Anarcho-Capitalism

it's pretty cool

it's pretty retarded

is not real anarchism

op: explain your post.

Since OP is gone. Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

It sounds like fat rich kids trying to play anarchist without even questioning what it is that makes the power structure(money). Also, the distinct individualist thought they use is childish at the least (that's why I said in an earlier post that ir's not real anarchism).

I see it as a succesfull distraction mechanism to distract noobs who wander into anarchism from understanding anything about what actual anarchism means and confusing them, giving real anarchism a bad name. It totaly lacks any depth of thought or social experience.

Americanized anarchizm to be short...

"Some of those who call themselves Anarcho-capitalists say that their views have no relation to what they call social anarchism, other than opposition to the State. Nevertheless many anarchists who oppose capitalism also like to see themselves as individualist and argue that the social classes created by capitalism limit liberty by forcing some individuals to work and receive orders from others above them, and also limiting individual's use of their time and subjectivity.[11] This is in many respects, in their views, as much destruction or more destruction of liberty as the existence of states. Some anarchists have even argued that individualism and communism are not only compatible but even necessary complements in order to protect individual liberty." - (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism )

I'm posting this because I'm hoping it will make my previous post more comprehensive to people new to anarchy.

>>5

>Thinks calling people "fat kids" and "noobs" constitutes an argument.

>>7
Lol. Yup, and I still managed to contribute more to the thread than you and the OP put together!

Both anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are fallacious, if they are actual systems they either don't work or are just rehashes of other systems of representation, if they are values then they are useless.

Ok, but democracy, federalism, communism, faschism etc., are also falacious if you look into it.Every single economic end political theory. Frankly, I don't think it's the theories that are fallacious. I think it's the people who practice and preach them.

Also, I don't think there is a perfect system for everyone. I like anarchy because it's he only political system I've heard that is honest enough to accept that there is no perfect way of organizing large societies without creating oppression and classes. I accept that as a system it is far from perfect, especialy since it has never really existed long enough to provide actual social experience from which to better itself. Still, the ideas behind it are the most pure and honest I've met so far.

>>10
What would a realist-anarchism be then? One which takes into account that any cooperation between individuals will result in corruption? Imagine this in the form of a math equation.

C=corruption
S=stresses, different economic, political, cultural and religious factors increase the stress and make people more likely to flip out
P=population, the more people the more administration is needed and the more loopholes for corruption
K=corruption constant for a method of organization
M=the mutual benefit gained from an organization
N=net benefit
C=SPK
M-C=T

Increase S, P or K and you increase corruption, M is all very well but if it is exceeded by corruption then it is ultimately not good for people.

Regular systems of anarchy have very high M but also very high K, you propose decreasing S and P to decrease C but never K. You need an anarchy that can work in a society that needs some form of hierarchical administration and is naturally corrupt divided and hateful.

M-C=N

>>11
I don't disagree with your 'equation'. One thing i don't get though is why you suppose there would be such a high 'K'.

Anyway, I'm not a revolutionary. I don't think that a revolution could successfully change the system to an anarchist one. And I'm saying this because I believe in parallel systems.

I did some reading last night and I found something rather interesting (which I'm planning to look more into soon): Post -anarchism. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-anarchism ). The part I found interesting was Newman's criticism of traditional anarchism: "Newman criticizes classical anarchists, such as Michael Bakunin and Peter Kropotkin, for assuming an objective "human nature" and a natural order; he argues that from this approach, humans progress and are well-off by nature, with only the Establishment as a limitation that forces behavior otherwise."

Although still far from a complete political theory, I find it spot on on looking for a system with no set structure where the structure of each community is only what the community will choose (if I'm getting it right because I still haven't read the original sources)

ANARCHO MYSTIC WIZARDRY

now that's pretty fucking cool man

taoism?

Racism?

>>6

That's why it's called Anarcho-Capitalism and not Anarchism. Derp.

>>6

Yeah.

To be an anarchist you have to be stoned at least 80% of the time.

Other then the casual piss take, it's good to open your minds to different theories. I'm not asking you to become an anarchist, that would be stupid, but the more varied political education one has, the better. I'm sure that if everyone knew these things (not just about anarchy, but the whole political spectrum), democracy would actualy work. Same goes about economics.

>>19
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.

Don't fall for jewish or marxist lies.

If you think about it anarcho-capitalism is more anarchist than anarcho-communism/socialism. Any forced distribution of wealth is unnecessary coercion, which negates the whole anarchy thing. A society that doesn't let you keep earned profits cannot be anarchist. A state can force people, where a a company cannot, unless is is given power by the state. In an anarcho-capitalist society, assuming all transactions are mutual and not forced, there would be nothing wrong with private property and wealth.A man's property is his own, unless he physically steals it, so forced redistribution/ conversion to public property would be more authoritarian than the government you just got rid of.

>>21

Thus one can only conclude that true anarchy removes all individualist and collectivist labels and asserts that if people want to live in a commune and share their resources, they can, and if people want to own private property and engage in trade, they can, and neither party can interfere with the other.

>>21
That's only if you look at it from a market point of view. Still, you're not looking into the oppression that property as a meaning contains. The 'right to own' is the source of the power pyramid with the most people owning little at the bottom and vary few at the top with massive properties. That's nowhere near anarchy. As a system it has clear lines of power and control, hence, the subjects are not free, rather they have to play with the rules of the markets to gain access to resources.

Of course things are not black and white, and I'm not a closed minded person. I believe the issue of what can be property and what not could easily be solved democratically by an anarchist assembly. And of course two different assemblies could reach two different oppinions. In fact, that's what I love about direct democracy.

Personally I'm not an individualist, I'm a collectivist. Wealth is not the matter in anarchy, what matters is to bring down the things that give one person power over the other. End human-human oppression.

Another thing that worries me with anarcho-capitalism is that it can be used as a trojan horse for neo-liberalism(which is already being used to spread elitism globaly). In fact, by being anti-state but pro-ownership, it lays down the red carpet for the mega corporations to gain economic control over the world and impose an economical dictatorship. If that's what you want, you might be 'lucky' enough to see it in your life, but I'm not sure if you're going to like it, or if it is the way you might have imagined it. That's because there is no freedom in a boss/employee reletionship (especialy without a state to set rules), or in a buyer/seller relationships if mega owners set up monopolies.

>>23

How does owning private property give one power over another?

>>24

Oh god, another economic illiterate spouting the same inconsistent logic.

it lays down the red carpet for the mega corporations to gain economic control over the world and impose an economical dictatorship.

No. Corporations are given the power they enjoy in Corporatist America by the government. This is done by enforcing regulatory barriers to entry. These barriers to entry impede free trade and thus reduce competition below normal market level.

