Andrew79 Posted March 20, 2014 Posted March 20, 2014 It is an example of a negatively impactful act that is fuelled by the philosophy of capitalism as a whole Capitalism says you can own stuff, that's all. And the alternative to being able to own stuff is poverty. Ludwig von Mises explained exactly why this is inevitable, in painstaking detail, in his book "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis", published back in 1922. And reality itself has demonstrated there is no rebuttal to his work. The alternatives to capitalism like to point out everything that's wrong with the world, all the injustices, all the evils. Then they tell you wonderful stories of a world where everyone's equal, where there's limitless abundance, where no-one's getting rich off someone else's sweat... But ultimately they are only stories - these philosophies bring poverty and death. They can bring nothing else.
Mike Fleming Posted March 23, 2014 Posted March 23, 2014 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. The only reason why financial power is so great is due to the state. The amount of risk that has to be undertaken for banks to make such massive profits is significant. With great risk comes great reward. Why are banks taking such risks? Because they have the Fed dropping interest rates below the market rate and backstopping them with taxpayer money. This would not happen in a free society and so the great financial power you are concerned about would not exist. Just look at how banks behaved when they had to take responsibility for losses in the past and you will see much more conservative institutions. When the govt is encouraging them to loan money to everything and everyone and saying they will backstop losses that is is the opportunity for banks to make a great deal of money and wield a great deal of power.
Livemike Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 Not really. He's brilliant in his analysis of foriegn policy and current events, but mises how the state as an instittuion is essentially corrupting. Even in that he's not that smart. Yes the US foreign policy is imperialist, people have been noticing that since before he was born. His analysis of current events is so bad that he STILL thinks that without government corporations would be more powerful EVEN AFTER THE BAILOUTS. The spunk.org link is some of the most arrogant demeaning twaddle I've ever heard. It's simply strawmen and shaming tactics. Why the hell should I have to waste my time and highten my blood pressure responding to such nonsense?
cynicist Posted March 28, 2014 Posted March 28, 2014 The spunk.org link is some of the most arrogant demeaning twaddle I've ever heard. It's simply strawmen and shaming tactics. Why the hell should I have to waste my time and highten my blood pressure responding to such nonsense? Haha agreed. There are also some posts in this thread that I thought about responding to but Stefan has covered the material well enough that I don't feel the motivation to do it. (Like the externalities argument, which Stefan has addressed in dozens of podcasts by now not to mention several books)
Vuk11 Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 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. Corporate lobbying proves that in today's society money > politics, yet Anarcho-Capitalism seeks to remove the mechanism from which people exert "legal" influence and control over each other.There is a big difference between say a DRO (dispute resolution organisation) and a state: - States claim ownership of land above private property in the order of things, whereas business has no claim to someone's land - States rely on the threat of violence, whereas business knows violence is not as profitable as negotiation (paying injured employees, losing a fight, etc) - States give citizens 0 recourse besides voting (lol) and revolt, whereas business can offer contractual guarantees, people can withdraw funding, ostracize them, hell if a business does something contractually wrong in a network with banks and electricity companies also dealing with this business, they could easily freeze their account and cut their power as per contract - States have 0 competition inside of a given geographical area, whereas business is all about competition, where a business that offers consumer protection > the one that doesn't.So I don't know how much power money can have in such a society, besides hiring mercenaries......which is infinitely more expensive fighting than trading, not to mention the potential ostracism, armed populace, defence agencies they have to get through, just all around incentives not to be a dick to people or there is so much that can be done even non-violently in opposition. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The central arguments I can tell from "true-Anarchists" or Social Anarchists are: (the one's like Chomsky and those that quote him) - Invalidity of ownership as a concept - Using the above, the invalidity of private property - Immorality of Wage Labour (muh wage slavery) - Immorality of hierarchical systems (only the one's they don't like.....parents/kids and coaches/footballers are fine) The biggest issue I have with them in return is the admitted guaranteed use of violence in order to "dismantle" the hierarchy of private property. There are so many divisions among them of who deserves to be attacked by this but I'm sure we can all see that with so many ideas of who's property was gained immorally, will only lead to disaster in an "Anarchist Revolution" and many many people dead. A quick illustration of the point: I have seen at least three different opinions on using violence to dismantle private property; those that say all private property must be expropriated and shared, those that say all property besides that which was toiled with the hands, those that say all besides that which was toiled by the hand and also those that have traded this voluntarily. Now it all comes back to "all property was gained immorally at one point or another" and with this much division, you can bet your Red and Black flag that in a mass revolution people will be killed left right and center by this and it's okay to them, because of the need to remove hierarchy.
