Anarchy?

[ultimablah]

Would a society without a centralized, involuntary taxation power be sustainable? (eg. an anarchy?) Could people be happy without having to rely on a system that uses force to mandate policies? Would economics work? What problems would an anarchy have?

I was interested in this topic after writing an essay on the effects of government regulation, and a curious thought-experiment of a society without a government. I was curious on what your opinions and theories were.

[Ben Niehoff]

There would be an unstable power vacuum, and someone would rush in and become Despot. Most likely this someone would be whoever happened to have the most weapons at the time. It wouldn't be pretty.

Essentially, you can't have an anarchic society, because there are always people who want to control things, and they will take advantage of the situation.

[LowlyPion]

You might want to look at the Spanish Civil War.

http://www.revolutionbythebook.akpress.org/recommended-reading-the-spanish-civil-war/

[russ_watters]

You may want to research a good fraction of the countries in Africa. Somalia is one excellent example.

For the purpose of the paper, you should differentiate between "anarchy" and "anarchists". Anarchists aren't really after anarchy - what they are after looks a lot more like communism (but varies a lot). The label basically just means they are anti-existing government. I'd be very careful about using self-proclaimed "anarchists" as sources. There is no single definition because it isn't a real/coherent political theory the way "Democracy", "communism" and "monarchy" are.

[LightbulbSun]

There is no single definition because it isn't a real/coherent political theory the way "Democracy", "communism" and "monarchy" are.

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state."

[WarPhalange]

Anarchy works on the presumption that people are generally good and smart.

Neither of those is totally true and it takes a small minority of bad people to ruin a society, and enough stupid people and the entire society will collapse as well.

[Office_Shredder]

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state."

See: difference between "anarchy" and "anarchists" and which one russ was referring to

[CaptainQuasar]

I wouldn't be surprised if Anarchism, like Communism, came about as a reaction to industrialization.

Except that perhaps whereas Communists decided (officially, at least) that industrialization was an inevitable and an essential progression of history, Anarchists probably originally thought it was a temporary fad or something. It seems like they thought that if they could destroy the societal structures that gave rise to industrialism, industrialism and the miseries it had brought to the world of Victorian America and Europe would just go away.

Without some centralization of power it seems to me that economics could not work the same way, no. There would be merchantile activity moving small amounts of good around and small-scale production of goods but commerce on a large scale simply wouldn't be possible, without roads, shipping facilities, etc. The business environment would be completely unstable, like in the 1980's China or in 1990's Russia where business was half-legal and half-illegal, so everyone at every point would always be squeezing a business enterprise and siphoning off whatever they could.

Famines and epidemics and environmental destruction would run rampant without any central authority to prepare for and prevent them. There are many problems that we just don't see and don't think about today because our society is geared towards having centralized authority and standardization. I mean, look at that cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe in the last few days.

Or, do you know how many diseases used to be spread entirely through food, because there were no centralized public health authorities until the 1910's - 1920's? You know how most people usually caught tuberculosis in the 19th century and before? From drinking milk. You'd drink a nice, tasty glass of fresh milk, and a few months later die because your lungs were filled with potato-like tumors. Bovine tuberculosis is communicable to humans. Even once they knew this was the cause it took decades to eradicate it because every U.S. state and European country had to form centralized health authorities that would force farmers to maintain proper sanitation and inoculate their cows for tuberculosis and other diseases.⚛

[russ_watters]

Well the general definition is that anarchy means "without a state." Well, there is more implied to me, and it shows up in the dictionary: 1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society. My preference is for the first definition, a condition of absolute lawlessness. I prefer it because it is a starting point for discussion, and used by Hobbes for that purpose. Any report on anarchy must start with Hobbes: "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"[1]. In this state any person has a natural right to do anything to preserve his own liberty or safety, and life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."[1]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature
The entire book is available here and if it isn't required reading, it should be: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't be surprised if Anarchism, like Communism, came about as a reaction to industrialization. Since they are largely developments of the same school of thought, yes. Except that perhaps whereas Communists decided (officially, at least) that industrialization was an inevitable and an essential progression of history, Anarchists probably originally thought it was a temporary fad or something. Stalin may have embraced industrialization, but that doesn't mean that he and Marx didn't still think industrialization was a major cause of the problems that communism was designed to fix. Communism most certainly was a reaction to the growing pains of the industrial revolution. Ie: It seems like they thought that if they could destroy the societal structures that gave rise to industrialism, industrialism and the miseries it had brought to the world of Victorian America and Europe would just go away. Yep.

[LightbulbSun]

Well, there is more implied to me, and it shows up in the dictionary: My preference is for the first definition, a condition of absolute lawlessness.

Same. A lot of anarchists seem to base their argument on faith. They have faith that our transportation systems will be maintained. They have faith that the people will prevent some company from taking other businesses out of business or exploiting consumers. They have faith that fire departments and hospitals will still be vital. It's just as faith-based as a religion.

They also seem to think that people who state anarchy means chaos is just a misconception based upon people's ignorance of anarchy. I really wish they would debunk that with a good argument instead of just saying it's a misconception because they don't want to hear their philosophy is flawed.

[ultimablah]

"Same. A lot of anarchists seem to base their argument on faith. They have faith that our transportation systems will be maintained. They have faith that the people will prevent some company from taking other businesses out of business or exploiting consumers. They have faith that fire departments and hospitals will still be vital. It's just as faith-based as a religion.

They also seem to think that people who state anarchy means chaos is just a misconception based upon people's ignorance of anarchy. I really wish they would debunk that with a good argument instead of just saying it's a misconception because they don't want to hear their philosophy is flawed."

If people wanted transportation systems, wouldn't they work towards maintaining them?
If they wanted to prevent a company from taking over other companies or exploiting consumers, wouldn't people prevent the companies from exploiting them, or the companies prevent being taken over?

If people want fire departments and hospitals, would hospitals and fire departments not be profitable for people who provided them?

Anarchy frequently causes chaos, mostly due to peoples' previous conditioning by government, but anarchy does not necessitate chaos.

If people want something, they are willing to work for it or pay for it.
The simple premise is that people are greedy.

How is the philosophy flawed?

[jreelawg]

If people wanted transportation systems, wouldn't they work towards maintaining them?
If they wanted to prevent a company from taking over other companies or exploiting consumers, wouldn't people prevent the companies from exploiting them, or the companies prevent being taken over?

If people want fire departments and hospitals, would hospitals and fire departments not be profitable for people who provided them?

Anarchy frequently causes chaos, mostly due to peoples' previous conditioning by government, but anarchy does not necessitate chaos.

How is the philosophy flawed?

Without a government, law enforcement would be private, the military private, emergency services private, and etc. It would boil down to who had the most money, or who had the most guns, and they would end up being a dictator of an entirely capitalist society. This would not be a place you would want to live in. The dictators might end up taxing the people if they want any protection, or they may slaughter who ever they want. They may end up enslaving most of the population, and while it may have started out as Anarchy, it would begin to model a corrupt dictatorship that would classify as a government.

[ultimablah]

Without a government, law enforcement would be private, the military private, emergency services private, and etc. It would boil down to who had the most money, or who had the most guns, and they would end up being a dictator of an entirely capitalist society. This would not be a place you would want to live in. The dictators might end up taxing the people if they want any protection, or they may slaughter who ever they want. They may end up enslaving most of the population, and while it may have started out as Anarchy, it would begin to model a corrupt dictatorship would would essentially classify as a government.
Let me make absolutely sure: Your argument against anarchy is because you believe anarchy is unsustainable, and anarchy would collapse. Is this correct?

Just want to make sure so I can effectively argue against it.

How would the company with the most money get the most money? Are you saying nothing would prevent them from getting money, would prevent them from getting an army, would prevent them from taxing people?

[jreelawg]

How would the company with the most money get the most money?

They would hire guns and control all the resources. Maybe there wouldn't even be a currency, only control of land and resources. The dictator may or may not share any of it with the people. Probably only enough to have a work force and hired guns to maintain control.

They may not be organized enough to control all the land, and so other warlords may control other areas. They would then fight each other and come through pilaging and stealing when possible. Some people might be able to survive in tribes hiding from warlords, but they may at any time be caught and slaughtered.

[ultimablah]

They would hire guns and control all the resources. Maybe there wouldn't even be a currency, only control of land and resources. The dictator may or may not share any of it with the people. Probably only enough to have a work force and hired guns to maintain control.

They may not be organized enough to control all the land, and so other warlords may control other areas. They would then fight each other and come through pilaging and stealing when possible. Some people might be able to survive in tribes hiding from warlords, but they may at any time be caught and slaughtered.

Again I ask, how would the companies get the money to hire guns? Why would guns allow themselves to be hired? Are you saying nothing would prevent them from getting money, would prevent them from getting an army, would prevent them from taxing people? Why would, in short, people fund a system which will only benefit a few, and obviously not all that fund it? To fund a military conquest is extremely risky and difficult; after all, if you fail, your life is most likely destroyed. Plus, it takes time and advertising to construct a military force; those who oppose you will not want to fund you, and those who think that even if they succeed, nothing guarantees that they will benefit will not fund you. Even the companies that fund you will face difficulties, because people would be alerted of such a military organizing, and people would want to be protected, and thus would willingly pay a company large sums of money to protect their way of life. The people would, of course, make sure that the company can not then turn around and use the resources to oppress the people after winning the war.

[jreelawg]

Again I ask, how would the companies get the money to hire guns? Why would guns allow themselves to be hired? Why would, in short, people fund a system which will only benefit a few, and obviously not all that fund it? To fund a military conquest is extremely risky and difficult; after all, if you fail, your life is most likely destroyed.

You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch.

If you don;t work for the warlord, then the warlords men may slaughter you. Plus the warlord may be the only provider of food, so it is do as told or die with the rest. Disobeying would mean execution.

The people who are quickest at the draw gathering weapons and recruits would prosper. The way to the top would be ruthless brutality and would most likely guarantee that the ruler would not be compassionate. Many would want to live in peace, but one band of killers could easily exploit their weakness and take over. If not one, then another, but some will surely try, and the most ruthless would most likely succeed.

Because there would be no legit law enforcement, looting would end up being the most successful business, and that business would grow and strive for monopoly. In which case you would have essentially a Mafia run country, however, in a country of no law, the mafia would not be sufficient at protecting people from most criminal activity.

[ultimablah]

If you don;t work for the warlord, then the warlords men may slaughter you. Plus the warlord may be the only provider of food, so it is do as told or die with the rest. Disobeying would mean execution.

You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch.

The people who are quickest at the draw gathering weapons and recruits would prosper. The way to the top would be ruthless brutality and would most likely guarantee that the ruler would not be compassionate. Many would want to live in peace, but one band of killers could easily exploit their weakness and take over. If not one, then another, but some will surely try.

Because there would be no legit law enforcement, looting would end up being the most successful business, and that business would grow and strive for monopoly.

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

You have to realize, a LOT of people have to gather and say "okay, let's try and take everyone over" in order to have a remote chance of succeeding. A lot. They would have to be numerous enough in every form of production to be able to out-produce every other company combined, and with all people who do not like military conquests funding the other companies, the other companies could, quite probably, stop the military conquest. It's not just speed, it's also quantity. People would realize that if a dictatorship arose, their businesses, in all probability, would not exist, and peoples' livelihoods would, in all likeliness, not exist, and would strive to prevent it from arising.

Again, where would the warlord get the men to slaughter people for him? Where would he get the money to pay the people? You're assuming that the warlord has the resources to control the people, which would allow him to then be able to, uh, control the people. The assumption that people would be too afraid to compete against the warlord if the majority were for the warlord is a valid assumption; the problem is simply reaching majority.

What do you mean by "legit" law enforcement? Most people do not want to be stolen from, murdered, raped, or otherwise harmed, so there is a huge market for protective services. There would also be endless applicants to be an employed protector.
What would happen to a murderer? I doubt the majority of people would want to do business with a murderer, and so the murderer would have extreme difficulty financially and socially.

"You would be forced to fund it as they steal everything you own and dump you in a ditch."
This is assuming they already have the power to force you to fund it. How do they gain the power to force you to fund it?

