I have some questions for people who self-identify as anarchists but are against the free market. I think they confuse free markets with government, crony capitalism and mother nature. If you live on an island like Robinson Crusoe and you don’t work to acquire shelter, drinking water, and food, mother nature will kill you. I guess you could say you are oppressed by mother nature. I don’t think I will get all my questions answered, maybe they will answer questions that I didn't ask, but I doubt they will answer my questions. I believe they will reject the definitions of the words I use. I believe they will refer me to read some book instead of answering. The reason I think this, is because I believe they can’t make convincing non-contradictory arguments. Am I wrong? Fine prove me wrong!
- Do you think there should be rouleurs or do you think every person should rule themselves?
- If private property is violence or oppression, then how would you separate people from their property?
- Would you do it without violence or oppression? If so please tell me how.
- Do you think people should own the food they are about to eat?
- If you think people should own the food they are about to eat but that they should be prohibited from accumulating too much, where do you draw the line?
- How much is one allowed to own?
- How do you get the right to decide this?
- If someone accumulates a store of food in case of a future food shortage while someone else chooses to rest and play, do you think the slacker owns the food that the industrious person worked hard to obtain?
- If the accumulated food is enough for one person to survive until more food can be obtained, do you think the industrious person has to give half of his food away so they both starve?
"If private property is violence or oppression, then how would you separate people from their property? "
"Would you do it without violence or oppression? If so please tell me how."
Try asking hitler to stop killing people and tell me how that goes.
"How much is one allowed to own?"
you don't understand how anarchy works do you.
private property can not exist without a government. As the first self-proclaimed anarchist said: "Property is theft".
"If someone accumulates a store of food in case of a future food shortage while someone else chooses to rest and play, do you think the slacker owns the food that the industrious person worked hard to obtain?"
That's essentially what owning capital is in a market.
"Try asking hitler to stop killing people and tell me how that goes."
Okay, so you would use violence, thanks for answering that.
"you don't understand how anarchy works do you.
private property can not exist without a government. As the first self-proclaimed anarchist said: "Property is theft"."
It is obvious to me that we are using the same word "anarchy" to describe two very different things. What's your reasoning for claiming that private property can not exist without a government? It is the other way around. There is no private property as long as people believe that the government owns everything and you just get to use it including your own body as long as the government lets you. Just because I say "taxes are voluntary" doesn't make it so. In the same way saying "property is theft" doesn't make it so.
"That's essentially what owning capital is in a market."
What do you mean? You think the slacker owning the food that the industrious person worked hard to obtain is essentially what owning capital is in a market?
"What's your reasoning for claiming that private property can not exist without a government?"
private property is in essence control over the tools another uses. This control can only come from two groups, directly from the capitalist or by the government to protect "rights". Unless the capitalist is the strongest one there and the only one with a weapon, he will have to hire guards, without the police to protect it. There are only two things stopping the guards from taking control, a sense of loyalty and the government. The only reason the government doesn't take control is the "sense of loyalty" of the police.
Essentially you need a government or a set of guards that become the new government, otherwise it is impossible for the capitalist to assert his rule. Because that is what private ownership is dictatorial, rule over a piece of land or machinery.
"Nope, capitalism and the state are indistinguishable. It's incorrect to think of them as two separate concepts. What is rent but property taxes, wage-labor but a bourgeois tax on the working class, and national borders but the private property of the dominant, monopolizing corporation called "the state"? Instead, they are two expressions of coercive hierarchy, a society based on injustice and inequality.
They tell similar lies, as both bourgeois democracy and capitalism perpetuate themselves by simulating bottom-up power: you are given a sham of a vote in democracy, just as with capitalism pricing mechanisms. That is, a boycott is indistinguishable from a get-out-the-vote campaign, and equally (in-)effective, as its a series of choices in a game designed by the ruling class where every result is "they win".
