Anarchy vs Governance - Merged Topics

[Kubra]

But if I don't become fat or die in '[S]ome sort of sugar explosion', wouldn't I be happier? After all, it was a pretty base urge to eat that cake and I'd hate myself for doing so afterwords. The freedom to do so made me fat and unhappy.

Well now ya know eating the cake won't make you happy!
So rather than constantly finding cake in order to achieve that little bit of happiness, you'll just abandon cake altogether!
Right? Right?....Right?

But I do need him to stop me if I don't want to get fat or die.

Awww, he can say "I told you so" when you're wallowing in your sorrow/the sugary remnants of what might have been your large intestine

[Conserative Morality]

Well now ya know eating the cake won't make you happy!
So rather than constantly finding cake in order to achieve that little bit of happiness, you'll just abandon cake altogether!
Right? Right?....Right?

I'm pretty sure if it were that easy dieters would have a much easier time of it.

Awww, he can say "I told you so" when you're wallowing in your sorrow/the sugary remnants of what might have been your large intestine

But then I'd be dead/unhappy/fat.

[ZombieRothbard]

These threads inevitably end with people who do not understand what anarchists advocate, straw manning the position so erroneously that it angers me. You would think after hundreds of these threads, people would begin to figure out that anarchists don't oppose leadership, organizational structures, voluntary co-operation, and some do not oppose government.

But Natapoc would say your not a real anarchist.

No offense intended towards Natapoc or any leftist anarchists, but I believe their ideology to be utopian. I feel like any stateless society would become a market anarchist society, the variety of which depending largely on the cultural value's of the members of society. Based on that premise, I think you could say that there is no such thing as a real anarchist, because I see far left forms of anarchism to be more like preferred styles of living. It would be like calling myself an Anarcho-Bohemian. I like to live a bohemian lifestyle, but I don't believe it is realistic for all of society to live bohemian lifestyles. To tie it to leftist anarchism, they like to live communally, but it is not realistic for all of society to live that kind of lifestyle.

[Kubra]

I'm pretty sure if it were that easy dieters would have a much easier time of it.

Dieters need to stop dieting and start binging!
Being healthy can't bring you happiness!
Only rolling down a steep hill with your fat rolls can.

But then I'd be dead/unhappy/fat.

Fat people can't be unhappy, they have so much to eat!

[Terra Agora]

But Natapoc would say your not a real anarchist.

No offense intended towards Natapoc or any leftist anarchists, but I believe their ideology to be utopian. I feel like any stateless society would become a market anarchist society, the variety of which depending largely on the cultural value's of the members of society. Based on that premise, I think you could say that there is no such thing as a real anarchist, because I see far left forms of anarchism to be more like preferred styles of living. It would be like calling myself an Anarcho-Bohemian. I like to live a bohemian lifestyle, but I don't believe it is realistic for all of society to live bohemian lifestyles. To tie it to leftist anarchism, they like to live communally, but it is not realistic for all of society to live that kind of lifestyle.

I agree with you completely. Though I wouldn't say left anarchism = communal or collectivist.

[Natapoc]

These threads inevitably end with people who do not understand what anarchists advocate, straw manning the position so erroneously that it angers me. You would think after hundreds of these threads, people would begin to figure out that anarchists don't oppose leadership, organizational structures, voluntary co-operation, and some do not oppose government.

But Natapoc would say your not a real anarchist.

I believe that Mutualism is a legitimate form of anarchism. But just don't see how ancap could be.

[Natapoc]

But Natapoc would say your not a real anarchist.

No offense intended towards Natapoc or any leftist anarchists, but I believe their ideology to be utopian. I feel like any stateless society would become a market anarchist society, the variety of which depending largely on the cultural value's of the members of society. Based on that premise, I think you could say that there is no such thing as a real anarchist, because I see far left forms of anarchism to be more like preferred styles of living. It would be like calling myself an Anarcho-Bohemian. I like to live a bohemian lifestyle, but I don't believe it is realistic for all of society to live bohemian lifestyles. To tie it to leftist anarchism, they like to live communally, but it is not realistic for all of society to live that kind of lifestyle.

