Thoughts on Anarchism

[westwall]

Study capital flow. It accumulates. In economics there are 3 transactions.
1. bartering, good for another good;
2. money for a good;
3. money, for a good, in order to gain more money.

See, the 3rd one has been known since the 1800s. It is precisely the reason corporations have come to dominate private enterprise. They start with capital, they invest it and out pops more money than what they started with. This means those who have the most money will continue to accumulate it. This is how capital works, and capital, we both know, influences governments significantly, even controlling the US government on many levels.

If you want to dismantle governments, you cannot leave these mammoth institutions of capital to continue towering over the people. "Freedom for all" would continue to be hollow.

Wow, and you claim you're educated? the Mongols under Genghis Khan instituted the use of paper money around the year 1221. Sheesh, you don't know jack, about anything!

 

[gnarlylove]

Study capital flow. It accumulates. In economics there are 3 transactions.
1. bartering, good for another good;
2. money for a good;
3. money, for a good, in order to gain more money.

See, the 3rd one has been known since the 1800s. It is precisely the reason corporations have come to dominate private enterprise. They start with capital, they invest it and out pops more money than what they started with. This means those who have the most money will continue to accumulate it. This is how capital works, and capital, we both know, influences governments significantly, even controlling the US government on many levels.

If you want to dismantle governments, you cannot leave these mammoth institutions of capital to continue towering over the people. "Freedom for all" would continue to be hollow.

It's only because governments give these entities special favors to act outside of the market that they're able to "dominate" private enterprise. Absent the government they're forced to work within the constraints of the market just like everybody else.

That's why you have no chance to dismantle the government without also ending private tyranny (i.e. corporations). These corporations have supposedly operated in a free market in the 1800s. They discovered, and as Marx noted, free competition always leads to winners. These winners impose their will onto the government like any sane person would do except they actually get heard. They become the architects of policy. And if you look, 99% of global policy in all countries are policies that benefit the interest of the rich. The game is rigged and free competition always undoes itself. We don't exist in anything remotely like free markets pursuing our comparative advantage.

Any post-government circumstances will again result in the winners arranging the game so they benefit. Either we have no government and no private property, or we have a world designed by those who benefit from the design and how they get us to go along is the only difference (through concepts of private property, free competition, markets, and dozens of lies misunderstand by all because the culture won't allow it to be criticized).

 

[oldfart]

Wow, and you claim you're educated? the Mongols under Genghis Khan instituted the use of paper money around the year 1221. Sheesh, you don't know jack, about anything!

This is CDZ. You really should dial it back a few notches. Wax sarcastic about ideas here, not posters.

 

[editec]

I refuse to take anyone who calls himself an anarchist seriously UNLESS he means that he believes in NO GOVERNMENT WHATEVER.

jUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BUST UP WHATEVER GOVERNMENT THAT EXISTS NOW AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING YOU IMAGINE WILL BE BETTER DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN ANARCHIST.

Full Definition of ANARCHY

1
a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

If one has any order, any government it is NOT in a state of anarchy.

One cannot be an anachro-communist.

The phase makes NO sense.

This thread is about anarchism NOT "anarchy". Look them up in the dictionary and you'll see two very different definitions. And yes, anarchism is collectivist, i.e. anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian socialism and libertarian communism. And libertarianism was originated by French socialists such as Joseph DeJacque, Elisee Reclus, Sebastien Faure to describe socialism without a centralized authority (i.e. anarchism). DeJacque even had a socialist newsletter called Le Libertaire. IT WAS EVEN IN THE NAME!

Listen amigo..I knew Europeans who called themselves anarchists. Today they are probably called terrorists by the government of France, These guy were the real deal. I knew them well enough that they invited me to desert the NAV and join them under an assumed identity in France. I declined, of course.

They too were confused by the word meaning of ANARCHIST

I might actually AGREE with what these confused individuals believed about government and how it needed to be restructured, EXCEPT for their insistence that they were anarchists.

They were communists, who hated their government.

Were they in power they would IMPOSE ORDER as they saw fit. That's not anarchism, that's the opposite of anarchism


WORDS have meanings, LEARN Them

Failure to do so sets you up to become a victim of propagandists who spend inordinate amounts of effort obfuscating by distorting word meanings.

You have never met an anarchist. YOu are NOT an avarchist yourself, either.

There might be some anarchists but they either live on a desert island or they're in prison.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Study capital flow. It accumulates. In economics there are 3 transactions.
1. bartering, good for another good;
2. money for a good;
3. money, for a good, in order to gain more money.

See, the 3rd one has been known since the 1800s. It is precisely the reason corporations have come to dominate private enterprise. They start with capital, they invest it and out pops more money than what they started with. This means those who have the most money will continue to accumulate it. This is how capital works, and capital, we both know, influences governments significantly, even controlling the US government on many levels.

If you want to dismantle governments, you cannot leave these mammoth institutions of capital to continue towering over the people. "Freedom for all" would continue to be hollow.

It's only because governments give these entities special favors to act outside of the market that they're able to "dominate" private enterprise. Absent the government they're forced to work within the constraints of the market just like everybody else.

