News Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society

[Al68]

In the free market system of the 19th & 20th century America bankrupted itself, America nearly destroyed all of its natural resources and nearly polluted itself beyond repair all under the guise of free market capitalism.

Huh? The U.S. went from absolutely nothing (literally) to the greatest nation in the history of the planet during that (relatively) short time. The rise in the standard of living of most people was nothing short of spectacular and unmatched. How do people get the facts so distorted? It wasn't until the "regulatory" era that other countries started catching up economically.

As far as pollution, are you suggesting that communist and socialist countries didn't pollute at least as much if not more? And natural resources, it was the rise of (capitalist) lumber companies that made it profitable to grow trees for lumber instead of people just cutting them down to build everything without replacing them.

Free market capitalism prevented natural resource depletion by natural incentives (profit) to replenish them, and replenished the previous depletion.

 

[Mattara]

Have any direct evidence to support this? I don't buy free market utopias as if they will balance themselves out. Mostly because history teaches me otherwise.

The fact that the free market works. Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people.

A free market society is not a utopia, since it has strict self-regulations.

In the free market system of the 19th & 20th century America bankrupted itself, America nearly destroyed all of its natural resources and nearly polluted itself beyond repair all under the guise of free market capitalism.

I agree, however, all of those was due to government involvement in the free market. "capitalism" in your reply really refers to a government controlled market, not to a free market.

It wasn't until regulation and laws were put in place to protect not only the people of our nation but the resources of our nation did capitalism (money) recognize the needs of our nation rather then the short term greed (which it still focuss on evident in our recent banking fiascos and mortgage fiascos)

No, regulation only made things worse. In fact, the recent banking fiasco was caused by government involvement in raising the taxes for those who earn over a million dollars. Thus, it was pointless to get pay raises because it was all going to be taxed away anyways, so the companies started giving out bonuses, golden handshakes, stocks, options and so on, which made directors focus on artificially inflating short term progress at the sacrifice of long term value investment. It was the government who forces banks to make high risk loans to people they knew where unable to pay back. A bank in a free market system would never ever lend money to people they knew would never pay back, because then the bank would loose profit. Such lending can only arise when governments imposes "anti-discrimination" laws.

It is not free trade and the non-initation of force (that which you called "greed") that destroys the world.

 

[madness]

"Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people."

Do you know what happened when the American free market economists took over? The economy instantly collapsed, a select group of gangsters took over and bought every thing out from the government, and people took to the streets to sell all of their possessions in order to afford food.

"In Sweden, for instance, dental health care is state run, so this keeps healthy competition for occurring, since a private company cannot compete with "free", leading to a quality loss for the customers and forcing private companies to raise price in order to keep afloat"

What? Sweden has one of the best health care systems in the world, and are well above the US in the Human Development Report.

 

[Mattara]

"Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people."

Do you know what happened when the American free market economists took over? The economy instantly collapsed, a select group of gangsters took over and bought every thing out from the government, and people took to the streets to sell all of their possessions in order to afford food.

The United States is not a free market, since it has government intervention. The reason that the economy "instantly collapsed" (Soviet economy had already collapsed), was because of the communist state had already ran everything to the ground, so there was nothing a free market could work on.

 

[WhoWee]

How about looking at actual anarchist societies and how they have worked? That could give an insight into the question here. Take for example anarchist Spain and the Paris commune.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_commune

When the factories were "collectivized" in Spain - were the investors in the factories compensated - or were the assets stolen from them?

 

[WhoWee]

"Look at how big the fail was with government planned market systems in Soviet Russia was, leading to the deaths of more than 100 million people."

Do you know what happened when the American free market economists took over? The economy instantly collapsed, a select group of gangsters took over and bought every thing out from the government, and people took to the streets to sell all of their possessions in order to afford food.

Are you still talking about Russia? Who EXACTLY were these "gangsters"?

Were they former Russian officials that previously operated the Government departments or an ideological group of "American free market economists"?

Please support your comments this time also.

 

[Al68]

The free market idea is basically economic anarchism, and as such carries all of the problems therein.

Not at all. Libertarianism isn't anarchism. A free market, like a socially free society, requires law and order. Laws against fraud and theft, like laws against murder and robbery, are accepted by economic and social libertarians. Laws restricting honest trade and the right to contract privately, like laws restricting freedom of speech and consensual sex, are not. The difference between anarchism and libertarianism is obvious, and not just a difference in degree.

In a pure free market you end up with large corporations monopolising the market and bullying any potential competetors.

Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation. And the politicians favoring such regulation, then as today, claimed that they were taking the side of the "people" against big business, instead of the other way around.

And then, like today, they blamed the problems caused by their regulation on the free market, while trying to credit their regulations with the benefits of capitalism. That's the trouble with mixed economies (mix of socialism and capitalism), politicians can easily deceive people to gain power, while those that want to defend liberty are cast as "for the rich".

This is simply the M.O. of power hungry politicians that think it's government's legitimate role to control, change, shape, better, perfect, etc. society in general.

Libertarians believe the legitimate role of government is to protect liberty, not take it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation.

Standard Oil? Rockefeller and many of the other leaders of the industrial revolution owned monopolies and were the very reason for anti-trust legislation.

 

[madness]

"Huh? Monopolies are impossible in a free market. Every monopoly in U.S. history was enabled by government regulation"

The correct term was really oligopoly.

"Not at all. Libertarianism isn't anarchism. A free market, like a socially free society, requires law and order"

Anarchist societies would (should) have order, if not law. Libertarian socialism is used interchangably with anarchism:

"Libertarian socialism (sometimes called socialist anarchism,[1][2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production"
(From wikipedia)

The distinction really is not at all obvious. Not that all coercive intitutions would be dissolved ie the state.

 

[Al68]

[2] and sometimes left libertarianism[3][4]) is a group of political philosophies that aspire to create a society without political, economic, or social hierarchies, i.e. a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to the tools of information and production"

What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking.

It's like saying my position on abortion is that it should be legal and available, but no one will have one. I'll call it "abortion-free libertarianism".

The distinction really is not at all obvious.

The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy. Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty.

 

[Al68]

Standard Oil? Rockefeller and many of the other leaders of the industrial revolution owned monopolies and were the very reason for anti-trust legislation.

A perfect example of government regulation enabling a monopoly, then creating more regulation to "fix" the problem caused by the previous regulation.

State regulations were the only reason there was ever such a thing as a "trust". There would be no purpose for a trust in a (perfectly) free market. And anti-trust legislation was to prevent trusts.

Thanks for the great example.

 

[madness]

"What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking."

I never advocated this political system, I was just pointing out that the terms libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism are used interchangeably.

"The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy."

Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.

"Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty. "

As the quote from wikipedia showed, libertarian socialists believe "in a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved", ie a stateless society.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

A perfect example of government regulation enabling a monopoly, then creating more regulation to "fix" the problem caused by the previous regulation.

State regulations were the only reason there was ever such a thing as a "trust". There would be no purpose for a trust in a (perfectly) free market. And anti-trust legislation was to prevent trusts.

Thanks for the great example.

A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.

 

[WhoWee]

A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Trust

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Business+Trust

I'm unsure if you are attempting to refute my comment. If you are...

In a common law legal system anything is legal unless there are laws or regulations which limit or prevent it. The only situation under which a law is required to allow something is if it is illegal already or is made indirectly illegal by other laws and the new law will make a distinction in legal definition to make this action exempt from other laws which may otherwise pertain. In other words, to allow the legality of something would be to deregulate it.

The ability to create a trust is not a matter of regulation other than the fact that it is limited by certain laws.

 

[Al68]

A trust is a common law legal device. It has nothing to do with regulation.

The Standard Oil trust wasn't created or enabled by regulations directly, it was created by Standard Oil because regulations made it advantageous for them to do so.

 

[Al68]

"What would cause "every person to have" those things? Magic? I'm aware of "socialist anarchism", but it's not really a political philosophy, it's just hoping people will all do what is desired voluntarily (without coercion). Obviously that is inconsistent with human nature. Either each person will be coerced, or each person will do what they choose. You just can't have it both ways. Believing that every person will conspire to do what you want without coercion is extreme wishful thinking."

I never advocated this political system, I was just pointing out that the terms libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism are used interchangeably.

"The distinction between economic libertarianism and anarchy should be just as obvious as the distinction between social libertarianism and anarchy."

Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.

"Put simply, libertarianism either way is where government only acts to protect liberty. "

As the quote from wikipedia showed, libertarian socialists believe "in a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved", ie a stateless society.

I agree that the stated political philosophy is the same between "libertarian socialism" and anarchy. My only disagreement is the conclusion by "libertarian socialists" that in the absence of coercion, people will just all voluntarily choose to participate in something resembling socialism.

I was just making fun of "libertarian socialists", not really disagreeing with you.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The Standard Oil trust wasn't created or enabled by regulations directly, it was created by Standard Oil because regulations made it advantageous for them to do so.