I don't agree. It's not a preferred lifestyle. It's the belief that capitalism creates unjust inequalities in freedom similar or identical to that of state power.

I do not believe the use of money is helpful and feel that it is an undesirable distraction and impediment to freedom and happiness.

There are of course legitimate anarchists who disagree with me about greatly. I just don't see how anyone who advocates "archy" can be called an anarchist. Those individuals who view "archy" as necessary may be wonderful people with great ideas who value freedom but they are not anarchists.

[Meryuma]

Given anarchy is basically the State of nature? No, it wouldn’t.

It's not.

You both seem to believe that rulers cannot be overthrown, and that a leader will step down or only be followed because they have good ideas.

I do?

No I was only pointing out there is a difference.

An example of a leader could be your boss.

An example of a ruler is the president or any other government official that uses coercion.

Terra, how did the bosses get there?

What do you mean by social power?

As human interaction will clearly tell you, some people hold more influence within a group than others. Not binding influence, but influence nevertheless.

Sounds more like the authority or a bootmaker or scientist then that of a hierarchical ruler.

there is a reason it is called "Anarchism: it comes from he word Anarchy which means "confusion; chaos; disorder"
aybe in a perfect world where no one broke the rules and everyone bottled up their emotions but in the reak world you always have cycopaths, nurderers, rapists, mentally ill(who do not fit in the above catagories, my point is their would need to be someone to take care of them) what would happen if an old person had a heart-attack, who would she get medical help from, there would be no hospitals because hospitals need to fall under the law in issues of things like medical malpractice, if there is no government there are no laws or fair legal courts to oversee these disputes, therefore big hospitals capable of treating hundreds would be no more, that means less money to the owner, less money means less supplies, and less supplies means more people die

You don't know what anarchy is. Anarchy is equality of authority.

[Terra Agora]

Given anarchy is basically the State of nature? No, it wouldn’t.

It's not.

I do?

No I was only pointing out there is a difference.

An example of a leader could be your boss.

An example of a ruler is the president or any other government official that uses coercion.

Terra, how did the bosses get there?

I know were this is going! And yes I agree.

If we ever get to laissez faire hierarchal business would fade away (to an extent mind you).

[Terra Agora]

But Natapoc would say your not a real anarchist.

I believe that Mutualism is a legitimate form of anarchism. But just don't see how ancap could be.

I already told you how AnCap evolved from North American Individualist Anarchism. I even gave sources were some think that AnCap is a form of socialism. I really dont see how they cant fit. Anarchism traditionally was against state capitalism. There was never a free market.

[Meryuma]

It's not.



Terra, how did the bosses get there?

I know were this is going! And yes I agree.

If we ever get to laissez faire hierarchal business would fade away (to an extent mind you).

Yeah, basically a Kevin Carson capitalism was created through force, freed markets would be cooperative-oriented thing. Sam Konkin made basically the same point earlier, as did Tucker and others, but Carson expanded upon it wildly.

[Terra Agora]

I know were this is going! And yes I agree.

If we ever get to laissez faire hierarchal business would fade away (to an extent mind you).

Yeah, basically a Kevin Carson capitalism was created through force, freed markets would be cooperative-oriented thing. Sam Konkin made basically the same point earlier, as did Tucker and others, but Carson expanded upon it wildly.

I wouldn't go as far and say it was through force but then again my economic history is lacking. I think larger businesses would still have some sort of hierarchy for administrative reasons. But I would agree there would be a shift towards equal authority business.

[Senestrum]

99% of all anarchists I've met are utopian ninnies who have hilariously optimistic views of how it's actually going to turn out.

And the 1% that's realistic about it and advocate it anyways are scary motherfuckers.

