments, and terrorists... but that doesn't make it right.  In order to claim any sort of rational morality, one would have to stop funding these things, and then suffer the consequences.  Strike!  It may seem like an unattainable goal in the modern world... but it's one of the only goals worth striving for, in my not so humble, somewhat bloviating opinion.

[Mishelle]

As to your example, I see it a little bit differently. Say the power company succeeds in erasing evidence of this newer technology (and spending resources to do it), that's a far better situation than having that technology legally banned (like marijuana/hemp) or the old one subsidized (corn/oil/telco) because there will always be another person coming up with ideas for improvements to what exists, whereas today it's almost meaningless due to patents, evil subsidies, and tax exemptions. I would rather see an engineer bribed in order to slow innovation than threatened with violence to completely stop it. 

 

The potential for corruption/evil will never go away, least we can do is make it harder. 

 

This is a good point and I agree--hemp is a good example as well.

 

I was thinking of a couple stories when I wrote that--Tesla was one, and the guy with the electric car who was murdered, I forget his name.  Not that Tesla was murdered, but he absolutely was repressed by the establishment for reasons of profit motive.

 

If Chomsky were right and we as anarcho-capitalists were unknowingly inviting 'corporate tyranny' that would mean we were accepting that corporations would have armies, right?  I understand the point before someone made about there being no real incentive there for doing so.  But, assuming an incentive was control, just as it is now, how would the population protect their interests in shared resources? I'm thinking specifically of power and water at the moment because they seem so crucial and so easily controllable by bigger interests because the average person or group does not have the equipment or know-how to get these crucial resources on their own en masse.  I believe we now have the technology to change that, but I still don't see it happening any time soon.

 

I realize Stef talks about these issues of envisioning how something will look and the futility of that (the who's gonna pick the cotton and so on) and I totally agree, but still I find it very helpful to try to picture it, to know not only how to argue better, but also to know what to strive for in my own life.  So, thanks for any links to podcasts that might be helpful, or your continued thoughts on how it could work, what it might look like, just for the exercise, not like we're Zeitgeisters or anything.  hehe

[cynicist]

If Chomsky were right and we as anarcho-capitalists were unknowingly inviting 'corporate tyranny' that would mean we were accepting that corporations would have armies, right? 

 

No idea, he would need to explain what 'corporate tyranny' means. It makes sense to me with the state but I don't understand what that would look like without it. What is tyrannical about trade?

 

I understand the point before someone made about there being no real incentive there for doing so.  But, assuming an incentive was control, just as it is now, how would the population protect their interests in shared resources? I'm thinking specifically of power and water at the moment because they seem so crucial and so easily controllable by bigger interests because the average person or group does not have the equipment or know-how to get these crucial resources on their own en masse.  I believe we now have the technology to change that, but I still don't see it happening any time soon.

 

I realize Stef talks about these issues of envisioning how something will look and the futility of that (the who's gonna pick the cotton and so on) and I totally agree, but still I find it very helpful to try to picture it, to know not only how to argue better, but also to know what to strive for in my own life.  So, thanks for any links to podcasts that might be helpful, or your continued thoughts on how it could work, what it might look like, just for the exercise, not like we're Zeitgeisters or anything.  hehe

 

Stefan has changed my thinking a lot on this, though I can't cite sources since he's mentioned it a few times in unrelated podcasts. I used to look at large international corporations as unstoppable behemoths with the resources to take down any competitor, but now I think that's only true in niche areas that require lots of expertise like microprocessors (Intel) or where they have legal protection. In most areas it seems to me that it's difficult to maintain control since as you grow larger the odds are that you will become less efficient since your organization is becoming more complex, which makes you more prone to error and slower to adapt. (ex. hiring the wrong people or having your decisions approved by X) On the flip side you can absorb more losses (Microsoft).