In a total free market, corporations can never attain the power you so wrongfully believe they can achieve, because regulatory barriers to entry will not exist, and thus absolute competition will reign. I have no doubt you will ask me about monopolies, but I'll leave it until then to show you why monopolies do not logically form in a free market.

That's because there is no freedom in a boss/employee reletionship

Yes there is! Yes there is!

A boss/employee relationship is just like any other form of trade, you are trading labour for money. The reason you have limited freedom under the current corporatist agenda is because of labour laws: Competition for labour is highly reduced due to the fact that an employer cannot fire an underproductive employee in order to hire a productive one. Thus he cannot compete with other emloyers on a free market, and thus the cost of labour remains relatively stagnant, and there is fewer competition for your labour and so it is harder to get a job.

>>26
fuck you

>>26

The unregulated free market is a zero sum game. Anti-trust laws exist solely BECAUSE the logical conclusion the free market system is one corporation controlling everything. This is something one can learn just by playing a child's game called Monopoly.  It's not a complicated concept unless you're a narrow minded dunderhead who believes in wish fulfillment fantasies like a free market that fosters competition over consolidation. The very EXISTENCE of corporations disproves that notion.  Now kindly stop trolling /newpol/ or else some idiot might actually believe you know what you're talking about. Incompetent people like that elect incompetent people to government and impede our ability to stay competitive in the world via implementation of sensible non-corporatist policy.

>>26

The unregulated free market is a zero sum game. Anti-trust laws exist solely BECAUSE the logical conclusion the free market system is one corporation controlling everything. This is something one can learn just by playing a child's game called Monopoly.  It's not a complicated concept unless you're a narrow minded dunderhead who believes in wish fulfillment fantasies like a free market that fosters competition over consolidation. The very EXISTENCE of corporations disproves that notion.  Now kindly stop trolling /newpol/ or else some idiot might actually believe you know what you're talking about. Incompetent people like that elect incompetent people to government and impede our ability to stay competitive in the world via implementation of sensible non-corporatist policy.

>>28,29

Anti-trust laws exist solely BECAUSE the logical conclusion the free market system is one corporation controlling everything
No, that would mean one corporation would have a monopoly.

Monopolies don't form in a free market. As they get bigger, the cost of buying out the market increases. If companyA's competitors see companyA trying to become a monopoly, they know they can charge much higher prices when companyA tries to buy them out. If companyA owns 95% of the market, and you are one of the last few competitors, you know you can charge incredibly high prices for companyA to buy you, as there aren't many other companies you are competing with in stock price. Not only this, but companyA is continually faced with new competition springing up. The more monopolistic a company becomes, the less competition they face, and the more inefficient they are able to become. This means it is in fact easier to compete with them, so people begin investing in firms that are in competition. Also, as a company buys out the market, it is accumulating debt on account of the incredibly high cost of buying out the market. This means it has to increase its prices in order to make up for this debt, making them easier to compete with for new competitors.

This is something one can learn just by playing a child's game called Monopoly
Monopoly doesn't factor in new competition. Imagine playing a game of monopoly where new players can join whenever they want.

Monopoly is also largely a game of chance, hurr durr. Yes, there are small degrees of chance in business management, but for the most part it depends on the skill of the businessmen. There is nowhere near the degree of chance in the real world as there is in Monopoly.

Furthermore, if you've played Monopoly you will know how hard it is to buy the last colour of an area if you own the rest. This demonstrates the point I made earlier about buying out the market beautifully. Thankyou for making my own point for me.

The very EXISTENCE of corporations disproves that notion
No it doesn't. Nor does any example you can come up with in reality, as there are no anarcho-capitalistic societies in existence. Why? Obviously because states don't give up their power easily. They want to keep that power.

some idiot might actually believe you know what you're talking about
Implying that you know what you're talking about.

Kindly stop being economically illiterate and stop making rehashed and recycled statist arguments.

>>25 >How does owning private property give one power over another?


Suppose somebody owns a river, he has power over the thirsty. If he owns the food, he controls the hungry and so on. This would be the extreme case. If he own the means of production, he has power over both workers and consumers. That's why I sid earlier (>>23) that property sets up the power pyramid. Unless there are regulations as to what you can own  and what is fair use or unless there is collective property or no property, this power pyramid will exist and the majority of people will be controlled by minorities.

>>26
I was expecting someone would say these things. I genuinely cannot understand why you have such faith in the free market. I think you need to look deeper into it because there are many side effects from the free market and capitalism in general. The first that comes to mind is the commercialisation of everything including labour and sociaety. It is a cold product focused logic that instead of adjusting to human needs, expects humans to adjust to the system. There are also social sides. This system creates rich and poor with all the inequalities this brings. Even if wealth was equaly distributed for start, a few years later smarter traders that would have made better business decisions (the result of competition) would have more money and/or resources on their hands. This in turn would make them able to invest more in production and bring costs down. This way he has greater advantage over his competitors and some time later he might even be able to buy them out (it is a matter of thime). Having the benefit of larger scale production and lower production cost, he is realy holding newly entering competition on his hand. This is where I will disagree his you.

Also, the system of paid labour, although admitedly far better than slavery which it replaced, is a source of power of one person over the other. Labour market can be easily managed and handled byemploying immigrands, moving factories abroad, or even by corrupting the employee representatives or syndicalists(I don't see why free market would defeat corruption).

One last think about labour competition that stroke me in your post was what happens with the elderly. Do you just get thrown out when you're not productive enough? This kind of system and philosophy totaly disregards human life. Humans are expendable. The are chewed and spit out when they are not neccessary anymore. Sorry but it doesn't exactly sound like paradise to me.

>>30
In an unregulated market, company A has more resource demand than their competitors. There are shortcuts in kicking competitors out of the markets through controlling resource demand and also by selling cheaper than it produces until the competitors are stranged economically.

>Imagine playing a game of monopoly where new players can join whenever they want.

Easy money! i have all the good squares, they stay, they pay! I would just take their money in the first round and in the second I would make them sell their squares to pay me more.

>if you've played Monopoly you will know how hard it is to buy the last colour of an area if you own the rest.

People already own multiple colours. We're not starting from zero.

I understand you might have studied economics but life is not just the economy. I'm not undermining the importance or trade, I'm saying that there's more to life and humans than trade. Talking about anarchy in whatever form that is, suggests that you are trying to solve the social issues that arise from the current system(s), make improvements where you are unhappy with the way things work. It also suggests that you want to have as much control over yourself as much as this is possible. I honestly don't believe you can achieve these things by focusing on the markets. I think that markets (and capitalism) have served us very well to abolish slavery and become free individuals but now that we don't have kings and slaves it's time to move ahead (not now literaly - when the majority of the society matures enough to accept it). That's the whole point of anarchy in my opinion. To think ahead, imagine ways to bring down oppression and make society fair, honest and equal for everyone and pave the way for it.

