7.14.2008

Pillage Perfect.

Recently I have taken the time to learn about "Anarcho-Capitalism" an economic movement towards pure capitalism, officially put together as Anarcho-Capitalism sometime in the 1950s. Originally, not giving the movement much thought or consideration, I was under the impression that it was merely an exaggeration of Anarchism. That is to say, that while removing all authoritarian rule of State, businesses and monetary transactions would still take place, exist, and somehow work in an Anarchist society. Barters, loans, employment - if such arrangements were agreeable and fair would take place. OK, it doesn't really promote equality to have an economic hierarchy, but so long as it is fair and agreeable, so be it. I don't think it would work, but that's just me.

As it turns out, the philosophy is much more in depth, and contradictory, than I had ever imagined. It is also far more disturbing than I had anticipated.

Let's take a look at the basic premise, gathered from conversations, debates, and reading on my part. As it stands, my understanding is that Anarcho-Capitalists believe that no business shall be regulated by laws, however the Rule of Law would still apply to individuals. Of course, my first reaction was...how does an Anarchist support a Rule of Law? And, why? From what I have learned, the Anarcho-Capitalists believe that corporate entities can be trusted with matter of ethos and morals, but individuals cannot, ergo individuals must still be regulated, but corporations do not.

In fact, what I am hearing is that regulation of business supposedly harms businesses more so than regulations of people. Now, to be fair, the general consensus is that arbitrary laws regarding personal activities that are not considered harmful to anyone, or to society as a whole would not exist in this system, only 'Big Laws" such as violent crime, theft, and property rights would be regulated. I agree that in any system, the arbitrary laws - or the legislation of morality can go. I take it further however, and say that laws addressing larger, and more violent activities are a matter of common sense and/or upbringing and certainly genetics. You either think murder is OK, or you don't. I have serious doubts that if you removed these laws from official law status, that hoards of otherwise normal people will begin raping and pillaging. Dealing with people who do commit these crimes is a topic for another post, however.

Back to Anarcho-Capitalism. History has shown us that businesses, corporations, land owners (the original "business owners" pre-capitalism), and the like are not, in fact, prone to ethical behavior. If they were, slavery would never have existed. Child labor would never have come about, and worker's rights would never have been an issue. However time and time again, companies that are regulated by governments or not, are prone to try and get away with whatever they can. Of course, feudalistic times brought about indentured servitude, complete with wage slavery in the means of small appropriations, and then taxes on top of that, for the individuals, to be paid to the Lords. In the US plantation owners used slave labor to fuel their bank accounts, everyone knows that free labor equals a higher profit margin, and a higher profit margin is what a business is in business for after all. When slavery was abolished, these business owners were then forced to actually pay for the labor that made them so wealthy. But they didn't pay much. They paid so little, in fact that a minimum wage standard was put into effect by the government. From the Congressional Findings about minimum wage:

The Congress finds that the existence, in industries engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, of labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers
(1) causes commerce and the channels and instrumentalities of commerce to be used to spread and perpetuate such labor conditions among the workers of the several States;
(2) burdens commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce;
(3) constitutes an unfair method of competition in commerce;
(4) leads to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of goods in commerce; and
(5) interferes with the orderly and fair marketing of goods in commerce. That Congress further finds that the employment of persons in domestic service in households affects commerce.
(b) It is declared to be the policy of this chapter, through the exercise by Congress of its power to regulate commerce among the several States and with foreign nations, to correct and as rapidly as practicable to eliminate the conditions above referred to in such industries without substantially curtailing employment or earning power.

Clearly, someone found that businesses, farms, corporations and the like were simply not paying the employees enough to even live on, never mind enough to come back into the market and make a contribution. It is also clear, that they had no intention of raising wages either. Why would they? "Expensive" employees are bad for business. What else is bad for business? Competition.