 

Given the above, bigger interests without hard to acquire expertise or legal protection are at a disadvantage because they constantly have smaller competitors trying to eat them. Most of these competitors will fail, but it only takes one success for you to be forced to adapt or risk losing the market to them. That adaptation is what keeps them in check imo. Since people like money and there is always a chance to make some by being better than your competition, I'm not worried about that disappearing. So I'd dispute the idea that we need the average person to be one of those competitors, without legal barriers I don't think there would any shortage of them.

 

I think Stefan has a number of podcasts around collusion that would be helpful but I'm hesitant to recommend anything without relistening to it first, I'll try to respond later if I find anything relevant.

[greekredemption]

A couple of things to point out first. As far as moral principles are concerned, the race of the people in question is irrelevant, as is the fact that one of them is relatively poor, and the other is relatively rich. Can you please define what you mean by exploiting? Are you referring to the peasant as a natural resource? No cynicism intended, I just want to confirm what you meant. Even a peasant, usually, owns the land he works. Why would he sell the land he depends on for his livelihood to the corporation? Even if the corporation does own all the nearby land, and this also applies to small mining towns (where there is only 1employer in a large geographical area) as well, there is no initiation of force. The peasant is not forced to work for the corporation. The peasant may leave anytime he sees fit. People, rich and poor alike, move location, often to far away lands, to find better employment opportunities. Nothing new about that. If the peasant believes that the job the corporation offers him is the best offer he can get, he stays, otherwise, he leaves. Obviously there are other factors he would consider as well, like the location of his family and friends. Either way, there is still no initiation of force.

 

Okay, so why don't libertarians leave the country that oppresses them? is that functionally different to the peasant and the corporation?

[Mishelle]

"In most areas it seems to me that it's difficult to maintain control since as you grow larger the odds are that you will become less efficient since your organization is becoming more complex, which makes you more prone to error and slower to adapt." 

 

Very helpful, sounds right to me, thanks cynicist!

[dsayers]

Okay, so why don't libertarians leave the country that oppresses them?

 

I addressed this, in your presence, here. It doesn't appear that you had any correction, clarifications, or challenges to make. To continue speaking as if this hasn't been addressed is dishonest.

 

As is your use of the word peasant. That word indicates a relationship with a ruling class, not a voluntary business partner.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Okay, so why don't libertarians leave the country that oppresses them? is that functionally different to the peasant and the corporation?

I'm not sure one CAN leave the country. Sure, you can usually leave the physical borders but because state holds the legal and moral right to initiate force they can follow you if they're so inclined. You can only really minimize the oppression of the state but never truly escape it. Even if you go live in some godforsaken place that no state wants you are still in effect IN the country. The state created the situation were the only places to go are shitty. 

[Josh F]

 

It's just a thought. If we can consider governmental actions - characterised variously as civil oppression or just normal governance - as infringing on the liberty of persons, can we not also apply this to other persons or grous of power that superficially appear voluntary or otherwise legitimate? Is physical force the only means by which liberty can be infringed?

 

I mean, consider the libertarian position on these two scenarios. In one is a middle-class first world white guy who's losing 30% of his annual pay to taxes. This is considered theft and is an automatic infringement of liberty. In the other is a peasant in some godforsaken part of the world who has no choice - unless he should choose to die - but to work for virtually nothing for a large corporation that has perfectly legally bought up all nearby land and is exploiting (in a literal sense) the natural resources; this scenario does not imply any infringement of liberty whatsoever. The peasant is merely unlucky.

 

Is it then entirely unreasonable to consider structural coercion an infringement of liberty? Of course the peasant hasn't experienced any direct physical coercion from the corporation, but his lack of choices that might otherwise be available to him may, it seems to me, be construed as an infringement of liberty in a similar way to the first world 'oh noes, I'm getting £23k p/a instead of £32k p/a' guy. 

 

Three things:

• I see a lot of merit in the Georgist view of natural resources in resolving this apparent disparity. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?
• Let's not confuse what is right with what is good (i.e. you may say the peasant is benefiting from having a job, but that does not mean his situation is just).
• This also has nothing to say of obligation.