[jreelawg]

If that is the case, then why, in a world of governments trying to stop organized crime, is organized crime so big.

In Russia after the collapse of the USSR, the Mafias took over, and now control directly or indirectly 80% of Russia's banks. Mafias systematically extort and kill those who resist their control, and eventually the most ruthless rise to the top.

The mafia would own the companies, and they would protect their interests, which may be having a lot of people working for you, but it would no doubt be an ugly world.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/special_report/1998/03/98/russian_mafia/70095.stm

[jreelawg]

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

You have to realize, a LOT of people have to gather and say "okay, let's try and take everyone over" in order to have a remote chance of succeeding. A lot.

Are you arguing a hypothetical where man started from scratch, like if a bunch of small children washed up on an island, or are you talking anarchy in modern society. Because the guns are already here and built, and the organized criminals already very powerful.

[jreelawg]

What do you mean by "legit" law enforcement? Most people do not want to be stolen from, murdered, raped, or otherwise harmed, so there is a huge market for protective services. There would also be endless applicants to be an employed protector.
What would happen to a murderer? I doubt the majority of people would want to do business with a murderer, and so the murderer would have extreme difficulty financially and socially.


So then, would it be a mandatory tax for all in exchange for protection? Isn't that a government? Which company would get the money?

Otherwise, would you pay COD. I can see it now.

"uh, security corp. there uh, killin and raping my family, please come help."

"Ok sir, how do you plan to pay for our services."

"Uh, I'll give you three beaver pelts and five pound of rice."

[drankin]

Actually believing that anarchy would work is naive. If it could work it would have happened by now. The only places on earth that do practice it in some fashion do not work at all. Somalia for example. To actually argue it as viable environment for civilization is amusing. Especially on this forum.

[CaptainQuasar]

As I said above I definitely think that Anarchism is a load of hooey. But an interesting thought occurred to me: what's the difference between believing that anarchy would magically make everything wonderful and fix all our problems and believing that free markets would magically make everything great and fix all our problems? It seems to me that free-marketeers are essentially the ideological descendants of Anarchists for the late 20th and 21st centuries.

(And before people pile on me with facts about the actual benefits of markets as a tool, I'm well acquainted with much of the mathematical, economics, and computer modeling research that demonstrates that. I'm talking about the people who think that markets can achieve miracles and that they're infallible, who think that the market should always run the show and so always respond to any cataclysmic debacles of markets like the current financial crisis by saying "The problem is that it wasn't free enough! If there only had been even less regulation and oversight everything would've worked out just fine!")⚛

[jreelawg]

A completely free market would pretty much be anarchy. Meaning if law enforcement, emergency services, military, education, etc were all private. There would be no reason for taxes, and what place would there be for government policy?

[CaptainQuasar]

Oh, this is awesome. I'm going to call all the free market guys "bomb-throwing Anarchists" now. :biggrin:⚛

[LightbulbSun]

Deregulation of the markets is what ultimately caused this financial mess. Let this be another exhibit to show to people why deregulation just doesn't work. I'm sure libertarians will find some excuse to save face though.

[ultimablah]

So then, would it be a mandatory tax for all in exchange for protection? Isn't that a government? Which company would get the money?

Otherwise, would you pay COD. I can see it now.

"uh, security corp. there uh, killin and raping my family, please come help."

"Ok sir, how do you plan to pay for our services."

"Uh, I'll give you three beaver pelts and five pound of rice."


Which company? Whichever one you choose. Multiple companies would exist in competition.
You don't even have to choose any, which means that it's not mandatory; if you find that it is safer to not support (and be defended by) a power-hungry company rather than it is to support a power-hungry company, than you will not support it, and instead, you would be willing to pay for a company that you could trust. Since that demand would exist, most likely by many people who wanted safe protection, companies would arise to fill that demand, because people are greedy.

No "system" is perfect and infalliable, and to compare it to a utopia is folly. It simply would be better than the current system in place.

Lightbulbsun, I've heard that interesting tidbit that Obama threw out there. In what way, exactly, did deregulation cause the financial mess? What deregulation, specifically, caused the current crisis?

Drankin, no system has "worked" so far, so if any system could "work", it would have happened so far. And no, our representative republic has not worked.

A better question is, why should the market NOT run the show? What will allowing the market to run its own course cause? The market is a self-improving process, as would be shown if it were simply allowed to run. The market would recover, businesses would spring up that (if deregulation did cause the failure) would not make the same mistakes, and life would continue.

Hm, in response to the last point, let me ask a question; what protects people from the government they institute? What protects us from our government? If governments are suddenly destroyed, yes, there are power holes, which people will immediately try to fill with themselves out of greed.

[TheStatutoryApe]

If looting were the most profitable business, wouldn't one make a killing by providing a company that said that they would provide against looters?

Again, where would the warlord get the men to slaughter people for him? Where would he get the money to pay the people? You're assuming that the warlord has the resources to control the people, which would allow him to then be able to, uh, control the people. The assumption that people would be too afraid to compete against the warlord if the majority were for the warlord is a valid assumption; the problem is simply reaching majority.

A person or group of persons running a security operation would be a prime candidate for a dictator. Perhaps one starts out as a blacksmith(I'm going back in time here for the sake of simplicity) but no one seems to be able to afford arms. On the other hand people are being hired for security and using either clubs or old substandard equipment because they can't afford decent weapons. So Mr. Smith has an idea. He organizes several independant security men, outfits them with quality arms (which he makes himself) and sells their services based on having a superior service both in quality of arms and in being an organized group who can back one another up. Smith makes quite a bit of money selling his services and pays his men well so he is able to attract and pay for more men and sell their services to more clients making yet more money. Smith may even wind up hiring more smiths to keep up with the demand of outfitting his men. If Mr. Smith continues to succeed and outstripes his competitors he will eventually have the largest most well equiped military force in the area. He may even wind up with a near monopoly on weapons production.

Anyone following the same path as Mr. Smith above can eventually wind up with a large quantity of resources and influence. Perhaps passing it down through generations the family fortune will become even more massive and the family reputation more pronounced. We will wind up with classism. Devides between those who have amassed fortunes and those who have little but their own labour to rely upon. Those with resources will be able to hire Mr. Smith and those with little will not be able to compete for his services. Perhaps a family with particularly vast resources (perhaps involved in banking and loans) will hire Smith's men as an army. Hire them to police their holdings which just might cover a vast expanse of the area. They can then tell Mr. Smith that they would like him to enforce certain rules in all of these areas, for the common good of course. And now you have a central authority who commands the largest military force in the area enforcing the rules that they believe ought be enforced. Is that still anarchy?

[ultimablah]

A person or group of persons running a security operation would be a prime candidate for a dictator. Perhaps one starts out as a blacksmith(I'm going back in time here for the sake of simplicity) but no one seems to be able to afford arms. On the other hand people are being hired for security and using either clubs or old substandard equipment because they can't afford decent weapons. So Mr. Smith has an idea. He organizes several independant security men, outfits them with quality arms (which he makes himself) and sells their services based on having a superior service both in quality of arms and in being an organized group who can back one another up. Smith makes quite a bit of money selling his services and pays his men well so he is able to attract and pay for more men and sell their services to more clients making yet more money. Smith may even wind up hiring more smiths to keep up with the demand of outfitting his men. If Mr. Smith continues to succeed and outstripes his competitors he will eventually have the largest most well equiped military force in the area. He may even wind up with a near monopoly on weapons production.

Anyone following the same path as Mr. Smith above can eventually wind up with a large quantity of resources and influence. Perhaps passing it down through generations the family fortune will become even more massive and the family reputation more pronounced. We will wind up with classism. Devides between those who have amassed fortunes and those who have little but their own labour to rely upon. Those with resources will be able to hire Mr. Smith and those with little will not be able to compete for his services. Perhaps a family with particularly vast resources (perhaps involved in banking and loans) will hire Smith's men as an army. Hire them to police their holdings which just might cover a vast expanse of the area. They can then tell Mr. Smith that they would like him to enforce certain rules in all of these areas, for the common good of course. And now you have a central authority who commands the largest military force in the area enforcing the rules that they believe ought be enforced. Is that still anarchy?

No, it's not.
I see the argument that you are making, and I find it interesting. If Mr. Smith and his family were dictatorial, then perhaps that would form a dictatorship. It's feasible, but I would like to clarify a few things;

If people cannot afford weapons, how can people afford men with weapons?
Who else, besides Mr. Smith, the security staff, and the co-arms smiths would become obscenely rich?
Would you pay for the services of Mr. Smith (assuming that the world had been hit by a "reset wealth" and "delete government" button today, and Mr. Smith was just starting out with guns)?

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, it's not.
I see the argument that you are making, and I find it interesting. If Mr. Smith and his family were dictatorial, then perhaps that would form a dictatorship. It's feasible, but I would like to clarify a few things;

If people cannot afford weapons, how can people afford men with weapons?
Who else, besides Mr. Smith, the security staff, and the co-arms smiths would become obscenely rich?
Would you pay for the services of Mr. Smith (assuming that the world had been hit by a "reset wealth" and "delete government" button today, and Mr. Smith was just starting out with guns)?
How can Mr. Smith afford his smithy even? People will have something whether that's some resources or a skill or what have you everyone will have something and some will have more than others even if they are not obscenely wealthy.

But on the capacity to afford armed men. A merchant may be able to afford, say, a hundred dollars to purchase a cheap weapon. Perhaps even five hundred to purchase a decent one. But can he weild it well? Can he police and run his shop simultaneously anyway? If he can't weild it well and wont be able to wander his shop brandishing it to discourage theivery what would be the point in spending even as little as a hundred dollars on this weapon? Why not just get a heavy stick for when he does happen to catch a theif? Or maybe he can more easily afford to pay Mr. Smith. Especially if Mr. Smith's men are more capable of discouraging and catching theives and vandals than the merchant with his hundred dollar gun under the counter. For a merchant "Loss Prevention" is the key to whether or not he can afford security. And if his customers feel more safe in his shop he will possibly even get a boost in business. The idea essentially is that the investment should make him money not cost him money. "Affordability" has to do with more than just having the resources, it also requires an ability to make the investment worth the cost.

[TheStatutoryApe]

There are some good books I have read that, though they are fiction, deal with similar scenarios in interesting ways.

Tim Powers' book Dinner at Deviant's Palace takes place in a sort of post apocalyptic California. In this book a certain gentleman's family were capable of preserving the knowledge of how to produce liquor. They owned and ran an vineyard so they were capable of producing brandy. In hard times liquor sells very well and they made a killing. With their wealth they expanded production and procured more land. Eventually they got into banking and loans which resulted in a currency backed by brandy in denominations of gallons and 'fifths'.

Greg Bear's book Moving Mars revolves around Mars settlers and their political turmoils. When they first arrived on Mars they came in families, like early american settlers came to the west. Nominally the laws from the government on earth were to be upheld but Mars was too far out of reach for them to actually be enforced. The harsh environment resulted in many families dying off and others fighting amongst each other for resources.
Those families that were lucky to have survived better than others began forming alliances with others nearby that they believed they could trust and helped them become stable. These turned into amalgams usually with a certain family who had prospered most, or simply been more politically savvy, at the top of the family hierarchy. They then began sending representatives to other amalgams of families to hash out treaties and trade agreements. Eventually it turned into a rather strongly entrenched syndicalist style government.

I don't believe necessarily that anarchy will result in dictatorship, social collapse, or any terrible outcome or disaster. I just don't think it will survive the natural tendancy of people to collect, organize, and follow.

[CaptainQuasar]

There are some good books I have read that, though they are fiction, deal with similar scenarios in interesting ways.

Tim Powers' book Dinner at Deviant's Palace takes place in a sort of post apocalyptic California. In this book a certain gentleman's family were capable of preserving the knowledge of how to produce liquor. They owned and ran an vineyard so they were capable of producing brandy. In hard times liquor sells very well and they made a killing. With their wealth they expanded production and procured more land. Eventually they got into banking and loans which resulted in a currency backed by brandy in denominations of gallons and 'fifths'.