LifeIsBrief Posted March 29, 2014 Posted March 29, 2014 The problem with Chomsky, is that he's right, about some "anarcho-capitalists", really being corporate shills without knowing it. It's a more accurate indictment of the broader "freedom movement", ie "libertarian republicans"... but it does apply to some people who self identify ancap. The thing is, while making a reasonable critique of many in the "movement", he goes on to argue only against that group, ignoring all philosophy. If you love fascist corporations, but hate fascism... you're a double speaking moron, who supports fascism. "I love the corporations that exist under fascism, but I hate fascism"... wait... what? That said, the exact same argument is true of "liberals", most are actually corporate fascists, who "hate corporations". Liberals tend to despise big companies, but want everyone to have one insurance company for example... Wait... What? Chomsky often tends towards this... He thinks "we", need to work together to overcome the "corporations", ignoring, that any "we"... simply creates a new corporation. Or, more accurately, a power hungry hierarchal system. The reason anarcho capitalism is superior to anarcho syndical/social ism, is simple. In an anarcho capitalist society, you can start your own hippie commune. In a socialist society, you cannot start a tax free compound. So, in forcing the people who want to be capitalist to join your hippie commune, you create perpetual misery and warfare. Meanwhile, people who want to start a tribe, or commune, in an anarcho capitalist society, are free to do so. Homestead the vast stretches of land going unused, and Boom! It's yours. Enjoy the commune. Thus, anarcho capitalism, allows for competing systems to exist, where almost no other philosophy does. All that said... If people want to be violent assholes... Anarcho capitalism, doesn't fix that. If people are aggressive jerks, freedom does not solve that. Both systems require people to have a personal sense of morality, and responsibility, in order to succeed. If people in America call themselves anarcho capitalist, and then buy "cheap" products, from dictatorships... They're funding the enemy, forcing perpetual war and misery on their own people, and everyone else. People need to evolve first, if anything is to get better... but when they do, capitalism, is a much faster and more peaceful system, which allows that adjustment.
James Dean Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 If you love fascist corporations, but hate fascism... you're a double speaking moron, who supports fascism. "I love the corporations that exist under fascism, but I hate fascism"... wait... what? I don't really know how you're using the word 'love' here. We trade with businesses because they provide value and we repay in kind. Apple wants my money more than their iPods, I want the iPods more than my money, etc. The fact that some of the money that has been freely exchanged is then stolen from them and used to fund violence has little to do with either parties morality. If I send a friend $20 bucks in the mail for his birthday and someone steals it to buy an underage prostitute, I am not 'supporting underage prostitution' because my money/ his money was stolen to fund it. This argument is akin to statists saying "you can't be against the state because you still use the roads." Yes, the government has a monopoly enforced by violence, we are forced to use their """"money"""" businesses are forced to give their property to the government to forward violent ends, this is not "voting with your dollar" for violence, you have yet to explain how buying a computer from apple is somehow immoral because apple is then subsequently stolen from. All that said... If people want to be violent assholes... Anarcho capitalism, doesn't fix that. If people are aggressive jerks, freedom does not solve that. Both systems require people to have a personal sense of morality, and responsibility, in order to succeed. If people in America call themselves anarcho capitalist, and then buy "cheap" products, from dictatorships... They're funding the enemy, forcing perpetual war and misery on their own people, and everyone else. People need to evolve first, if anything is to get better... but when they do, capitalism, is a much faster and more peaceful system, which allows that adjustment. Capitalism does solve the problem of violence, it's just that now entrepreneurs are violently prevented from providing services in that field because the government has a monopoly. Capitalism does not only solve the problem of violence, it solves problems period. because people solve problems period. you wouldn't (i hope) say that "starvation is a fact of nature, capitalism doesn't fix that." Yes, indeed, it does... because people want it to be fixed. The only people who don't want the problem of violence to be fixed are those invested in it's perpetuation, and they are not the majority.