 

I can provide a way to synthesize this dichotomy you've drawn between "force" and "structural violence."  The circumstances which you would classify as "structural violence" are only ones in which the violence is not direct.  For example, a poor person with limited options is not necessarily the victims of violence directly.  Other business owners and people who could provide more options for that person were the direct victims of the violence.  So a poor person born in N Korea has no choices, and thus has to work as a slave for some Russia logging company.  This isn't the free market, because the entire economy this person was born into uses violence to push out options.  In the cliche of a poor person having their lands taken from them and then forced to work in a factory on their own ancestral land, it takes a special set of blinders to blame the factory and not the government who stole the land in the first place. 

 

A lot of this understanding comes from a lack of insight into how the economy in these places actually function.  For example, in China the Chinese government is notoriously corrupt.  They'll make baby food with lead in it if you bribe the right officials.  It is companies like Walmart, Nike, Disney, the Gap and others which send in armies of private investigators to make sure that factories are not using child labor and have lawful and reasonable practices.  The suicides at the Foxconn factories illustrate this point: while the mainstream media tried to lay the blame on Apple for outsourcing some of their manufacturing to this company, the true culprit was the climate in Taiwanese and Chinese governments which use violence to prevent strikes, bribes to shut down competitors, and tricks to keep the value of their currency low.  Foxconn's suicide rates were actually lower than the average in China, thats the truth of it.

[greekredemption]

I addressed this, in your presence, here. It doesn't appear that you had any correction, clarifications, or challenges to make. To continue speaking as if this hasn't been addressed is dishonest.As is your use of the word peasant. That word indicates a relationship with a ruling class, not a voluntary business partner.

Okay, so you were talking about the social contract. Great. What I'm asking is slightly different. In essence there seems to me no functional difference to the individual between being indirectly coerced into a certain course of action by a corporation and being directly coerced into a certain course of action by a state. They operate at a similar level of authority; it matters not that the state claims moral ownership of persons while the corporation doesn't if they both operate as if it is were true. And considered from the PoV of the peasant (pauper, prole, whatever), he is as free to turn down work as the first world person is to stop paying taxes. Any thoughts?

[dsayers]

Okay, so you were talking about the social contract. Great. What I'm asking is slightly different.

 

Translation: I am not interested in anything that would conflict with my bigotry, so I looked at what you provided only long enough to figure out a way to reject it. Since you appeared to be talking about a social contract, I thought that was an easy way to reject it and didn't bother to consider how it might apply to the topic at hand even though you provided it as if it did.

 

You're doing the same thing in your general approach here. The point that was made here is that workers choose their business relationships and thanks to competition are not limited to one. Instead of acknowledging that this refutes the claim that voluntary paid labor is slavery, you subvert the topic to use that point to defeat "taxation is slavery" even though that claim isn't made here and doesn't even apply since governmental claim over somebody predates their existence (not voluntary).

 

You have to understand that at FDR, you're going to run into people smart enough to not be fooled by this hoodwink attempt. It is clear you're more interested in appearing correct and/or railing against "the system" than you are in having a discussion and seeking the truth. Which is your prerogative, just be honest about it please.

[greekredemption]

Translation: I am not interested in anything that would conflict with my bigotry, so I looked at what you provided only long enough to figure out a way to reject it. Since you appeared to be talking about a social contract, I thought that was an easy way to reject it and didn't bother to consider how it might apply to the topic at hand even though you provided it as if it did.

 

You're doing the same thing in your general approach here. The point that was made here is that workers choose their business relationships and thanks to competition are not limited to one. Instead of acknowledging that this refutes the claim that voluntary paid labor is slavery, you subvert the topic to use that point to defeat "taxation is slavery" even though that claim isn't made here and doesn't even apply since governmental claim over somebody predates their existence (not voluntary).