So you're saying that since a corporation was hindered by laws designed to prevent monopolies it came up with a way to get around these laws and hence those laws are responsible for the monopoly? What kind of sense does that make?

 

[Al68]

So you're saying that since a corporation was hindered by laws designed to prevent monopolies it came up with a way to get around these laws and hence those laws are responsible for the monopoly? What kind of sense does that make?

No, I didn't say that. The Standard Oil trust was created prior to the anti-trust laws, but after state regulations that made the trust advantageous. Like I said, regulations were created as an attempt to fix problems caused by previous (different) regulations.

There were state laws that tried to limit the size and scale of companies in general, regulations on oil company operations, as well as the simple fact that virtually any government business regulation gives large companies an advantage over smaller companies just because they can better afford it. And the advantage of regulatory hurdles stifling their competitors often greatly outweighs their direct cost to a large company (or a trust created by several companies, like Standard Oil). And the combination of all that (and more) made it very hard (or impossible) for smaller companies to compete. Many gave up and sold their operations to members of the Standard Oil trust just to cut their losses.

 

[Mattara]

Right, but there is no obvious distinction between libertarian socialism and anarchy, they are synonymous.

Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm unsure if you are attempting to refute my comment.

I'm just adding a definition. There may be someone who is unaware of the use/purpose of business trusts - nothing else.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Like I said, regulations were created as an attempt to fix problems caused by previous (different) regulations.

And that's what I am saying. The corporate trust was designed as a work around to laws designed to prevent monopolies. Specifically it side stepped a law that did not allow one corporation to own stock in another corporation. Standard Oil was already a monopoly and finding means of side stepping laws designed to prevent monopolies. What you seem to be saying is that the laws which prevented Standard Oil from expanding its monopoly, and which they decided to find a way around, are responsible for them trying to expand their monopoly.

There were state laws that tried to limit the size and scale of companies in general, regulations on oil company operations, as well as the simple fact that virtually any government business regulation gives large companies an advantage over smaller companies just because they can better afford it. And the advantage of regulatory hurdles stifling their competitors often greatly outweighs their direct cost to a large company (or a trust created by several companies, like Standard Oil). And the combination of all that (and more) made it very hard (or impossible) for smaller companies to compete. Many gave up and sold their operations to members of the Standard Oil trust just to cut their losses.

I see, and you don't happen to think that Standard Oil's monopoly had anything to do with their aggressive business tactics such as undercutting and buying out their competition? And it was regulations that made Rockefeller want to make his corporation ever bigger? The desire didn't exist there already. Like the mountain climber he desired to scale the walls of laws and regulations and reach ever higher merely because "it was there"?
Rockefeller didn't succeed for lack of competition, he succeeded because he nailed his competition to the wall.

 

[madness]

"Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism"

Right. To be more pedantic there is no difference between libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism, which is what originally stated in the earlier post and was referring back to. It's like saying there is no difference between water and rain - actually rain is a form of water.

 

[Mattara]

"Yes there is, anarchism would be feminist anarchism, Christian anarchism, green anarchism or anarcho-capitalism, none of which are necessarily socialist in nature. For instance, Chomsky is a libertarian socialist but certainly do not believe in Christian or anarco-capitalism"

Right. To be more pedantic there is no difference between libertarian socialism and socialist anarchism, which is what originally stated in the earlier post and was referring back to. It's like saying there is no difference between water and rain - actually rain is a form of water.

Libertarianism encompasses both no state and small state political positions. It is more like saying that there is no different between a specific type of rain and water. Socialist anarchism is certainly a form of libertarian socialism, but not all libertarian socialist ideologies are necessarily anarchist in nature.

 

[madness]

I once read the back of a book when I was browsing in a shop. The book was by a Harvard professor who was defending the anarchist position and claimed that the state should only exercise coercion when preventing the harm of others. It struck me as strange that he should call himself anarchist and still call for a minimal state.

 

[madness]

While looking over Wikipedia's libertarian socialism page I found a section very pertinent to the original question in this thread:

In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[19] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."

And even more:

Seventeen years (1857) after Proudhon first called himself an anarchist (1840), anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first person to describe himself as a libertarian.[38] Outside the United States, "libertarian" generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies. For these reasons the term "libertarian socialism" is today almost synonymous with anarchism, outside of the US the term "libertarian socialism" would be considered redundant.