That's why you have no chance to dismantle the government without also ending private tyranny (i.e. corporations). These corporations have supposedly operated in a free market in the 1800s. They discovered, and as Marx noted, free competition always leads to winners. These winners impose their will onto the government like any sane person would do except they actually get heard. They become the architects of policy. And if you look, 99% of global policy in all countries are policies that benefit the interest of the rich. The game is rigged and free competition always undoes itself. We don't exist in anything remotely like free markets pursuing our comparative advantage.

Any post-government circumstances will again result in the winners arranging the game so they benefit. Either we have no government and no private property, or we have a world designed by those who benefit from the design and how they get us to go along is the only difference (through concepts of private property, free competition, markets, and dozens of lies misunderstand by all because the culture won't allow it to be criticized).

I don't want to "dismantle" the government. As I already explained my position is that the majority of people will eventually realize that government is an anachronistic idea that only serves those favored by politicians, and will simply stop supporting the government thus causing it to disappear. The only way to get rid of private property, however, would be through force and coercion, and if you're going to do that you might as well just have a government because that's their modus operandi to begin with.

That being said, I'd be perfectly content living peacefully alongside communists or whomever decided that they don't believe in private property, so long as they're willing to extend the same courtesy to those of us who do believe in private property. They can have their communes where nobody owns anything, and the rest of us can live on our own property. Would they be willing to coexist peacefully do you think, or would they try to force the rest of us to give up our property?

 

[gnarlylove]

I don't want to "dismantle" the government. As I already explained my position is that the majority of people will eventually realize that government is an anachronistic idea

This is a potentially millenia approach of wait and see. With the history of evolution you are probably correct this will happen...eventually. But in the mean time we are going to end our race either through nuclear accident (or attack) or environmental degradation (either in 200 years or 1000) for as long as we export capitalism, free markets we will bring ultimate doom. I'm not attempting to scare, I have no concern for that. I am merely offering a description of a future we are rushing headlong in. Thus I conclude we actually do need to address the travesty the US government and world governments have done to the mass of people.

The only way to get rid of private property, however, would be through force and coercion, and if you're going to do that you might as well just have a government because that's their modus operandi to begin with.

This is ass backwards. Private property was declared at the extermination of often advanced civilizations, especially America. It's funny how you can un-write that very real fact about private property but you can think it matters once you de-colonize property. Wow. It's not like people who have property deserve it. It is in most cases inherited and given capital attracts capital, it will forever expand under fewer and fewer hands. Meritocracy is a flat joke and fringe examples of success are not the norm by any stretch. All statistics show this and I have some if you are interested.

I must say I am very thrilled to discuss anarcho-capitalism with someone as intelligent and on-point as you but wow. In addition, the modus operandi of free markets and profit of US multi-national corporations comes from the IMF imposing this principle of free trade so the local population cannot develop and own their own resources. The whole concept of expanding free markets and democracy is at the behest of corporations who see profit of unimaginable portions to be made through slaughter in the Congo, and 20 other African nations, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Philippines, Vietnam, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia....the list nearly includes all 190+ countries on this planet. Multi-national corporations are then free to do business with way cheaper labor, make the appearance of development in one or two districts for white or rich tourism of an otherwise abjectly stratified nation. This is the third world model that capitalism loves: a rich sector of about 5% or less of the pop. and an otherwise forgotten population of servants. People who benefit in this system could not tolerate having it any other way and they rely heavily on governments to protect their private property and "national interests." Thus, private enterprise without governments will still be governments, just by another name.

That being said, I'd be perfectly content living peacefully alongside communists or whomever decided that they don't believe in private property, so long as they're willing to extend the same courtesy to those of us who do believe in private property. They can have their communes where nobody owns anything, and the rest of us can live on our own property. Would they be willing to coexist peacefully do you think, or would they try to force the rest of us to give up our property?

I really appreciate this gesture. It obviously demonstrates your intellect and willing to compromise--a key point of progress. However, how do you determine what's owned and what's unowned? Is it 50/50 or do those who want to be king over their dominion get it, which would be like 98% of people (given our culture of propaganda that teaches "mine" from birth)? See, the trouble with property is its exclusionary. So inviting and including cannot co-exist with exclusion.

I want to be clear what I mean by king over their dominion. I mean the property is essentially saying that when you own something you have complete control over how it is employed. There is no responsibility for behaving rationally. If you own 30 acres you can grow tobacco on that land or you can stack port-a-potties into the sky on every square inch. You can also pollute the hell out of your land and string trash all along it within your fenced boundaries. Unfortunately certain things are prohibited by the government (that's why you kinda want to see it dissolve I imagine). But the thrust of property is not being human, being as stupid as you wish with what you own. I don't think we can tolerate such intolerable behavior, or potential for intolerable behavior. There must be agreement to co-exist without destroying out natural habitat in a way that ruins it for everyone since all things are inter-connected and dependent. But people who want to own something will never give up this thrust of exclusionary behavior towards the rest of the inhabitants. If we want an advanced civilization that actually inhabits the earth with flourishing for all we must recognize how destructive property is to our responsibility and co-habitation.