 

You have to understand that at FDR, you're going to run into people smart enough to not be fooled by this hoodwink attempt. It is clear you're more interested in appearing correct and/or railing against "the system" than you are in having a discussion and seeking the truth. Which is your prerogative, just be honest about it please.

This is not a hoodwink attempt. It is an attempt to inject something that isn't the majority view here for the consideration of "people smart enough" to deal with philosophical concepts. We don't always have to abide by dogma in, as you put it, "seeking the truth." 

 

Your social contract point is somewhat relevant, but doesn't address the idea directly, as you'll see if you follow the trail back and if you see my response to your post.

 

Overall, I'm suggesting that the libertarian concept of liberty is too restrictive in that it does not allow for non-physical techniques of coercion (like structural coercion), and, perhaps, could benefit from an expanded definition. Perhaps. Or, at least, this is similar the anarcho-communist critique of the libertarian concept of liberty, and ought to be considered as a point of philosophical rigour.

 

FDR doesn't have to be an echo chamber. It is possible for a person to present a view they don't necessarily agree with and debate it in a civilised manner without being shut down by armchair psychologists and parrots of the received wisdom.

[TheRobin]

greek, I remember this converstion from the chat, so, to give my perspective again real quick. Liberty and coercion are two different things. You can have little liberty when stranded on an island and you need to get food and water and shelter, but that doesn't mean the island is using coercion against you. 

Liberty has degrees, more choices and opportunities means more liberty. Coercion means someone is actively using force to prevent you from certain choices and opportunities.

 

Absence of coercion doesn't garantuee a large amount of liberty, but presence of coercion garantuees less liberty that one could have. So the first thing one has to look out for when persuing liberty is whether or not there's a coercive element and deal with that first. Especially since coercion will continue to limit liberty (choice and opportunity) more and more if it remains unchecked.

 

But either way calling a structure or circumstance "coercion" isn't accurate either way, else out bodies are constanty using coercion against us, by demanding food and water.

[greekredemption]

greek, I remember this converstion from the chat, so, to give my perspective again real quick. Liberty and coercion are two different things. You can have little liberty when stranded on an island and you need to get food and water and shelter, but that doesn't mean the island is using coercion against you. 

Liberty has degrees, more choices and opportunities means more liberty. Coercion means someone is actively using force to prevent you from certain choices and opportunities.

 

Absence of coercion doesn't garantuee a large amount of liberty, but presence of coercion garantuees less liberty that one could have. So the first thing one has to look out for when persuing liberty is whether or not there's a coercive element and deal with that first. Especially since coercion will continue to limit liberty (choice and opportunity) more and more if it remains unchecked.

 

But either way calling a structure or circumstance "coercion" isn't accurate either way, else out bodies are constanty using coercion against us, by demanding food and water.

Of course it would be fatuous to say nature is restricting liberty - like humans can't fly, but so what? I'm fine with that concept.

 

The traditional liberal definition of liberty is the absence of impediment, however we describe that. Most libertarians subscribe to the Hobbesian view that the only true impediment of liberty is direct and physical coercion (or the threat of it), in whatever guise that takes.

 

"Coercion means someone is actively using force to prevent you from certain choices and opportunities." Yes, okay, so if a group of people are enforcing a policy which prevents you from certain choices and opportunities, is this a restriction of liberty? Take your desert island example. You and another are on a desert island, and the other sets about claiming property on 99% of the island, leaving you with 1%. According to the libertarian account, you've no recourse there as your liberty has at no point been infringed and yet, perversely, were you to steal some fruit from the other's land you'd be infringing his liberty. Now, I accept that the other person with 99% of the island has not visited any direct and physical coercion on you, but the fact he has claimed and is willing to defend - with force - his land could be seen as a type of coercion. In short, you've no choice but to comply with the stronger man's policy.

 

A corollary of this view is that it implies that libertarians are erroneous in conflating property rights with liberty, but perhaps that is a different topic altogether.

