| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2475
Local time: 6:12 AM
Location: California
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:33 am Post subject: |
  |
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
IF they could pull it off, then yes, but that would require they be stronger then everyone else around combined, or some other streak of luck.
I'm not saying it's impossible, just unlikely.
Certainly not any more likely then any other political system becoming corrupt. |
It seems very likely to me. Imagine if Microsoft were an army instead of a software company. Often in competitive business environments one company will take a decisive lead because they offer a far superior product and/or know how to squeeze out the competition.
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 6:12 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
And my point is that if co-ops were any good they'd be a significant part of economy, therefore there is nothing inherent in capitalism that would require most people to be workers. |
Mass production and distribution requires a large number of people to perform manual labor and menial tasks, it also requires specialization. Now those performing the labor can also be owners and participate in collaborative management or they can take orders from the owner and his/her management. If it's the latter, the vast majority of the population will be working for someone else. Whether co-ops, on the whole, will succeed or fail in a "free market" system where specialization, mass production and distribution still exist is entirely speculative, but the consequences of failure are not.
| Quote: | | They would only be workers if given the circumstances, their skills, and available resources, this was what would benefit them most. |
That can't be demonstrated. It's wishful thinking.
| Quote: | | Trading electricity is still trading, no? |
Yes, but I was saying that you could be the richest man in an area without having become rich through trade with your neighbors. You could become rich by trading with people thousands of miles away.
| Quote: | | In medieval Iceland the victim could sell the right to persecute the aggressor to another person. |
Medieval Iceland-- the anarcho-capitalists' Camelot. Not that we left-wing libertarians are much better..."Yeah, well in this factory in Barcelona in 1936..."
| Quote: | I think this could be applied in your scenario.
If a very rich person committed a crime, you could get a lot of money in restitution, so bounty hunters from all over the country would be knocking on those people's door asking if they can be the ones to persecute the rich guy, offering high prices for the right to do so.
If no one was killed or seriously hurt as a result of the crime, in a twisted way it could be the best thing that ever happened to those people. |
Maybe. We could trade hypothetical examples all day, but it's gonna take a lot more than that to ever convince me the extremely wealthy man will not have advantage over the poor man, and that the rich, either as indviduals or as a class, will not have the power to violate the rights of the poor (or at least have more power to oppress the poor than the poor have to oppress the rich). It's counterintuitive to me. Perhaps I lack the imagination to conceptualize it, but I cannot imagine a society in which large wealth disparties exist that do not also lead to a profound inequality of power between rich and poor, nor can I imagine a way in such a scenario that the rights of the poor could be reliably secure.
| Quote: | Sure but I don't think anyone has a 'right' to a job.
A job is a mutually agreed upon contract, if either side doesn't agree to it for whatever reason, I don't see why they should be kept by force from canceling, or not renewing it. |
Okay, but that's irrelevant. If I have fairly entered into a contract with an employee (even if it is employment-at-will), and I terminate the contract to my employee's detriment, out of pure greed and powerlust, in order to leverage a third party into agreeing to another contract which they have steadfastly refused to enter into, it's unjust.
But like I said before, that's just one example. I could think of thousands of ways for a rich man to coerce a poor man into bending to his will.
| Quote: | | They can hire a professional army too. |
That depends entirely on how much money they can pool. If a multi-millionaire decides he wants all the poor people in town to convert to Catholicism or else, and the town consists of 100 people living in squalor, I'm putting my money on the rich guy.
| Quote: | | Hell, all it takes is for poor people to be insured, and suddenly the rich guy is up against millions of dollars worth of resistance. |
Ha! If the insurance company is anything like car or medical insurance here, they'll do everything they can to avoid paying the claim and when they do they'll send Barney Fife with his revolver and one bullet, and when the poor policy holder complains, they'll bring in a bunch of high-priced attorneys to crush him.
But let's assume the insurance company does its due diligence. In order for this to work, two things would be necessary...
1. The poor person or people in question would have to have enough disposable income to purchase the insurance premiums in the first place, which won't necessarily be the case
2. The policy would have to exceed the resouces the rich person or people have at their disposal and are willing to expend. If I'm insured up to a fire-team's worth of protection and my enemy can afford a battalion or even a platoon, I'm fucked.