To further this point about property:

If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him. Why, then, to this other question: What is property! may I not likewise answer, It is robbery, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?...
The proprietor, the robber, the hero, the sovereign — for all these titles are synonymous — imposes his will as law, and suffers neither contradiction nor control; that is, he pretends to be the legislative and the executive power at once . . . [and so] property engenders despotism . . . That is so clearly the essence of property that, to be convinced of it, one need but remember what it is, and observe what happens around him. Property is the right to use and abuse . . . if goods are property, why should not the proprietors be kings, and despotic kings — kings in proportion to their facultes bonitaires? And if each proprietor is sovereign lord within the sphere of his property, absolute king throughout his own domain, how could a government of proprietors be any thing but chaos and confusion?

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/property/ch01.htm

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't want to "dismantle" the government. As I already explained my position is that the majority of people will eventually realize that government is an anachronistic idea

This is a potentially millenia approach of wait and see. With the history of evolution you are probably correct this will happen...eventually. But in the mean time we are going to end our race either through nuclear accident (or attack) or environmental degradation (either in 200 years or 1000) for as long as we export capitalism, free markets we will bring ultimate doom. I'm not attempting to scare, I have no concern for that. I am merely offering a description of a future we are rushing headlong in. Thus I conclude we actually do need to address the travesty the US government and world governments have done to the mass of people.

The only way to get rid of private property, however, would be through force and coercion, and if you're going to do that you might as well just have a government because that's their modus operandi to begin with.

This is ass backwards. Private property was declared at the extermination of often advanced civilizations, especially America. It's funny how you can un-write that very real fact about private property but you can think it matters once you de-colonize property. Wow. It's not like people who have property deserve it. It is in most cases inherited and given capital attracts capital, it will forever expand under fewer and fewer hands. Meritocracy is a flat joke and fringe examples of success are not the norm by any stretch. All statistics show this and I have some if you are interested.

I must say I am very thrilled to discuss anarcho-capitalism with someone as intelligent and on-point as you but wow. In addition, the modus operandi of free markets and profit of US multi-national corporations comes from the IMF imposing this principle of free trade so the local population cannot develop and own their own resources. The whole concept of expanding free markets and democracy is at the behest of corporations who see profit of unimaginable portions to be made through slaughter in the Congo, and 20 other African nations, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, Haiti, Philippines, Vietnam, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia....the list nearly includes all 190+ countries on this planet. Multi-national corporations are then free to do business with way cheaper labor, make the appearance of development in one or two districts for white or rich tourism of an otherwise abjectly stratified nation. This is the third world model that capitalism loves: a rich sector of about 5% or less of the pop. and an otherwise forgotten population of servants. People who benefit in this system could not tolerate having it any other way and they rely heavily on governments to protect their private property and "national interests." Thus, private enterprise without governments will still be governments, just by another name.

That being said, I'd be perfectly content living peacefully alongside communists or whomever decided that they don't believe in private property, so long as they're willing to extend the same courtesy to those of us who do believe in private property. They can have their communes where nobody owns anything, and the rest of us can live on our own property. Would they be willing to coexist peacefully do you think, or would they try to force the rest of us to give up our property?

I really appreciate this gesture. It obviously demonstrates your intellect and willing to compromise--a key point of progress. However, how do you determine what's owned and what's unowned? Is it 50/50 or do those who want to be king over their dominion get it, which would be like 98% of people (given our culture of propaganda that teaches "mine" from birth)? See, the trouble with property is its exclusionary. So inviting and including cannot co-exist with exclusion.

I want to be clear what I mean by king over their dominion. I mean the property is essentially saying that when you own something you have complete control over how it is employed. There is no responsibility for behaving rationally. If you own 30 acres you can grow tobacco on that land or you can stack port-a-potties into the sky on every square inch. You can also pollute the hell out of your land and string trash all along it within your fenced boundaries. Unfortunately certain things are prohibited by the government (that's why you kinda want to see it dissolve I imagine). But the thrust of property is not being human, being as stupid as you wish with what you own. I don't think we can tolerate such intolerable behavior, or potential for intolerable behavior. There must be agreement to co-exist without destroying out natural habitat in a way that ruins it for everyone since all things are inter-connected and dependent. But people who want to own something will never give up this thrust of exclusionary behavior towards the rest of the inhabitants. If we want an advanced civilization that actually inhabits the earth with flourishing for all we must recognize how destructive property is to our responsibility and co-habitation.
Paradox of tolerance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who is this "we" that is exporting capitalism and free markets? I assume you're referring to the U.S., but this is nonsense. The U.S. doesn't practice free market capitalism, but rather a mixed economy which bears far more resemblance to mercantilism or even fascism than capitalism. Nor is the IMF an example of free market capitalism in action. It's yet another governmental organization created to give yet more benefit to certain governments and corporations to act outside of the free market.

The IMF and Moral Hazard - Philipp Bagus - Mises Daily

https://mises.org/daily/4831/End-the-IMF

To claim that the IMF is an example of free market capitalism is laughable.

The interesting thing here is that you somehow think imperialism is tantamount to free markets or private property. Your example of America is what's backwards. The imperial governments, Britain, Spain, etc..., violated the private property rights of the native inhabitants of the American continents and islands. You say they came in, displaced the natives, and then established property rights for themselves, and then claim that this proves property rights are bad. The simple fact here is that they simply stole what was already the property of the natives. This proves the evils of imperialism and government, not private property.

