News Anarchism is the philosophy of a stateless society

[Al68]

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.

The hurdle you refer to is the hurdle that resulted in Standard Oil creating a trust. Obviously that's not the same hurdle(s) that held back their competition.

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.

Are you claiming there was a shortage of potential competitors? Other rich people just had no interest in getting richer, so they just chose not to enter the market? It wasn't the regulatory barriers to entry, it was a lack of interest?

Are we talking about completely different things here? A market in which competition is hindered by any artificial means is by definition not a (completely) free market. Are you claiming that Standard Oil achieved a monopoly without any artificial barriers to entry for any potential competitor? They just decided they weren't interested in profit?

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.

Among other things. Does this mean that you now agree that, whether you support those particular types of regulations or not, clearly they are generally a competitive advantage for large companies over small companies?

 

[Al68]

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.

Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty.

It is certainly up for debate whether or not capitalism and private ownership increase or decrease our liberty

Capitalism and private ownership are the result of liberty, not the cause. Libertarians advocate liberty which results in capitalism, not the other way around. Capitalism is an inevitable result of a failure to restrict liberty. It's not some system cooked up by government to force on people like socialism.

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.

That sounds strange to me, since classical liberalism started in Europe, and most of the famous Enlightenment era classical liberals (pro-capitalism) were European.

John Locke and Adam Smith are probably considered the most influential figures of the Enlightenment, and they, and most of those with them, associated capitalism with freedom, and were European.

And that all predated the European socialist era by a couple hundred years. Marxist ideology is a relative latecomer to the scene.

Edit: According to Wikipedia: "the modern concept of socialism evolved in response to the development of industrial capitalism."

 

[madness]

From Wikipedia :

"the association of socialism to libertarianism predates that of capitalism"

"Outside the United States, "libertarian" generally refers to anti-authoritarian anti-capitalist ideologies"

These bare statement show that what you write cannot be true. If libertarianism necessarily implies capitalism and ownership, then why were the first libertarians strongly opposed to them?
You write "Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty". Don't you understand that liberty means different things to other people? The original libertarians considered wage labour to be slavery. It's not up to you to tell them that their slavery is really their liberty.

 

[Al68]

If libertarianism necessarily implies capitalism and ownership, then why were the first libertarians strongly opposed to them?

They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves. Anyone can call themselves libertarian. They did not, however believe in the individual right to own one's labor. And although they called themselves "libertarian socialists", they were not advocates of a government imposed socialist economic system, either. They used both words very differently than commonly used today.

You write "Then they are equating the private ownership of one's own labor with slavery. They are just using the word slavery to mean liberty". Don't you understand that liberty means different things to other people? The original libertarians considered wage labour to be slavery. It's not up to you to tell them that their slavery is really their liberty.

They weren't the original libertarians, or libertarians at all. They just widely used the term first, while the word liberty was long commonly used to mean the opposite of what they believed in. And they used the word slavery to refer to what the word liberty had long been used to mean.

It's called propaganda.

But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor. Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation.

 

[madness]

"They weren't the first libertarians, they were just the first to use the term "libertarian" to describe themselves"

This makes no sense. If they were the first people to describe themself as libertarian, then libertarian by definition pertains to their beliefs because they invented the term.

"They used both words very differently than commonly used today"

As the quotes from wikipedia show, they rather use the words differently to how they are commonly used in the US today. However they use them in both the same way as their original meaning and the majority of the worlds common usage.

"But, I'm sure you've heard the expression "a rose by any other name (is still a rose)". I value my right to decide for myself whether, when, and how to sell or trade my labor."

Right. And socialists value that their labour isn't stolen from them by those owning the means of production.

"Someone using the word "slavery" to describe that affects only how they choose to use the word, it doesn't actually change the situation."

It doesn't affect your opinion of the situation, and neither does your choice of words affect theirs. Your argument would work equally well for a socialist arguing against your "liberty", ie their slavery.

 

[jambaugh]

I'm not up to speed on the history of the use of the term "Libertarian" except as it is used by the Libertarian Political Party which is an offshoot (actually something of a heresy) of Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy. I think some here are using the term in this sense and some in a more historic sense.