Livemike Posted April 2, 2014 Posted April 2, 2014 "If treating people like livestock, attracts more customers, because it's cheap... life for people will be awful under a capitalist society. Customers need to constantly value labor more in their purchasing decisions, or the value of their own labor will decrease. " Customers don't need to "value labor more" for labor to have more value. You seem to think that what determines what someone's labor is worth is whether the buyer of the buyer of it cares about them. This is not even close to true. People's labor becomes valuable when there are a lot of different uses for it and few alternatives to it. That is to say when there is high demand relative to supply. Caring didn't make wages go up during the Industrial Revolution. " What the modern Republican party, and most (not all) of its associated "libertarians" want, is for the labor of "other" people, to stay cheap, while they continue to believe "I'm a beautiful and unique snowflake worth millions". ' Where's your evidence for this, at least for the libertarians? " What did the Walton family invent? " A cheaper way to sell goods. That's significant. Yes, I know they get subsidies via eminent domain, but AFAIK that's a small part of why they're profitable. " I'd be shocked if the people currently running Koch industries actually invented, or manufactured a new chemical." Would you also be shocked if they provided the capital necessary for the inventor of a new chemical to actually invent? Because I'm pretty sure that happens at least yearly (considering they're in the petrochemical business). " Every time you (or I, we all make mistakes), buy Nike shoes, you're voting with your dollar. You want a government like the one in Nigeria, or some other poor African dictatorship. ' No I'm sorry that's rubbish. Just because I trade with someone who trades with someone under a dictatorship doesn't mean I support the dictatorship. It simply means I won't boycott what may be somebody's only way to live. "nonsense, almost all of that money goes straight to the warlords, and you're inherently devaluing not just the value of your own countries manual labor, but the worlds. ' Almost all isn't all, and in any case I very much doubt "almost all" the money goes to the warlords. The warlords can't extract more than the difference in costs between other countries and the non-corruption costs in their country. And there are a lot of countries competing for the money. " Capitalism without self respect, is a race to the bottom. " It's not self-respect that makes wages go higher, it's productivity. Without investment that's not going to happen. "Then bitch about being victims of government. You're not a victim. The military could go on strike tomorrow. People have chosen governance, it was and is, a terrible choice. " I see so because the military _could_ go on strike tomorrow, I'm not a victim, even though I've never been in the military and have nothing to do with what they do. And I'm not a victim because "People" have chosen governance, and so what, I'm people therefore I've chosen it? No sorry, fallacy of composition. "here are a whole bunch of choices you make, and one of them is to be governed. " Nope all the choices listed have me being governed. Criminals are governed, and so are the Amish.
LifeIsBrief Posted April 6, 2014 Posted April 6, 2014 James Dean... "We trade with businesses because they provide value, and we repay in kind" First... No, that's not how the system works, because we don't live in a capitalist society, and you know that. You give fiat currency, to a state sponsored corporation that gets near zero percent interest loans created from thin air, by the fed. 90% of Apples customers, though possibly not you personally, receive that fiat currency from a state sponsored corporation that gets near 0% interest loans created from thin air... from the fed. Apple doesn't even give that fiat currency to employees... It sends it over to a Chinese company, where they don't even pretend corporations aren't state sponsored communist nonsense. The illusion of banking that we have in the US, is just that, still, I would not recommend giving it up to a nation that actually brags about having a state run economy. When you buy oil, you don't trade value for value either. You trade, somewhat less violent, insane, fiat currency... Directly to an Islamic theocracy, the absolute perfect symbol for insane, violent, fiat currency. This transaction, and the distribution of said currency, makes Islam the fastest growing religion in the world (not to pick on Islam, all religions are corrupt, vicious, power hungry entities that want to tell everyone what to do, this is just the one your oil dollars happens to fund). In both systems, workers are trying to revolt and overthrow these corrupt institutions, but the iron fisted authoritarians murder said workers, with your money. I'm not talking about taxes here, I'm talking about voting with your dollar. If you want China and Saudi Arabia to get your dollar... They're going to use that dollar the way they want to, not the way you want to. If you sent a friend 20 dollars, and it was stolen to buy an underage prostitute once, shame on the thief... If you use the same postage carrier twice and the same thing happens... It becomes your job to stop using that carrier. You are only immune from the morality of your spending patterns, while you remain ignorant. Given that we all know what systems various government sponsored corporations support, it becomes our responsibility to change our spending pattern. Those corporations