There are shortcuts in kicking competitors out of the markets through controlling resource demand
Elaborate.


also by selling cheaper than it produces until the competitors are stranged economically.
Yes, I talked about this. By undercutting the competitors, the company seeking a monopoly is weakened (they are not making a substantial profit). This gives new competition even more incentive to enter the market and compete, because they know it will be easier to compete with the weakened companyA.


Easy money! i have all the good squares, they stay, they pay! I would just take their money in the first round and in the second I would make them sell their squares to pay me more.
You're still thinking about this in terms of the game rather than reality.
I'll give you more realistic variables, then: Let's say people are fed up with the prices your monopolistic company is demanding, and as such society has harboured a feeling of general dislike towards your company. Now, when I said new players can enter the game whenever they like, I bet you though they could only enter with the starting amount of cash. No, that is an element of the game, not reality. In reality, new competition has however much cash investors want to invest in it. The society's dislike of your monopoly is a signal to investors to invest in competition. They see that it will be easy to compete, because no one wants to buy your shit. So they invest a truckload into the new competition, possibly even more than your monopoly's assets.

Now, tell me how you're going to just take their money in the first round?


life is not just the economy
The economy is an abstract concept that represents the actions of humans in relation to one another. Unless you live in a forest by yourself without any human contact, I would say economics is a very large part of life.


To think ahead, imagine ways to bring down oppression and make society fair, honest and equal for everyone and pave the way for it.
I would like to think that that's what I'm doing.

>>34
First of all I have to say I enjoy talking to you even though I disagree. You sound well educated.

>Elaborate.

By buying the all available resources or by using their being a good customer to 'forbid' the supplyer from supplying competitors. Like saying to the supplyer: if you keep selling to my competitor I will move my business to your competitor, or by making a huge debt to your supplyer and then ask him to stop selling to your competitor if he wants to be paid back. Dead easy with no market rules.

>Yes, I talked about this. By undercutting the competitors, the company seeking a monopoly is weakened (they are not making a substantial profit). This gives new competition even more incentive to enter the market and compete, because they know it will be easier to compete with the weakened companyA.

That sounds wrong to me.The new competitor connot make an investment and open up because the price set by Campany A (his competitor) does not leave him any profit margin. The difference from company A is that A has planned this beforehand, made thair projections, saved the neccessary capitals and are out to kill. Seriously, I don't understand how a newly entering company could compete.

>Now, tell me how you're going to just take their money in the first round?

There's another way of looking at the investors point of view. They can choose between a low risk 'blue chip' investment and a high risk new company with no track record. Also, from investor's point of view, the opportunity to invest in a company that has the possibility of setting up a monopoly cannot be missed. It would be like missing the money train. For an investor, investing in a monopoly is by far the most profitable and safest investion.

>The economy is an abstract concept that represents the actions of humans in relation to one another. Unless you live in a forest by yourself without any human contact, I would say economics is a very large part of life.

Oh, please, don't start the forrest thing. I's bringing down the otherwise very good lever of this conversation. I repeat: life is not JUST the economy. You basically said the same thing but still managed to facus solely on the economical side of things. If humans and their SOCIAL needs (like family, friendships, love, harmony and freedom) don't fit in the capitalist dogma, it's not the people that need to change, it's the dogma. Yes econimcs is very large part of life and it is getting even larger if we use the capitalist dogma, but a) that's disproportional and b) there are other equaly or more important part of life that personaly I don't want to lose focus on. It's a matter of humanism in the end of the day: whether you put humans ar markets at the center of your plans.

>I would like to think that that's what I'm doing.

Same here. I'm not a person that will get angry at opposing opinions. I find it rather interesting that even though we're looking at the same target(?) we are facing in opposing directions. In a sense, our conversation could be the difference between the european and the american philosophical schools of anarchy. The difference between individualist and collectivist anarchy.

PS. I feel that somehow you're proving my point that anarcho-capitalism is a 'mask' for neo-liberalism. I trully don't even understand the difference.

I would like to see a system where the workers ARE the investors and stock holders. Something like cooperatives and collectives where the people cooperating (and co-owning) produce together towards the common good or a certain cause respectively(that't the difference between a cooperative and a collective). Where a company is controlled democraticaly and there's no schizm/contradiction between the interests of the the stock-owners and the workers, therefore the labour of the workers cannot be abused by the high depand for cold money of the stock-holders/owners.

How does this sound as a compromise between the two extremes?

(From: http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQVol1Intro )

I do not wish anarchism to go the same way that "libertarian" has gone in the US (and, to a lesser extent, in the UK). Between the 1890s and 1970s, libertarian was simply a pseudonym for anarchist or similar socialist theories. However, the American free-market right appropriated the label in the 1970s and now it means supporters of minimal state (or private-state) capitalism. Such is the power having ideas that bolster the wealthy! The change in "libertarian" is such that some people talk about "libertarian anarchism" -- as if you can have an "authoritarian anarchism"! That these people include "anarcho"-capitalists simply shows how ignorant of anarchism they actually are and how alien the ideology is to our movement (I've seen quite a few of them proclaim anarchism is simply a "new" form of Marxism, which shows their grasp of the subject). Equally bizarrely, these self-proclaimed "libertarian anarchists" are also those who most fervently defend the authoritarian social relationships inherent within capitalism! In other words, if "authoritarian anarchists" could exist then the "libertarian anarchists" would be them!

I Loled!

lol @ the irrelevant monopoly analogy. 

>>36
>Where a company is controlled democraticaly
ya because democracy has worked well anywhere in the world....

anarchism is mainly just liberalism with a more violent stance, and pro-lets go squat on someone elses land.

Also: monopolies occur by GOVERNMENT influence, not the free market.

Anti-trust laws are about competitors conspiring to destroy the successful company which wasn't part of their jew conspiracy.

>>38
Read more books

First of all I have to say I enjoy talking to you even though I disagree. You sound well educated.
Why thankyou, I also enjoy a good political discussion.


By buying the all available resources
Well I honestly can't see this happening. In which area of the market can one buy all available resources? For example, do you realise how much money it would cost to buy all available oil?


being a good customer to 'forbid' the supplyer from supplying competitors
Well this is only a bad thing if there is only a single supplier. Or are you implying that a single customer could buy out all suppliers at once?


>or by making a huge debt to your supplyer and then ask him to stop selling to your competitor if he wants to be paid back
Well no, that would be coercion, you can't accept a deal and then threaten not to pay. I think you're misinterpreting my stance, I am not arguing that we should have absolutely no market rules, that would be total anarchy. Basic free trade rules can still be enforced without a state.