With regard to Anarchy, I don't believe you can actually define it meaningfully. Whether it is formal or informal "The State" is and always will be the strongest domestic power. Drop a random collection of people on an island and "The State" is initially the biggest baddest dude willing to club you to steal your coconut. He may not bother to call it taxes or himself King but the difference is only a matter of scale.

Quickly people realize that many can overpower a few. The situation may evolve into a hierarchic tyranny or informal democracy or some other form depending on the situation and the will of those people. Until things stabilize there will be war and diplomacy and factions. Ultimately there comes formal agreements and distribution of duties where the many back up the few who deal with day to day state affairs and enforcement of agreements and rules that all must obey.

Government is the exercise of force. States form to maintain exclusive franchise on the use of force. But even in the most benign freedom loving society force must be used to deal with the individual who threatens to hit you over the head if you don't give him your coconut!

The use of force is always a factor in human interaction. Politics is how people decide to deal with this fundamental truth. You can't wish the use of force away, only abdicate the moral responsibility each individual has to decide when and why it is used.

 

[madness]

I don't think anybody is denying that force may sometimes be necessary. What anarchists (and most libertarians) are denying is that there should be a "monopoly of violence" in the state.

 

[Al68]

If they were the first people to describe themself as libertarian, then libertarian by definition pertains to their beliefs because they invented the term.

According to that logic, getting fired from your job means having your house burnt down. That's why it was called "fired" originally. And the word libertarian is derived from the word liberty which was already in common usage to mean the opposite.

"They used both words very differently than commonly used today"

As the quotes from wikipedia show, they rather use the words differently to how they are commonly used in the US today. However they use them in both the same way as their original meaning and the majority of the worlds common usage.

Well, there's no reason to argue semantics, it's just a word. People can use it as they want. I'll use it to mean an advocate of liberty.

And socialists value that their labour isn't stolen from them by those owning the means of production.

So do I, and all libertarians (classical liberals). I never said otherwise. The word "stolen" simply doesn't mean voluntarily sold. There's another word they use very differently.

Your argument would work equally well for a socialist arguing against your "liberty", ie their slavery.

OK, if I were to use their definitions, then I don't oppose what they call stealing or what they call slavery. Is that what you mean?

So they could say "Al68 doesn't oppose stealing and slavery" (meaning that I don't oppose someone voluntarily selling their own labor). Would they be informing people with that statement or misleading them?

 

[madness]

"According to that logic, getting fired from your job means having your house burnt down. That's why it was called "fired" originally. And the word libertarian is derived from the word liberty which was already in common usage to mean the opposite."

"Well, there's no reason to argue semantics, it's just a word. People can use it as they want."

Sounds like you're contradicting yourself to me. Anyway, the point is that libertarian was originally associated with socialism and still is outside of the US. Libertarianism later divided into propertarian and anti-propertarian. You are speaking about a specific type of libertarianism.

"I'll use it to mean an advocate of liberty"

Again, liberty means different things to different people. In the UK, the socialist parties are considered liberal, and more free-market parties are considered conservative.
You are welcome to argue against the tenets of socialism, but you can't argue that socialism and libertarianism are incompatible when libertarianism is a traditionally socialist ideology.

 

[Al68]

In the UK, the socialist parties are considered liberal, and more free-market parties are considered conservative.

That's pretty much the same in the U.S. The word liberal is commonly used as a synonym for "socialist" while the word socialist is frowned upon and considered derogatory by them. I've been "scolded" for using the word socialist, but the word liberal, as you point out, has multiple and contradictory meanings to different people and causes a lot of misunderstandings. I don't use the word "liberal" without quotes or some kind of modifier like "classical liberal" that makes the meaning clear. Maybe I should treat the word libertarian (and slave) the same way?

You are welcome to argue against the tenets of socialism, but you can't argue that socialism and libertarianism are incompatible when libertarianism is a traditionally socialist ideology.

OK, I agree, if you're using the word libertarian to refer to that ideology. I've honestly never heard it used that way before except as a historical reference. But the incompatibility is really between liberty and "imposed" socialism, not voluntary socialism. In that sense, the "compatibility" between liberty and voluntary socialism simply results in most people choosing not to volunteer.