[ZombieRothbard]

I believe that Mutualism is a legitimate form of anarchism. But just don't see how ancap could be.

I already told you how AnCap evolved from North American Individualist Anarchism. I even gave sources were some think that AnCap is a form of socialism. I really dont see how they cant fit. Anarchism traditionally was against state capitalism. There was never a free market.

I think the problem is that "left anarchists" don't fully integrate the importance of time into their economic theories. A lot of their objections to free markets are based on the concept that interest and rent are unethical. The labor theory of value is the culprit. From what I understand about mutualism, its main ideological divide with anarcho-capitalism is that they push the labor theory of value. I guess the test for what is considered anarchist or not is whether your libertarian ideology conforms to the labor theory of value.

A second refutation of the labor theory of value stems from considerations
of time, risk, and time preference. Labor is always free to
set up shop on its own. That it does not do so, indeed, that it relies
upon capitalists to do so on its behalf, further undermines Carson’s
Marxist contention that capital exploits labor.
What does capital offer to labor? First, time. It takes time before
a factory can be built, raw materials located, insurance undertaken,
labor assembled, machine tools set up in place, etc. All during this
time, before the first final good rolls off the assembly line, capital is
paying labor. Suppose this process takes an entire year. But for this
contribution of the capitalist, the laborer would have to live off his
savings, mortgage his house, sell his car, etc. He could do so. But he
chooses not to. Instead, he chooses to make a deal with the capitalist,
for this precious time. Surely the latter deserves something, whatever
is agreed upon, for this contribution. And what is typically
agreed upon is that the capitalist shall be the residual income
claimant, taking for himself whatever is left over after all factors of
production, certainly including labor, have been paid their contractual
share.
Then, too, there is risk. Suppose that the product does not sell
when offered to the public. At all. Not one single solitary item of it.
Can the capitalist go back to the worker and say, “Remember that
salary I paid you for an entire year, during the time when we were
setting up operations? Well, the item didn’t sell. So, please give me
back the wages I advanced you.” As the residual income claimant,
the entrepreneur can do no such thing. He, not the laborer, is the risk
bearer. The point is, the employee gets his salary for sure, and in
advance of the completion of production and then sale of the good.
Even if this process is not complete for a year or more, the capitalist
will have to wait to be compensated. This is why the worker voluntarily
agrees to the deal.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_4.pdf

[Brodskopolis]

It's called Somalia.

[Conserative Morality]

It's called Somalia.

As a strong Statist...

Somalia is not an anarchic society.

[Terra Agora]

I already told you how AnCap evolved from North American Individualist Anarchism. I even gave sources were some think that AnCap is a form of socialism. I really dont see how they cant fit. Anarchism traditionally was against state capitalism. There was never a free market.

I think the problem is that "left anarchists" don't fully integrate the importance of time into their economic theories. A lot of their objections to free markets are based on the concept that interest and rent are unethical. The labor theory of value is the culprit. From what I understand about mutualism, its main ideological divide with anarcho-capitalism is that they push the labor theory of value. I guess the test for what is considered anarchist or not is whether your libertarian ideology conforms to the labor theory of value.