In force the two are indistinguishable also: Any private property enforcement system sufficient to protect capitalists' interests is indistinguishable from a state. This includes "private security officers" as much as it includes statist ones --- both are intended to protect capitalist / statist interests in a given region, and maintain oppressive systems and conduits of power."
Capitalism can not exist without violence. The violence is centred in around keeping the system capitalist and those who start the violence have the most to lose. This means the only way to stop the system is to combat this violence. There is no besides violence to combat somebody willing to give their life to stop you, that's what the military is for.
Well, the thing we do agree on is that democracy doesn't work and that the voter has a totally negligible influence. On this topic, I suggest that you check out Democracy – The God That Failed. http://store.mises.org/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-P240.aspx
"capitalism and the state are indistinguishable. It's incorrect to think of them as two separate concepts."
This is yet again a case where you and I are talking about different things. Using the definition of "capitalism" that I am using It is absolutely possible and even preferable to not have a state.
"Capitalism can not exist without violence."
You can see my post about capitalism where I describe what it is, and that it does not require violence here. https://steemit.com/economics/@pomperipossa/capitalism-a-reply-to-kenny-part-two
"The violence is centred in around keeping the system capitalist and those who start the violence have the most to lose. This means the only way to stop the system is to combat this violence."
You are making faulty assumptions that lead you to a very dangerous conclusion. Please, educate yourself and use your words, violence is not the answer.
You can watch this youtube video about how a society could function without a state here.
this video explains it well
Notice how ancaps haven't done anything? That's probably because its a stupid ideology.
As I explained, private ownership of property itself is a state. Non-violent anything doesn't exist, that's stupid. All it would take is a single person to kill every pacifist in existence if nobody used violence to protect them. Again, the rich right now already have nothing against bombing children using white phosphorous and genocide for profit, you really think the lack of a government would change that? That's as delusional as you can be.
Capitalism rewards greed. Capitalism rewards underhanded and violent tactics for more profit. Capitalism rewards death, starvation, and slavery. Capitalism must be destroyed for the worker to be free. Capitalism must be destroyed for the world to be anarchist.
To top is off I will quote the slogan of the first self-proclaimed anarchist: "Property is theft". Although future anarchists have followed up saying that's wrong. They said property doesn't objectively exist and thus can not be theft. It is simply a state. Taxes are rent. Wages are wages and Property is Slavery
"Well, the thing we do agree on is that democracy doesn't work and that the voter has a totally negligible influence. "
only under capitalism
"This is yet again a case where you and I are talking about different things. Using the definition of "capitalism" that I am using It is absolutely possible and even preferable to not have a state."
property rights can not exist without a state.
Property rights only exist through the state. Ownership is not an objective concept but a legal fiction.
Ownership literally just means control. Control can only exist through violence or threat of violence, the guards that are employed to keep private property in existence are the new police of the new dictator you call the owner.
"You are making faulty assumptions that lead you to a very dangerous conclusion. Please, educate yourself and use your words, violence is not the answer."
remember when Gandhi told britian to lay down their weapons and not fight the nazis? That would have worked well, he's totally not delusional or anything lmao.
anarchy is the destruction of all unjustified hierarchy, not just the government. Anarchy means no rulers, not just one less.
"What do you mean? You think the slacker owning the food that the industrious person worked hard to obtain is essentially what owning capital is in a market?"
to own capital is to control private businesses and through that control profit is extracted from the worker. The owner of capital need do nothing except own capital to survive, essentially a ruler and leech.
if you were starving and the payout on your post was your only way to access food and I used my free market to flag you, would that be violence or just my rights?
Trick question, the only thing keeping you from food would be the guard at the door of the market, not money.
The guard is your ruler and god, money means nothing. This guard is the new government, one you have just as much control over as any government under capitalism.
This happens for real every day. 20 million die a year of poverty alone. Charity or not, the system punishes conscious and rewards greed. This means those in the position to give the most have the mindset to take the most from those starving.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
this book explains the process well.