I wasn't using the word liberty to mean "selling one's labor", I was using it to mean that a person could decide for himself whether to or not, and under what conditions. Choosing not to "sell one's labor" is also exercising liberty. The word liberty refers to the right to make the choice, not the specific choice made. And the word "slave" historically has been used to refer to people who were denied that choice.

Voluntary socialism is actually practiced in the U.S. by small groups (libertarian socialists maybe? I don't know if they call the rest of us "slaves" or not). There has never been any law against it in the U.S. Such a law would be equally incompatible with liberty.

The reason the U.S. associates liberty with capitalism isn't just an arbitrary association, it's U.S. history. The U.S. simply chose not to restrict economic liberty. No major restrictions on either capitalism or socialism. People were free to practice either as they chose. The overwhelming majority practices capitalism as a result of the freedom to do so. Liberty isn't synonymous with capitalism, it's synonymous with the economic freedom that allows capitalism to thrive.

In addition, the word socialism was used mostly to refer to socialist states, which restricted liberty as a means to impose socialism.

 

[madness]

"The word liberal is commonly used as a synonym for "socialist" while the word socialist is frowned upon and considered derogatory"

There are several openly socialist parties in the UK, although they are relatively minor parties. Nevertheless they are given credibility and appear on the news etc. Norway and Sweden have fairly socialist (at least compared to the US) governments.

"I've honestly never heard it used that way before except as a historical reference"

I was actually more familiar with the word in the context of socialism than with capitalism. Most people who call themselves "liberal" here are anti-capitalist.

"I don't know if they call the rest of us "slaves" or not"

I imagine the citizens of Norway do not consider you as slaves, and that you do not consider them as slaves.

The idea behind socialism is that capitalism acts to restrict an individuals freedom through class division and "wage slavery". Neither ideology are trying to restrict peoples' liberty, they are both trying to maximise it. They just have different ideas on how to do it (and possibly what liberty is).

 

[jambaugh]

I don't think anybody is denying that force may sometimes be necessary. What anarchists (and most libertarians) are denying is that there should be a "monopoly of violence" in the state.

I thought anarchists desired a stateless society. It's not a monopoly of violence but unambiguous jurisdiction on the use of force. Force = violence or the threat of violence. [EDIT: ... which establishes the State.]
Even in the most all encompassing state I can take a swing at my Quaker neighbor or rape his wife. The state can confiscate all weapons but not our ability to do violence hence they cannot have a monopoly on its use. They can however punish or kill me for using violence. The threat to do so is their exercise of force and establishes their jurisdiction on its use.

At best Anarchy can be defined as the transition stage between periods of domination by a given power faction. Seeking Anarchy is like seeking freefall by jumping off a building. And I think the consequences of success are likely as dramatic.

This of course is not the same as seeking a change of state which is more like jumping out the window of a burning building. One is seeking escape from one undesirable situation and hoping to land in a better one.

The Anarchist sees government as unnecessary. The Libertarian sees it as necessary but a necessary evil and seeks to minimize its application to only the necessary role and that is to minimize the use of force. The Libertarian acknowledges my thesis that you can't wish away the use of force, only counter it with force.

For example, you cannot define private property without some social convention which incorporates the use of force to protect that property. Private property is what defines a thief which is someone the state punishes for taking that private property from its lawful owner. Without a state, your private property is how much you can hold on to by force. You become "the state" and your property your realm. You are subject to "war" when a bigger badder dude covets what you possess.

Only within the context of an existing state which enforces some rules of private property can you then --in the process of establishing the rules the state shall use-- argue what should or should not be considered private property. e.g. One may argue that what one produces, receives in exchanged for what one produces, or are gifted by others who previously produced or received in exchange or were gifted, constitutes private property not to be confiscated by the state without due process (or at all).

In the absence of a state you can only argue sensibly about what you as an individual should do, e.g. whether you as an individual should fight to keep a given coconut. You can argue with another about the issue but that argument must invoke the "shoulds" of their morality not your own. Thus two individuals may according to each's moral code both fight for the same coconut. The only way to establish a consistent definition of "should" which prevents fighting over coconuts is the establishment a social "should" backed by state sponsored force.