>The new competitor connot make an investment and open up because the price set by Campany A (his competitor) does not leave him any profit margin
It doesn't leave companyA any profit margin either, you see? It can't run at a loss indefinitely. Investors can still invest if they think they can ride out the period of undercutting - Remember, the monopolistic company is running at the same loss as everyone else. And as I said before the new competition may have even more assets invested in it than companyA's assets, so you can't assume that companyA can survive longer. Furthermore, companyA doesn't want to undercut for too long, because as I said it will weaken it, making it more susceptible to new competition. If an investor follows this logic, he may come to a rational conclusion that investing in competition is the right thing to do.

I fear that we're just going to go in circles on this topic though.


Oh, please, don't start the forrest thing
???

What forest thing? I came up with that analogy on the fly.


>If humans and their SOCIAL needs (like family, friendships, love, harmony and freedom)
All these things affect the economy, though. For example, love creates demand for products that display love (chocolate, roses, etc...)

Without love these things would not be such an integral part of our culture, and thus the economy would take a different form, as human interaction would not be the same. There would be a lower supply of roses, and less people with the occupation of "rose farmer" or whatever they're called.

This is just a trivial example, though. This is not an important part of the discussion.


I find it rather interesting that even though we're looking at the same target(?) we are facing in opposing directions
Yes, I have come to realise this many times. Most anti-capitalists I encounter are quick to label me a conservative that hates poor people. Sometimes they're irrational enough to declare that I'm being paid by big corporations.

We all have the same target, that is improving the standard of living for all people. We just think it should be done in different ways.


>I feel that somehow you're proving my point that anarcho-capitalism is a 'mask' for neo-liberalism
I've never really looked into neo-liberalism at great depth, so I don't know if there are any differences. I question why liberalism would be associated with a total free market, however, as most liberals seem to think corporations are evil things out to destroy the planet.

I'm going to repost my comment for readability, as I messed up some quotations. Grumble.



First of all I have to say I enjoy talking to you even though I disagree. You sound well educated.
Why thankyou, I also enjoy a good political discussion.


By buying the all available resources
Well I honestly can't see this happening. In which area of the market can one buy all available resources? For example, do you realise how much money it would cost to buy all available oil?


being a good customer to 'forbid' the supplyer from supplying competitors
Well this is only a bad thing if there is only a single supplier. Or are you implying that a single customer could buy out all suppliers at once?


or by making a huge debt to your supplyer and then ask him to stop selling to your competitor if he wants to be paid back
Well no, that would be coercion, you can't accept a deal and then threaten not to pay. I think you're misinterpreting my stance, I am not arguing that we should have absolutely no market rules, that would be total anarchy. Basic free trade rules can still be enforced without a state.


The new competitor connot make an investment and open up because the price set by Campany A (his competitor) does not leave him any profit margin
It doesn't leave companyA any profit margin either, you see? It can't run at a loss indefinitely. Investors can still invest if they think they can ride out the period of undercutting - Remember, the monopolistic company is running at the same loss as everyone else. And as I said before the new competition may have even more assets invested in it than companyA's assets, so you can't assume that companyA can survive longer. Furthermore, companyA doesn't want to undercut for too long, because as I said it will weaken it, making it more susceptible to new competition. If an investor follows this logic, he may come to a rational conclusion that investing in competition is the right thing to do.

I fear that we're just going to go in circles on this topic though.


Oh, please, don't start the forrest thing
???

What forest thing? I came up with that analogy on the fly.


If humans and their SOCIAL needs (like family, friendships, love, harmony and freedom)
All these things affect the economy, though. For example, love creates demand for products that display love (chocolate, roses, etc...)

Without love these things would not be such an integral part of our culture, and thus the economy would take a different form, as human interaction would not be the same. There would be a lower supply of roses, and less people with the occupation of "rose farmer" or whatever they're called.

This is just a trivial example, though. This is not an important part of the discussion.


I find it rather interesting that even though we're looking at the same target(?) we are facing in opposing directions
Yes, I have come to realise this many times. Most anti-capitalists I encounter are quick to label me a conservative that hates poor people. Sometimes they're irrational enough to declare that I'm being paid by big corporations.

We all have the same target, that is improving the standard of living for all people. We just think it should be done in different ways.


I feel that somehow you're proving my point that anarcho-capitalism is a 'mask' for neo-liberalism
I've never really looked into neo-liberalism at great depth, so I don't know if there are any differences. I question why liberalism would be associated with a total free market, however, as most liberals seem to think corporations are evil things out to destroy the planet.

You are all operating through a framework of capitalism to try and detach yourselves from it. The government that is a puppet for capitalist rule shouldn't be compared to a government that is run by a democracy. The United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic. Our "representatives" are just an agent of mediation poisoned by corporate capitalists. Socialist markets controlled by the people, with wealth distributed evenly, eliminating class barriers and promoting collective advancement. Oops, that makes too much sense

>>42
Except who evenly distributes the wealth in these "social markets"?

>>44
was meant to reference >>43

The people, naturally, via the state.

>>46
And who calculates the exact amount of every good required? For example, how many cars are you going to make? How many people are going to make those cars? How are you going to do this with the billions of other products that exist on the market? How often are you going to do this, taking into account demand changes constantly? How do you determine if people have reached their fair share of resource usage without prices?

It would be a silent revolution, a restructuring of the current political system. That requires a new political entity (i refrain from using the term party) with a progressive framework backed by a majority of the people. The internet, void of censorship and advertising, could be a perfect forum for running a country. With logical organization, you could run this political entity via the web. There needs to be a forum on the internet that can gather public opinion. Opinion that can receive positive or negative feedback (with listed reasoning for such feedback, also subject to feedback).

All the while, the users, with an anonymous alias that recorded their data collectively, would record the statistics of their feedback. With a higher percentage of received feedback, people with good, solid, agreeable opinions would become more visible. With visibility, their reputation could be easily studied by highest rated feedback statistics. That balances corruption.

The more reputable users' ideas would be elected to office, and he would run the state according to instant feedback from this forum. Literally run by the people.

>>49
You still have not have answered the question. How do you calculate the supply of every single product on the market according to demand without prices?

Anonymity with reputable accountability.

We don't need 87% of the products on the markets.

Every person who would be affected by the redistribution of wealth would have a voice. With influence equal to anyone else's. Also, no one says it has to be an immediate redistribution of wealth. This internet forum would be a source of just judgement, so redistributing the wealth wouldn't be hard.

First action is to destroy advertising's effects. Revealing scandals behind corporations and exploiting those weaknesses can reverse their effects from advertising. Reducing corporate profits is the best way to fight them. You wouldn't even need to legislate a good portion of the distribution if you start with the money in the economy.

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/imagebuzz/web04/2011/3/11/13/anonymous-vs-louie-viutton-29971-1299869978-1.jpg

After all, corporations have all the money.