That's definitely fiction. Of all the technological advancements that might be lost, knowledge of how to make booze would be the last one to go. :biggrin:⚛

[russ_watters]

If people wanted transportation systems, wouldn't they work towards maintaining them?
If they wanted to prevent a company from taking over other companies or exploiting consumers, wouldn't people prevent the companies from exploiting them, or the companies prevent being taken over?

If people want fire departments and hospitals, would hospitals and fire departments not be profitable for people who provided them?

Anarchy frequently causes chaos, mostly due to peoples' previous conditioning by government, but anarchy does not necessitate chaos.

If people want something, they are willing to work for it or pay for it.
The simple premise is that people are greedy.

How is the philosophy flawed? The philosophy is flawed because greedy people will not want to do all those thigns you just said. People will not fund fire departments and police departments and roads voluntarily. We don't have to theorize or philosophize about this: we already know it because it has been tried. This isn't theory, it's reality. Not even in small groups can you find enough agreeable people to do such things (unless ideology is the reason the group is formed). Talk to anyone who belongs to a condo association to hear about this fact of human nature in action.

One wonders how anarchists think we've arrived at the system of government we have today. For example, how do we know people won't build quality buildings if there were no building codes? Answer: for a hundred years, there were no building codes and people did not build quality buildings and as a result, a lot of people died in fires that consumed most of our major cities (among other problems).

If there is ever an example of Political Science really being a science and not a philosophy, this one is it. People call their ideas theories, then ignore the implications of what a theory is. They ignore the experimentation and falsification!

[jreelawg]

Even if secericorp. became large and powerful enough to privide semi decent protection, how would they decide what was criminal or not without laws. You could just as easily hire them to commit crimes for you as you could hire them to protect you. They would provide commando like support to whoever paid them.

Otherwise how would they be tried, in a private court where money decides the sentence. You would pay to have someone arrested and pay to have them sentenced. Would there be private jails, or none at all? Would you pay to have your offender incarcerated, or would all "crimes" mean a death sentence, torture or mutilation?

Without laws and a court, the word crime would have no meaning. Hired guns would be hired guns wether it was for protection or not.

Additionally, ownership would be a useless word without laws. Land would be not owned, but would be territory and goods the same. How would one claim their territory?

Just like to throw in that McCain is as much an Anarchist as Obama a socialist.

[Pythagorean]

Anarchy is a temporary phenomena. Heirarchy is always formed, even if it's subtle. Even between three friends, a heirarchy is established.

The heirarchy may rotate depending on the context and moods of everyone, of course. But the simple fact is that some people are more willing to do what they're told and other people are more satisfied telling people what to do. Eventually, an authority is established based on power and will. (If someone has power but no ambition, they easily lose their power to someone who has ambition, but no power, thus making someone with power and ambition.)

If you want to get down to it, heirarchy itself is likely formed out of greed. The rich land-owner and lawmakers of the mercantile age eventually realized that they were suffocating their own coffers by restricting trade. Adams, Hobbes, and Locke all showed how the government could profit from letting people own their stuff and making them feel more secure. So allowing more freedoms may have very well been a product of greed itself.

[jreelawg]

A prime example of Anarchy is the history of the Mongols. Watch the movie "Mongol", it is really good. They had clans and warlords, and looting was a way life. It was a life of looting and killing and running and hiding from looters and killers.

[russ_watters]

A prime example of Anarchy is the history of the Mongols. ... They had clans and warlords, and looting was a way life. It was a life of looting and killing and running and hiding from looters and killers. That's still not anarchy: it's tribalism. Still, it is a good example of the reality that humans will always organize themselves into, at least, little groups, even when they are undeveloped enough to not organize into nations.

[LightbulbSun]

I've noticed a lot of anarchists are refining their definition for anarchy. Some are actually speaking more about the economic framework than the political framework. I know this is debasing what anarchy actually is, but I find it interesting that they're more focused on the economic aspects when contending for anarchy.

[LightbulbSun]

This anarchist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9eEK_GwfiI) has a weird definition for anarchy.

Anarchism: Any system that is operating without coercion.

I'm not even sure what that means. :confused:

[OrbitalPower]

What russ is saying is true of course: people failed to adequately establish essentials to society such as adequate environmental laws and business ethics.

However, I don't think this is the best argument against anarchy. These failures happened (and still do occur in the third world) within the confines of a capitalist system. Of course, in capitalism, there is a profit incentive, and since capitalists don't come up with a very good solution to the tragedy of the commons, the system inevitably led to poor living standards for the masses with large monopolies for the select few protected by the state.

Capitalists inevitably have to turn a profit, so any move to look out for the common good or deal with their own externalities puts them at a disadvantage in the market place. Furthermore, people in a capitalist system are left to take care of their own welfare, their own healthcare, their own workers' compensation, and retirement, so of course there is not much incentive to invest in the community.

Presumably, anarchists (Tucker, Proudhon, etc.) rejected capitalism, "landed monopolies," etc., and thus believed in more communual values and framework. You can't say people won't act a certain way just because they didn't do what you expected them to do under a hierarchical system.

The problem of Somalia is a problem of capitalism:

Somalis are so desperate to survive that attacks on merchant shipping in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean will not stop, a pirate leader promises.
A French warship keeps guard over commerical vessels in the Gulf of Aden last week.

"The pirates are living between life and death," said the pirate leader, identified by only one name, Boyah. "Who can stop them? Americans and British all put together cannot do anything."

...

Boyah said that the piracy began because traditional coastal fishing became difficult after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks. Traditional fishermen started attacking the trawlers until the trawler crews fought back with heavy weapons. The fishermen then turned to softer targets.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/01/pirate.interview/index.html

"after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks"

That is to say, after the military collapsed the government to back private property rights collapses as well, and you had overfishing.

The argument against anarchy that pythagorean gives is much better.

[OrbitalPower]

Anarchy is a temporary phenomena. Heirarchy is always formed, even if it's subtle. Even between three friends, a heirarchy is established.


Technically, anarcho-primativism lasted for about ten thousand years. This was human-kinds most progressive period, evolution wise.

The heirarchy may rotate depending on the context and moods of everyone, of course. But the simple fact is that some people are more willing to do what they're told and other people are more satisfied telling people what to do. Eventually, an authority is established based on power and will. (If someone has power but no ambition, they easily lose their power to someone who has ambition, but no power, thus making someone with power and ambition.)

If you want to get down to it, heirarchy itself is likely formed out of greed. The rich land-owner and lawmakers of the mercantile age eventually realized that they were suffocating their own coffers by restricting trade. Adams, Hobbes, and Locke all showed how the government could profit from letting people own their stuff and making them feel more secure. So allowing more freedoms may have very well been a product of greed itself.


I pretty much agree with everything you wrote here.

Anarchy, like other left-wing theories, puts far much faith in the individual to ultimately do the right thing, rather than being guided by society as the more "right-wing" theories insist.

However, you're putting little faith in people at all, I think.

The problems people face today, limited resources, environmental degredation, declining health and IQ (ironically, which may have been caused by modern pharmacology, sanitation, and various death prevention techniques) in third world countries and even in many first world ones, are huge problems.

Their are problems that will require massive intelligence, good will, and much cooperation among human beings all over the planet.

[Pythagorean]

Technically, anarcho-primativism lasted for about ten thousand years. This was human-kinds most progressive period, evolution wise.

Yeah, but I don't think that's the same as anarchy. Anarchy seems to have more conscious human intervention ("If you see somebody taking charge, you'll be expected to beat them!" -NOFX), while anarcho-prmitivism seems more instinctual.

However, you're putting little faith in people at all, I think.

True, but I don't know if this is necessarily an invalidating factor.

addendum:

Anarchism: Any system that is operating without coercion.

I also think this kind of fails in my frame of reference. If you're trying to dismantle a heirarchy, how do you do it without coercion?

addendum 2!!!:

My underlying, unspoken argument here (I just realized) is that hierarchy is a natural development process and anarchy is an ideal.

[OrbitalPower]

This anarchist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9eEK_GwfiI) has a weird definition for anarchy.



I'm not even sure what that means. :confused:

I stopped watching at "I'm luke, 21, unemployed, and single...."

Probably not a good idea to learn about political theories from a video blogging site like Youtube.

Free-Resources:

Notes on Anarchism (http://www.spunk.org/texts/intro/sp000281.html) By Noam Chomsky (MIT professor) might be a good place to start.

This entry (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html) in the Encyclopaedia Britannica would be another good place, as it's even written by Kropotkin.

Here (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAanarchist.htm) is another encyclopedic entry from spartacus.schoolnet, which has very well written entries.

The book "Community, Anarchy, and Liberty" is also a good introduction, written by Michael Taylor I believe and I think the full version is on Google books (http://books.google.com/books?id=eI9xYg7CwiwC&dq=Community,+Anarchy,+and+Liberty&pg=PP1&ots=BOevC15jbS&source=bn&sig=VGg_dQfeMjV1xLtdmEPUz-Um2ww&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result).

The mathematician and philosopher (who helped moved philosophy more into the scientific realm while finding not much use for the older philosophies) Bertrand Russell talked about anarchy a few times and even wrote a book on it called Roads to Freedom: Socialism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism (http://www.zpub.com/notes/rfree10-a.html).

Chomsky on Anarchy is another good one.

And "The Anarchist FAQ web page" also is pretty good.

If you use Debian Linux you can download it by apt-get install anarchism or just google it as well.


I've read a lot of it but don't necessarily agree with it, but just putting it out there for those interested and rebuttals to anarchy in polsci could be posted by someone else.

[russ_watters]

However, I don't think this is the best argument against anarchy. These failures happened (and still do occur in the third world) within the confines of a capitalist system. So you think the "state of nature" is capitalism? Really? Any capitalist worth his salt would argue that market forces should be able to cause people to fund fire departments (just like an anarchist), but in both cases, the result is the same: the lack of regulation leads to human nature making the decision and the decision is no.
Of course, in capitalism, there is a profit incentive, and since capitalists don't come up with a very good solution to the tragedy of the commons, the system inevitably led to poor living standards for the masses with large monopolies for the select few protected by the state. That's a serious bastardization of the history of industrialization and economics. The common war cry of socialists that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" has never been true under capitalism and in industrialization. The fact of the matter is that industrialization benefits everyone in an industrialized society. The meteoric rise in global living standards over the past 100 years is a direct, overall illustration of this fact.

The tragedy of the commons is a human nature issue that every form of government/economics has to deal with. It is not strictly a capitalism issue. But at least in capitalism, the economy can grow on its own and people have the means to do something about it. Capitalists inevitably have to turn a profit, so any move to look out for the common good or deal with their own externalities puts them at a disadvantage in the market place. Furthermore, people in a capitalist system are left to take care of their own welfare, their own healthcare, their own workers' compensation, and retirement, so of course there is not much incentive to invest in the community. That's not how capitalists view capitalism. To a capitalist, the profit motive must include looking out for their customers, otherwise their customers will go away. The problem is that pure capitalism suffers from a similar flaw as pure socialism: people are both greedy and short sighted. The greedy part is the bigger problem for socialism, the short sighted part is the bigger flaw for capitalism. A good economic system must try to deal with both.
The problem of Somalia is a problem of capitalism:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/12/01/pirate.interview/index.html

"after foreign fishing trawlers depleted local fish stocks"
Criminals are not a good source of information on the motivation for crime. They are twisted liars. As others have pointed out, being a pirate is far more profitable than being a fisherman. Being bad people in a lawless land, they chose piracy. That's not capitalism, that's anarchy. That is to say, after the military collapsed the government to back private property rights collapses as well, and you had overfishing. You're missing the point: if Somalia had a functional government, it would not have piracy. If the foreign fishermen were not around, they would still have piracy. That makes it a [lack of] government problem.

[russ_watters]

Technically, anarcho-primativism lasted for about ten thousand years. So what? We had to learn how to be more than just animals who talk. It may be true that it was more or less stable, but that isn't really relevant here. In people with developed brains, a body of knowledge to draw on, and a high population density, it is a temporary thing. This was human-kinds most progressive period, evolution wise. Besides the obvious contradiction of longevity vs progress, comparing that 10,000 to the last 100 would seem to me to be a convincing argument to the contrary.

