Question for Anarchists

[RyanWoj]

In a true anarchy, who has all the power and who stands to gain the most?

With all the kids running around calling themselves anarchists this question is relevant. They would not like the answer posted below.

[RyanWoj]

What do these anarchists hate more than anything? Corporations

First of all, without government, corporations will now be the sole supplier of security services. Secondly, without government intervention and meddling, business will thrive like never before.

Not a bad system if you ask me. What I can't figure out is why these leftists support it. The fact is todays anarchists have no idea what anarchy is; I guess it just sounds cool.

See Murray Rothbard for more on anarcho-capitalism (they call it anarcho-capitalism even though true anarchy is necessarily capitalist; the only way to stop capitalism is through government).

[tek]

Capitalists control government. Hence, Bush 41's "New World Order" = Fox guarding the henhouse...

[RyanWoj]

"capitalists control government"

Yes, specific businesses do manipulate govt. intervention to their advantage with things like tarriffs, subsidies, anti-trust legislation and other regulations that hurt their competitors more than themselves. However, overall govt. is more of a hindrance to business than a help and its not even close.

[natedogg]

Yes, specific businesses do manipulate govt. intervention to their advantage with things like tarriffs, subsidies, anti-trust legislation and other regulations that hurt their competitors more than themselves. However, overall govt. is more of a hindrance to business than a help and its not even close.

When the govt intervenes on behalf of a corporate supplicant, that does not mean that "business controls govt", because all other competitors, and the consumers, lose. What is really going on is that one entity has recruited the monopoly force of the state to impose an unfair, anti-capitalist environment to their advantage. While the govt has ostensibly come to the aid of a given corporation, what has really happened is that once again, govt has acted in a way that is detrimental to everyone except for that one special interest.

natedogg

[Dead]

Great post.

[natedogg]

I am leaning more and more towards the anarcho-capitalist position. I'm sold on the lack of need for the state for just about every aspect of our society except for a couple.

1. National defense
2. Personal defense

I even halfway buy the notion that courts and justice can be successfully conducted without the state. But a loose-knit collection of mildy cooperating anarcho-capitalist security services is not going to do much against the Wermacht....

It's in their best interest to rarely resort to violence, so they would have arbitration agreements amongst themselves which their customers would be forced to abide by in the event of disputes between customers of different security corps. This does not create a profit incentive to build a lot of tanks....

The conundrum for me is that I can't really tell the difference between a state that has the monopoly on force, and a corporation that just gets the upperhand by gaining a majority of market share and then following the dictates of it's customer based - eliminating the competitors and forcing everyone else to pay into their social security program..... etc. etc.

And once there's any single entity with a monopoly on force, you inevitably travel the Road to Serfdom, which is where we are today in the good ol USA. And look how it started. The federalists were not only taken seriously, they prevailed.

Today, if you mention federalist you are laughed at by all sides...

natedogg

[bholdr]

WOW!

[ QUOTE ]
What I can't figure out is why these leftists support it. The fact is todays anarchists have no idea what anarchy is; I guess it just sounds cool.


[/ QUOTE ]

YOU are the one who has no idea what anarchisim is all about.

holy crow! i thought Jaxmike was the most uninformed liberal troll on this forum. (since zaxx and felix toned down their rhetoric, and hack and dr wogga disappered)


bzzzzzt! try again!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought Jaxmike was the most uninformed liberal troll on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[InchoateHand]

The theory is that the most ill-informed, obnoxious politics posters actually support the opposite of their ostensible beliefs, and are attempting to tarnish the conservative/liberal name through their moronic exuberance.


Basically, its a way to disown the guys who suck on "your side."

[nicky g]

Left-wing anarchism usually entails the abandonment of the concept of personal property and collective decision making through trade unions (anarcho-syndicalism), local units (by city district, village etc) and so on. It is not simply "no government" and the state of affairs envisaged is not synonymous with anarchy by any means.

