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