>>54

he links to a case of intellectual property rights as a criticism of anarcho-capitalism, derp

where is there a case of intellectual property rights? derp

intellectual property rights are cases of litigation in which two parties over the ownership of an idea... derp

argue over*

>>54
I like it.

>>42
>>Well I honestly can't see this happening. In which area of the market can one buy all available resources? For example, do you realise how much money it would cost to buy all available oil?

>>Well this is only a bad thing if there is only a single supplier. Or are you implying that a single customer could buy out all suppliers at once?

>>It doesn't leave companyA any profit margin either, you see? It can't run at a loss indefinitely. Investors can still invest if they think they can ride out the period of undercutting - Remember, the monopolistic company is running at the same loss as everyone else. And as I said before the new competition may have even more assets invested in it than companyA's assets, so you can't assume that companyA can survive longer. Furthermore, companyA doesn't want to undercut for too long, because as I said it will weaken it, making it more susceptible to new competition. If an investor follows this logic, he may come to a rational conclusion that investing in competition is the right thing to do.
I fear that we're just going to go in circles on this topic though.

All the above are a matter of scale difference between Campany A and its competitor. I'm using extreme examples to point out the underlying mechanisms. Of course there ususaly sn't just one competitor, you can't buy all resources (but the more you buy on a large scale, the more you bring the prices up) and of course there isn't a single supplier. What justifies my examples is purely a matter of scale. The other thing is that when any system is designed, political or non (even computers), it is open to abuse and law breaking. It is very interesting but also important to study the ways it can be 'broken' or hacked in order to continualy improve it.

>>What forest thing? I came up with that analogy on the fly.

You may have but that's a typical reply to hippy soundinding people that i'm sick of. It's like: you are trying to think of ways to improve society and the reply you get when to you criticism of modern society (the forrest thing) is: basically if you don't like our shit go live somewhere else. I could expand on why this is a fucked up reply but as you seem quite intelligent, I don't feel I have to break it down to the last bit.

>>All these things affect the economy, though. For example, love creates demand for products that display love (chocolate, roses, etc...)

I feel like you're studying a bydirectional relationship as if it was unidirectional. First of all the economy is a human created concept. Yes, human needs affect the economy, but to turn it around, the economy REALLY AFFECTS human relationships. People get married to apply for loans or to gain citizenships, become more or less attractive depending on their social status and they act like masters or slaves depending on how property they have. I find your logic cold and biased here. I understand and accept what you say about how the economy is formed and shaped based on human needs but that's hardly the whole of the picture. I'll put it this way: Would you deny that the economy forms and shapes human needs?  (--> Advertising)

Although is doesn't initialy seem relevent, have a look at these two experiments, I think they point out some psychological mechanisms that externaly shape our behaviour. Although not directly related to economy, you can exchange prison with poverty. On the second experiment, you can reach useful conclusions if you exchange the <doctor> authority figure with a <boss>.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmwSC5fS40w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2PGnHHnRMk

>>Most anti-capitalists I encounter are quick to label me a conservative that hates poor people. Sometimes they're irrational enough to declare that I'm being paid by big corporations.

We all tend to do this to some extent. I think it is a (bad) part of a digestion mechanism where being paranoid about secret agency's work and the action of agent provocateurs blinds our judgement. I hope you take these things too seriously.

>>I've never really looked into neo-liberalism at great depth, so I don't know if there are any differences. I question why liberalism would be associated with a total free market, however, as most liberals seem to think corporations are evil things out to destroy the planet.

I think you would be surprised by the similarities with anarcho-capitalism and also by the disasters it has caused so far. Have a look , you might find it interesting and i'm realy curious to hear what you think about it (honestly): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

>>44
In an anarchist society, this would be done by open assemblies. In communism, similarly, it would be done by the party which is prety much the same but with different democratic rules. Of course the above highly depend on the schools of thought of each political theory and the subjective characteristics of the society it is implemented on.

Google zapatism and marinaleda for some living examples.

>>53
Yes but no. I've been thinking the same think about the use of the internet for real (direct) democracy and in the past I have supported exactly what you're saying. But I've reached the conclusion that the inernet is definately a perfect tool for the voting part, but the actual democratic discussion should be done in person, wearing full face masks prederably. (The mask thing has nothing to do with rioting or terrorism. It has the purpose of hiding the identity of the speaker so that the people who listen can judge his/her words for what they are, not who speaks them (a defence for ad hominem attacks).) The reason I've come to believe that the conversation should be done in person is that through the internet people are detached from each other, they don't feel each other's pain and agonies and they tend to make colder decissions. Hope this makes sense to you because i'm not a native speaker and i'm not sure how well I've said it.

>>37
I'm sick of people saying capitalism is built on authoritarian relationships. The boss/ worker relationship is not authoritarian. The reason workers don't have a say in the means of production is because that's not what they're paid to do. A blue-collar worker is contracted to work, not to contribute ideas or dictate how the company is run. A boss simply manages, and he trades money for labor, whether that labor be intellectual or physical. You could argue that workers aren't getting a fair trade for their labor, that's OK. Maybe someone's risk is higher than their reward. What you can't  argue is that the worker doesn't have enough power. Of course he doesn't have power, it's not his company, he is simply trading his  labor for money or other benefits. Simply working somewhere does not entitle you to make decisions on how the company is run. That's left to the people who actually run the company. If you start you're own business, you hire people to work, not to usurp your position. Ultimately, you were the on e who risked your capital, so you should make the executive decision. It's more authoritarian to claim that doing physical labor somehow entitles you the same benefits as the person who created the ideas and invested in it. Capitalism is strictly contractual. If you wish to start a cooperative company where everyone is involved in the decision making, then fine, that's actually legal in capitalism. You can run your company however you wish. But to take a mutual agreement between employer and worker, and claim the worker should have control even though it wasn't in the original contract, is authoritarian.

　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜　VIVA MEOWXICO! and ALBERTOO DEL RRRIO!
　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　 ＼
　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
　 .　　　 ノく＿＿========つ--
　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣

>>64
Wow! What a bunch of bollocks. Do you actually believe all this shit you're spewing out?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery

>>66
He certainly could.  In fact, his ilk is the the scariest kind of person to you because, entrepreneurial spirit willing, they strive to create an honest consentual system built upon those foundations while all you can do is look upon it sputtering in bewilderment.

>>66
Wage slavery is irrelevant to my post. I support fair wages for labor, what I do not support is public ownership of the means of production. Again, a employee-employer relationship is contractual and mostly dealing with money, insurance or benefits. What employment does not guarantee is power. No group has the right to take by force another's private property, home or business. The man who starts or runs a business owns it, and thereby makes the most important decisions. The worker works. You can argue he deserves more money for his labor, but you cannot argue he owns his place of employment, since that was never contractually agreed upon.