 

[Al68]

And that's what I am saying. The corporate trust was designed as a work around to laws designed to prevent monopolies. Specifically it side stepped a law that did not allow one corporation to own stock in another corporation. Standard Oil was already a monopoly and finding means of side stepping laws designed to prevent monopolies. What you seem to be saying is that the laws which prevented Standard Oil from expanding its monopoly, and which they decided to find a way around, are responsible for them trying to expand their monopoly.

No, I said those laws were the reason they created a trust. Any profit making venture naturally has a motive to expand. State regulations didn't create the motive, but they helped Standard Oil succeed by providing hurdles for their potential and existing competition.

I see, and you don't happen to think that Standard Oil's monopoly had anything to do with their aggressive business tactics such as undercutting and buying out their competition? And it was regulations that made Rockefeller want to make his corporation ever bigger?

Again, no. He wanted that on his own, obviously. I think you're missing my point completely. Standard Oil wanted to corner the market and government regulations helped them do it. Not because of how they applied to Standard Oil directly, but because of how they applied to competitors who could not so easily "clear the hurdles".

The fact that Standard Oil had a desire to corner the market doesn't provide a good reason for government to help them do it. Are you arguing that we should blame Rockefeller instead of government because Rockefeller, a private citizen, acted in his own self interest instead of as an agent of the people? That just sounds silly. It is government, not private citizens, that is supposed to act as an agent of the people.

I'm not saying Rockefeller wasn't "to blame", I'm just saying that's not relevant politically because Rockefeller wasn't an agent of government.

 

[Al68]

While looking over Wikipedia's libertarian socialism page I found a section very pertinent to the original question in this thread:

In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. In the United States, the movement most commonly called libertarianism follows a capitalist philosophy; the term libertarian socialism therefore strikes many Americans as a contradiction in terms. However, the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism to libertarianism in the United States.[19] As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer."

A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that each person naturally owns his own body. A person's body and labor are "privately owned" by him originally, not owned "collectively" by society. Ownership means the right to sell or trade as the owner chooses. Whatever the labor is traded for is then privately owned by him.

Opposing a person's private ownership rights to his own labor, and whatever he trades it for, is anti-libertarian. Chomsky is just very confused.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, I said those laws were the reason they created a trust. Any profit making venture naturally has a motive to expand. State regulations didn't create the motive, but they helped Standard Oil succeed by providing hurdles for their potential and existing competition.

Again, no. He wanted that on his own, obviously. I think you're missing my point completely. Standard Oil wanted to corner the market and government regulations helped them do it. Not because of how they applied to Standard Oil directly, but because of how they applied to competitors who could not so easily "clear the hurdles".

As I see it the 'hurdle', or rather barrier come hurdle, was placed before Standard Oil who wished to expand by buying stock in other corporations. Standard Oil found a way around it and the circumvention did not have anything to do with the size of the company so much as having a creative lawyer. And of course once the work around was designed it could be exploited by anyone in a position to exploit it. So I don't see how this "hurdle" was any sort of hindrance to Standard Oil's competition unless they were trying to create a monopoly themselves.

And as I already pointed out Rockefeller had plenty of competition and took them out in the old fashioned way (which you apparently do not believe exists) without any need of government regulation. Of course if you really want to you could say that someone else may have been able to get in on the action and undercut Rockefeller, instead of the other way around, if only they needn't have worried about business permits or a certain level quality of product or working conditions for their employees ect ect. Certainly, and I wonder how many unskilled immigrant workers bodies they would have had to climb in order to take down Rockefeller.

 

[madness]

"A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that each person naturally owns his own body. A person's body and labor are "privately owned" by him originally, not owned "collectively" by society. Ownership means the right to sell or trade as the owner chooses. Whatever the labor is traded for is then privately owned by him.

Opposing a person's private ownership rights to his own labor, and whatever he trades it for, is anti-libertarian. Chomsky is just very confused."

It is certainly up for debate whether or not capitalism and private ownership increase or decrease our liberty, but I'm not debating this point.
You say "A fundamental principle of libertarianism is that...a persons labor is "privately owned" by him", and in a way I think socialists agree on this point, hence the motto "wage labour is slavery", ie they believe in a capitalist system your labour is stolen from you by people who own the means of production.
Besides, the point I was making by choosing those quotes from wikipedia is that the connection between libertarianism and socialism predates its connection with capitalism. Furthermore, the association with libertarianism and capitalism is almost an entirely American phenomenon. This is why it said the term libertarian socialism is redundant in Europe.

Note that I am not trying to argue for either side of the debate, but rather trying to clear up some translational issues between American and European traditions. As a European, I found it confusing that anyone would associate libertarianism with capitalism at all, they seem contradictory from what I know about libertarianism.