[OrbitalPower]

So you think the "state of nature" is capitalism? Really?

I didn't say anything about the "state of nature" equating to capitalism. I said that because humans are observed acting in a certain way under capitalism, you can't use that to prove that it's a fundamental human condition.

In the anthropological sciences it's well known that humans are essentially social creatures that do their best work when they are cooperative.

"State of nature" theoriests in philosophy, such as Rousseau et al., tended to use arguments against civil property as well.

Any capitalist worth his salt would argue that market forces should be able to cause people to fund fire departments (just like an anarchist)...

This isn't true at all. Economists don't predict this will happen and they are the ones who devote most of their time studying capitalism.

Only extremists would make this claim.

That's a serious bastardization of the history of industrialization and economics.

It isn't a bastardization of history, or economics. The greatest period of economic inequality in US history was during the Gilded Age - the time when there was generally a greater degree of "economic freedom" and less regulation on businesses.

There were more monopolies then than now. During America's time of Laissez-Faire capitalism, businesses generally formed mornopolies like standard oil and before that you had coal companies who would "combine" with each other to fire workers to keep down wages, the price of men, and keep up the price of coal, i.e. the wages of capital.

You don't understand the history of the trust busters and all the anti-monopoly legislation that had to be passed until you come to understand laissez-faire capitalism and its failures.

Not to mention the fact that children and women formed one third of the industrial labor force in America in the early 1900s, that there was no worker's compensation, that the menail work that Americans were forced to do for up to 17 hours during busy periods essentially made them "appdendages of the machine" as one classical liberal philosopher put it, and that if you were injured on the job there was no savings plan or any available avenues for you to take except to starve to death or put the kids to work and take them out of school.

Who are these "economists" that don't know this?

Now other countries are in this situation, but, unlike America, they do not have strong central governments to continually help build the economy and US corporations simply keep the majority perpetually in poverty by paying them slave wages, perhaps moving to another country or coddling with a totalitarian government should the employees attempt to fight for their rights.

The common war cry of socialists that "the rich get richer while the poor get poorer" has never been true under capitalism and in industrialization. The fact of the matter is that industrialization benefits everyone in an industrialized society. The meteoric rise in global living standards over the past 100 years is a direct, overall illustration of this fact.

First of all, no one said this comment. Second of all, your facts are questionable here as well. You also had the "second world" during the twentieth century, the Soviet Union, for example, and these countries have gone down in living standards and back into the third world after implementing years of capitalistic "market reforms."

After India became a democratic-capitalist state, they also lost more people every 8 years than the total nubmer who perished in the Great Chinese Famine, according to the economists and political theorists Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen (Hunger and Public Action). Sen is a nobel prize winner in economics. I don't see this as a "success story."

Third, according to the UN and the World Bank, over 50% of the people on the planet live on less than 2 dollars a day; over 60% of the planet live in rural areas. According to Dr. Abraham at the Wharton School of Business, rural population are increasing faster than their urban counterparts "mostly as a result of illiteracy, lack of access to birth control measures, and poverty" the result being that "there are more poor people in the world today than 50 years ago, and most live in rural areas."

These areas are seeing increases in poverty and strains on their resources exactly because of capitalism and industrialization; there are countries in the third world who have shipped more food out of the country than they consume, and it's not because they're fat and happy, either.

According to UN data, there are tens of millions of more people in poverty now than there were 30 years ago in Latin America.

http://www.un.org/popin/unfpa/dispatches/aug96.html

Furthermore, where poverty is decreasing, there are huge, government programs to the tune of billions of dollars every single year going to help support these underdeveloped areas. The same is true in the US as well with all of our economic management programs. The US became the leading nation AFTER WWII, and after the New Deal had built up the economy and provided an economic foundations for the years afterwards. For example, according to the economist Benjamin Bernanke's textbook, 1933-41 was "generally a period of economic growth" with "rising employment in manufacturing" and a rise in living standards. The other period of expansive economic growth was when the US was extremely protectionist. And while you don't have to agree with my interpretation of the facts, everybody who's studied International relations for five seconds knows that globalization is very debatable.

Government funding of industries and anti anti-poverty solutions, and huge, massive reinvestment programs in infastructure is hardly a triumph of capitalism, but of mixed type systems. Economists know this, and thus believe in regulating with market forces in a "market economy," in accordance with market principles, especially in areas where a lack of regulation would cause the economy to breakdown and/or operate in ways that are harmful to the public.

This is hardly "conservative" or "fixed" principles of economics like those that Republicans advocate, and why a majority of economists identify themselves as progressives (and a majority favored Obama as well according to polls by the Economist).

This is why I'd be interested in seeing where you're getting your inforation on "economics" and "the history of industrialization" - sounds like pretty shocking social science evidence to me.

The tragedy of the commons is a human nature issue that every form of government/economics has to deal with. It is not strictly a capitalism issue.

Not my point at all. Ideological capitalists don't come up with a sufficient solution for me. While they believe that sharing it would lead to people taking resources without concern for others, privatizing it leads to the same problem.

For example, if I own 40%, and someone else owns 40% of the commons, and the 20% is owned by whomever, if I try and do what's best for the commons I can be undercut in the market place. Happens all the time in economics Russ, such as with big corporations like Wal-Mart.

To a capitalist, the profit motive must include looking out for their customers, otherwise their customers will go away. The problem is that pure capitalism suffers from a similar flaw as pure socialism: people are both greedy and short sighted. The greedy part is the bigger problem for socialism, the short sighted part is the bigger flaw for capitalism. A good economic system must try to deal with both.



This "people are greedy" philosophy overlooks the cooperative nature in science, how species will sacrifice their own lives for the good species, how mutual cooperation is produced naturally and beneficial to numerous species, and so on.

Richard Dawkins even made a documentary on this entitled "Nice Guys Finish First" which is available free online.

Both claims "people are greedy" and "capitalism has been a success" are not very good arguments. The first one is a half-truth and the second one can be given for monarchies and other totalitarian societies, such as slave based ones, which went on for centuries.

So what? We had to learn how to be more than just animals who talk. It may be true that it was more or less stable, but that isn't really relevant here.

It is relevant if you believe that anarchy is unnatural. Humans seemed to get by just fine, in very harsh conditions as well.

Besides the obvious contradiction of longevity vs progress, comparing that 10,000 to the last 100 would seem to me to be a convincing argument to the contrary.

Not really.

That it took thousands of years of "civilization" to get to a supposedly "good civilization" with billions of people in poverty and another billion more leading completely miserable lives, while the minorty is awash in resources and exploiting other people's, with resources so unevenly spread, doesn't sound very good to me at all.

Not to mention the threat humans are posing to the planet; at least the people in anarcho-primitivism kept to a balance, and they didn't have such massive inequality.

You seem to be satisified with the state of the world, I find it still needs way too much work to even be considered a good, "civilized" society. There are far too many problems that need fixing.

[ultimablah]

"How can Mr. Smith afford his smithy even? People will have something whether that's some resources or a skill or what have you everyone will have something and some will have more than others even if they are not obscenely wealthy.

But on the capacity to afford armed men. A merchant may be able to afford, say, a hundred dollars to purchase a cheap weapon. Perhaps even five hundred to purchase a decent one. But can he weild it well? Can he police and run his shop simultaneously anyway? If he can't weild it well and wont be able to wander his shop brandishing it to discourage theivery what would be the point in spending even as little as a hundred dollars on this weapon? Why not just get a heavy stick for when he does happen to catch a theif? Or maybe he can more easily afford to pay Mr. Smith. Especially if Mr. Smith's men are more capable of discouraging and catching theives and vandals than the merchant with his hundred dollar gun under the counter. For a merchant "Loss Prevention" is the key to whether or not he can afford security. And if his customers feel more safe in his shop he will possibly even get a boost in business. The idea essentially is that the investment should make him money not cost him money. "Affordability" has to do with more than just having the resources, it also requires an ability to make the investment worth the cost."

Okay, the problem with this is, what about the competition? You're assuming Smith is the only smithy in the world, and has no competition, but the chance that there is no other man who can offer services of the quality of Smith's in a world as large as ours is quite low. And again, as I asked, would you purchase Smith's product if you knew he had a monopoly? There would be an "anti-Smith" market, so to speak, which any entrepreneurial individual could capitalize on.

The philosophy is flawed because greedy people will not want to do all those thigns you just said. People will not fund fire departments and police departments and roads voluntarily. We don't have to theorize or philosophize about this: we already know it because it has been tried. This isn't theory, it's reality. Not even in small groups can you find enough agreeable people to do such things (unless ideology is the reason the group is formed). Talk to anyone who belongs to a condo association to hear about this fact of human nature in action.

One wonders how anarchists think we've arrived at the system of government we have today. For example, how do we know people won't build quality buildings if there were no building codes? Answer: for a hundred years, there were no building codes and people did not build quality buildings and as a result, a lot of people died in fires that consumed most of our major cities (among other problems).

If there is ever an example of Political Science really being a science and not a philosophy, this one is it. People call their ideas theories, then ignore the implications of what a theory is. They ignore the experimentation and falsification!

Okay, if people do not want roads and fire departments and police stations, then what right does the government have to force people to pay for the goods and services people do not want? It's like a bakery saying, "our bread is good, and if you don't buy it we'll throw you into our cellar".

You have to remember, the world is a large group, and if there are a portion of people, say, 50,000 out of a million who want hospitals and would be willing to pay for them, then there is a market for that product. A minority should not be able to force the majority to conform to the minority's will. Let people make mistakes, they will learn from them.

So for your building codes question, people, after those fires, realized that the fires were bad, and so made bad buildings illegal. However, that's kind of unnecessary; people would not want to buy a house that was easily destroyed or set on fire, and so people would not buy those, and instead buy buildings which were safer. People would push for higher quality buildings, and companies which pushed low-quality buildings would go out of business.

And, if people would buy a house that is easily destroyed, then they accept the risk of their house being destroyed when they purchase it, and let people make their mistakes.

The point is, people will pay for what they want, and if they do not want a dangerous house, they will not pay for a dangerous house. Let people have the freedom to make their "mistakes".

The only thing the anarchist system assumes is that information is freely available, that people are greedy, and that people will pay for what they want.

So you think the "state of nature" is capitalism? Really? Any capitalist worth his salt would argue that market forces should be able to cause people to fund fire departments (just like an anarchist), but in both cases, the result is the same: the lack of regulation leads to human nature making the decision and the decision is no.

What is wrong with a "no" decision? Are you assuming that people can never learn, and have to be led like lambs?

Also, for the problem of monopolies, now that historical precedents are known, there is definitely a much higher fear of monopolies than there was previously. So what if a monopoly forms? If they start raising prices, a huge, gaping market of "same product, less cost" opens up, and competitors will flood in. What if it's a natural resource, and people can't set up competition? Well, even natural resources(example: coal) have competition with other natural resources(example: gas), so even if coal is monopolized, people will come up with alternative resources that are more efficient, safer, less polluting, and less expensive.

Are people naturally personally lethargic? Can people naturally not make their own decisions about what they want?

[jreelawg]

Okay, the problem with this is, what about the competition? You're assuming Smith is the only smithy in the world, and has no competition, but the chance that there is no other man who can offer services of the quality of Smith's in a world as large as ours is quite low. And again, as I asked, would you purchase Smith's product if you knew he had a monopoly? There would be an "anti-Smith" market, so to speak, which any entrepreneurial individual could capitalize on.



Okay, if people do not want roads and fire departments and police stations, then what right does the government have to force people to pay for the goods and services people do not want? It's like a bakery saying, "our bread is good, and if you don't buy it we'll throw you into our cellar".

You have to remember, the world is a large group, and if there are a portion of people, say, 50,000 out of a million who want hospitals and would be willing to pay for them, then there is a market for that product. A minority should not be able to force the majority to conform to the minority's will. Let people make mistakes, they will learn from them.