And that just proves my point. Superior force can be purchased, so those with the most money will always have the advantage.
| Quote: | | This is getting a bit to abstract to offer a specific answer... |
Fair enough, but "abstract" historical analysis is probably more useful than the hypothetical examples we've been exchanging.
| Quote: | If i understood you correctly, you started this off by saying that the rich would be the ruling class under an-cap because they could use their wealth to initiate aggression against poor people, and thus rule over them.
But you reply to the suggestion that other wealthy people would keep the aggressors in check, that it would be a reordering of the ruling class.
But if they keep them in check, then there is no aggression, so how is there a ruling class? |
Keeping them "in check" doesn't necessarily exclude aggression. It just means aggression would be limited and/or that other members of the ruling class would try to prevent monopolization of power by one of their own. Also note I said that they might have those thoughts, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'd act on them. If the richest man in Bumfuck, NY decided to forcibly seize land from a poor family or families, the next richest guy very well might not lift a finger to stop it. Maybe they go golfing together or maybe the next richest guy just decides the risk-benefit analysis of going to war with the richest guy over some shit that doesn't concern him doesn't wash out in his favor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3974
Local time: 1:12 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Often in competitive business environments one company will take a decisive lead because they offer a far superior product and/or know how to squeeze out the competition. |
It doesn't happen often. I can think of maybe 5 examples in history when something like this happened, that's why I said I find it unlikely.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23104
Local time: 6:12 AM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | Often in competitive business environments one company will take a decisive lead because they offer a far superior product and/or know how to squeeze out the competition. |
It doesn't happen often. I can think of maybe 5 examples in history when something like this happened, that's why I said I find it unlikely. |
how many examples can you find of AnCap happening?
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2475
Local time: 6:12 AM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: | | gnosis wrote: | | Often in competitive business environments one company will take a decisive lead because they offer a far superior product and/or know how to squeeze out the competition. |
It doesn't happen often. I can think of maybe 5 examples in history when something like this happened, that's why I said I find it unlikely. |
OK, I'll concede that point to you. It's somewhat debatable, but you probably have a better background in the subject than I.
Don't you think that when force is the product in question it changes the dynamic at all? After all, when force is the product you can "force" someone to use your product, because the product is force.
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ivan_Ivanov
Administrator
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 3974
Local time: 1:12 PM
Location: Poland
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Don't you think that when force is the product in question it changes the dynamic at all? After all, when force is the product you can "force" someone to use the product, because the product is force. |
Sure, but I don't see why it would happen anymore then doctors hurting people instead of healing them, or grocery stores selling spoiled or poisoned food.
It CAN happen, it's just that the potential culprits have much to loose and comparatively little to gain.
And the biggest problem I have with this kind of an argument is I don't see how "therefore we need to hand over force to a practically unaccountable monopoly" follows from this.
_________________
It is as though your species' brain is too small to hold a simple thought such as, WE WILL KILL YOU FOR DISOBEYING!
This is not a complex idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 6:12 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChrissyFos wrote: |
Correct, sir. In the broad spectrum of time, only recently has our primitive nature been subdued. The only thing that can really change human nature is time, and right now we're in the slow crawl. So it's not the idea of anarcho-capitalism that is flawed, it's the people. |
Okay, I think I disagree with the main thrust of your argument, but I'll get to that in a bit, first, where I agree with you...
| Quote: | | If we've gotten to the point in time where most of us don't want to hurt each other and can all keep each other in check (in a sense anything nearing reciprocal altruism), then why would we even need a police force or any other type of parenting system? |
Agreed. This is one of the things that has always baffled me about the anarcho-capitalist position on private police forces. If people are capable of living in relative harmony with each other, why can't communities defend themselves from crime? An armed and viliglant community definitely seems preferable to a private security force. I can see private security companies for the purposes of training, investigation, and consultation, but I don't see any good reason a neighborhood needs to hire such companies for armed defense when they can do it themselves. Maybe community self-organization just goes against the hyperindividualist ethos of anarcho-capitalism.