As far as environmental issues go, private property is the ultimate answer to helping the environment. When absolute property rights are respected by law then it would be illegal for people to pollute on others' property, whereas now we have governments giving special privileges to big companies and the like to do exactly that.

You say there is no responsibility for acting rationally, and yet ignore the ever present profit motive. If somebody is using their property irrationally, then somebody else will come along, purchase that property, and put it towards a more rational use. The incentive is always to maximize the utility of your own property. This is why private property rights protect the environment, and why you wouldn't see somebody stack endless port-a-potties on their property.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I refuse to take anyone who calls himself an anarchist seriously UNLESS he means that he believes in NO GOVERNMENT WHATEVER.

jUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BUST UP WHATEVER GOVERNMENT THAT EXISTS NOW AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING YOU IMAGINE WILL BE BETTER DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN ANARCHIST.






If one has any order, any government it is NOT in a state of anarchy.

One cannot be an anachro-communist.

The phase makes NO sense.

This thread is about anarchism NOT "anarchy". Look them up in the dictionary and you'll see two very different definitions. And yes, anarchism is collectivist, i.e. anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, libertarian socialism and libertarian communism. And libertarianism was originated by French socialists such as Joseph DeJacque, Elisee Reclus, Sebastien Faure to describe socialism without a centralized authority (i.e. anarchism). DeJacque even had a socialist newsletter called Le Libertaire. IT WAS EVEN IN THE NAME!

Listen amigo..I knew Europeans who called themselves anarchists. Today they are probably called terrorists by the government of France, These guy were the real deal. I knew them well enough that they invited me to desert the NAV and join them under an assumed identity in France. I declined, of course.

They too were confused by the word meaning of ANARCHIST

I might actually AGREE with what these confused individuals believed about government and how it needed to be restructured, EXCEPT for their insistence that they were anarchists.

They were communists, who hated their government.

Were they in power they would IMPOSE ORDER as they saw fit. That's not anarchism, that's the opposite of anarchism


WORDS have meanings, LEARN Them

Failure to do so sets you up to become a victim of propagandists who spend inordinate amounts of effort obfuscating by distorting word meanings.

You have never met an anarchist. YOu are NOT an avarchist yourself, either.

There might be some anarchists but they either live on a desert island or they're in prison.

It is nice that you know enough to declare that no one has ever met an anarchist. Did you ever consider the possibility that anarchists do not have to break the law, and can stay out of prison? Or is your own personal lack of ability to imagine fighting against the government using anything but violence the absolute for everyone?

 

[shart_attack]

I think it's dumb.

 

[emilynghiem]

Since some people in another thread expressed interest in discussing anarcho-capitalism, I thought I'd make a thread specifically for the discussion of anarchism in general. So here would be a good place to post your, hopefully well thought out and instructive, objections to or arguments for any form of anarchism, be it individualist or collectivist.

[MENTION=8806]manifold[/MENTION] [MENTION=46376]gnarlylove[/MENTION] [MENTION=29021]TakeAStepBack[/MENTION]

Because I believe "people and government" are one (for example I interpret the first amendment right of the people to assemble and to petition as "petitioning each other" for redress of grievances; where we share responsibility for govt -- whoever successfully represents us and redresses grievances is whom we empower with authority to govern),

I have been equally accused of being an "anarchist" as a "promoting a big govt police state." I think whatever biases people have, I scare them into thinking I am the opposite. Because I believe in universal inclusion, and resolving conflicts of interest to prevent coercion, people think that means "anarchy."

(I believe we already have "lawlessness" whenever authority is abused to enforce laws unjustly for political interests that violates the spirit of the laws.)

I believe consensus on laws would check and prevent corruption and abuse;
so it would PREVENT the "lawlessness" people associate with anarchy.

(I believe in self-government under natural laws enforced by consent of individuals in private decisions and consensus on public laws; I align with rightwing and leftwing Constitutionalists who both seek independent self-government because they don't trust political abuses by opposing interests to take over control.)

So I don't even think people use the same term to mean the same thing! To some people 'anarchy' means not believing in imposing external institutionalized govt authority on individuals, but focusing on independent social contracts and greater autonomy.

Overall, I find Anarchism has as many different approaches to it as Atheism.
Some followers are more "reactionary against" oppression by theists, monarchists, oligarchists, etc.

While others are for living freely by NATURAL laws (which seem "anti- or a-"
in contrast with social norms taken for granted as the 'default').

Like any other belief system, people who believe in these should have equal freedom in and responsibility for exercising those beliefs within the same consideration of respecting equal exercise by others.

There should be mutual respect, and within that spirit of "equal protection of the laws" then I believe any conflict can be worked out where nobody has to impose on anyone else.

I believe the basic "checks and balances against abuses" apply to ANY religious or political view or practice, in order to include and respect the beliefs of equal persons under law.

As more people agree to respect and protect each other's "free exercise," due process and right to petition to resolve conflicts and redress grievances, we'd have greater personal accountability and consistent enforcement of Constitutional and natural laws in general.

I count all forms of anarchism, atheism, etc. as protected views, where the laws and how these are applied and enforced should reflect the consent of the governed and include all interests equally; this requires shared responsibility to prevent any abuses either way.