Do you even know I'm not in favor of the crony capitalism that we have today?
crony capitalism? This is exactly what the owners of capital want. This is always the end state of capitalism no matter how it starts out.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/
This book still explains it, just read it.
To sum it up if you are lazy. Capitalism must always expand because profit is reinsvested. LArger businesses do better than smaller ones. This means monopolies always form and adding the tendency for the rate of profit to fall they must find jobs that require high amounts of extremely cheap labor or collapse. After that they still must always expand, eventually running out of room to expand means they must either take over more land or destroy the private property they have through war and re-invest profits into re-building it, or else the system will literally grind to a halt for lack of ability to invest as rate of return drops to zero and then markets stagnate.
again, private property can not exist without a government. The ruling class always wants more power, as that is what is rewarded by this system. They gain control of the government, easily. (If they can't they overthrow it through their power as capitalists, as shown in chile and Venezuela and create a new government, usually with a dictator. Remember, the biggest capitalists all over the world supported hitler and vice versa.
I began writing a response here in the comments, and after it broke 1000 words, I decided maybe I should just do it as a post, which would then help bring more people into this conversation as well :-)
Here is my response
Love you brother!
Here are my answers to the specific questions, so that they are actually some in the comment thread :-P (though I included more thoughts in my post)
Okay, I've read your post. First of, thanks for answering! Secondly, I didn't expect you to answer this. I'll explain why in my response to your post.
Peace ☮ love <3 and anarchy (go figure, no anarchist symbols) brother!
Here is my response to your response :) https://steemit.com/philosophy/@pomperipossa/we-can-t-afford-to-be-snowflakes-you-have-to-deal-with-the-fact-that-someone-might-offend-you-a-reply-to-kenny-part-one
Wonderful :-) I'll check it out in a moment.
Here's part two :) https://steemit.com/economics/@pomperipossa/capitalism-a-reply-to-kenny-part-two
And here's part three https://steemit.com/economics/@pomperipossa/the-free-market-a-response-to-kenny-part-three
@pomperipossa: Strong questions can provoke strong answers -- or at least strong thought in the thinker -- so I'm glad you've asked these!
Thank you @erikaharris! It seems to me like these people are confused and don't have answers. I hope some of them get provoked into thinking. :)
Most people believe that anarchy is lawlessness but that's simply not the truth.
Anarchy begins with the concept of Sovereignty. But Who or what is a sovereign?
Anarcho-Capitalists believe that each person is an Individual Sovereign Entity who can privately own everything he can personally control and no other Sovereign Entity has the Right to use force against him to take that which he controls.
Anarcho-Communists believe in the opposite that people can own nothing except that which he can hold or reasonably need to survive and that the "Group" as a whole is sovereign.
Statism in the United States is a combination of both, where the group is sovereign but people have rights regulating the use of force.
Of course this is all theory, nothing is absolute but I was wondering where we can find examples of either type of Anarchy in de facto operation and this is the result of my observations.
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/globalism-is-anarcho-capitalism
"Most people believe that anarchy is lawlessness but that's simply not the truth."
I agree.
"Anarchy begins with the concept of Sovereignty. But Who or what is a sovereign?
Anarcho-Capitalists believe that each person is an Individual Sovereign Entity"
Thus far I agree.
"who can privately own everything he can personally control and no other Sovereign Entity has the Right to use force against him to take that which he controls."
I believe you lack some understanding here. Maybe these articles will help you get some clarity? https://steemit.com/philosophy/@pomperipossa/property-rights-exist-because-we-have-morality
https://steemit.com/voluntaryism/@pomperipossa/a-short-description-of-voluntaryism-anarcho-capitalism
"Of course this is all theory, nothing is absolute but I was wondering where we can find examples of either type of Anarchy in de facto operation and this is the result of my observations."