So for your building codes question, people, after those fires, realized that the fires were bad, and so made bad buildings illegal. However, that's kind of unnecessary; people would not want to buy a house that was easily destroyed or set on fire, and so people would not buy those, and instead buy buildings which were safer. People would push for higher quality buildings, and companies which pushed low-quality buildings would go out of business.

And, if people would buy a house that is easily destroyed, then they accept the risk of their house being destroyed when they purchase it, and let people make their mistakes.

The point is, people will pay for what they want, and if they do not want a dangerous house, they will not pay for a dangerous house. Let people have the freedom to make their "mistakes".

The only thing the anarchist system assumes is that information is freely available, that people are greedy, and that people will pay for what they want.



What is wrong with a "no" decision? Are you assuming that people can never learn, and have to be led like lambs?

Also, for the problem of monopolies, now that historical precedents are known, there is definitely a much higher fear of monopolies than there was previously. So what if a monopoly forms? If they start raising prices, a huge, gaping market of "same product, less cost" opens up, and competitors will flood in. What if it's a natural resource, and people can't set up competition? Well, even natural resources(example: coal) have competition with other natural resources(example: gas), so even if coal is monopolized, people will come up with alternative resources that are more efficient, safer, less polluting, and less expensive.

Are people naturally personally lethargic? Can people naturally not make their own decisions about what they want?

Lets just assume the whole world is in anarchy. Who is going to be the person who keeps it that way? In reality at least one nation would form. Then that nation would do as nations have done for thousands of years, conquest and colonize. How would rock throwing self serving anarchists fight off a united military with billions and billions of tax funds?

[mheslep]

Technically, anarcho-primativism lasted for about ten thousand years. ...I believe you must mean the human hunter-gatherer period. 'Anarcho-primativism' appears to be a political construct that makes reference to hunter-gatherer societies as part of its model; its not a term of art in anthropology.

[mheslep]

...It isn't a bastardization of history, or economics. The greatest period of economic inequality in US history was during the Gilded Age - the time when there was generally a greater degree of "economic freedom" and less regulation on businesses.

There were more monopolies then than now. During America's time of Laissez-Faire capitalism, businesses generally formed mornopolies like standard oil and before that you had coal companies who would "combine" with each other to fire workers to keep down wages, the price of men, and keep up the price of coal, i.e. the wages of capital.

You don't understand the history of the trust busters and all the anti-monopoly legislation that had to be passed until you come to understand laissez-faire capitalism and its failures.Many of those monopolies were temporary, the rose and collapsed under their own weight.

Not to mention the fact that children and women formed one third of the industrial labor force in America in the early 1900s, that there was no worker's compensation, that the menail work that Americans were forced to do for up to 17 hours during busy periods essentially made them "appdendages of the machine" as one classical liberal philosopher put it, and that if you were injured on the job there was no savings plan or any available avenues for you to take except to starve to death or put the kids to work and take them out of school.This should be put into the perspective of the rural farm life of the time and from which they came. Subsistence farming was a brutal life for most. ALL women and children worked on subsistence farms, all the time. The people who headed for the factories are evidence of this in that they voted with their feet. After India became a democratic-capitalist state, they also lost more people every 8 years than the total nubmer who perished in the Great Chinese Famine, according to the economists and political theorists Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen (Hunger and Public Action). Sen is a nobel prize winner in economics. I don't see this as a "success story."Don't confuse capitalism with free markets. Every country has 'capitalism' in that sense, even the former Soviet Union. The question is who controls the capital. In the SU the state controlled it all. India did not become a free market capitalist state until the 90's. Prior to that, the capital was mostly under the control of the state, and in that aspect analogous to the Soviet Union.

Not to mention the threat humans are posing to the planet; at least the people in anarcho-primitivism kept to a balance, and they didn't have such massive inequalityThat is not consistent with any common history of, say, the native American peoples as described by the early Columbian era explorers - if that era and place is in keeping with what you mean. Some tribes were extremely well off - well fed, well clothed, rich culture, holding large numbers of slaves, and others were very poor, on the verge of collapse - all well before the Europeans arrived.

[OrbitalPower]

Many of those monopolies were temporary, the rose and collapsed under their own weight.

The monopolies formed because of free-market policies, they came to an end after government regulation.

This should be put into the perspective of the rural farm life of the time and from which they came. Subsistence farming was a brutal life for most. ALL women and children worked on subsistence farms, all the time. The people who headed for the factories are evidence of this in that they voted with their feet.

These are the same people who provided much of the evidence against their masters to parliament in England (the saddler committee) and in the US.

Saying one form of servitude is better than another really isn't much of a convincing argument.

Every country has 'capitalism' in that sense, even the former Soviet Union. The question is who controls the capital. In the SU the state controlled it all. India did not become a free market capitalist state until the 90's. Prior to that, the capital was mostly under the control of the state, and in that aspect analogous to the Soviet Union.

Ridiculous. There was no private property in the USSR whereas many industries in India were privatized, the government only providing regulation of the industries.

It was nothing like the USSR.

That is not consistent with any common history of, say, the native American peoples as described by the early Columbian era explorers - if that era and place is in keeping with what you mean. Some tribes were extremely well off - well fed, well clothed, rich culture, holding large numbers of slaves, and others were very poor, on the verge of collapse - all well before the Europeans arrived.

It is consistent with it.

Columbus himself was amazed at the cooperation and the share-and-share-alike spirit of the Indians - he even wrote about it in his journals. Las Casas and other historians wrote much of the same thing.

There were tens of millions of Indians by the time Columbus had care in the America - about 80 million according to Encarta. They were wiped out after the Europeans came.

And they certainly did have a balance, they had nothing like the inequality that exists in the world today.

[OrbitalPower]

I believe you must mean the human hunter-gatherer period. 'Anarcho-primativism' appears to be a political construct that makes reference to hunter-gatherer societies as part of its model; its not a term of art in anthropology.

David Graeber is a world famous anthropologist, who has done very good work in anthropology, and he often puts anarchism in the perspective of anthropology as well.

Anthropologists and historians often speak of "pre-civilization" which is a time when homo-sapiens lived when there didn't exist much in terms of official records or works, and there certainly wasn't a government.

I don't see why you can't say they were "anarchist" since they had no government.

[mheslep]

The monopolies formed because of free-market policies, they came to an end after government regulation.

These are the same people who provided much of the evidence against their masters to parliament in England (the saddler committee) and in the US.

Saying one form of servitude is better than another really isn't much of a convincing argument.Servitude on the farm? Incoherent and a non-sequitur.

Ridiculous. There was no private property in the USSR whereas many industries in India were privatized, the government only providing regulation of the industries.

It was nothing like the USSR.Private property? Non sequitur. I said capital. Most of the 'commanding heights', as Lenin called the the heavy industry, was nationalized or utterly controlled by the state in India for decades after its independence.
It is consistent with it.

Columbus himself was amazed at the cooperation and the share-and-share-alike spirit of the Indians - he even wrote about it in his journals. Las Casas and other historians wrote much of the same thing.

There were tens of millions of Indians by the time Columbus had care in the America - about 80 million according to Encarta. They were wiped out after the Europeans came.

And they certainly did have a balance, they had nothing like the inequality that exists in the world today.An avalanche of non-squiturs Orbital.

[OrbitalPower]

How in the world are those non-sequiturs? You said Columbus said they were unbalanced; I haven't heard this.

What we were talking about was if industrialization and trade had always benefitted everyone. I don't see how that is the case when there are more people in poverty today than as Dr. Abraham George notes. Apparently there are "better" forms of poverty.

Read the book 1491 - the Indian populations were flourishing before the Europeans came here in the Americas.

If anything, the destruction of the Native Americans is another argument that "industrialization" and "free-trade" do not always lead to a greater benefit for all, which is what Russ had claimed.

[mheslep]

...If anything, the destruction of the Native Americans is another argument that "industrialization" and "free-trade" do not always lead to a greater benefit for all, which is what Russ had claimed.95% of the loss in native American population was due to the spread of disease, and that 95% does not include intentional bio bombs of British 'pox blankets', if that ever occurred at all.

[OrbitalPower]

95% of the loss in native American population was due to the spread of disease, and that 95% does not include intentional bio bombs of British 'pox blankets', if that ever occurred at all.

The figure among historians seems to be "up to 80%" more or less in some areas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#European_exp lorations

"Epidemics often immediately followed European exploration and sometimes destroyed entire village populations. While precise figures are difficult to determine, some historians estimate that up to 80% of some Native populations died due to European diseases after first contact."

The book is 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228789785&sr=8-1) (over 200 reviews on amazon, an average of 4 and 1/2 stars), which provides a culmination of evidence from the social sciences and the humanities and shows that they were actually quite successful, pre-trade.

This perhaps would be a good source to use as to whether they lived out of a balance with the environment, and since they seemed to be me mostly living off of "living sunlight" rather than "dead sunlight" I would say they had a blance.

The historical record is pretty clear: expansionism does not always lead to success. Slavery and Africa. And in the twentieth century, you had America and Britain etc. competing for oil in the middle east, the results of that being Britain carving up the middle east and the US propping up various dictators, even putting down attempts for the societies to democratize, etc.

Furthermore, US intervention in Latin America also led to millions of deaths, failed governments, etc.

So, I don't see how the record is "clear" that trade and industrialization is always a benefit, when it has failed even into the twentieth century.

[drankin]

So, I don't see how the record is "clear" that trade and industrialization is always a benefit, when it has failed even into the twentieth century.

Help me out here, what failed?

[ultimablah]

Lets just assume the whole world is in anarchy. Who is going to be the person who keeps it that way? In reality at least one nation would form. Then that nation would do as nations have done for thousands of years, conquest and colonize. How would rock throwing self serving anarchists fight off a united military with billions and billions of tax funds?


Anyone who wants to stay free of government tyranny will keep it that way. Nations or governmental bodies can voluntarily form, and they can voluntarily affect the people who agreed to it, but people, due to historical precedent, would realize that, in all likeliness, they would NOT benefit from a large, over-ruling governmental body. So a nation could form, but people would voluntarily fund committees to protect them from that nation should it attempt to conquer them. The government would form voluntarily, but only affect those who entered in it voluntarily(which is exactly what almost all governments today are not). If it started trying to involuntarily affect others, how would individuals protect themselves? Or in other words, how would rock throwing self serving anarchists fight of a united military with billions and billions of tax funds? Well, if a government wants to take over, first, it needs to get those billions and billions of tax funds, and in order to get tax funds, it has to tax, and in order to tax, it has to have the power to tax, and in order to get the power to tax, it first has to take over, which leads to the problem of people giving a government power. How many people would fund that government, knowing it would most likely turn on them and use them (a historical precedent set by every government), lowering the quality of life they could have otherwise gained? Where's the benefit per risk and cost?

And if people were being attacked by an outside government, then wouldn't a governmental body overrun an anarchist society? Well, they'd try their hardest to defend themselves, funding private military projects(but including, of course, requirements that the army cannot then turn on the funders, and limitations on power that would prevent the army from being able to take over after the war finishes). Not to mention, private individuals would have their own weapons(unlike the declawed population of today... if the government decides to attack us, who would defend us against our own military? It certainly would be difficult to defend ourselves).

[TheStatutoryApe]

Okay, the problem with this is, what about the competition? You're assuming Smith is the only smithy in the world, and has no competition, but the chance that there is no other man who can offer services of the quality of Smith's in a world as large as ours is quite low. And again, as I asked, would you purchase Smith's product if you knew he had a monopoly? There would be an "anti-Smith" market, so to speak, which any entrepreneurial individual could capitalize on.

There are always certain businesses that do better than others either because they have some edge over their competitors or simply got lucky. A company that gains a lead in a market can easily reinvest to expand and increase that lead. This does nto even require any sort of greed or intent for dominion on the part of the company. Mr. Smith may simply like that he is providing a good service protecting people and their businesses and providing so many people with good jobs. In fact a company that has little interest in their own personal gain will theoretically have more capital to reinvest and expand their business.