If people and government are one body under law, it is as much up to the individuals inside and outside govt to operate by mutual consent, if we are going to enforce equal standards as the basis of civil government and agree on laws that reflect the consent of the public.

 

[gnarlylove]

Who is this "we" that is exporting capitalism and free markets? I assume you're referring to the U.S., but this is nonsense. The U.S. doesn't practice free market capitalism, but rather a mixed economy which bears far more resemblance to mercantilism or even fascism than capitalism. Nor is the IMF an example of free market capitalism in action. It's yet another governmental organization created to give yet more benefit to certain governments and corporations to act outside of the free market.

The IMF and Moral Hazard - Philipp Bagus - Mises Daily

https://mises.org/daily/4831/End-the-IMF

To claim that the IMF is an example of free market capitalism is laughable.

Free markets have two meanings. The one that everyone uses and the one that appears in economics text books. We both agree America is not practicing free markets. But the IMF and World Bank export genuine free markets. IMF is a supra-national organization but mostly represents the interests of the developed nations. American policy is protectionist, but in order for business to continue expanding it forces countries with un-tapped resources to adopt economic policy that benefits American corporations, namely free trade. It so happens these developing nations are led to believe by the IMF, the US and developed world that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA) to development: so open the markets up to competition allowing US based multi-nationals to come in and extract all resources. In most cases this decimates chances for the people of that nation to benefit since profits go to the free market of US multi-nationals. What really happens is the government of that nation benefits, 3% of the population benefits, and the US corporations benefit. Those not benefiting are the people of that nation. How ironic there is no alternative to development yet development that we see antithetical to human development to those in that country. This is what happens when free markets exist: people who have benefited from free markets use their wealth and influence to rig the game (undo free markets) so that free markets are an excuse to gobble up all the resources and profit.

This would not be possible without the concept of private property.

This is what I meant and perhaps I wasn't clear enough but the IMF loans money on the condition that the country opens its markets for free trade. This is absolute deception and when they accept the terms, and we've seen the result of free trade for the last 50 years in developing nations: it decimates the population, drives them off fertile land (so the US multi-nationals can enjoy fertile land) into slums giving access to expendable cheap labor. Free markets are practiced in these developing countries and the result is the third world and mass starvation, disease and death because they cannot afford it. If there was no such thing as private property no one could tell them they must leave their fertile regions.

The interesting thing here is that you somehow think imperialism is tantamount to free markets or private property. Your example of America is what's backwards. The imperial governments, Britain, Spain, etc..., violated the private property rights of the native inhabitants of the American continents and islands.

The facts are as follows. Colonists demonstrated their right to America because these Natives has no claim to the land, no legal document. Thus, Alexis de Tocqueville writes

The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did they succeed even in wholly depriving it of its rights; but the Americans of the United States have accomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity, tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world. It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity.

How did America become America? It fought off the British, French, Mexicans, and exterminated the Natives. If you read James Madison he designed the US government to protect land owners and that the "wealth of the nation should be in the land holders."

Land holders cannot exist without private property. Land holding was the actuation of expansion. Land holding cannot be shared, it is monolithic in legal form thus Natives have no right to exist on land I own because owning means I can do whatever my heart desires with the land, including destroy that land for profit. And if you live in Ohio you know mountain top removal is just a skip away in WV.

Why are you incapable of admitting the truth that private property is the justification used for countless injustices and denying liberty to people who are simply trying to exist? Private property allows people to deny humans access to water and fertile land thereby denying access to life which ties them to wage slavery in order to survive. Why do you defend this factually evil institution (private property? Why are you capable of seeing the evils of government but cannot link the idea that government exists in order to defend private property and expand it?

As far as environmental issues go, private property is the ultimate answer to helping the environment.

Not polluting on some one else's property is only half the issue. The other issue is not polluting on your own property but this violates the idea of property: it's yours so do what you want. No one can tell another person what to do with their property and no one can tell the fracking industry to not dump waste water into the Ocean or in Ohio underground wells that contaminate water supply since they apparently own it. Ownership gives no consideration to future generations; it asks how can I benefit from this land? Thus, property is the exact reason pollution came about since it forsakes future considerations for immediate profit and benefit.

Basically private property excludes people from telling me what to do with my property. Ownership is the source of pollution since I have a right to do what is wrong. Ownership frees me from responsible behavior and profit exists in extraction and destruction.

 

[westwall]

Who is this "we" that is exporting capitalism and free markets? I assume you're referring to the U.S., but this is nonsense. The U.S. doesn't practice free market capitalism, but rather a mixed economy which bears far more resemblance to mercantilism or even fascism than capitalism. Nor is the IMF an example of free market capitalism in action. It's yet another governmental organization created to give yet more benefit to certain governments and corporations to act outside of the free market.

The IMF and Moral Hazard - Philipp Bagus - Mises Daily

https://mises.org/daily/4831/End-the-IMF

To claim that the IMF is an example of free market capitalism is laughable.