Note: I define an individual's moral code as what he thinks is right or wrong for him to do. It needn't be rational or self consistent. Individuals then either support the state or endure it or rebel against it (or some gradient in between) and they do so according to their own moral code.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you know any successful people who truly believe in, prefer, and desire anarchy? Anarchy is great for street gangs who prey on the defenseless - until they go home and realize grandma lives off a Government issued social security check and medicare/health care and a retirement pension invested in the stock market.

 

[madness]

Anarchists do desire a stateless society. The monopoly of violence lies in the police and army. Anarchism is not meant to be a transition phase and is not meant to be chaotic. Anarchists such as Chomsky rather advocate direct grass roots democracy, with the power spread evenly the heirarchical structure abolished.
There have been functioning examples of anarchist societies (such as much of civil war Spain), which were highly ordered and large in scale.
Libertarians may or may not seek a stateless society.
As for the rest of your post, I think if you replace state with grass roots democracy which an individual is free to participate in or leave then there should be no problems.

 

[madness]

As for successful people who desire anarchy. There is Gandhi, Tolstoy, Noam Chomsky, the people of civil war spain...

 

[Al68]

The idea behind socialism is that capitalism acts to restrict an individuals freedom through class division and "wage slavery".

That just doesn't add up. My freedom simply isn't restricted by what they call "wage slavery" because I choose it voluntarily. No government tells me to do it. No private institution tells me to do it. Who is restricting my freedom?

 

[madness]

The people who own the means of production get paid a disproportionate amount of money compared to the workers. So for example a factory owner is earning money out of the labour of the factory workers. This is what I think socialists mean by wage slavery. They then ask "why can't the workers own the means of production?". This is exactly what happened in anarchist Spain - the workers in the factories owned the factories, and elected leaders using direct democracy although the profit was shared.

So the reason a socialist would say your freedom is restricted by wage slavery is that without owning the means of production you cannot escape from it.

 

[Al68]

The people who own the means of production get paid a disproportionate amount of money compared to the workers. So for example a factory owner is earning money out of the labour of the factory workers. This is what I think socialists mean by wage slavery. They then ask "why can't the workers own the means of production?". This is exactly what happened in anarchist Spain - the workers in the factories owned the factories, and elected leaders using direct democracy although the profit was shared.

So the reason a socialist would say your freedom is restricted by wage slavery is that without owning the means of production you cannot escape from it.

Yes, but that's just using it as a figure of speech, like with "a slave to cigarettes".

That's fine, but one should at least recognize that it's a figure of speech when used that way and not true in a literal sense.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The people who own the means of production get paid a disproportionate amount of money compared to the workers. So for example a factory owner is earning money out of the labour of the factory workers. This is what I think socialists mean by wage slavery. They then ask "why can't the workers own the means of production?". This is exactly what happened in anarchist Spain - the workers in the factories owned the factories, and elected leaders using direct democracy although the profit was shared.

So the reason a socialist would say your freedom is restricted by wage slavery is that without owning the means of production you cannot escape from it.

The part that I underlined is quite possible in a capitalist society. It actually happens fairly often. The problem you see is that someone must invest in and create the means of production to begin with. If people come together and invest their time and effort into a project forcing them to give equal control and ownership to anyone else who comes along and becomes part of the company is to devalue (even steal) their work from them. No one truly owns the means of production then. That is the problem with the logic behind the socialist idea of 'the people' owning the means of production. Only where the means of production are owned by individuals are they truly in the hands of the people.

 

[WhoWee]

As for successful people who desire anarchy. There is Gandhi, Tolstoy, Noam Chomsky, the people of civil war spain...

WOW! That is quite a list you've compiled - are there any OTHER "successful" people on the list?

Better yet, are there any PF members that are ready to "join" the ranks of the anarchists? Are you ready to forget about laws and banks and distribution networks and infrastructure and ANYTHING organized by the state?

Who among you is prepared to stake your claim to a small tract of real property and defend it with your hands, to grow your own food to survive, to walk to a river/stream/lake and carry your water home in any container you can find, to give up utilities and communications, health care, employment, cash and investments, and every means of distribution you know?

Doesn't it sound GREAT? Talk about freedom...or does it sound scary to you too?

Ideology has it's place - it's not in the real world.