This criticism of marxism is good, it means that ethical humanists can move beyond socialism and maybe even anarchism towards a post-socialist intellectual life. Of course many have done so already and they must be aghast at the scarce progress we are making so it's high time we catch up and get the ball rolling to reject marxism in it's entirety. So what have we learned so far?

1: Wages aren't the cause of wage slavery, neither are they significant "force multipliers" in service of exploitation, in order for the conditions of wage slavery to exist the means of production must be collectivized by the state. Blaming wages is like blaming the knife for a murder.

2: Exploitation and corruption is present in both centrally planned and capitalist modes of production, neither extinguish these problems from society, however centrally planned economies are far more corrupt since they have the top down approach of ideologues and tyrants, sticking their fingers into everything as a policy, as opposed to capitalism where the state is only called apon to solve problems where it can, thus precipitating debate concerning whether the state should intervene and closing most loopholes that the plutocracy can use to facilitate the conditions for wage slavery.

The word "wage-slavery" doesn't make sense.

Ask yourself, if you ask a man to cut your grass for $20, or about $7 an hour. He consents and you pay him. Your grass is cut and the man leaves with $20, both parties happy.

How have you enslaved the man?

It seems by labeling simple economic exchanges of goods for money as slavery diminishes the true meaning of "slavery," which is ownership of another human being. To conflate paying someone a wage with the brutal and reprehensible act of treating a person like cattle is stupid and dishonest.

>>70
When you can't afford to have children, then you know it's wage slavery.

>>68
You may support fair wages. So do I and everyone else in the system we live in. But things don't always work like that. There will always be someone who will abuse their position as bosses and will drop wages to the minimum possible. This isn't even hard considering the unemployment. Once people are impoverished, they have even more need for any kind of work ands this in turn makes them easier to abuse all the way back to slavery. The problem with the wage system is that it is not self regulated. In fact, it is self-deregulated. That's the problem. It only works in a perfect social environment with no unemployment.

 Oh, and I forgot to mention that workers don't have any negotiation means compared to the employer. In the majority of the jobs, the wage is set and the worket either takes it or leaves. With plenty of unemployed people going for the same jobs, the employer has a massive negotiational advantage over the prospective employee. In order to guarantee a fair deal, the two sides need equal negotiating power. Otherwise the stronger will abuse the weaker and in our case the employer the employee. Of course exceptions do exist when a worker is highly specialized and therefore has less competition and more negotiating power but for the majority of workers this doesn't happen.

>>69
:1: Wages aren't the cause of wage slavery, neither are they significant "force multipliers" in service of exploitation, in order for the conditions of wage slavery to exist the means of production must be collectivized by the state. Blaming wages is like blaming the knife for a murder.

I really don't understand why you take for granted that wages aren't the cause of wage slavery unless the state controls production. The most extreme cases of wage slavery can be observed where the state has minimal or no interference. Take the gold mining in South Africa for example, or the oil refineries in Nigeria for example. The (corrupt)states have truly minimal interference there.

:2: Exploitation and corruption is present in both centrally planned and capitalist modes of production, neither extinguish these problems from society, however centrally planned economies are far more corrupt since they have the top down approach of ideologues and tyrants, sticking their fingers into everything as a policy, as opposed to capitalism where the state is only called apon to solve problems where it can, thus precipitating debate concerning whether the state should intervene and closing most loopholes that the plutocracy can use to facilitate the conditions for wage slavery.

I tend to agree that centralised systems are more prone to corruption. That's one reason why I like anarchy. But I find the above somehow irrelevant since we're comparing two different forms of stateless systems (anarchism and anarcho-capitalism)

:This criticism of marxism is good, it means that ethical humanists can move beyond socialism and maybe even anarchism towards a post-socialist intellectual life. Of course many have done so already and they must be aghast at the scarce progress we are making so it's high time we catch up and get the ball rolling to reject marxism in it's entirety. So what have we learned so far?

Yes, criticism is always good but you shouldn't start criticizing based on what you want to 'get rid of' because this makes you biased and leads YOU to possibly mistaken conclusions. There's totally wrong philosophy. There are good points literally across the political spectrum. Marx for example has made one of the most thorough analysis of capitalism. It would be stupid to reject it altogether because you don't like some parts of it. As for anarchists, I believe they have studied human oppression more than any other group. Their contribution is exceptionally valuable whether you accept their conclusions or not. As for moving past Marxism and anarchism, I find any kind of progress good but this might be a bit premature (still desirable). Society hasn't matured enough to accept socialism, communism and anarchy (which are supposed to replace each other). Thinking further ahead is good, after all the ideas mentioned above were created 200+ years ago.

Take the gold mining in South Africa for example, or the oil refineries in Nigeria for example. The (corrupt)states have truly minimal interference there.
The difference between that and this is that your examples are examples of truly corrupt systems that don't consider equity or fairness between employee and management (owners?) in the least.  The existing employment market may seem Stygian to you but even it produces an abhor of companies that don't treat their workers fairly or shortchanges them in some way.  And not always in the same way as another company in that same "abhor" group.  The worker still has the right to look for work he wants or likes to do and refuse work he does not want or like to do.

As for anarchists, I believe they have studied human oppression more than any other group.
That in the same vein may also be a potentially mistaken conclusion.  All the veins you mentioned in following would have to follow a system of society betterment where corruption and subjugation has been removed, something that many niches in this generation and generations before mine have tried to bring about without realizing that truly adopting such a system creates the system's own vacuum, one that is easily dwarfed even by a corrupt system that current exists, even a waning one.

Capitalism, I believe, has always had a leg up because it recognizes that human oppression exists, bitterly or not, but, barring sociopolitical ills that can be moved beyond or exchanged for lessened ills, strives to create a system where the oppression continues to decrease, striving to reach a point of balance, rather than assuming one exists.  Instead of trying to do away with oppression or transform the concept of human interaction, it tries to foster an environment where these inevitabilities can exist in benign, hobbled forms.  Anarchy and socialism as it is today is often sold as a balance if not a form of purity.

penis

>>75
Somebody call me?

>>74
>The difference between that and this is that your examples are examples of truly corrupt systems that don't consider equity or fairness between employee and management (owners?) in the least.  The existing employment market may seem Stygian to you but even it produces an abhor of companies that don't treat their workers fairly or shortchanges them in some way.  And not always in the same way as another company in that same "abhor" group.  The worker still has the right to look for work he wants or likes to do and refuse work he does not want or like to do.