And Smith needn't compete with everyone in the world only everyone in his general region of the world in order to gain a foot hold there. Why would people necessarily have a problem with a monopoly? If people trust Mr. Smith, believe that he is a good man, like the services he provides, and the jobs he creates why would any one (save his competitors) have a problem with this? You seem to have this idea that people will instinctively distrust a monopoly. But if you look at the world around you you will see that in most markets there are only a few giants and many much smaller entities, despite even government regulation against monopolies, and primarily because people have "voted" for them by giving them their business.

[ultimablah]

Okay, so what, then, is the problem with monopolies? They're still purely voluntary.

Or, are you saying that people wouldn't suddenly become wary if Mr. Smith started hunting down people who denied his service? If Mr. Smith made any part of his company opaque?

In an anarchist society, business would be as close to politics as the system gets. I mean, if one company got a monopoly in physical power, do you think nobody would realize the dangers of such a monopoly?

On both sides, for and against any political system, slippery slope arguments appear en masse.

[DropGems]

You pseudo-intellectuals should try reading some Gnome Chomsky before you go spouting off on the intricacies of anarchy.

[LightbulbSun]

You pseudo-intellectuals should try reading some Gnome Chomsky before you go spouting off on the intricacies of anarchy.

It's NOAM not Gnome.

[mheslep]

It's NOAM not Gnome.No its Nim Chimpsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim_Chimpsky).

[mheslep]

The figure among historians seems to be "up to 80%" more or less in some areas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States#European_exp lorations

"Epidemics often immediately followed European exploration and sometimes destroyed entire village populations. While precise figures are difficult to determine, some historians estimate that up to 80% of some Native populations died due to European diseases after first contact."...
My source was UCLA professor Jared Diamond:
...Throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Columbian Native American population...
http://books.google.com/books?id=kLKTa_OeoNIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=jared&ei=NClRSemcFIPmzASU5rzHBg#PPA78,M1
The main point of contention seems to be the pre-Columbia estimate of population, which varies from 1 or 2 million up to 20 million.

Edit: Jared goes on to answer the question: Why were the native Americans decimated and not the other way around when the Spanish ships returned home carrying American infections? Answer: hunter-gatherer vs agriculture based cultures. Agrarian cultures support 10-100 denser populations (at the time) and they stay on top of their own refuse where as the h-gs move on. The result is the agrarians societies hosted diseases and their populations were forced, over the eons and bouts w/ plagues, to develop immunities; the h-g's never had to. There was an interesting recent study showing that, even today, people demonstrating immunity to AIDS, despite direct contact with the virus, are often direct descendants of 14th century plague survivors in Europe.

[shakemyhandbo]

I think this is false in the sense that today I observed heirarchy among ducks. I live at a marina and ducks were on the docks. One pair of the ducks were like the in-crowd, the cool popular ducks, stretching showing good posture, confidence, self-esteem. The other ducks were tucked up napping but they didn't look cool at all. And there is a malard duck that looks different from the others, yesterday it was not accepted, today it was accepted and it was happy. Humans are no different.

I usually find that I reject my friends in favor of people who aren't as kind.

Anarchy is a temporary phenomena. Heirarchy is always formed, even if it's subtle. Even between three friends, a heirarchy is established.

The heirarchy may rotate depending on the context and moods of everyone, of course. But the simple fact is that some people are more willing to do what they're told and other people are more satisfied telling people what to do. Eventually, an authority is established based on power and will. (If someone has power but no ambition, they easily lose their power to someone who has ambition, but no power, thus making someone with power and ambition.)

If you want to get down to it, heirarchy itself is likely formed out of greed. The rich land-owner and lawmakers of the mercantile age eventually realized that they were suffocating their own coffers by restricting trade. Adams, Hobbes, and Locke all showed how the government could profit from letting people own their stuff and making them feel more secure. So allowing more freedoms may have very well been a product of greed itself.

[shakemyhandbo]

The real problem that we have in the world is people who are floaters, interested in doing the minimum to gain social acceptance and status. Say 5% of people really know how to solve problems, useful skills. The rest of people don't contribute in the same way. This is the most intelligent forum I've seen around, you have no concept. It doesn't quite make sense to release the best inventions into society that would only impose more rules on the very same innovator.

[Al68]

Would a society without a centralized, involuntary taxation power be sustainable? (eg. an anarchy?) Could people be happy without having to rely on a system that uses force to mandate policies? Would economics work?

You could easily have government, even a republican form, without involuntary taxation. Government could simply engage in business ventures to make money, or donated trusts, or private financing, etc. It would be unlikely that it would be a monstrous gov't like the US, but only a small fraction of federal tax revenue in the US is used to operate gov't itself, build highways, basic law enforcement, etc.

As far as economics, free enterprise only needs basic rule of law to operate at its best, ie, prohibitions against theft, fraud, murder, etc.

It should be noted that the US went from (literally) nothing to the greatest nation in history with no income or payroll tax, with rare (and insignificant) exception. During this time, the US federal gov't as a whole would be considered economically insignificant by today's standards.

[Al68]

Of course, in capitalism, there is a profit incentive, and since capitalists don't come up with a very good solution to the tragedy of the commons, the system inevitably led to poor living standards for the masses

Poor living standards for the masses caused by capitalism? Are you joking? You cannot believe that the living standards for the masses are worse than before the rise of capitalism. Unless you grossly, grossly, grossly, overestimate their living standards in the past. In countries with relatively free economies today, most people eat a decent meal almost every day. This situation is virtually unique to capitalism.

In countries that greatly restrict capitalism, there is widespread abject poverty. This situation is obfuscated in the US due to our operational definition of "poverty" including children who have clothing, shelter, eat every day, water that won't kill them, etc. Some people just don't realize how much worse people in economically oppressed countries have it.

There are zero countries with significantly free economies that have such widespread abject poverty. Zero.

[misgfool]

It should be noted that the US went from (literally) nothing to the greatest nation in history with no income or payroll tax, with rare (and insignificant) exception.

You may be on to something. I don't think mongols had income or payroll tax either.

Poor living standards for the masses caused by capitalism? Are you joking? You cannot believe that the living standards for the masses are worse than before the rise of capitalism. Unless you grossly, grossly, grossly, overestimate their living standards in the past. In countries with relatively free economies today, most people eat a decent meal almost every day. This situation is virtually unique to capitalism.

It isn't capitalism that brings decent meals. It's technology.

[OrbitalPower]

Poor living standards for the masses caused by capitalism? Are you joking? You cannot believe that the living standards for the masses are worse than before the rise of capitalism.

Yes, I believe it is quite clear that capitalism drives down living standards. When it first appeared in Enlgand, more than fifty-seven per cent of the working class children died before the age of thirty-two - they had better living standards under Feudalism. The working conditions in American capitalism were equally deplorable and compared to farm life it was not as self-sustainable as well, not to mention that they also saw a decrease in political power as well.

The roaring 20s and gay 90s (1890s) also experienced extreme poverty and the policies of laissez-faire led right into the Great Depression which again saw a reversal of living standards.

The record is quite clear that capitalism only works with massive government regulation and programs.

The best empirical evidence of pure capitalism is Latin America - numerous countries followed the advice of free-market economists after the 50s and 60s and this led to some of the highest inflation and worst living standards the countries had seen in years, Chile, Argentina, and especially Nicaragua.

Nicaragua became the second poorest region in the hemisphere after the Reagan administration and freedom fighters "liberated it." The Indians in the region that Reagan was supposedly saving only could find work as divers, where a lack of standards had them diving without equipment where there brains would get smashed as it was calculated companies could bring in new workers cheaper than they could have effective living standards.

The record of laissez-faire capitalism is clear: failure after failure after failure - free-market economics has effectively been discredited.

Unless you grossly, grossly, grossly, overestimate their living standards in the past. In countries with relatively free economies today, most people eat a decent meal almost every day. This situation is virtually unique to capitalism.

Actually the clear majority of first world countries with high living standards are those who have "mixed economies" what Republicans here in the US call "socialism."

The extreme in either direction - extreme laissez-faire capitalism or other forms of laissez-faire societies, and extreme totalitarian ones - have generally been failures.

http://economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908454&CFID=16415879&CFTOKEN=94552766

The US is certainly no stranger to heavily regulated government industries and government programs that stimulate the economy in the first place, however, the regulation tends to be on behalf of industry rather than on behalf of the people.


In countries that greatly restrict capitalism, there is widespread abject poverty.

This is not true. Many countries supposedly "restrict" capitalism to a greater degree than the US does and they do not have abject widespread poverty.

If you look at the U.N. development index the US has gone down on the list whereas social market nordic nations are at the top.

This situation is obfuscated in the US due to our operational definition of "poverty" including children who have clothing, shelter, eat every day, water that won't kill them, etc. Some people just don't realize how much worse people in economically oppressed countries have it.

The US is not a free-market economy and hasn't been in decades. Some of its most prosperous times come when it regulated the economy, mostly due to what are called "Keynesian economics."

If anything, the economy is more regulated now than it has ever been. The Reagan adminstration, prior to Bush, was the biggest corporate welfare proponent of all time, bailing out corporations at the estimated amount of 500 billion. Bush has even surpassed this, which is something many people didn't even think was possible.

The current problems the US is facing is clearly the problem of these failed, corporatist policies.


There are zero countries with significantly free economies that have such widespread abject poverty. Zero.

Again this is untrue as Mexico went into its worst recession in its history AFTER they had implemented the policies of trade and the World Bank and many Latin American countries that were free-market had difficulty competing with Cuba when it came to education and health care.

Brazil also is awash in resources but they have problems with extreme poverty with children who spend their lives sniffing glue on the streets and families without homes etc.

All other countries that are supposedly successful "capitalist" stories like Hong Kong or Japan have various measures such as price-controls, oligarchies left over from British colonization, anti-comeptitive practices (numerous companies have been forced out of Hong Kong because of their food cartels), and so on.

[OrbitalPower]

It isn't capitalism that brings decent meals. It's technology.


Not only that it's debatable whether Americans receive "decent meals a day" or crap designed to fatten people up with little to no nutrients in them. Go to the poor neighborhoods and see what kinds of foods they are buying: it is likely frozen pizzas. liquid candy, and so on rather than nutricious foods.

Furthermore, in these days when it is well known that corporations are protected by the government I shouldn't even have to point out the numerous farm bills and farm subsidization that American corporations receive:

Processed foods are more "energy dense" than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them "junk." Drewnowski concluded that the rules of the food game in America are organized in such a way that if you are eating on a budget, the most rational economic strategy is to eat badly — and get fat . . . For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill. This resolutely unglamorous and head-hurtingly complicated piece of legislation . . . sets the rules for the American food system — indeed, to a considerable extent, for the world’s food system.



The American government basically supports this fat and unhealthy diet:

For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy . . . The result? A food system awash in added sugars (derived from corn) and added fats (derived mainly from soy), as well as dirt-cheap meat and milk (derived from both). By comparison, the farm bill does almost nothing to support farmers growing fresh produce. A result of these policy choices is on stark display in your supermarket, where the real price of fruits and vegetables between 1985 and 2000 increased by nearly 40 percent while the real price of soft drinks (a k a liquid corn) declined by 23 percent. The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow.


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/magazine/22wwlnlede.t.html?ei=5070&en=3b8480bb7549490b&ex=1177992000&pagewanted=all

This is disguisting. And contrary to free-market fundamentalism, it is not soley the "consumer's fault" that they get stuck with often are the worst choices available to them and it's not just in "agribusiness," it's in electronics and everything. Try and find well made stereos with all high quality parts, can't do it.

This is because corporations generally have an interest in turning out what is most profitable, and what is most profitable doesn't necessarily mean what is best for the consumer or the country.

As usual, this is a policy that began with the corporate Republicans, and not the Democrats, in the 1970s when it was encouraged to overproduce corn with subsidization by the government. The US spends about 19 billion a year in subsidies to agribusiness, and every dollar of profit they make costs the consumers and taxpayers about $10.

Furthermore the child poverty rate in some states is quite high to begin with, necessitating their need to purchase unhealthy foods or no foods at all.

This is more "free-market fascism" that needs to be eliminated as it has been in the countries mentioned on the livability index.