 

[Al68]

Who among you is prepared to...to give up utilities and communications, health care, employment, cash and investments, and every means of distribution you know?

I'm not an anarchist, but those things weren't invented by government. They were invented, and except for restrictions by government, for the most part, organized by private entities (in the U.S.).

The government's biggest contribution to most of those things in the U.S. was staying out of the way. (Except currency, some utilities, and roads, but although those were provided by government, they didn't have to be to exist).

Why would health care, employment, investments, and distribution be on the list? Those were primarily created, organized, and managed privately. Government's role in the U.S. historically was maintaining law and order, not actually managing or organizing privately provided goods and services.

Even today, most goods and services are primarily organized and managed privately, and even those that aren't could be, if freedom is protected, which is why we really need government.

That's where I disagree with anarchists, I believe protecting liberty is a legitimate role of government.

 

[jambaugh]

The people who own the means of production get paid a disproportionate amount of money compared to the workers.

Proportion implies ratio so I assume you are comparing the ratio worker's pay over owner's pay to something. Now what ratio are you comparing it to that you say it is disproportionate?

Clearly it is disproportionate to what you personally think it should be but "I think its wrong" isn't an argument or evidence to be used in an argument. Would you please fill in the blank?

"owners get paid an amount of money disproportionate to __________ as compared to workers."

 

[jambaugh]

Anarchists do desire a stateless society.

Which I assert makes them irrational as that is an impossibility short of annihilating all but one person on the planet.

The monopoly of violence lies in the police and army.

again that is only a monopoly if every member of society is in the police or in the army.

I cannot obtain a monopoly on the production of gold simply by declaring that I own all the gold mines. I must use force either through the state via enforcement of contracts or by my own bloody ruthless power to control all the gold mines and prevent anyone else from taking gold out of them. The state cannot eliminate non state sponsored violence. They can only make it illegal. So "monopoly on violence" is the wrong phrase. Try again.

Anarchism is not meant to be a transition phase and is not meant to be chaotic.

And I've made no statement about what an Anarchist intends. I'm making statements of fact about the nature of reality as it applies to the definition of Anarchism as the goal of as stateless society. The instant you eliminate the existing state you eliminate the state's suppression of organized use of force by other factions (e.g. street gangs and vigilante groups) and they will instantly become new states at war until a new equilibrium occurs. There is no avoiding the chaos and transitional nature of anarchy as defined by the elimination of the state.

Anarchists such as Chomsky rather advocate direct grass roots democracy, with the power spread evenly the heirarchical structure abolished.

Again what they advocate and what is possible do not necessarily have non-empty intersections. If Chomsky advocates direct grass roots democracy he is advocating a form of state and thus not a stateless society. That is unless he is advocating democracy without means of enforcement in which case what does the rapist care that people vote rape is illegal if there is no means to enforce that law.

The hazards of a direct democracy were very well outlined back when the founding fathers argued out the form of government the US would use. Who cares how people vote if there is no enforcement. Who protects the individual from being voted as tomorrows dinner if there is enforcement? And thus why should I hold any respect for what Chomsky advocates.

There have been functioning examples of anarchist societies (such as much of civil war Spain), which were highly ordered and large in scale.

Note the example you give was a transition period when the major power factions were fighting for dominance and so the smaller power factions i.e. small communities, could function as micro-states. Clearly once the fighting ended they did not long stay independent. But I still argue that all this means is that the state devolved to very small scale micro-states.

But anarchy does not mean putting anarchists in charge. They become the state. The critical premise of the anarchist is that spontaneous order forms from free individuals acting rationally (which is an invalid assumption) and that reason will in all circumstances preclude the preemptive use of force (again not a valid assumption).

As for the rest of your post, I think if you replace state with grass roots democracy which an individual is free to participate in or leave then there should be no problems.

So if the community votes to confiscate your crop and your farmland and distribute it, you are free to leave? What if you decide to stay? How is either case not a problem?

State enforced collectivism is NOT anarchy even if that state is a small village and if that state's decisions are arrived at via "grass roots democracy". Enforcement, even if that enforcement is all the yea-sayers in the democracy acting in concert, is "the state" whether those acting wish to call themselves a state or call themselves anarchists. They are acting in concert using the power of their numbers and using the authority of their vote. The state is always the adjudicator of its own authority. The state is a group of individuals acting through some agreement as to how and when force is to be applied.