Anarcho-capitalism can be found in everyday life. Like the fact that in many countries you can decide who to get married to as long as the other person decides to get married to you. You are not assigned a wife by the state.
As for an anarcho-capitalist society, Liberland is striving to get recognized as a sovereign country but as of today the closest you get to an anarcho-capitalist society is probably Lichtenstein.
http://tomwoods.com/ep-979-liechtenstein-the-closest-thing-to-a-libertarian-country/
Morality is a fiction which only exists within the framework of the rule of law.
I don't need law to know what is moral. Do you?
What is the moral And where does it come from?
There's no good or bad only the result of action. Intended or unintended the result is neither good nor bad. It is the result we have to live with or change by further action based on survival needs and/or emotional wants and desires.
Thanks for answering! would you mind clarifying a few things?
I'm afraid you questions don't have a context.
If we take rule by force off the table, all those questions are irrelevant.
Let go of the old, it has brought us to little more than slaves that pay rich people to bomb poor people.
Embrace the new.
We cooperate now, no backstabbing, eh?
No underhanded deals, no raping the powerless.
No taking food out of folks' mouths.
Just everybody doing what they can to improve their surroundings, for the common good.
I think there's too much thinking and not enough doing in this Society
But here is a smoking beer drinking fox
I am still hearing from people convinced that anarchists are just riot makers and vandals...we just seek for freedom of individuals, this is the true meaning of society
Yeah, what do you mean? No slave owners? Why do you want caos? Think of the children! Who would pick the cotton?
Are there actually people who think they're anarchists and are against free markets? Seems like a contradiction.
There are, and I agree with you, that's why I think they can't answer the questions. Thanks for commenting. :)
It is and they know it. They are not for liberty. Even in the one graphic used as a reply, they list liberty last. That's not by mistake. You're "free" as long as you conform. Your liberty takes a back seat to their majority rule.
I think very few people on here will answer these questions in this fashion. Peruse some reading material after searching the question in the search bar. # But you can start here for a reality check: https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/globalism-is-anarcho-capitalism
So, this is exactly what I what I predicted, no answer. It's as if I was asking "you don't want to kill baby's to bring about anarchy do you?". And then, instead of answer the question, getting the answer "well you should read this text about cats actually being dogs for a reality check."
I started reading the article you linked to but I couldn't finish reading it since it's just attacking a strawman of anarcho-capitalism. You're not giving me a reality check. Either you don't know what anarcho-capitalism is, in which case you should find out, try reading an anarcho-capitalist explain what it is. Or you know that you're misrepresenting it, in which case please stop spreading lies.
Maybe you're spreading these falsehoods because you have crony believes. You can read about what that is here https://steemit.com/philosophy/@pomperipossa/why-people-believe-stupid-things
Thank you for commenting.
Most people believe that anarchy is lawlessness but that's simply not the truth.
Anarchy begins with the concept of Sovereignty. But Who or what is a sovereign?
Anarcho-Capitalists believe that each person is an Individual Sovereign Entity who can privately own everything he can personally control and no other Sovereign Entity has the Right to use force against him to take that which he controls.
Anarcho-Communists believe in the opposite that people can own nothing except that which he can hold or reasonably need to survive and that the "Group" as a whole is sovereign.
Statism in the United States is a combination of both, where the group is sovereign but people have rights regulating the use of force.
Of course this is all theory, nothing is absolute but I was wondering where we can find examples of either type of Anarchy in de facto operation and this is the result of my observations:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/globalism-is-anarcho-capitalism
This is the same reply you already made.
Yes, because you obviously didn't understand it the first time. If you continue to talk about strawmen.
"Anarcho-Communists believe in the opposite that people can own nothing except that which he can hold or reasonably need to survive."
No, your group will not rule over me. How do you plan to force me into your collective? You won't use force of violence, ehh?
It's not okay for me to use force to prevent a thief from robbing me, but it is okay for your group to use force to rob me?