Free markets have two meanings. The one that everyone uses and the one that appears in economics text books. We both agree America is not practicing free markets. But the IMF and World Bank export genuine free markets. IMF is a supra-national organization but mostly represents the interests of the developed nations. American policy is protectionist, but in order for business to continue expanding it forces countries with un-tapped resources to adopt economic policy that benefits American corporations, namely free trade. It so happens these developing nations are led to believe by the IMF, the US and developed world that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA) to development: so open the markets up to competition allowing US based multi-nationals to come in and extract all resources. In most cases this decimates chances for the people of that nation to benefit since profits go to the free market of US multi-nationals. What really happens is the government of that nation benefits, 3% of the population benefits, and the US corporations benefit. Those not benefiting are the people of that nation. How ironic there is no alternative to development yet development that we see antithetical to human development to those in that country. This is what happens when free markets exist: people who have benefited from free markets use their wealth and influence to rig the game (undo free markets) so that free markets are an excuse to gobble up all the resources and profit.

This would not be possible without the concept of private property.

This is what I meant and perhaps I wasn't clear enough but the IMF loans money on the condition that the country opens its markets for free trade. This is absolute deception and when they accept the terms, and we've seen the result of free trade for the last 50 years in developing nations: it decimates the population, drives them off fertile land (so the US multi-nationals can enjoy fertile land) into slums giving access to expendable cheap labor. Free markets are practiced in these developing countries and the result is the third world and mass starvation, disease and death because they cannot afford it. If there was no such thing as private property no one could tell them they must leave their fertile regions.

The interesting thing here is that you somehow think imperialism is tantamount to free markets or private property. Your example of America is what's backwards. The imperial governments, Britain, Spain, etc..., violated the private property rights of the native inhabitants of the American continents and islands.

The facts are as follows. Colonists demonstrated their right to America because these Natives has no claim to the land, no legal document. Thus, Alexis de Tocqueville writes

The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did they succeed even in wholly depriving it of its rights; but the Americans of the United States have accomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity, tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world. It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity.

How did America become America? It fought off the British, French, Mexicans, and exterminated the Natives. If you read James Madison he designed the US government to protect land owners and that the "wealth of the nation should be in the land holders."

Land holders cannot exist without private property. Land holding was the actuation of expansion. Land holding cannot be shared, it is monolithic in legal form thus Natives have no right to exist on land I own because owning means I can do whatever my heart desires with the land, including destroy that land for profit. And if you live in Ohio you know mountain top removal is just a skip away in WV.

Why are you incapable of admitting the truth that private property is the justification used for countless injustices and denying liberty to people who are simply trying to exist? Private property allows people to deny humans access to water and fertile land thereby denying access to life which ties them to wage slavery in order to survive. Why do you defend this factually evil institution (private property? Why are you capable of seeing the evils of government but cannot link the idea that government exists in order to defend private property and expand it?

As far as environmental issues go, private property is the ultimate answer to helping the environment.

Not polluting on some one else's property is only half the issue. The other issue is not polluting on your own property but this violates the idea of property: it's yours so do what you want. No one can tell another person what to do with their property and no one can tell the fracking industry to not dump waste water into the Ocean or in Ohio underground wells that contaminate water supply since they apparently own it. Ownership gives no consideration to future generations; it asks how can I benefit from this land? Thus, property is the exact reason pollution came about since it forsakes future considerations for immediate profit and benefit.

Basically private property excludes people from telling me what to do with my property. Ownership is the source of pollution since I have a right to do what is wrong. Ownership frees me from responsible behavior and profit exists in extraction and destruction.[/QUOTE]






Yes, this is very telling. I own my own property and it is well maintained. Collective properties on the other hand tend to be LESS maintained. Some of the most horribly polluted areas I have had the pleasure of cleaning up were in socialist paradises.

MOST people who own property take care of it because they have a vested interest in doing so, those that don't (at least in my area) are renters, it's not their property so they don't care what it looks like and the owners are usually absentee so have no idea what the place looks like.

When the owners are close by, the places look good, even if they are rental properties because once again the owners have a vested interest in maintaining the appearance and the value of the property because the two are inextricably linked.

 

[gnarlylove]

Westwall, your argument may appear true, and in many instances, may be true for you but if you look at the world you will see how this is also false. First of all, the world was not property until the mid 1800s. Since then we've had the worst environmental degradation ever. I wonder why people aren't taking better care of it since it is owned? You don't need to include climate change in that--humans have physically polluted the world in ways never dreamed of before and that coincides with property. I thought property meant you take care of things. Hmm, guess we may think that but we don't behave like that. The only important consideration is the behavior since obviously there's a disconnect.

Who is responsible for the bulk, the 2/3rds of pollution? It is caused by just 90 companies. And they own their damn shit and deeply depend on it!

When a person or collectivist legal entity (i.e. corporation), who is also a person, owns property, they ask how can we profit the most with the available resources if they care to continue existing. They end up making that property inhospitable or at best a devaluing of property prices once their work is done.

Well, hot damn! Maybe you might want to re-think property. And don't bash collectivist living when you don't have the first clue what it means. Property does not exist in such an arrangement so your "collectively owned" comment a) doesn't make sense; b) is just another way of saying corporation, who are de facto collectivist legal entities that collectively own property. But what you meant to say is in communes there is no collective property--nothing is owned and everyone depends upon what is available; thus all is respected as sacred, important, and contributing to human flourishing. So shit gets taken care of because everyone has a sense of responsibility to everything. This responsibility to everything is essential to cultivate if we wish to live in a world without intolerably pollution.