[TheRobin]

Your island example only shows, that arbitrary claims of land are illegitimate imo, and that the person claiming the land would be initiating force for no moral reason (i.e. the problem would still be coercion in the way previously defined and not some "structural" thing (whatever that would mean anyway)).

 

Also, I'm not sure if that's really what libertarians would accept or if you're just strawmanning here (not saying intentionaly), cause I never heard any libertarian say that "people can just claim land and then have ownership just by claiming it".

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

You and another are on a desert island, and the other sets about claiming property on 99% of the island, leaving you with 1%.

What does "claiming property" mean? If you mean arbitrarily claiming that something as property then the person that does that immediately sets a universal standard. The other person can also just claim the "property" back. It doesn't logically work because neither of the people actually created any property. That's the difference between statism and freedom. The state "claims property". The free person creates property. 

[greekredemption]

Your island example only shows, that arbitrary claims of land are illegitimate imo, and that the person claiming the land would be initiating force for no moral reason (i.e. the problem would still be coercion in the way previously defined and not some "structural" thing (whatever that would mean anyway)).

 

Also, I'm not sure if that's really what libertarians would accept or if you're just strawmanning here (not saying intentionaly), cause I never heard any libertarian say that "people can just claim land and then have ownership just by claiming it".

I'm referring to the traditional liberal justification for property. Sometimes this is expressed as homesteading, sometimes thusly: 

 

He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask, then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he ate? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? And it is plain, if the  first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common. That added something to them more than Nature, the common mother of all, had done, and so they became his private right.

 

From the mighty John Locke. 

 

If anybody wants to offer an alternate account of property, that'd also be good. I'd also be interested in how seriously the Lockean proviso should be taken.

 

What does "claiming property" mean? If you mean arbitrarily claiming that something as property then the person that does that immediately sets a universal standard. The other person can also just claim the "property" back. It doesn't logically work because neither of the people actually created any property. That's the difference between statism and freedom. The state "claims property". The free person creates property.

 

Yes, I was admittedly inexact with my wording. Suppose I reworded it to say, "A person appropriates for his own purposes 99% of the island's land, natural resources, etc." By most liberal accounts this is a legitimate justification of property.

 

Also:

 

If you mean arbitrarily claiming that something as property then the person that does that immediately sets a universal standard. The other person can also just claim the "property" back.

 

I think this point stands in spite of my clarification. If I've read UPB correctly, appropriating stuff causes it to become property (it's slightly more nuanced than that - it is an extension of yourself, as you own yourself, A=A and all that). That is the universal standard. Claiming already owned property would be theft, which would - again, if I understand correctly - violate UPB.

 

TheRobin - what makes claims on unowned stuff non-arbitrary?

[TheRobin]

your quote from Locke rebuts your island example though. But if you say the guy appropriatly claimed 99% then I still don't know what that would look like (or what the island would look like). But assuming he worked for few months to make the island into something more suitable or plowed fields or built some fences to keep animals from eating the fruit on certain trees or whatnot while the other guy did nothing and just sat there, then surely he can't come after the work is done and complain or say he has a just claim on the other persons labour.

That still would not give him landownership of 99% of the land, but certainly ownership of whatever he did with the particular soil/trees etc.

 

As to your question, I'd accept Lockes argument that adding your own labour to something unowned makes it yours (as a general rule, ofc this gets more complicated with certain things that tend to fall back into entropy after arraning them etc. but the basic pricniple stands imo that if you put your own time and energy into something (unowned) it is, by extension, yours)

[june]

greek, I remember this converstion from the chat, so, to give my perspective again real quick. Liberty and coercion are two different things. You can have little liberty when stranded on an island and you need to get food and water and shelter, but that doesn't mean the island is using coercion against you. 

Liberty has degrees, more choices and opportunities means more liberty. Coercion means someone is actively using force to prevent you from certain choices and opportunities.