A second refutation of the labor theory of value stems from considerations
of time, risk, and time preference. Labor is always free to
set up shop on its own. That it does not do so, indeed, that it relies
upon capitalists to do so on its behalf, further undermines Carson’s
Marxist contention that capital exploits labor.
What does capital offer to labor? First, time. It takes time before
a factory can be built, raw materials located, insurance undertaken,
labor assembled, machine tools set up in place, etc. All during this
time, before the first final good rolls off the assembly line, capital is
paying labor. Suppose this process takes an entire year. But for this
contribution of the capitalist, the laborer would have to live off his
savings, mortgage his house, sell his car, etc. He could do so. But he
chooses not to. Instead, he chooses to make a deal with the capitalist,
for this precious time. Surely the latter deserves something, whatever
is agreed upon, for this contribution. And what is typically
agreed upon is that the capitalist shall be the residual income
claimant, taking for himself whatever is left over after all factors of
production, certainly including labor, have been paid their contractual
share.
Then, too, there is risk. Suppose that the product does not sell
when offered to the public. At all. Not one single solitary item of it.
Can the capitalist go back to the worker and say, “Remember that
salary I paid you for an entire year, during the time when we were
setting up operations? Well, the item didn’t sell. So, please give me
back the wages I advanced you.” As the residual income claimant,
the entrepreneur can do no such thing. He, not the laborer, is the risk
bearer. The point is, the employee gets his salary for sure, and in
advance of the completion of production and then sale of the good.
Even if this process is not complete for a year or more, the capitalist
will have to wait to be compensated. This is why the worker voluntarily
agrees to the deal.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/20_1/20_1_4.pdf

Good article I really like Dr Block.

The only thing I agree with basically in the mutualist camp is that in laissez fair hierarchal business would probably decline, accept for larger business which would still have capitalists etc because larger business require more capital. I agree with basicaclly everything Austrian Economics says though. But philosophically I disagree with some things. For example I hold Tuckers "egoist property" view.

From Wiki

However, Tucker later abandoned natural rights theory and said that land ownership is legitimately transferred through force unless specified otherwise by contracts: "Man's only right to land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's, until the latter is dispossessed by one mightier still."[20] He expected, however, that individuals would come to the realization that the "occupancy and use" was a "generally trustworthy guiding principle of action," and that individuals would likely contract to an occupancy and use policy.

I call myself a Amoral Nietzschean Stirnerite Market Anarchist.

[The Pike Dynasty]

Of course anarchy could work, for about three days until I gather an army, conquer the unorganized masses, and create a centralized hierarchy.

[Yootwopia]

Good article I really like Dr Block.

Why? He's wrong.

"Labor is always free to set up shop on its own. That it does not do so, indeed, that it relies upon capitalists to do so on its behalf, further undermines Carson’s Marxist contention that capital exploits labor."

Labour and capital are nothing like this seperate. Capital cannot and does not act on its own, and indeed is basically the representation of assumed labour time in our society. It requires labour input to actually do anything other than sit idle. Even interest only occurs because someone has spent their time arbitrarily adding a percentage of the original value onto capital in an account book.

Labour does set up shop on its own. Capitalists are labourers, even if they're not standing pressing buttons and pulling levers at a factory.

I call myself a Amoral Nietzschean Stirnerite Market Anarchist.

Yeah great nobody cares.

[Terra Agora]

Good article I really like Dr Block.

Why? He's wrong.

"Labor is always free to set up shop on its own. That it does not do so, indeed, that it relies upon capitalists to do so on its behalf, further undermines Carson’s Marxist contention that capital exploits labor."

Labour and capital are nothing like this seperate. Capital cannot and does not act on its own, and indeed is basically the representation of assumed labour time in our society. It requires labour input to actually do anything other than sit idle. Even interest only occurs because someone has spent their time arbitrarily adding a percentage of the original value onto capital in an account book.

Labour does set up shop on its own. Capitalists are labourers, even if they're not standing pressing buttons and pulling levers at a factory.

I call myself a Amoral Nietzschean Stirnerite Market Anarchist.

Yeah great nobody cares.

Yeah great nobody cares.

[Conserative Morality]

Yeah great nobody cares.

I care.

Do you want a hug?

[Terra Agora]

Yeah great nobody cares.

I care.

Do you want a hug?

Yes... /cry

[Yootwopia]

Yeah great nobody cares.

You should care about your idols being wrong, for serious.

[Conserative Morality]

Yes... /cry

I changed my mind, I can't get any tears on my new sweater.

[Terra Agora]

Yeah great nobody cares.

You should care about your idols being wrong, for serious.

Yo fo realz nigga?