[SNOWBALL138]

I'm sorry. Your description of anarchism is very simplistic.
Capitalism is based on private property, which is itself codified by the law. Corporations exist due to corporate charters. How would corporations, much less privately owned productive property exist if not for the government?

[RyanWoj]

Yes, very well put.

Are you a supporter of the Austrian school? L Von Mises, M. Rothbard, FA Hayek, Menger etc...? I am.

[RyanWoj]

Yes, todays anarchists are not really anarchist, just like todays socialists are not really socialist.

[RyanWoj]

See nicky g's post.

Why don't you give us your conception of anarchy?

[RyanWoj]

"How would corporations, much less privately owned productive property exist if not for the government?"

By having more guns than those that seek to violate their property. You seem to think people are utterly helpless without government. Why would people cease to make cooperative investments and trade freely amongst themselves just because there is no govt? Only way to stop these things is through govt. force.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, todays anarchists are not really anarchist, just like todays socialists are not really socialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, today's "liberals" are not really liberal.

[RyanWoj]

Yes, national defense poses a problem. I'm about where your at, not completely sold on anarchy. I actually think the constitution, as originally intended, is a pretty darn good start. Trouble is, it was apparently unable to prevent centralization.

[RyanWoj]

Yea, we discussed that in my post on socialism. Somehow, in the States, liberal came to mean the opposite of its original meaning.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, todays anarchists are not really anarchist, just like todays socialists are not really socialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The above has been what classical anarchism has always about. Anarchism has never been simply about abolishing government or the promotion of anarchy. If you look at early anarchists such as Proudhon, Kropotkin and so on, they talk about this kind of thing. As such "anarchism" may not be an ideal term for it; libertarian socialism is a better one. But the term anarchism has never seriously denoted a movement that wanted to simply abolish government and end there.

[RyanWoj]

Okay, so even yesterdays anarchists were not really anarchist.

[bholdr]

oh *hit! of course you know what i mean!

[bholdr]

my conception is unimportant: link (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/coldoffthepresses/bernerikropotkin.html)

this is a good site for info

sry for my combative tone earlier: i had just returned from some heated political discussions at my local pub. I hate those stupid kids all dressed in black too.

[SNOWBALL138]

Why would any capitalist invest in R&D w/o intellectual property laws to protect him?

Have you ever owned a business? Can you imagine what it would be like if you couldn't sue your partner?

Can you imagine what would happen if contractors were able to get up and walk away from a contract after they hired a manufacturer to produce x amount of goods?

How would credit be possible without banks/currency?

How would trade be possible w/o standard weights and measures/roads/currency?

Modern capitalism cannot and never will exist without the State.

[SNOWBALL138]

For the record, the constitution was not supposed to prevent centralization. Surely you realize that national unification has historically been a precondition for the development of commodities production, as this is the surest way to stop tariffs.

[QuadsOverQuads]

What is really going on is that one entity has recruited the monopoly force of the state to impose an unfair, anti-capitalist environment to their advantage.

Every business ultimately strives for monopoly and monopoly power. That is fundamental to the functioning of capitalism -- the competition to triumph over all competitors. Anything less implies collusion / anticompetitive behavior and is a therefore a form of market failure.

Discuss /images/graemlins/smile.gif


q/q

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

What is really going on is that one entity has recruited the monopoly force of the state to impose an unfair, anti-capitalist environment to their advantage.

Every business ultimately strives for monopoly and monopoly power. That is fundamental to the functioning of capitalism -- the competition to triumph over all competitors. Anything less implies collusion / anticompetitive behavior and is a therefore a form of market failure.

Discuss /images/graemlins/smile.gif


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect. That is spectacularly incorrect.

natedogg

[Dead]

It all sounds accurate to me, except for it being an example of market failure.

[Bjorn]

The one (can be an individual or group) with the biggest/best/most guns and the will to use them.

Anarchy will almost automatically be followed by despotism.

/Bjorn