[misgfool]

This is more "free-market fascism" that needs to be eliminated as it has been in the countries mentioned on the livability index.

Nordic countries are relatively liberal in economical sense. Iceland was the freest of them all, but I think they hit a little bump in their ride. At the moment established so-called capitalist countries are by default falling to corporatism. Which leads to a new aristocracy. That's one reason why different forms communism are so appealing. And that's why the tree of nations get it's share of the blood of patriots and tyrants. Ironically the toughest communists are also the best capitalists.

So far history has proven that any attempt to put ideologies into full effect leads to different kinds of disasters. Capitalism is an ideology. Not to mention that there are no existing large scale proper implementations of capitalism in the world. No one has even attempted to build one. By proper I mean a capitalist system with no medium known as money/currency/etc for exchanging goods and services. Money combined with capitalism is just evil and bad. Money rips a gap in between supply and demand.

However, only change is certain. Modern day capitalism is a result of social evolution so it's only a small sidestep in the bigger picture. I don't claim to know any better alternatives nor do I claim to know the best way to measure the success of systems, but I would hope that the future belongs to quasi-fascsist mixed technocracies. Reason why I hope this because the alternatives may be a lot worse.

[Al68]

Yes, I believe it is quite clear that capitalism drives down living standards. When it first appeared in Enlgand, more than fifty-seven per cent of the working class children died before the age of thirty-two - they had better living standards under Feudalism. The working conditions in American capitalism were equally deplorable and compared to farm life it was not as self-sustainable as well, not to mention that they also saw a decrease in political power as well.

The roaring 20s and gay 90s (1890s) also experienced extreme poverty and the policies of laissez-faire led right into the Great Depression which again saw a reversal of living standards.

The record is quite clear that capitalism only works with massive government regulation and programs.

The best empirical evidence of pure capitalism is Latin America - numerous countries followed the advice of free-market economists after the 50s and 60s and this led to some of the highest inflation and worst living standards the countries had seen in years, Chile, Argentina, and especially Nicaragua.

Nicaragua became the second poorest region in the hemisphere after the Reagan administration and freedom fighters "liberated it." The Indians in the region that Reagan was supposedly saving only could find work as divers, where a lack of standards had them diving without equipment where there brains would get smashed as it was calculated companies could bring in new workers cheaper than they could have effective living standards.

The record of laissez-faire capitalism is clear: failure after failure after failure - free-market economics has effectively been discredited.



Actually the clear majority of first world countries with high living standards are those who have "mixed economies" what Republicans here in the US call "socialism."

The extreme in either direction - extreme laissez-faire capitalism or other forms of laissez-faire societies, and extreme totalitarian ones - have generally been failures.

http://economist.com/markets/rankings/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8908454&CFID=16415879&CFTOKEN=94552766

The US is certainly no stranger to heavily regulated government industries and government programs that stimulate the economy in the first place, however, the regulation tends to be on behalf of industry rather than on behalf of the people.




This is not true. Many countries supposedly "restrict" capitalism to a greater degree than the US does and they do not have abject widespread poverty.

If you look at the U.N. development index the US has gone down on the list whereas social market nordic nations are at the top.



The US is not a free-market economy and hasn't been in decades. Some of its most prosperous times come when it regulated the economy, mostly due to what are called "Keynesian economics."

If anything, the economy is more regulated now than it has ever been. The Reagan adminstration, prior to Bush, was the biggest corporate welfare proponent of all time, bailing out corporations at the estimated amount of 500 billion. Bush has even surpassed this, which is something many people didn't even think was possible.

The current problems the US is facing is clearly the problem of these failed, corporatist policies.




Again this is untrue as Mexico went into its worst recession in its history AFTER they had implemented the policies of trade and the World Bank and many Latin American countries that were free-market had difficulty competing with Cuba when it came to education and health care.

Brazil also is awash in resources but they have problems with extreme poverty with children who spend their lives sniffing glue on the streets and families without homes etc.

All other countries that are supposedly successful "capitalist" stories like Hong Kong or Japan have various measures such as price-controls, oligarchies left over from British colonization, anti-comeptitive practices (numerous companies have been forced out of Hong Kong because of their food cartels), and so on.

One thing is clear here, in a mixed economy, socialists always take credit for the benefits of capitalism, and then blame capitalism for the failures caused by socialist policies.

I'm too lazy to address everything you've said that I strongly disagree with, so I'll just point out that there is one thing I agree with, that the most successful economies are mixed. This is just because the extreme on the socialist side just doesn't create enough wealth, and the extreme on the economic freedom side is not politically stable. Something will always fill a power vacuum.

In that sense, laissez-faire capitalism has no significant history, it's never been tolerated to an extent that it could be empirically tested. So comparing mixed economies to the extreme on the oppression side is our only option, and those results are clear.

It seems absurd to credit the success of mixed economies to the oppression instead of to the economic freedom, when we have a mixture.

[shakemyhandbo]

Why don't people just build their own houses, cob houses. And garden, that's all you really need. People in poverty don't seem to be motivated, have you noticed. Grad students live under the poverty line frequently. Or are you really talking about cultural differences but you don't want to seem bigoted so you just mention the safe phrase of poverty. Often enough people in poverty don't seem to do much as it seems. It seems they can get food from UNESCO or just wait for some middle class college student to join the Peace Corp. Why does everyone have to intellectualize this topic. It's pretty straight forward.

I'm so tired of discussions of the government and the intrusiveness of the "known world" because if you were out of the ordinary you would have the Guinness Book people in your face.

The topic at hand is really how people treat eachother. And in Europe they know how to run a civilized society. I feel isolated because not many people are like me as I'm finding out. There's the potential for different forms of anarchy. Not all anarchy is the same. Because anarchy implies some sort of small close group without leadership (aka bossiness). Some people would be good to lead who never really wanted to. I feel I'm not communicating this in the same way as other people. I sure am getting tired of hearing about the violent societies around the world. While Northern Europe opens the floodgates to them as refugees. I'm tired of African nations running the UN, they ought to solve their own problems. The thing about our society is that you aren't even supposed to trust your own instincts anymore. You aren't supposed to understand the truth. The appropriate path is technological slavery, I mean you have to

Why don't people just grow their own food. If I believe in that I'm a leftist these days, whereas in the past, agrarianism had its roots as patriotic. People look down on growing their own food. Why should food be transported halfway around the globe anyway. This is all about perceptions that we agree upon. It's completely stupid. That's why I want some form of freedom (aka anarchy by my definition.) Let's talk about those 3 square meals a day. It's mostly meat anyway. Adults have more junk in their vacuoles than a Hudson River barge. I take it we're not all the same.

Boil water. Use a solar cooker. It's not that hard to figure out. I'd rather be discussing something tangible like inert polymers and I think some of the brighter people in this forum might want to venture out of the hypothetical where their talents could solve real solutions. Aerogel was invented in the 1930s and it's barely being used. Most of my time was not managed well by trying to make friends with the wrong people.

Indian reservations could be used as technology parks. That's a form of anarchy, doing something different.

Poor living standards for the masses caused by capitalism? Are you joking? You cannot believe that the living standards for the masses are worse than before the rise of capitalism. Unless you grossly, grossly, grossly, overestimate their living standards in the past. In countries with relatively free economies today, most people eat a decent meal almost every day. This situation is virtually unique to capitalism.

There are zero countries with significantly free economies that have such widespread abject poverty. Zero.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Why don't people just build their own houses, cob houses. And garden, that's all you really need.
Not all people know how to build houses and I would say that very few are knowledgable enough to build a home up to todays standards of livability (heat, AC, insulation, electricity, plumbing, ect).

People in poverty don't seem to be motivated, have you noticed.
Most of the poor people I have met hold multiple jobs. I'm certainly not motivated enough to work more than one job.

Why don't people just grow their own food.
Again there is an issue of 'know how'. Aside from this there is also the issue of whether or not your crops will survive due to bad weather and drought among other things.

[Al68]

You may be on to something. I don't think mongols had income or payroll tax either.



It isn't capitalism that brings decent meals. It's technology.

Well, we wouldn't have today's technology without the rise of capitalism. What do you think the driving force is to develop new technology?

If it were not for economic oppression throughout history, Jesus' disciples would have had cell phones. Sounds crazy, but 2000 yrs isn't that long compared to the oppression prior to that.

[misgfool]

Well, we wouldn't have today's technology without the rise of capitalism.

True, we could be even more advanced. I'm afraid that the "If" -argument is invalid.

What do you think the driving force is to develop new technology?

Necessity, greed, fame, curiosity, ability to do so, having nothing better to do etc. Capitalism is only a more efficient way of distributing resources than the currently attempted alternatives. Note that it is most likely not the most efficient way and only works better than the attempted alternatives when resources are limited. So technology can make capitalism obsolete.

If it were not for economic oppression throughout history, Jesus' disciples would have had cell phones. Sounds crazy, but 2000 yrs isn't that long compared to the oppression prior to that.

Or they might have been living in savage tribes. Another "If" -argument.

[mheslep]

...

This is disguisting. And contrary to free-market fundamentalism, it is not soley the "consumer's fault" that they get stuck with often are the worst choices available to them and it's not just in "agribusiness," ...I agree, substantial responsibility lies not just with the consumer but with government via the subsidies and corporate welfare you referenced above, in addition to the FDA and other government actors that are biased in favor of big agribuis, thus enabling rivers of corn syrup. As far as I can tell your stated preferences would enable a great deal more of this.

[russ_watters]

True, we could be even more advanced. I'm afraid that the "If" -argument is invalid. Ya know, we have actual examples of capitalist countries and communist, socialist, dictatorships, etc. to draw from to figure out if such "ifs" are true or not. This isn't a guessing game: it's history. We know what happened and we know what works. We know that capitalism leads to prosperity and advancement more than any other system yet tried.

China and India are terrific examples of this. Until the past few decades, real industrialization and capitalism had not touched these countries and now that they have, the meteoric rise in their standard of living has caused a statistical halving of the global poverty rate in the past 20-30 years. The primary cause is the embrace (albeit slow) of capitalism since around 1980.

[russ_watters]

Yes, I believe it is quite clear that capitalism drives down living standards. When it first appeared in Enlgand, more than fifty-seven per cent of the working class children died before the age of thirty-two - they had better living standards under Feudalism. The working conditions in American capitalism were equally deplorable and compared to farm life it was not as self-sustainable as well, not to mention that they also saw a decrease in political power as well.

The roaring 20s and gay 90s (1890s) also experienced extreme poverty and the policies of laissez-faire led right into the Great Depression which again saw a reversal of living standards.

The record is quite clear that capitalism only works with massive government regulation and programs. Can you support any of that with evidence? Certainly it is true that during a recession or depression, the standard of living decreases, but recessions and depressions do not change the fact that overall the standard of living has increased. Ie, sure average life expectancy may have declined during the great depression, but that doesn't change the fact that it has doubled over the past 100 years, even when that period is included.

Here's a snippet of life expectancies throughout history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy
Here's one for the US since 1850, showing we never had a decrease with the inception of industrialization: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

You gave some pretty specific numbers: can you provide a source for them please? Ie, I'm willing to accept the possibility of a slight and temporary decrease in life expectancy at the onset of industrialization, but I need to see the numbers and you need to connect them logically to your overall argument. What you are saying appears to be blatant misrepresentation of historical fact.

[russ_watters]

The best empirical evidence of pure capitalism is Latin America - numerous countries followed the advice of free-market economists after the 50s and 60s and this led to some of the highest inflation and worst living standards the countries had seen in years, Chile, Argentina, and especially Nicaragua.

Nicaragua became the second poorest region in the hemisphere after the Reagan administration and freedom fighters "liberated it." The Indians in the region that Reagan was supposedly saving only could find work as divers, where a lack of standards had them diving without equipment where there brains would get smashed as it was calculated companies could bring in new workers cheaper than they could have effective living standards.
Unstable, corrupt, and warring regimes are not examples of capitalism, they are examples of what happens when you don't have a properly set up government. The record of laissez-faire capitalism is clear: failure after failure after failure - free-market economics has effectively been discredited. United States of America. Actually the clear majority of first world countries with high living standards are those who have "mixed economies" what Republicans here in the US call "socialism." And when, exactly, did they get that socialism? How did countries that went very socialistic do after they got it? (ie, Sweden?). http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jun/16/20070616-080932-5740r/

Europe has seen an improvement due to the power of the Euro, but prior to that, the US economy grew faster longer than most major countries in Europe. This is largely due to the stifiling influence of European socialism. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm601.cfm

Again, this is wrong information you are spreading.