Who decides when I have too much? What is reasonable for my survival and the survival of my children? I build a fortress and stock it with supplies for my loved ones and friends. Then you decide I have too much, and come take it in a time of need?
That's why people like me have guns. If you want to take my property, the property I have obtained without any theft or wrong doing, I will kill you. My children's lives depend on my property. They will live through hard times, and the lazy people's children will not.
Unless of course they use violence to kill people like me and take what I have built, right?
I am NOT advocating anarcho communism, but there are those who do and yes they want all of our stuff, and they want us to give it up voluntarily. I'm just pointing out the basic intentions of the differences in these Anarchy groups and discussing my observations on how the us MIC operates outside of moral behavior.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Pomperipossa from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
Anarchy is a fantasy. It cannot exist in a World of 7 billion and growing but you can see how lawlessness and unaccountability actually works by watching how the elite operate in that arena by lobbying for laws to keep the trash in line while living above them themselves.
So you're stating your opinion that anarchy is a fantasy, you are free to believe that. You are also strawmanning anarchy which isn't helping anyone.
I'm not strawmaning anything. Where can we find examples of Anarchy in Operation. Either Communist or Capitalist. That's what MY story is about. Not presenting any arguments only observations and opinions.
I'm glad the Wright Brothers didn't have that attitude or listen to the unimaginative people who said, "Flight hasn't happened, so it can't."
How can Anarchy Exist within a State? Either people are sovereign or the state is sovereign and if the State is sovereign the use of force can be applied against its shareholders by the State.
The weight brothers learned and solved the physics of a physical problem. They didn't resolve an Oxymoron.
You had more than one argument against Anarchy. I wasn't addressing your "How can Anarchy exist within a State" question by bringing up the Wright Brothers. I was addressing your assertion that no current or past working model means anything about whether an idea can become reality. I think you are smart enough that you knew that but are being dodgy. Is that what they call intellectual dishonesty?
Anarchy is an Idea I gave up in Middle School after having my lunch stolen too many times. Human nature my friend..... Human Nature.
A lack of present or historical examples of a state of the world is not an indication that this state cannot come into being or that it shouldn't come into being. A couple examples:
The Rights you present for discussion are "rights" within a State. This is a discussion on "Anarchy".
Anarchy is a description of how sovereign entities interact outside of the structure of a State.
You questioned the feasibility of anarchy by saying it had never occurred before, correct? My reference to those rights are to point out that your reasoning may be faulty here, not to make a comment in their relationship to the State.
They are examples of things I assume you believe are good and are working well despite never having existed before.
I called it a fantasy. I don't believe in limits either. Flight was a fantasy before they worked out the details. The Author made another comment about Lichtenstein being an example but I said it's an example of a State.... the Author also mentioned Liberland and I said I'd check it out and asked if they had an Good data on it. Check your arrogance man... I know I have trouble with it too. Did you read my observations on Globalists acting like sovereigns? https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/globalism-is-anarcho-capitalism
The term "Anarchist State" is an oxymoron.
I use "state" to mean a state of being not a government. Does that clear this up, or is that what you thought I meant when you commented?
If I'm not mistaken Anarchy is not a state of mind but the Antithisis of a State.
Anarchy is a description of how sovereigns interact outside of the rule of law of a State.
We are discussing Anarchy not A State of Being. ;) ijs.
"I'm not strawmaning anything. Where can we find examples of Anarchy in Operation. Either Communist or Capitalist. That's what MY story is about. Not presenting any arguments only observations and opinions."
The fact that something isn't in operation doesn't prove it's impossible. Okay, I stand corrected. You are not strawmanning if you're not arguing. However, you are misrepresenting anarcho-capitalism.
I'm Finding an example of how it works in practice between sovereign entities. Show me a different one.
You are combining two anarcho concepts. one where everything is privately owned and the other is the communist tribal concept which I think you are leaning towards.