Now if in your understanding my scenario is not anarchism I point out that is is a scenario common to "grass roots democracies" that emerged in various socialist revolutions of history. If in fact it is not anarchism then I point out it is yet another example of the instability of true anarchy.

If you claim it is anarchy then I say you are just trying to pass off your own version of state as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I think your best bet is to define anarchy as an asymptotic horizon used as a direction (like colder) instead of as a goal (absolute zero). One could then argue as Libertarians do that we should move towards less state involvement i.e. toward anarchy (to which I agree) instead of to anarchy= no state (which I assert is operationally meaningless). But such arguments are only valid in the context of where we are (or rather what the nature of the state is) here and now. One may presume that there is some ideal point of minimum state action but that point may change due to circumstances such as a crisis.

But ultimately how does your ideal anarchist society prevent the violent takeover by a group of dedicated evangelical "statests"? You can invoke Gandhi but he merely shamed the British into realizing they were oppressors and not beneficent paternal rulers. They gave India independence because their ego demanded it. Had Gandhi been dealing with the Romans he'd have been crucified in short order along with his followers. You may bring up Spain but again that was a brief period when many factions were braced against each other fighting for who would become the next State. It hardly constitutes an existing "anarchistic society" dealing with a single determined power faction deciding to take over.

The best, most accurate scenario I can think of to describe the type of anarchy you seem to advocate is the Mexican village in the movie the Magnificent Seven only without the Hollywood Heroes coming to the rescue.

 

[jambaugh]

I'm not an anarchist, but those things weren't invented by government. They were invented, and except for restrictions by government, for the most part, organized by private entities (in the U.S.).

This is quite true but those private entities were able to create and build without having to protect what they built from other private entities wishing to pilfer and loot. Consider how well the stores functioned in New Orleans after the Hurricane. Granted much stock was destroyed by the floods but plenty weren't. They lasted what? a day before looters cleaned them out?

The government's biggest contribution to most of those things in the U.S. was staying out of the way. (Except currency, some utilities, and roads, but although those were provided by government, they didn't have to be to exist).

Quite true if you restate it as the Government keeping the looters (including the Government) at bay.

Of course you understand this already as you state:

Even today, most goods and services are primarily organized and managed privately, and even those that aren't could be, if freedom is protected, which is why we really need government.

That's where I disagree with anarchists, I believe protecting liberty is a legitimate role of government.

 

[madness]

"Proportion implies ratio so I assume you are comparing the ratio worker's pay over owner's pay to something. Now what ratio are you comparing it to that you say it is disproportionate?"

I'm comparing the ratio of work done to the ratio of pay. So to fill in your blank. Owners get paid an amount disproportianate to the amount of work they do compared to workers

"Which I assert makes them irrational as that is an impossibility short of annihilating all but one person on the planet"

What about anarchist Spain?

"again that is only a monopoly if every member of society is in the police or in the army."

It is a monopoly because we are not legally entitled to use it.

"If Chomsky advocates direct grass roots democracy he is advocating a form of state and thus not a stateless society"
Again I refer you to anarchist Spain. There was no state, only grass roots democracy. There was order, for example if the factory workers didn't like the person running the factory they elected a new one.

"The instant you eliminate the existing state you eliminate the state's suppression of organized use of force by other factions (e.g. street gangs and vigilante groups) and they will instantly become new states at war until a new equilibrium occurs"
Again, it didn't happen in anarchist Spain. The anarchist position holds that what you are arguing against is already the case in the form of the state.

"Note the example you give was a transition period when the major power factions were fighting for dominance and so the smaller power factions i.e. small communities, could function as micro-states. Clearly once the fighting ended they did not long stay independent"

Anarchist Spain was large in scale, spanning much of Spain. They didn't stay independent because they were invaded by Franco and thousands were executed.

State enforced collectivism is NOT anarchy even if that state is a small village and if that state's decisions are arrived at via "grass roots democracy". Enforcement, even if that enforcement is all the yea-sayers in the democracy acting in concert, is "the state" whether those acting wish to call themselves a state or call themselves anarchists. They are acting in concert using the power of their numbers and using the authority of their vote. The state is always the adjudicator of its own authority. The state is a group of individuals acting through some agreement as to how and when force is to be applied.

