NationStates

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:

Mercatus wrote:
If people decide to fuck with other people and violate non-aggression, you can expect a justified violent reaction should another body not take action. Some state functions are replaced by corporations, but not to the extent of legislating, any rules of which would be unenforceable because of the freedom of people to ignore everything but the NAP. Also, with the way Ancapism is intended to be brought about, sudden dissolution of the state simply isn’t part of the equation. The idea is educating enough people about the realities of what is happening in a statist world, and gradually higher percentages of people will regard the state as illegitimate by not paying taxes, not abiding by arbitrary laws, etc. and the state withers away and dies, along with any state benefits to corporations, which themselves may be staffed by those who recognize the state as criminal. Admittedly, bringing about such a liberation would possibly be the longest and most difficult journey of any idea, but the key is fixing education to not foster state worship, itself an extremely difficult task. However, it was a long and difficult road to the first democracies, which I regard as a step in the process of granting freedom to people, but it is not the solution. Ancapism would rise from maintaining a moral high ground and spreading the ideology to the masses, not through violent revolution like in other anarchist ideologies or just most other non-democratic ideologies in general.

You sound like a utopian socialist: you have a rose-tinted model of revolution. Also, even today, the state operates on coercion. You don't like it and think its illegitimate? It doesn't care. A corporation doesn't care if you don't like it replicating the functions of the state. Rights are only as good as whoever enforces them and in the individualist anarchist systems without some sort of cooperative structure, they won't last against the corporate onslaught. The corporations make the most profit when they've installed themselves as the state.

Also, anarcho-syndicalism does not support a violent revolution; instead, it calls for the general strike to overturn capitalism.

Mercatus wrote:

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:
You sound like a utopian socialist: you have a rose-tinted model of revolution. Also, even today, the state operates on coercion. You don't like it and think its illegitimate? It doesn't care. A corporation doesn't care if you don't like it replicating the functions of the state. Rights are only as good as whoever enforces them and in the individualist anarchist systems without some sort of cooperative structure, they won't last against the corporate onslaught. The corporations make the most profit when they've installed themselves as the state.

Also, anarcho-syndicalism does not support a violent revolution; instead, it calls for the general strike to overturn capitalism.

I am not a socialist. I am a capitalist in every way. The point isn’t to undo the existence of corporations, but in a society where the only law is the NAP, it becomes pretty hard to assume state-like control. The state owns all land within its borders, even if people are permitted to live on property they call their own, they can only do so because the state lets them. Because the state has a monopoly on land, when it becomes nonexistent, corporations would have to buy all of the land to take control. Any land they acquire would have to be sold to them by a current owner, and a military-like takeover of, say, the entire mainland US, is probably well out of reach for corporations. Prior to the dissolution of the state, more and more assets will have been privatized because they couldn’t be funded as more and more refuse to pay taxes. Police, courts, public transport, education, and other state enterprises would be in the hands of businesses who sell their service to the population for profit. To assume control, corporations need to buy all of these newly privatized services, but the truth is many of the biggest corporations don’t have a large number of employees capable of running those services. Former state-employed judges, cops, bus drivers, teachers and whatnot would go into business for themselves.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Caleonia wrote:Do you really think the American people would actually trust their government managing the entire economy of a multiethnic nation that gets its grimy little hands into just about anything in the world?

No. But I'm not asking to abolish the free market and have centralised government control of the economy, am I?

Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing. Socialism is not the same thing as a state-run economy.

Edit: If you don't trust the US government to manage the economy, maybe you also shouldn't trust for profit corporations to do so, yet people seem to have no problem with giving Unilever total control of the food supply.

Mercatus wrote:

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:
You sound like a utopian socialist: you have a rose-tinted model of revolution. Also, even today, the state operates on coercion. You don't like it and think its illegitimate? It doesn't care. A corporation doesn't care if you don't like it replicating the functions of the state. Rights are only as good as whoever enforces them and in the individualist anarchist systems without some sort of cooperative structure, they won't last against the corporate onslaught. The corporations make the most profit when they've installed themselves as the state.

Also, anarcho-syndicalism does not support a violent revolution; instead, it calls for the general strike to overturn capitalism.

I am not a socialist. I am a capitalist in every way. The point isn’t to undo the existence of corporations, but in a society where the only law is the NAP, it becomes pretty hard to assume state-like control. The state owns all land within its borders, even if people are permitted to live on property they call their own, they can only do so because the state lets them. Because the state has a monopoly on land, when it becomes nonexistent, corporations would have to buy all of the land to take control. Any land they acquire would have to be sold to them by a current owner, and a military-like takeover of, say, the entire mainland US, is probably well out of reach for corporations. Prior to the dissolution of the state, more and more assets will have been privatized because they couldn’t be funded as more and more refuse to pay taxes. Police, courts, public transport, education, and other state enterprises would be in the hands of businesses who sell their service to the population for profit. To assume control, corporations need to buy all of these newly privatized services, but the truth is many of the biggest corporations don’t have a large number of employees capable of running those services. Former state-employed judges, cops, bus drivers, teachers and whatnot would go into business for themselves.

Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States wrote:

Caleonia wrote:Do you really think the American people would actually trust their government managing the entire economy of a multiethnic nation that gets its grimy little hands into just about anything in the world?

No. But I'm not asking to abolish the free market and have centralised government control of the economy, am I?

Capitalism and free markets are not the same thing. Socialism is not the same thing as a state-run economy.

Edit: If you don't trust the US government to manage the economy, maybe you also shouldn't trust for profit corporations to do so, yet people seem to have no problem with giving Unilever total control of the food supply.

Australian rePublic wrote:Well for one thing, we could learn from SJWs. SJWs some how have a huge voice but waste it on trying to solve imaginary problems, rather than solving actual problems. We need to learn how they manage to change everything