[OrbitalPower]

Of course if you change your standards around in every argument you can make any system seem successful.

First of all, the Latin American economies implemented the advice of the "Chicago boys" led by Milton Friedman, a group of Libertarians who suggested that they follow rigid "free-market" doctrine, far more free-market than the US. They knew that they could not turn to the people to implement free-market reforms because that never works, even in first world countries, and easier to get one leader to liberalize the market than it is to do it democratically. We know that they weren't even allowed to model their society off of the new deal - when Juan José Arévalo tried to model Guetemala after Roosevelet's policies the US overthrew him. Numerous other democratic attempts were also prevented by the US, including in Chile and Nicaragua. Only recent have they gone back to social democracy.

And I did provide sources. The UN report from 1996 from UNITED NATIONS POPULATION INFORMATION NETWORK clearly states that these countries are worse off than they were 40 years ago with millions of more people in poverty. I agree that many are now on the right track again, but largely this is the result of social democracy, not free-market reforms. Many of these countries also show there was a rise in GDP. A rise in GDP does not necessarily equate to pulling people out of poverty.

I don't know where you get this idea that the US is "laissez-faire." Maybe between 1870 to 1929 or so a case can be made that the US experimented with laissez-faire capitalism but "capitalism" doesn't even come into existence until the late 1800s and after it failed the US had moved to other forms of economics.

Our economics is more on the Keynesian, or regulatory side with an emphasis on corporatism. Keynes was explicity not laissez-faire, and he even questioned capitalism, saying: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiness of man, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work to the benefit of us all."

Given that FDRs policies reversed the depression whereas free-market policies did I would say that Keynes was right to question the foundation of capitalism.

And weren't you and Jimmy claiming Obama's tax policies were "socialist" in nature because they put a burden on the rich? By that standard even Thomas Paine, Adam Smith, and numerous other classical thinkers would be considered "socialist" as they supported land taxes and higher taxes on the rich in some cases. So, it's important to state what kind of standards you're using as you're not making much sense.

Also, if we attribute the regulation and Keynesian economics to the "success of capitalism," which was an increase in regulation, why wouldn't attribute the failures of capitalism in Latin America, India, Russia, and the UK after thatcher, which were decreases in regulation of the market?

It makes absolutely no sense. I'm not saying that the countries that constantly beat out America in living standards and longevity rates, and infant mortality etc. etc. are socialist nations. I'm saying that they are democratic-capitalist nations; the amount of socialism they have is next to nothing if we use socialism to mean worker controlled factories. However, by Libertarian-Republican standards, they would all be socialist, and the US as well would of course be socialist. This is a ridiculous standard that only Libertarians on the internet use, it is not a standard used in any of the social sciences.

If even what half of what you're saying is accurate a majority of historians and economists would support Laissez-Faire, Milton Friendman economics. They don't. Here it should be noted your arguments were similar to McCain's, about the benefits of the "free-market," and they were also even rejected by the American people in addition to academics as well.

[OrbitalPower]

I agree, substantial responsibility lies not just with the consumer but with government via the subsidies and corporate welfare you referenced above, in addition to the FDA and other government actors that are biased in favor of big agribuis, thus enabling rivers of corn syrup. As far as I can tell your stated preferences would enable a great deal more of this.

I'm not saying the government should completely remove itself from agribusiness, this is true. However, I am saying that if their policies ultimiately encourage an unhealthy diet, then they should be reexamined and their focus should be somewhere else, perhaps out of the "corporate welfare" business altogether.

I'm not one who beliefs HFCS is any worse for you than sugar in the first place, but forcing people to pay for an industry so certain companies can make an enormous profit off of unhealthy foods is wrong.

[Evo]

Orbital Power, do not post here again until you have provided the information requested, not your interpretation of the information.

[OrbitalPower]

Nordic countries are relatively liberal in economical sense. Iceland was the freest of them all, but I think they hit a little bump in their ride. At the moment established so-called capitalist countries are by default falling to corporatism. Which leads to a new aristocracy. That's one reason why different forms communism are so appealing. And that's why the tree of nations get it's share of the blood of patriots and tyrants. Ironically the toughest communists are also the best capitalists.

They implement UHC and free education to the University level, and numerous other "No-Nos" according to the standards of free-market fundamentalists.

However, you make a good point. That is to say that most European countries, because they don't have the amount of corporatism and corporate favortism that the US has, can be said in a way to be more "free" economically in the liberal sense than the US. They have across the board regulation, regulation intended to affect everybody equally, and not corporatism.

Furthermore, they not only have better records when it comes to longevity, infant mortality, etc., they also have more social freedoms, such as elimination of the death penalty, gay enlistnment in the military, access to a wider variety of information, decriminalized drugs and prostitution in some cases, and so on. These things, supposedly "Libertarian" in nature, are found in economies that engage in heavy taxation etc.

So far history has proven that any attempt to put ideologies into full effect leads to different kinds of disasters. Capitalism is an ideology. Not to mention that there are no existing large scale proper implementations of capitalism in the world. No one has even attempted to build one. By proper I mean a capitalist system with no medium known as money/currency/etc for exchanging goods and services. Money combined with capitalism is just evil and bad. Money rips a gap in between supply and demand.

The Chicago boys did attempt to construct free-market paradises in Latin America, and it failed, as it failed in the early industrial revolution (keep in mind Britain addressed some of the problems of the IR very early on, in contrast to the US where a lot of the problems went on up until the 1920s). These countries did not move to control capitalism and it led to totalitarianism.

Contrary to what conservatives may claim, never in history has a country gone from democratic-capitalism (or social-markets, or "mixed economics", what have you) to totalitarianism, as long as they work under the auspices of a democracy.

Free-market socieities and weak states often turn into "failed states," or they slip into totalitarianism.

That is to say, totaltiarian does not come from taxing the rich or corporations, but giving the corporations too much power to the point where they become the government or start favoring governments that are only beholden to them, or what have you.

However, only change is certain. Modern day capitalism is a result of social evolution so it's only a small sidestep in the bigger picture. I don't claim to know any better alternatives nor do I claim to know the best way to measure the success of systems, but I would hope that the future belongs to quasi-fascsist mixed technocracies. Reason why I hope this because the alternatives may be a lot worse.

I agree that technocracy would be better than laissez-faire capitalism or outright totalitarianism, etc., but those are both very low hurdles. One of the best definitions of "criminal" for modern times comes from a technocrat:

A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation." - Howard Scott, technolcracy supporter.

I would say though that we saw the beginnings of a quasi-fascist corporate system under the Reagan administration who sold off billions of dollars of public R&D to the corporations and since it was not under democratic control, it led to further inequality and inequity.

I agree that capitalism, when properly reformed, does a good job at getting people most of their basic needs and is fairly free when accompanied with democracy.

But if we admit that capitalism must work with other systems, then we must admit pure capitalism is "flawed" and that there must be something in the other systems (democracy, socialism, whatever) that are supposedly "good." And why would we want to build off of a system that is inherently flawed anyway?

Conservatives don't want to do this which is why they have to revise history to make their case.

I disagree that capitalism is "the end of history" in terms of economics systems.

[Al68]

But if we admit that capitalism must work with other systems, then we must admit pure capitalism is "flawed" and that there must be something in the other systems (democracy, socialism, whatever) that are supposedly "good." And why would we want to build off of a system that is inherently flawed anyway?

There is waaaaay to much to take the time to dispute, but Libertarians generally don't define capitalism the way you do. Capitalism is not corporatism. Capitalism isn't an economic system of government at all. Capitalism is something people engage in when they are free to do so. It exists to some extent in every country, even in the USSR there was black market capitalism.

Regardless of the degree to which government limits economic freedom, some capitalism exists and creates wealth.

So, if you have some other word you would use to describe the economic decisions people make for themselves instead of what government chooses for them, then substitute that word for capitalism whenever it is used by a libertarian, and at least we would be speaking the same language.

[shakemyhandbo]

I think places like this DO exist, most people don't know about them, for these exact reasons previously mentioned.


This discussion could be focused on creating such a society, like ocean colonies for instance. Instead it's being junked up with predictable idealogy. I wouldn't want to be in the same anarchist colony with such a tyrannt, who just hasn't become a ty rant yet.

Humor me.

[misgfool]

Ya know, we have actual examples of capitalist countries and communist, socialist, dictatorships, etc. to draw from to figure out if such "ifs" are true or not. This isn't a guessing game: it's history.

And you are saying this while the US is in the midst of a few trillion dollar bailout? Isn't that kind of a violation to the rules of capitalism? I don't deny the fact that capitalism works better than the attempted centrally planned economies. But I don't see why it should be the climax of economic systems at least in it's present implemented form.

We know what happened and we know what works. We know that capitalism leads to prosperity and advancement more than any other system yet tried.

Capitalism seems to work better in totalitarian countries. GDP growth is much higher there. If you set that as your goal, wouldn't it make sense to abandon democracy and go back to totalitarism?

[Al68]

But I don't see why it should be the climax of economic systems at least in it's present implemented form.

I think freedom should ultimately be the goal, and free people will engage in capitalism. The only way to stop them is to oppress them. Capitalism isn't something government has to force people to engage in.

People talk about capitalism like it's an economic system in the same way socialism and communism are economic systems. It would be more accurate to say that (free market) capitalism is the result of a lack of an economic system.

Proponents of capitalism don't believe it should be imposed by gov't, they just believe no economic system should be imposed by gov't.

Socialists on the other hand want it to be imposed by gov't, assuming we're not talking about voluntary socialism as practiced by the Amish for example.

[misgfool]

How did countries that went very socialistic do after they got it? (ie, Sweden?). http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jun/16/20070616-080932-5740r/

So Sweden took the socialistic track 77 years ago and ended up as one of the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest nations on the planet. Now they are following the current trend of reforming their system in many cases because EU requires it. What's your point?

Europe has seen an improvement due to the power of the Euro, but prior to that, the US economy grew faster longer than most major countries in Europe. This is largely due to the stifiling influence of European socialism.

Maybe goal of Europe wasn't the maximal GDP growth but the welfare of the population. Euro brings stability to currency and removes some trade barriers inside the eurozone. Europe is an export based economic region. At the moment strong euro is what is stifling the growth.

[misgfool]

I think freedom should ultimately be the goal, and free people will engage in capitalism. The only way to stop them is to oppress them.

So you would support anarcho-capitalism? How would they get food in a capitalist system without engaging in it? I agree that freedom is important but there has to be a balance between freedom and the general welfare of the public. That's why we have the democratic feedback system. Some freedoms are more important than others.

People talk about capitalism like it's an economic system in the same way socialism and communism are economic systems. It would be more accurate to say that (free market) capitalism is the result of a lack of an economic system.

Not the perfect source, but:

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than publicly or state-owned and controlled.

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

[Al68]

So you would support anarcho-capitalism? How would they get food in a capitalist system without engaging in it?

They could engage in voluntary socialism if they choose. Like the Amish in US.



Not the perfect source, but:



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

Yeah, I know. That's what makes it difficult to discuss the issue. But I'm not in favor of gov't choosing capitalism over socialism. I'm in favor of gov't not making the choice at all.

It's hard for me to think of the gov't just leaving people alone as a "system". And no, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, I believe it's a legitimate role of gov't to protect liberty, law and order, outlaw theft, murder, fraud, assault, etc.

What do we call a situation in which the gov't doesn't try to assume "ownership" of each individual's labor at all, and each person owns their own labor, and can use it, sell it, trade it as they see fit?

Maybe capitalism is the wrong word to use, but it's the word others (perhaps incorrectly?) use to describe a lack of economic oppression.