 

[gnarlylove]

Westwall, just one more thing. I wonder what you think of this argument: Take one case just to illustrate. Suppose I’m a slave owner, and you’re opposed to slavery, and I give you the following argument for slavery: “Suppose you rent a car and I buy a car. Who’s going to take better care of it? Well, the answer is that I’m going to take better care of it because I have a capital investment in it. You ‘re not going to take care of it at all. If you hear a rattle, you ‘re just going to give it back to Hertz and let somebody else wor,y about it. If I hear a rattle, I’m going to take it to the garage because I don’t want to get in trouble later on. In general, I’m going to take better care of the car I own than you’re going to take of the car you rent. Suppose I own a person and you rent a person. Who’s going to take better care of that person? Well, parity of argument, I’m going to take better care of that person than you are. Consequently, it follows that slavery is much more moral than capitalism. Slavery is a system in which you own people and therefore you take care of them. Capitalism, which has a free labor market, is a system. in which you rent people. If you own capital, you rent people and then you don ‘t care about them at all. You use them up, throw them away, get new people. So the free market in labor is totally immoral, whereas slavery is quite moral.”

 

[oldfart]

Basically private property excludes people from telling me what to do with my property. Ownership is the source of pollution since I have a right to do what is wrong. Ownership frees me from responsible behavior and profit exists in extraction and destruction.

You cover a lot of issues well, and I'll comment here on one. In the history of legal theory in England the counterweight to private property was the concept of the commons. For example from about 800 CE, the forests were considered throughout northern Europe and Britain as the property of the sovereign or overlord, which gave him the exclusive right to hunt large game such as European bison, elk, red deer, bear, and boar. But certain other rights to the forest were vested in the common people. These included the right to gather firewood and fell timber for construction, to gather herbs, plants, and mushrooms for food and medicinal purposes, to snare and collect hares, rabbits, and other small game, to run domestic pigs and goats to feed in forests, to collect honey and salt, and make any other use of the forest not inconsistent with the manor rights. These were not inconsequential rights and formed a large part of the subsistence of the common people. Sometimes these rights were available to anyone, but more often by tradition they belonged to villages.

Similarly, much of the open pasture was owned in common by the village for the open grazing of sheep and goats, and rarely cattle. All of this was considered legally to be "the commons" and owned by the common people and the villages. In fact this was the cause of the great rural impoverishment in Britain in the early part of the nineteenth century; "enclosure movement" where the aristocracy appropriated the commons in the name of private property, put up fences to keep the animals of the common people out, and began large scale sheep production to supply the great textile industries then arising. This was what forced the rural population into the mines of the Southwest and the wretched slums of the great industrial cities. It drastically degraded the health and life expectancy of the lower classes and contributed as much to the decimation of the people as the Black Death of the Fourteenth Century, but without the salubrious changes in the wage rates of the common people and legal accommodations made necessary by the extreme labor shortage which ensued; the true cause of the end of de facto serfdom in England and the beginning of the slow rise of the late middle ages.

So today the ghost of the enclosure movement is rising again in the cloak again of privatizing the commons. No longer is there a public interest which can counterbalance the drive to destroy the commons for short term private gain. It is not our livelihoods that are under assault, it is the ecosystem we depend on for life itself: the air we breathe, the water we drink, the viability of the soil which produces our food. Based on experience, we can expect increases in morbidity and mortality, social changes which reduce more common people to penury, legal changes that benefit the wealthy and strip the rest of society of rights, and damage that will take centuries to reverse.

Again unrestricted private property will become the author of the four horsemen, spreading death, famine, disease and destruction across the globe, destroying the legal, social, and economic fabric of societies everywhere, and destroying the planet as our grandparents knew it. When the history of the twenty-first century is written, it may well be the New Dark Age of humanity, the last dystopia.

 

[gnarlylove]

Ah, very helpful. I now clearly see where the "Tragedy of the Commons" comes into being although it is empirically false and its counterpart was the Charter of the Forests in the Magna Carta.

 

[Clement]

I'm of the opinion, and I don't know whether this is the standard belief of anarcho-capitalists in general or not, that the only "cost," so to speak, is the time that it will take to get to an AnCap society. I think it's inevitable that the State will be seen for what it is and people will simply stop supporting it en mass. Then it will crumble and nothing will be erected in its place.

While living in a rural area of the US a while back I posited a situation just like this. Say a small town of 5000 people just decided to "quit" one day. They have almost everything they need and go back to barter for their economy. Not exactly anarchy but not exactly capitalism.

 

[Trinnity]

Govt is the problem, not the answer. No wonder anarchists are so fed up.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who is this "we" that is exporting capitalism and free markets? I assume you're referring to the U.S., but this is nonsense. The U.S. doesn't practice free market capitalism, but rather a mixed economy which bears far more resemblance to mercantilism or even fascism than capitalism. Nor is the IMF an example of free market capitalism in action. It's yet another governmental organization created to give yet more benefit to certain governments and corporations to act outside of the free market.