Neither works in a large populated setting. That's why I equated the Globalist as the closest thing existing actually working in an anarchist mentality are international Globalists who all believe and act as if they are sovereign entities.
I do not lean towards the communist tribal concept. I believe in self-ownership, private property, and the non-aggression principle. Again you are stating your opinion that anarchy doesn't work in large populations, you realize that's not an argument right?
To equate the globalists with anarchy because you believe anarchy is impossible doesn't make any sense.
Show me Where is Anarchy actually in operation if not amongst the international elite?
There is no society that I know of that is completely anarcho-capitalist. If you think the international elite is an example of anarcho-capitalism, you don't know what it is.
I'm pasting parts of an answer I gave you to another comment here.
"Anarcho-capitalism can be found in everyday life. Like the fact that in many countries you can decide who to get married to as long as the other person decides to get married to you. You are not assigned a wife by the state.
As for an anarcho-capitalist society, Liberland is striving to get recognized as a sovereign country but as of today the closest you get to an anarcho-capitalist society is probably Lichtenstein.
http://tomwoods.com/ep-979-liechtenstein-the-closest-thing-to-a-libertarian-country/"
Lichtenstein is a state therefore proves my arguments of Statism regardless of its protection of property rights. Liberland is probably the closest thing to a non-state existence of anarchy - but why is it looking for acceptance as a State?
Closest is playing horseshoes. You're always going to need the rule of law and it's always going to be used against ordinary people. True Anarchy is a fantasy due to human nature of clubs and collusion, which is why I presented by publication with the setting of a social club bent on creating conspiracies to make their club "win".
The human nature argument is not valid, the only thing that is actually human nature is to adapt & reproduce. everything else we observe in humans is a result of their adapting (or mal-adapting) to their environment (physical, social, emotional).
It's human nature to hoard resources to survive; and to create associations to aid in survival. It is these associations that have grown to compete for the resources hence the need for the rule of law.
You're confusing Human Nature with The sociology of Apes in General. Not humans.
These are Humans:
I'll look more into liberland. Got any good data to start with?
It's a swamp in a small area. Why bother? I wouldn't waste your time. It's an interesting idea, but it's not going to work. Worse, it is probably a joke. I know lots of big names have gotten involved in the project, but it is not the solution.
I tend to agree with you in concept but I'll still look into it for grins sake.
Any definition of Anarchy must include as part of it being how sovereigns interact outside of the structure of a State.
No state is required. After this entire thread, I'm still not sure if you understand that important point or not. There is no "United States of Anarchy." The state, i.e. nation or country, of Anarchy will never exist.
I'm against royals as much as I am fascists and communists. If you are using government to control others, you are a tyrant. I don't care why you are controlling them either.
Humans do not need to be ruled. You may think they do because of your own personal fear, but they do not. Why?
The vast majority of humans are not predators. The predators naturally gravitate towards positions of power and control. Therefore, do not create those positions.
Do not give that small minority the ability to rule. Walk away from their systems. Don't create new ones. Any system of government, no matter what form it is, will eventually be taken over by oligarchs and rulers.
I disagree. The US is supposed to be a government of the people and by the people, voluntarily through representatives to weed out the concept of mob rule and to provide for the protection of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Without that and our fealty to Its principals we have nothing and are unprotected from the real vicious people in this world. Which are the Globalists who think and operate above the law.
The government gives us a group savings discount so we all don't need to hire private security to protect ourselves from those who would do us harm. That's the idea anyway. And we pay taxes for it.
Check how how it was supposed to work:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@adconner/the-greatest-conspiracy-ever-perpetrated-on-the-united-states-of-america-and-no-one-even-realizes-it
Congratulations @pomperipossa! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPI'm (a little) puzzled by your use of the word "rouleurs" in number 1. Rouleur is a cycling term for a cyclist who performs well on flat and undulating roads. I suspect you meant "ruler".
Your suspicion is correct sir!