I used examples of extreme corruption to emphasise the mechanism. Most profit driven organizations would use corruption if that will bring them more profit. As corruption is inherent to most if not all systems, the spiralling of corruption and higher profit for a minority at the expense of the majority (there are always more employees than employers). A good example to study the inequality mechanism produced by paid labour would be: If an employee is paid 100, the employer will always make 100+ (otherwise he would fire the employee). After each unit time the employee will get poorer compared to the employer. Considering there are not infinite resources/wealth, this (oversimplified) mechanism has a dead end where the employer has all the money and the employee nothing.

 We can use the term wage slavery from the point where the wage doesn't cover the worker's (extended) basic needs and there is a level of unemployment that makes it more worth to compromise with the employers demands than to risk remaining jobless, homeless etc.

 From a market perspective, there is no consideration about how this worker will survive. The cold answer is crime or death and crime will always be aimed at the rich. Therefore, in a sense the worker will still get 'work' and 'get paid' but in a much more anti-social and usualy violent way. (The trick for the capitalist is to buy enough protection to turn crime towards those poorer than him and therefore, even if he sacks the employee, he will still pay extra money to 'make up' for the wage he didn't pay.

 From a humanist perspective, a viable political system needs to protect its subjects and provide them with stability and prosperity. Therefore it has to come up with a mechanism to pensure that everyone gets a minimum, basic part of the wealth to survive. Take that away and you cause anti-social behaviour.

>Capitalism, I believe, has always had a leg up because it recognizes that human oppression exists, bitterly or not, but, barring sociopolitical ills that can be moved beyond or exchanged for lessened ills, strives to create a system where the oppression continues to decrease, striving to reach a point of balance, rather than assuming one exists.

I believe that, even though the absolute lack of oppresion is animaginable, there is oppression that is produced by the system itself. I see the interaction between the person and the system as biderectional by definition. So that freedom is expressed by the system that will suit itself to human needs and desires the easiest. That's why I orient myself towards social anarchy and zapatizm where individual freedom is seen as conceptually connected with social equality and emphasize community and mutual aid. Because they supply the policy making mechanisms that allow the individual to decide on policy instead of simply choosing the least bad representative.

So one of my arguements with anarcho-capitalism is that it focuses solely on market, disregards the well being of the people and wants the services that the system currently provides on private hands (including law/judiciary services under friedman).

>>74
Anarchy and socialism as it is today is often sold as a balance if not a form of purity.

Depends on what level you look it on. If we're talking about books, then it is served as the solution to the capitalist contradictions and dead ends. If we're talking about the internet and conversations, then I've heard so much shit from socialist/anarchist wannabes (the austerity measusres in greece were taken by a socialist governmant) that if I hadn't read any books I'd be an anti-socialist.

The truth is that we can't be sure about anything. There are no guarantees, only hypotesis' and projections. That's why doupting and being skeptical is so usefull.

>>78

Which books?

>>79
"Wage-Labor and Capital" by Carl Marx (1847) was beginning to trace how the how capitalist economy works, why it was exploitative, and ultimately why it would eventually implode from within.

Twenty years later, "Das Kapital" by Marx again made a more thourough research of capitalism. This is one of the books that must be read (I haven't read it either).

Communism was created in response to Marx's analysis of capitalism and in his document "Critique of the Gotha Programme" he starts to describe the passing phases from capitalism to socialism and then communism.

 (From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_the_Gotha_Programme )
"" The Critique is also notable for elucidating the principle of "To each according to his contribution" as the basis for a "lower phase" of communist society directly following the transition from capitalism, and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as the basis for a future "higher phase" of communism society. In describing the lower phase, he says that "the individual receives from society exactly what he gives to it." The Critique of the Gotha Program, published after his death, was one of Marx's last major writings. ""

From there on, during the First International, Bakunin argued with marx about the necessity of the state, resulting to the divide between anarchy and communism. Therefore, anarchy can be thought of as the phase after the higher level of communism.

Under the above timeline, Anarcho-capitalism would be like the long snake in a snakes and ladders board game, taking you back to where you started.

　　　　　　　　 　 /二\
　　　　　　 　　　(￣＼__ク　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜　I' LOVE AND RESPECT JAPAN AND NICO ROBIN!
　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　 ＼　I
　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿　
　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
　 .　　　 ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼
　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
　　 ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |

the long snake in a snakes and ladders board game, taking you back to where you started
You've just triggered bad, traumatic memories!

>>82

You've just niggered my bike!

>>13
using post-structuralist and postmodernist approaches
Meaningless logical fallacies.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/824-postmodernism-disrobed

Dawkins goes on to ramble about god later but the first few paragraphs illustrate an important point.

It seems I am being told to ignore logic because it proves that sitting around dreaming about how perfect the world would be if everyone would just become perfect morally righteous anarchists anarchists is pointless. I'm tired of paying attention to anarchism, I have as of yet never found a practical explanation of how an anarchist society would work.

If anarchy is just a value and really you'd have some kind of democracy (doesn't matter if you call it a worker's council or a commune) then the democracy will be a state so it won't be anarchy, anarchy won't be the only value and anarchism is more or less irrelevant.

Anarchism requires that people cooperate for mutual gain entirely through autonomy which is expecting too much.


The only way to salvage anarchism is the former option, to take it as a value, specifically the nature of the state as a monopoly over force and accept that while it is ethical to choose the lesser of evils because a perfect anarchist utopia is not a possibility that we should not ignore the state's flaws and keep up pressure to root out corruption, then leave it at that.

>>84
>>If anarchy is just a value and really you'd have some kind of democracy (doesn't matter if you call it a worker's council or a commune) then the democracy will be a state so it won't be anarchy, anarchy won't be the only value and anarchism is more or less irrelevant.

My friend, anarchy is not what it is sometimes mistaken for: A system with no rules and no order. Anarchy in a political sense in nothing but direct democracy. The state still exists if you want to consider the assembly or council a state, but it is governed from the bottom up instead of the other way around.

>>Anarchism requires that people cooperate for mutual gain entirely through autonomy which is expecting too much.

This is another misconception about anarchy that even anarchists make. Anarchy is not meant to happen right now. It was initially thought of as the stage after high level communism, when the workers will have made the elit class obsolete, have fully digested communism and therefore, the state stops being useful, therefore needs to be taken down in order to remove the final bit of oppression that is created by it. You are absolutely right considering that many if not most of today's anarchists are thinking of it as something that might happen within their lifetime. Personally, I don't think I will live long enough to see it happen. (Saying that, the zapatistas are sometimes considered to be a living anarchist society, but I wouldn't call it that.)

PS. More will follow, I need to go right now...

I hope 34 is a troll. But even if he is one, i am amazed by the production of people with such wolrdview by the "american way of life"

>>87

Not American, faggot, don't even like American culture. Try again, this time with an actual argument.

Oops, I forgot I had left that in the middle. I've lost my flow now.

what happened to this discussion, it was good

>>90
Who the hell are you to pass judgement on this discussion? Is that what you do all day? Sit around and pass judgement on things?...

