Anarchy vs Governance - Merged Topics

[Terra Agora]

Yes... /cry

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

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

[The Merchant Republics]

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.

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.

The problem I have with the Mutualism camp is entirely one of whether such a society would be efficient, in a such a society where one may choose to form a cooperative or private business it is infinitely easier to do the latter, you have only to convince others to work for you, where as a person who starts a new competitive cooperative must necessarily find people who not only want to work with you but also take on a great deal of financial risk. Cooperatives are not impossible but the only way to keep them dominant in a market anarchist society would be to utilize force to ban private businesses from forming. Frankly many people prefer consistent wage labour to the risks of new business ownership. Cooperatives would be able to attract many more workers once becoming successful which would provide a very good incentive for private enterprises to keep their wages high, but the failure rate on a new cooperative would be absolutely atrocious, even compared to new entrepreneurial ventures. I figure the failure rate would be as high as 80% in the first five years.

[ZombieRothbard]

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.

I am pretty sure Block recognizes this. His next sentence is "What does capital offer to labor?", pointing out that capital enriches labor. I am pretty sure he did not literally mean that labor could not possibly set up shop on its own, as an impossibility. Just that it typically doesn't.

[Cybach]

Any society dumb enough to break down into anarchic self-ruling cells would get swallowed up by their neighbor. It's why the concept of City-States quickly died out and even then often only existed with vast alliances.

[ZombieRothbard]

Any society dumb enough to break down into anarchic self-ruling cells would get swallowed up by their neighbor. It's why the concept of City-States quickly died out and even then often only existed with vast alliances.

False

[Natapoc]

Here is a very good article that I think sums up several reasons why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron equal to anarcho-statism in sillyness. http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/ ... ho-statism

[Meryuma]

It's called Somalia.

As a strong Statist...

Somalia is not an anarchic society.

Parts are, IIRC. Those parts govern by polycentric law.

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

What about Carson's marginalist LTV?

[Wamitoria]

Any society dumb enough to break down into anarchic self-ruling cells would get swallowed up by their neighbor. It's why the concept of City-States quickly died out and even then often only existed with vast alliances.

False

Actually, since the premise is only theoretical, none of us really know what would happen.

[Conserative Morality]

Parts are, IIRC. Those parts govern by polycentric law.

Not this shit again.

[Cybach]

Any society dumb enough to break down into anarchic self-ruling cells would get swallowed up by their neighbor. It's why the concept of City-States quickly died out and even then often only existed with vast alliances.

False

Nigga I ain't readin all that shit. Summarize it for me or get off my back. However if anarchy was all that, why does no one except a few unimportant unemployed hippies seem to follow it?

[Meryuma]

Parts are, IIRC. Those parts govern by polycentric law.

Not this shit again.

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

IIRC it's used in some rural parts of Somalia, in which there is no state.

False

Nigga I ain't readin all that shit. Summarize it for me or get off my back. However if anarchy was all that, why does no one except a few unimportant unemployed hippies seem to follow it?

Is Emma Goldman an "unimportant unemployed hippie"? Lao Tzu? Henry David Thoreau? Gandhi? Chomsky? Howard Zinn?

[Dyakovo]

Do you think people would be able to defend themselves against criminals without police or another authority? Would people be able to get along by resolving any dispute themselves instead of letting a government do it for them?

No, anarchy cannot work.

[Threlizdun]

Gandhi supports anarchy? I've read quotes from him stating that when he read the definition of socialism and communism, it didn't change his views about it at all, as he already supported what they supported. I guess I wouldn't be suprised though. Still, can you provide a link?

[Conserative Morality]

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

IIRC it's used in some rural parts of Somalia, in which there is no state.

What part of 'Not this shit again' do you not understand?

[Cybach]

Not this shit again.

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

IIRC it's used in some rural parts of Somalia, in which there is no state.

Nigga I ain't readin all that shit. Summarize it for me or get off my back. However if anarchy was all that, why does no one except a few unimportant unemployed hippies seem to follow it?

Is Emma Goldman an "unimportant unemployed hippie"? Lao Tzu? Henry David Thoreau? Gandhi? Chomsky? Howard Zinn?

All the figures you listed are dead bro. Unless being a corpse is practicing anarchy their not doing very much, let alone practicing anarchy.

[Giado and Vostok]

It doesn't work, especially when it is anarcho capitalism *shiver* . . .

[Meryuma]

Gandhi supports anarchy? I've read quotes from him stating that when he read the definition of socialism and communism, it didn't change his views about it at all, as he already supported what they supported. I guess I wouldn't be suprised though. Still, can you provide a link?

http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_ ... _anarchism

[Senestrum]

False

Nigga I ain't readin all that shit. Summarize it for me or get off my back. However if anarchy was all that, why does no one except a few unimportant unemployed hippies seem to follow it?

"Insurance companies will of course build the massively expensive armies needed to defend themselves against neighboring states."

[Natapoc]

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

IIRC it's used in some rural parts of Somalia, in which there is no state.



Is Emma Goldman an "unimportant unemployed hippie"? Lao Tzu? Henry David Thoreau? Gandhi? Chomsky? Howard Zinn?

All the figures you listed are dead bro. Unless being a corpse is practicing anarchy their not doing very much, let alone practicing anarchy.

When did Chomsky die? Isn't he still teaching?

[Indeos]

Gandhi supports anarchy? I've read quotes from him stating that when he read the definition of socialism and communism, it didn't change his views about it at all, as he already supported what they supported. I guess I wouldn't be suprised though. Still, can you provide a link?

http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_ ... _anarchism

Gandhi also supported completely ignoring laws you don't like because they're "unjust", and as far as I've learned never proposed much of anything objective in his philosophies.

[Meryuma]

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

IIRC it's used in some rural parts of Somalia, in which there is no state.



Is Emma Goldman an "unimportant unemployed hippie"? Lao Tzu? Henry David Thoreau? Gandhi? Chomsky? Howard Zinn?

All the figures you listed are dead bro. Unless being a corpse is practicing anarchy their not doing very much, let alone practicing anarchy.

I never claimed these people were contemporary.

http://www.calpeacepower.org/0201/gandhi_anarchist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_ ... _anarchism

Gandhi also supported completely ignoring laws you don't like because they're "unjust", and as far as I've learned never proposed much of anything objective in his philosophies.

I'm not trying to make some appeal to authority here. I'm just pointing out that important figures have been anarchists.

[Indeos]

Gandhi also supported completely ignoring laws you don't like because they're "unjust", and as far as I've learned never proposed much of anything objective in his philosophies.

I'm not trying to make some appeal to authority here. I'm just pointing out that important figures have been anarchists.

I know. i'm just pointing out that Gandhi isn't really the kind of person who inspires confidence in any system of beliefs. That said, I greatly respect the man and admire his conviction, even if I disagree with his beliefs.

[Kubra]

Man here's something I have to ask
Why do many radical publishers agree with letting their books be sold at chapters/borders/barnes&noble?
y not just go exclusively independent/online?

[Conserative Morality]

Man here's something I have to ask
Why do many radical publishers agree with letting their books be sold at chapters/borders/barnes&noble?
y not just go exclusively independent/online?

Because the money is just so good.

[Kubra]

Man here's something I have to ask
Why do many radical publishers agree with letting their books be sold at chapters/borders/barnes&noble?
y not just go exclusively independent/online?

Because the money is just so good.

Nonononono I am pretty sure it is so I can shoplift