| Quote: | | One of my biggest beefs with AC is the private police issue. Whether the government or a private company is signing their check, the police would still act in the same manner, because we'd still be dealing with the same individuals and same scenarios as we do today: a group of people hiding behind the badges of pseudo honor without the fear of being controlled. Kind of like right now. Okay, so different companies would be providing the services, but how would that fact change anything in the grand scheme of things? How would that change the mentality of cops when no one is looking? |
Another thing that perplexes me about the AC position on this subject. Why should we believe a bunch of "mall ninjas" running around with police powers will be any less thuggish than the cops the state uses? The same sorts of people will be attracted to the job and the same authoritarian culture will prevail in such institutions. History has more than enough of examples of private police forces and they're all authoritarian thugs.
| Quote: | | X amount of millions of years of killing and fucking and eating red meat, compared to a couple thousand years of man trying to apply civility and virtue to our existence. |
You make fucking and eating red meat sound bad, and I, for one, will not stand for it.
| Quote: | | Again, I don't believe it's the idea of AC that's in question, it's the nature of the individuals involved that will prevail no matter the external "governing" force. |
Okay, this seems to be the main point you're making here and I have some serious reservations about it. While I agree that as humans we are still developing and that any society must take account of our motivations and "natures" when constructing its institutions, here's the problem I got with the whole "human nature" argument when applied to any proposed political, social or economic system--
1. Too often its used as an excuse to attempt either solely modest incremental reforms at best or no reforms at worst. The "human nature" argument was popular amongst European feudal lords and American slaveholders when their privileges were challenged.
2. I believe systems and the human actors in them are symbiotic in terms of development. In other words, just as human development necessitates the development of new social, political and economic systems, these systems necessitate human development. I think trying to determine which comes first is moot, as its a case of constant recipriocal development. So it's worthwhile to try to change the system, as humans will be changed in the process. Look at it this way-- why is it that people in the Western world put so much value in democracy and minority rights, while those elsewhere in the world don't place as much value on these things? Is it really that our "natures" are so much different at a genetic level? Or is it that in the West we've had so many hundreds of years of democratic and republican development that the actors in these long-established systems have adapted their "natures" to it? The latter seems the most likely, given that in early feudal times a high cultural value on these concepts did not exist in Europe, and while these values may not be as strong elsewhere in the world right now, it's certainly easy enough to point to more recent systemic developments outside of Europe and America which have helped change the cultures and values of those living in such areas. And even where these concepts do not prevail, a vanguard is certainly pushing to make them the norm.
Where I think we both agree is that we are both, in a sense, positivists in that we believe that humanity is destined to progressively develop. And we're probably also both realists in that we recognize that such development takes hundreds to thousands of years to go from one level to the next. But where I take issue is the implication that new, radical economic, political and social systems should not be sought because "we're not ready". It's the struggle to build such a system that will help make us ready. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2475
Local time: 6:12 AM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ivan_Ivanov wrote: |
Sure, but I don't see why it would happen anymore then doctors hurting people instead of healing them, or grocery stores selling spoiled or poisoned food.
It CAN happen, it's just that the potential culprits have much to loose and comparatively little to gain.
And the biggest problem I have with this kind of an argument is I don't see how "therefore we need to hand over force to a practically unaccountable monopoly" follows from this. |
I don't really think is an accurate analogy, because doctors hurting people is not their product. A doctor's product is healing. A better analogy would be the hiring of a mercenary force that turns its guns on the customer to rob them, which is not a very outlandish concept.
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gnosis
Forum Master
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
Posts: 2475
Local time: 6:12 AM
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Godless Red Scum wrote: |
Where I think we both agree is that we are both, in a sense, positivists in that we believe that humanity is destined to progressively develop. And we're probably also both realists in that we recognize that such development takes hundreds to thousands of years to go from one level to the next. But where I take issue is the implication that new, radical economic, political and social systems should not be sought because "we're not ready". It's the struggle to build such a system that will help make us ready. |
I think that the thrust of her point was more that any socio-political/economic system needs to take into account the limitations of the individuals that will take part in it.
_________________
"Agnostics: Atheists without balls." -Stephen Colbert |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 6:12 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gnosis wrote: | | Godless Red Scum wrote: |
Where I think we both agree is that we are both, in a sense, positivists in that we believe that humanity is destined to progressively develop. And we're probably also both realists in that we recognize that such development takes hundreds to thousands of years to go from one level to the next. But where I take issue is the implication that new, radical economic, political and social systems should not be sought because "we're not ready". It's the struggle to build such a system that will help make us ready. |
I think that the thrust of her point was more that any socio-political/economic system needs to take into account the limitations of the individuals that will take part in it. |
Of course, but when you use that argument to reject an ideal theoretical system, you often also head-off more realistic reforms. I'm of the mind that without a radical ideology driving things, more modest development and reform will be arrested.