are evil, so stop giving your money to them... It's not rocket surgery. "It (capitalism) solves problems period"... Yeah, and you know a really cheap way to solve a problem? Chop off the head of the person causing the problem. Who gets to decide what constitutes a problem? People with the money, and power to solve the problem. If consumers continue to give their money to people who solve problems with a knife... People will keep using knives. People with power and money, want power and money. The best way to change their behavior is for consumers to stop giving it to them. You know what the cheapest solution to starvation is? Killing people who don't farm... Don't send your money to the country, or company that proposes that solution, or one day, it will be the "cheap solution", that governs your behavior too. Again, capitalism without self respect, and respect for others, ie personal morality, would be awful. LiveMike "Peoples labor becomes valuable... when there is a high demand relative to supply" So... There's a lot more demand for skilled labor, than there is supply in Africa... So skilled laborers are paid better there right? No, of course not, prices are currently set by statist competition over military resources. Only the localization of those economies will allow them to begin trading value for value. Until then, western governments send money (printed from thin air) for weapons, or weapons, and they send back the one product the warlords can convince children to make. Those weapons stop all progress. It would be nice if capitalism existed anywhere in the world, but it does not, it must be forged. 90% of American jobs are in the servant industry... I mean the "customer service sector of the economy"... 80-87% in Europe, Canada, and Australia. Western governments do not crank out value, they crank out violent statism, with a side of smiles. You know all of this though. "Corporations are created and enforced by state power", "Half your money goes directly to the government"... any of this sounding familiar. This is what I mean by double speak. On the one hand, people talk about how obvious it is, that we don't live in a capitalist, free market system, then a minute later... "The price of labor is set by the market". No, it's not, you just told me it wasn't. That's the problem with the "libertarian republicans" that I'm talking about. It's not the majority of libertarians, but it is the vast majority of Republicans. Corporations cannot be both created and sponsored by governments, and victims of government taxation, at the same time. The government is either seamlessly integrated with corporations, ie fascism (also known as what we have)... or it's not, and maybe some of them can claim some degree of theft. GE pays a negative tax burden in America, despite being profitable. Every major Western nation currently has "protected" industries, and it's violent evil nonsense. The only solution to this particular brand of violent evil nonsense for an individual, is to choose to be an educated consumer, and purchase as few fascist products as possible. Every time you shop fascist, you vote fascist.... again, not rocket surgery. The Walton family, did not invent the general store... They just got the biggest fascist loan to put one everywhere. Do you want more Edison, or more Tesla in this world? If the Koch brothers didn't finance a chemist, then in a capitalist system, the chemist could have gotten a loan from a local bank, or venture capitalist, and started their own business, becoming wealthy... Ie the capitalist/American dream... Instead that chemist makes 40k a year with no pension so the brothers can be billionaires. Booooo! "that's rubbish", is not an argument... Do you know you're buying Nike shoes from children in Africa? Yes. You have to take moral responsibility for your actions. Is it now common knowledge that diamonds mostly profit African warlords who use child labor, and the De Beers family? Okay, if you want to get married, and you want a diamond, instead of some other shiny rock, that's a moral decision. While you're ignorant, in theory, one cannot blame you for supporting warlords, but being an educated consumer is important. Shop somewhere adults are paid to live in houses, or one day you will not be able to afford a house. "I've never been in the military"... Do you pay their salary? Or have you chosen a life of poverty? Those are your options. The violent, aggressive nature of primates, combined with thousands of years of evil governments have forced you to have only those two, but there is still a choice there. Resist... The only thing fascism needs to control the world is "Your sanction"... The only way to stop being governed is to resist. If you don't resist, you're a supporter. Alright, I'm getting a bit too Ayn Rand. If there's anything I love more than complaining, it's rambling incoherently about individualism, objectivism, freedom, and Amurica... but it's Saturday night, and I gotta get out of here. Peace and love friends... PS... The Amish, are crazy religious zealots... but they've never been drafted, don't pay into the federal safety net, and the ones who choose a life of poverty, never have to pay for a war. It's a darn good start. Resist! Refuse! Recycle!
Daniel Unplugged Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 But ultimately they are only stories - these philosophies bring poverty and death. They can bring nothing else.I prefer to say it this way: when you take away the right of the people to make profit, ahem, people stop making profit, so poverty is enivetible.
Recommended Posts