 

Absence of coercion doesn't garantuee a large amount of liberty, but presence of coercion garantuees less liberty that one could have. So the first thing one has to look out for when persuing liberty is whether or not there's a coercive element and deal with that first. Especially since coercion will continue to limit liberty (choice and opportunity) more and more if it remains unchecked.

 

But either way calling a structure or circumstance "coercion" isn't accurate either way, else out bodies are constanty using coercion against us, by demanding food and water.

wait, why wouldn't "circumstance" be a form of coercion? coercion to me is, at it's root, about unwanted imposition upon a person (i think that's a fairly succinct description).it's about the victim, it's about the person being imposed upon -- the means in which they are imposed upon is entirely arbitrary.what difference is it to have a stranger shoot you in the head and to be in a "circumstance" in which you develop cancer? both are imposed, and both are life threatening.. so what real distinction is there to make here? it does seem to me that 'nature' is the biggest coercive force we know... it kills us through diseases, illnesses, hunger, thirst, natural disasters etc. etc... all forces which have racked up immense death tolls... these are not acts of coercion that deserve just as much attention, if not likely more, than 'person-to-person' acts?

[Mishelle]

Chomsky says in the documentary "Human Resources: Social Engineering in the 20th Century" that Mikhail Bakunin made one of the few predictions in the social sciences that ever came true and that's why no one studies him--is that true philosophers, have you studied him?!  His prediction was around the state/corporation relationship and its future as a totalitarian system (the Red Bureaucracy) " which will be the most vile brutal regime the world's ever seen"  implemented by the technical intelligentsia serving private or state elite powers.

 

Great film, btw, if anyone's interested.

[In_The_Gray]

Anyone interested in a serious discussion about the Chomsky videos and his scathing views of anarcho-capitalists?

 

What they're advocating though they don't know it is pure corporate tyranny, he says, along with a lot of other shaming and finger-wagging, as well as some points that deserve to be addressed.

 

http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/faq/sp001627.txt

 

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheChomskyVideos?feature=watch

 

I'd be very interested in learning how to logically, with a calm passion instead of snarky irritation, address his points.  Can anyone help me out with this?

 

 

 

I actually don't believe that he is wrong.

As far as I can tell, anarcho-capitalists believe in a semi-lawless world where everyone has the freedom to do what they believe is right, and where money (as opposed to political positioning) is the ultimate source of power.

But a lawless world ruled by money is theoretically nothing more than a world of laws dictated by the ones who control that money.

 

I've read arguments that say something along the lines of "most companies will have lots of competition and will therefore never hold a monopoly in their specific field". The problem with this logic is that "most" is not all, and modern capitalism has already proven that one company can nearly take over the entire world.

Currently we see rich organizations buy off politicians with large donations. So what happens when that political power isn't even part of the picture? Now that money could just as easily be spent on crushing the competition, expanding to other fields, and eventually controlling many aspects of our daily lives.

 

Is it unheard of to assume that someone, someday, would have the idea to do something terrible, such as buy large amounts of land to be rented for a very profitable amount of money? Slowly but surely buying out all land available to buy, resulting in tough living conditions for the majority.

Is it really possible for a lower class individual to compete? Is it possible for them to flee far enough to find their own land to settle on that isn't owned by a rich corporation? And, more importantly, should they have to?

 

To get more to my point, I think that there is a relatively large amount of people that base their lives around gaining power (corporate types, for example). There is an even larger portion of people who just don't like to think, and who prefer being semi-controller by  a leader. Outside of those two groups there is a very small portion or individuals who value freedom in every sense of the word. These are the outcasts of the world; the hippies and anarchists.

 

Because of the desire of the majority to be ruled, and of the desire of a large amount of greedy bastards to be rulers, a world ruled by money can very quickly become just as bad as a world ruled by corrupt politicians. After all, it is power that corrupts, is it not? And if money is power, money and ownership is the ultimate problem.