If you wish to call everybody in a community "the state", you can. The anarchists only want to change the power structure from top-down to bottom-up.

But ultimately how does your ideal anarchist society prevent the violent takeover by a group of dedicated evangelical "statests"?

With an army?

 

[jambaugh]

I'm comparing the ratio of work done to the ratio of pay. So to fill in your blank. Owners get paid an amount disproportianate to the amount of work they do compared to workers

And workers get paid an amount disproportionate to the amount of capital they risk as compared to owners. If you compare to risked capital workers should get zero. The question then is, how do you arrive at a fair distribution?
... [long rant cut out.]...
Let me offer you the first try at answering.

But let me also point out that many companies make no profit plus undergo a capital loss. In fact the majority of start-up companies fail in which case the workers still got their wages over the time they worked but the owners, not only got zilch, they got negative payment "disproportionate" to the amount of work they do compared to workers. They certainly didn't get fair wages for the blood sweat and tears THEY put into the company.

 

[madness]

Your argument comes from a capitalist position and doesn't really come into play from a socialist point of view. In a socialist anarchist (there are anarcho-capitailsts too) framework, everyone would be risking the same amount of capital.
Socialists criticize capitalism itself, and anarchists criticize heirarchical structures. So in answer to your question, you arrive at a fair distribution by allowing the workers to own the means of production and democratically manage the factory (or whatever it is) themselves.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm not an anarchist, but those things weren't invented by government. They were invented, and except for restrictions by government, for the most part, organized by private entities (in the U.S.).

The government's biggest contribution to most of those things in the U.S. was staying out of the way. (Except currency, some utilities, and roads, but although those were provided by government, they didn't have to be to exist).

Why would health care, employment, investments, and distribution be on the list? Those were primarily created, organized, and managed privately. Government's role in the U.S. historically was maintaining law and order, not actually managing or organizing privately provided goods and services.

Even today, most goods and services are primarily organized and managed privately, and even those that aren't could be, if freedom is protected, which is why we really need government.

That's where I disagree with anarchists, I believe protecting liberty is a legitimate role of government.

Contract law, property rights, border treaties, Government investment in infrastructure (highways and highway maintenance make distribution possible), investments are policed or guaranteed by the Government, healthcare is licensed and standards are set by the Government, and workers rights (especially safety) are protected by Government.

 

[WhoWee]

Your argument comes from a capitalist position and doesn't really come into play from a socialist point of view. In a socialist anarchist (there are anarcho-capitailsts too) framework, everyone would be risking the same amount of capital.
Socialists criticize capitalism itself, and anarchists criticize heirarchical structures. So in answer to your question, you arrive at a fair distribution by allowing the workers to own the means of production and democratically manage the factory (or whatever it is) themselves.

The place for this type of debate is in a classroom. Anarchy doesn't work in the civilized "real" world without revolution or war.

I think our Capitalist society has been very fair in distributing wealth to poor people. Welfare has spent trillions of dollars to protect people - without burdening them with the ownership and management responsibilities of operating our industrial base.

Now you suggest that isn't good enough? Was the Government take-over of GM fair? Was the treatment of Bondholders fair? Should the Autoworkers Union have been given more than the rest of us? Should YOU have been given equity in GM - at the shareholders expense?

Anyone who has risked their financial security to start a business will disagree with you.
Anyone who has invested their personal funds in the stock market will disagree with you.
Anyone that holds bonds will disagree with you.

WHY will they disagree? They will disagree because they don't want their personal wealth taken away from them - regardless of amounts.

If you disagree with my comments, please explain to everyone that has something to lose how anarchy would make our lives better. Sell us on the benefits of anarchy - if you can.

 

[Al68]

So in answer to your question, you arrive at a fair distribution by allowing the workers to own the means of production and democratically manage the factory (or whatever it is) themselves.

In a free market, anyone is "allowed to own means of production". There is no limit on "means of production".

Means of production are themselves "produced". It's not like they came first, then came labor. It's the other way around.