>>91
It's agood discussion, okay? You disagree?

>>92
It may be a good discussion or it may not be. It's not my place to judge.
You probably judge people, too...by their skin color, don't you?
I bet you do  omg your racism is out of control, I hate you.

It was a fucking good thread and I'm afraid it was me who fucked it by saying I would post more and totally forgetting about it : /

mercantilism

that is all

What do you think of this thing that I've come up with dubbed "University Model"...

Where states are heavily reduced in size, to the point that they encompass only a small town or university sized area.

This increases competition between states heavily, and gives people a lot more freedom.

If you've ever gone to university, you know what I mean. Security guards patrol the campus and act as police, there are numerous facilities available for use, and most things are paid for by your uni fees, or 'taxes'.

>>96
genius I like the idea but i think that it doesnt need to be quite that small maybe more like half the size of the mid size american states. obviously excluding california and the more populated areas that could be broken down smaller

>>96
It reminds me a bit of "inclussive democracy". Have a look at this:

http://www.inclusivedemocracy.org/journal/vol3/vol3_no1_Homs_urban_villages.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ&feature=related

Local government should be strong and direct democratic but we still need a central state, we should be heavily critical of such centralized power and never pretend it's anything other than a bunch of sociopathic narcissists who have bullied their way into power whom are a necessary evil, but we still need it.

>>100
That's great in theory, but hardly anyone gives enough of a shit about local politics to make it work effectively. I'll be willing to bet most people here don't even know who represents their district in their state legislature for example.

>>101
A relevant factor, you must be careful not to lean towards the "if people would just do this and this the world would be a better place" side of reasoning, the main causes of apathy towards local government seem to be the powerlessness of local government and the general boredom of getting involved with politics, even people who do care will not be interested in fighting some futile battle to transfer powers to their local government and reform the voting system. On the other hand if you don't push for new ideas at all then there would never be any positive changes, this idea should be at least laid on the table since it is the most realistic route towards achieving some kind of fruity utopia.

Grass roots action is one option, take for example the Amish who were made exempt from sending their children to state schools after a lengthy legal battle, as global warming and various problems arise there will be more stresses placed on the economy, society and government and people may decide they don't want a lengthy legal battle every time they want to make a small change in their communities, they will want direct control over their own lives.

Okay. To make this conversation constructive, rather than antagonistic, what I see in common in almost all posters is that everyone agrees with decentrallization and the progressive weakening of central government. In that case, let's start pusshing it through, because regardless if you are libertarian, anarchist ar anarcho-capitalist or even federalist, that's what you want. Once local communities start taking self-control, they can decide what's best for them. Our theories and beliefs are still valid, but in the end of the day, it is a democratic right of each community to choose which if any of our theories and beliefs suits them best. I don't think any of us wants totalitarianism or fascism in their countries, so there's nothing wrong with proposing whatever you think best and let theothers decide. Welcome to democracy :)

SECEDE! SECEDE! SECEDE! SECEDE! SECEDE! SECEDE! SECEDE!

To Reduce the weight and burden of the Federal Government, the power should be removed and returned to the State Authority.

When the weight and burden of the State Gov is too burdensome,
The power should be removed to a Count/Municipal Authority.

When the Burden and weight of the Municipal Authority is too great, the power should be removed to a community-based authority.

When the burden of the community is great, take personal authority.  

If you are at odds with your community, move!
If you are at odds with your city, move!
If you are at odds with your state, move!
If you are at odds with your Federation, Revolt!

Good thread bump

I shall bump also. How the hell did the conversation/debate suddenly cease?

>>15
yes pretty much like taoism

>>107
Sounds retarded, we should send all taoists to the gas chambers.

>>108
Sieg heil!

I have not once heard a compelling argument demonstrating why social darwinism is a bad thing.

>>110
Think of the children!

Still samefagging to attract attention eh?

Sad...

>>112
At least I don't fuck little girls in THEIR ANUS

http://krautchan.net/files/1302773399001.jpg

>>113
You don't know what you're missing.

Pro tip: Stop messing with little boys and focus on girls.

PS.
Unless you are a catholic priest...

Bump

bampu pantsu

I am not sure if anarcho-capitalism really misses the point of anarchy entirely, but to me places like Medieval Iceland and the American Old West (which contain elements of anarcho-capitalism) sound like such better places to live then the current system of government than 2011 northeast united states.

I am not sure if anarcho-capitalism really misses the point of anarchy entirely, but to me places like Medieval Iceland and the American Old West (which contain elements of anarcho-capitalism) sound like such better places to live then the current system of government than 2011 northeast united states.

Damn i didn't know there was already an An-Cap thread, OP or any other Anti-State Free Marketers don't fall for the equality, exploitation, or that Free Markets automatically means corporatism BS.

Traditional Anarchists have been blinded to believe that corporatism derived from a free market, when in reality they come from state intervention that causes barriers to entry.

People who state its "good in theory" are

 "Appealing to “reality” which is common among stupid people. The first sign of a pseudo-intellectual is that they talk about being a “realist” and “living in the real world”. When arguing about stuff, you’re arguing about the real world, Everyone is trying to model the real world effectively." Ryan Faulk

http://www.youtube.com/user/fringeelements
http://www.youtube.com/user/CSMIRRORMirror
http://www.youtube.com/user/ForAnEmergentGov
just some good vids to start from if anyones interested, the guys name is Ryan Faulk.
He also believes other forms of stateless societies can exist as long as some prerequisites are met.

>>121
Please see >>26

>>122
Aww my bad i just saw 121 posts and went "tldr".
Meh i really just wanted show Ryan to people who i think is one of the more rational anti statists unlike others like Stefan Molyneux who i used to admire(and still do for introducing me to Anti statism) who use "morality" as their main argument against the state which is subjective.

>>111
Maybe the parents should actually you know be ready to have the kid before they think to fuck. If the chick was raped then abort it, if she doesn't abort it then its her responsibility unless people want to help voluntarily.

>>121
So it's wrong to be logical and realistic now? Sounds like scientologists when they try to claim that psychiatrists are evil.

You haven't even admitted the fact that the use of force can only be minimized not completely eliminated yet, the entire conversation is at an impasse because of shitty little irrational quibbles like this claim now that being logical and rational is evil.

>>125
saying its "good in theory" and then not providing any sound arguments to why hardly seems logical. Most of the arguments against it have been debunked. The only reasonable arguments against it left are problems that pale in comparison to the current society.

If you still don't like it, that's fine nobody is trying to force you off your "state". People like me on the other hand would like to be able to set up a truly legitimate society with poly-centric law and a free market that would be a million times better than the US could ever be.

Evil is very relative. Reality is much worse.