 

So yes, I believe that anarcho-capitalsims is as fundamentally flawed as the current political system. No worse, but definitely not better. I am not close-minded on the subject, however. Maybe I'm wrong. But as far as I can tell right now, the anarcho-capitalist's vision of libertarianism sounds as contradicting to me as someone claiming to be a christian atheist.

 

My only argument against Chompsky's opinions is that libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism don't necessarily go hand in hand. I imagine a world not ruled by money in which no human could possible amass total power. This could exist in a true anarchistic society, but is also possible in forms of libertarianism. It just requires a radically different way of thinking about trade in general.

[TheRobin]

Well, if you want to educate yourself about the anarcho-capitalist position you're in the right place (free e-books and podcasts ftw), but in regards to your post, I can only say, most of what you consider anarcho-capitalism in your post is something else entirely.

(plus the semi-usual arguments from apocalypse that follow the strawman)

[In_The_Gray]

Well, if you want to educate yourself about the anarcho-capitalist position you're in the right place (free e-books and podcasts ftw), but in regards to your post, I can only say, most of what you consider anarcho-capitalism in your post is something else entirely.

(plus the semi-usual arguments from apocalypse that follow the strawman)

 

 

Could you explain in more detail my misunderstanding of anarcho-capitalism?

[dsayers]

First of all, you said semi-lawless. Anarchism is all the way "lawmakerlessness" with none of the way aversion to rules (what you mistakenly call laws). Secondly, you said people seek power as if that is an inherent trait of humanity when in fact it is an effect of the great big power in play right now. I'm not saying that people wouldn't still try to have as much influence as possible, but with competition, consequence, and a clear definition of morality, they would only be as successful as public desire and competition would allow. I've never heard of anybody not directly benefiting from such power who supported such power, so we know that public desire would not accommodate it.

[Mishelle]

Stef talks about this in his book Practical Anarchy, starting around page 150.  As soon as I get a chance I'm going to address your above thoughts in detail, In the Gray, because it sounds like just the kind of basic practice I need!

[In_The_Gray]

First of all, you said semi-lawless. Anarchism is all the way "lawmakerlessness" with none of the way aversion to rules (what you mistakenly call laws). Secondly, you said people seek power as if that is an inherent trait of humanity when in fact it is an effect of the great big power in play right now. I'm not saying that people wouldn't still try to have as much influence as possible, but with competition, consequence, and a clear definition of morality, they would only be as successful as public desire and competition would allow. I've never heard of anybody not directly benefiting from such power who supported such power, so we know that public desire would not accommodate it.

 

 

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.

Stef talks about this in his book Practical Anarchy, starting around page 150.  As soon as I get a chance I'm going to address your above thoughts in detail, In the Gray, because it sounds like just the kind of basic practice I need!

 

 

Great, I look forward to your thorough examination of my thoughts.

I'll also check out the book when I get a chance.

[dsayers]

What does any of that have to do with anarcho-capitalism?

[In_The_Gray]

What does any of that have to do with anarcho-capitalism?

 

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.

[greekredemption]

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.

I agree with this part specifically. The basic point is that anarcho-capitalists do not provide a very good argument in terms of how we'd deal with negative (or even positive) externalities.

[dsayers]

is potentially more extreme under anarcho-capitalism because of the shift in power from politics to money

 

Politics and anarcho- are contradictions in terms. You're watching a rape and proclaiming the evils of love-making.

[In_The_Gray]

Politics and anarcho- are contradictions in terms. You're watching a rape and proclaiming the evils of love-making.

 

 

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.

[dsayers]

You said shift in power from politics to money. The financial power you are referring to is rooted in political power, which is inherently coercive. This is not anarcho- that you're referring to. I'm really sorry you cannot differentiate between rape and love-making. It's something I recommend you put effort into because it's EXTREMELY important to be able to tell the difference between voluntary interaction and coercion if you're going to stand before the entire world and try to make truth claims about it.