And I actually agree with the specifics she's raising, it's just where I think the argument ultimately leads. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrissyFos
Lobal Dominatrix
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5315
Local time: 6:12 AM
Location: Here, There and Everywhere
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Through a delusional whisper on an evolutionary scream, you, sir, convey that you are confusing and or substituting modern idealistic notions for the reality of human animalistic behaviors and our evolutionary slug slide of Darwinism, thereby missing the entire point of my post.
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | But where I take issue is the implication that new, radical economic, political and social systems should not be sought because "we're not ready". It's the struggle to build such a system that will help make us ready. |
Take issue? Whatchu talkin' bout, Willis? Where in my post did I imply anything about not seeking out new ideas? Again, that was not the forefront, nor the undercurrent of the thematic nature of my opinion. Minute points were used as reference illustrations against one facet of "progression", not progression as a whole, and those vaguely applicable statements were hand blown into glass slides and thrown underneath the AC microscope of logistics, yet life to the observer remains an unseen fly on the red wall of my post.
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | And I actually agree with the specifics she's raising, it's just where I think the argument ultimately leads. |
(Love Shack Rules required the editing of this post. Keep it civil. ~mod)
Now...
_________________
This space is reserved for inarticulate meat puppets who have no true perspective outside the refuge of quotation marks.
Reverend Mother
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ChrissyFos
Lobal Dominatrix
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 5315
Local time: 6:12 AM
Location: Here, There and Everywhere
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Discussion continued here, Godless. 
_________________
This space is reserved for inarticulate meat puppets who have no true perspective outside the refuge of quotation marks.
Reverend Mother
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 6:12 AM
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChrissyFos wrote: | | Discussion continued here, Godless. |
Ummmm....
| Quote: |
The topic or post you requested does not exist
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Godless Red Scum
Forum Leader
Joined: 16 Feb 2008
Posts: 837
Local time: 6:12 AM
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ChrissyFos wrote: |
| Godless Red Scum wrote: | | And I actually agree with the specifics she's raising, it's just where I think the argument ultimately leads. |
(Love Shack Rules required the editing of this post. Keep it civil. ~mod)
Now... |
What the hell is all that about? Chrissy call my mother names or somethin?
Please restore the post. Thanks.
EDIT: Nevermind, I found the offending post. She was talkin shit about my mama. Damn her, damn her to hell! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Isambard
Forum Leader
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 892
Local time: 6:12 AM
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2008 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | | Isambard wrote: | | Moloth wrote: | forgot about this thread.. heh..
actually, i've never really thought it that way before, and while that all may be true about the 'ideal lifestyle', so it is true with capitalism. |
I would disagree
| Moloth wrote: | | the entrepreneur is the ideal class in the AnCap system. THEY are the ones rewarded. no where is the artist. |
Not necessarily. The An-Cap system would fail if everyone was a entrepreneur. It requires that some ppl be less ambitious and simply be workers. That said, there could alot of variation within the entrepreneurs themselves both in ethnicity, race, gender, and income. It would be a very 'liberal' system. |
but, doesn't that prove my point about entrepreneurs being the 'elite' class in AnCap, though? |
They wouldn't be an "elite" class as they wouldn't receive any benefits whatsoever. I'd say there wouldn't be any classes period (in the Marxist sense) as there would be (theoretically), no real politics to speak of.
^^Note, this is the impression I get from An-Caps, not my own opinion of what would happen.
| Moloth wrote: | | Socialism would fail as well, if everyone were THEIR ideal lifestyle, too. |
You need to tell us which socialism-variant you are talking about as many have existed, and many have "worked", in that they lasted X number of years.
_________________
Composite things are like dreams. Fantasies. Bubbles. Thoughts. Like a dewdrop and a flash of lightning. A new dress and a burning tire. Waves of sand and sinking ships. The shadow of a statue, and an entry in a diary. A brain tumor and an ice cream sundae. We are thus to be recorded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