The IMF and Moral Hazard - Philipp Bagus - Mises Daily

https://mises.org/daily/4831/End-the-IMF

To claim that the IMF is an example of free market capitalism is laughable.

Free markets have two meanings. The one that everyone uses and the one that appears in economics text books. We both agree America is not practicing free markets. But the IMF and World Bank export genuine free markets. IMF is a supra-national organization but mostly represents the interests of the developed nations. American policy is protectionist, but in order for business to continue expanding it forces countries with un-tapped resources to adopt economic policy that benefits American corporations, namely free trade. It so happens these developing nations are led to believe by the IMF, the US and developed world that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE (TINA) to development: so open the markets up to competition allowing US based multi-nationals to come in and extract all resources. In most cases this decimates chances for the people of that nation to benefit since profits go to the free market of US multi-nationals. What really happens is the government of that nation benefits, 3% of the population benefits, and the US corporations benefit. Those not benefiting are the people of that nation. How ironic there is no alternative to development yet development that we see antithetical to human development to those in that country. This is what happens when free markets exist: people who have benefited from free markets use their wealth and influence to rig the game (undo free markets) so that free markets are an excuse to gobble up all the resources and profit.

This would not be possible without the concept of private property.

This is what I meant and perhaps I wasn't clear enough but the IMF loans money on the condition that the country opens its markets for free trade. This is absolute deception and when they accept the terms, and we've seen the result of free trade for the last 50 years in developing nations: it decimates the population, drives them off fertile land (so the US multi-nationals can enjoy fertile land) into slums giving access to expendable cheap labor. Free markets are practiced in these developing countries and the result is the third world and mass starvation, disease and death because they cannot afford it. If there was no such thing as private property no one could tell them they must leave their fertile regions.

The interesting thing here is that you somehow think imperialism is tantamount to free markets or private property. Your example of America is what's backwards. The imperial governments, Britain, Spain, etc..., violated the private property rights of the native inhabitants of the American continents and islands.

The facts are as follows. Colonists demonstrated their right to America because these Natives has no claim to the land, no legal document. Thus, Alexis de Tocqueville writes

The Spaniards were unable to exterminate the Indian race by those unparalleled atrocities which brand them with indelible shame, nor did they succeed even in wholly depriving it of its rights; but the Americans of the United States have accomplished this twofold purpose with singular felicity, tranquilly, legally, philanthropically, without shedding blood, and without violating a single great principle of morality in the eyes of the world. It is impossible to destroy men with more respect for the laws of humanity.

How did America become America? It fought off the British, French, Mexicans, and exterminated the Natives. If you read James Madison he designed the US government to protect land owners and that the "wealth of the nation should be in the land holders."

Land holders cannot exist without private property. Land holding was the actuation of expansion. Land holding cannot be shared, it is monolithic in legal form thus Natives have no right to exist on land I own because owning means I can do whatever my heart desires with the land, including destroy that land for profit. And if you live in Ohio you know mountain top removal is just a skip away in WV.

Why are you incapable of admitting the truth that private property is the justification used for countless injustices and denying liberty to people who are simply trying to exist? Private property allows people to deny humans access to water and fertile land thereby denying access to life which ties them to wage slavery in order to survive. Why do you defend this factually evil institution (private property? Why are you capable of seeing the evils of government but cannot link the idea that government exists in order to defend private property and expand it?

As far as environmental issues go, private property is the ultimate answer to helping the environment.

Not polluting on some one else's property is only half the issue. The other issue is not polluting on your own property but this violates the idea of property: it's yours so do what you want. No one can tell another person what to do with their property and no one can tell the fracking industry to not dump waste water into the Ocean or in Ohio underground wells that contaminate water supply since they apparently own it. Ownership gives no consideration to future generations; it asks how can I benefit from this land? Thus, property is the exact reason pollution came about since it forsakes future considerations for immediate profit and benefit.

Basically private property excludes people from telling me what to do with my property. Ownership is the source of pollution since I have a right to do what is wrong. Ownership frees me from responsible behavior and profit exists in extraction and destruction.

No, free markets have one meaning, and that meaning does not involve an organization extracting wealth from people of one country to bail out governments of other countries. This is not capitalism, and it is not free markets.

Except as I've already pointed out, the natives did have a claim to the land. They were the original owners of the land because they homesteaded the land themselves. That a government came along and exterminated them is not evidence of property rights, but rather evidence that property rights have been violated. You want to vilify private property for the crimes of imperialist and expansionist governments, but I'm afraid that's not going to fly.

Ownership of property gives the owner every incentive to preserve that property so that it can be as productive as possible for as long as possible.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm of the opinion, and I don't know whether this is the standard belief of anarcho-capitalists in general or not, that the only "cost," so to speak, is the time that it will take to get to an AnCap society. I think it's inevitable that the State will be seen for what it is and people will simply stop supporting it en mass. Then it will crumble and nothing will be erected in its place.

While living in a rural area of the US a while back I posited a situation just like this. Say a small town of 5000 people just decided to "quit" one day. They have almost everything they need and go back to barter for their economy. Not exactly anarchy but not exactly capitalism.

Why would they need to revert back to barter? The market could easily create a commodity currency for them to use.