Hence the need to regulate monopolistic companies, and monopolies altogether. Now, some cry that the government is a monopoly unto itself - I'll address that farther in the post, I promise, but suffice it to say it is a monopoly, because it can be, because there is nothing regulating it and forcing it not to be. Remember that, It's important. Without governments regulating whether or not a company can monopolize, thus create an unfair market for individuals who no longer have choices, thus making a fair market null and void, companies can, and do try to create such monopolies. In the US past, such companies as US steel, telecommunications companies, health care industries, railroad industries, and even sports industries have tried or were successful at creating monopolies. Of course, monopolies are good for the giant business that succeeds at crushing out the competition, but it is inherently bad for individuals, and yes, small businesses.

Taxes are another complaint I hear most often with regards to regulation of businesses. In fact, I hear complaints about taxes from everyone. I was also opposed to taxes (any taxes) until I realized that for what little we do pay into taxes, we get an awful lot out of it. Taxation is, actually, the largest group plan with the greatest group rate available. Regardless of your opinion about how budgets are made, and if we should have more say in how our taxes are used, you can't argue that the benefits of taxes give us the best bang for our buck. Taxes pay for, education, legal representation (of all kinds and in many different fields), Health care for those who cannot afford private industries, protection by police, and fire departments, public roads, public parks, not for profit organizations that are funded by grants that are funded by taxes, the list goes on and on. If you need something, taxes have typically been used to create a program to fill that need, and it fills that need in some form or fashion for anyone regardless of race, gender, income, or ability. In fact, it tends to favor those who are struggling more so than those who are not, but it is still accessible to everyone.

In the Anarcho-Capitalist ideology, however, taxes are inherently evil. But who will pay for all of these services? You will! On a higher cost, single payer rate to a privatized company. Leaving the vast majority of people who cannot afford these services out in the cold, and with no access to programs that defend or protect their human rights.

Here's the kicker, and I'm sure you knew at some point I would get back to the point. Without access to human rights - such as fair labor standards, legal representation, or even so much as protection of any sort, no place to redress grievances, and no money to pay for the privatized services - the corporations with their new found freedoms have just created a new slave class. To whom will the poor complain to about dangerous working conditions? To whom will the employees complain to about not being paid fairly, or at all? To whom will the workers turn to to stop exploitation? Will they complain to the company? Ha! The company will simply fire them, end of problem. Then what will they do? And before anyone says this - companies without regulation will exploit the ever living crap out of everyone they can, because they can, and because it will take their projected profit margin and shoot it right through the roof. History has proven that this is true, time and time again. Companies don't do anything altruistic, unless they are forced to by regulations, or stipulations from other charitable organizations. Also please note - all you small business owners out there, be prepared to be swallowed up whole by large companies with the means to buy you out, cut you out of a means of production, undercut you, or otherwise put you out of business. There is no room in a system like this for a small company or mom and pop business. And there will be no laws to protect you from the economic downward spiral that will inevitably follow.


Let's get into the ideology a bit more here. As I understand it, Anarcho-Capitalists want to abolish the Government, and all regulations on business practices, but maintain a Rule of Law for individuals. The "law" will then be legislated, interpreted, and agreed upon by the private sector. Whether or not there will be several sectors with different laws remains to be unseen. Legal representation will be in the private sector completely, as will court systems.

All other functions, and programs offered by the government will be put to the private sector as well, including law enforcement, fire departments, (public) education, health care and so on.

Would this not then, put the corporations into the position of power known as the State? If they are creating, enforcing, and interpreting law, as well as controlling currency (and said value), creating and enforcing policies regarding individuals, does this not make the corporations a government by default?

Sure it does. Except they do it for a price.

So let me think here, if corporations take over the functions of a government, to implement, impose, or otherwise control the Rule of Law onto individuals, the corporations have become a government entity. Ergo, a State.

Now that the State has been established, it imposes and inhibits the individual’s rights through law (and through economic hierarchies - or financial coercion) and no regulations onto the State (corporations), whereby the State benefits completely (and financially), and individuals do not, because they have lost the right to checks and balances as well as any constitutional rights they once had.

Isn't that fascism?

Fascism:

1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.


It wouldn't initially come with terror and censorship, but as people slowly slide into economic poverty, thus losing the ability and access to basic human needs to redress such a State, it provides censorship and deters criticism by default. I don't think it needs to be said, but with the power of law enforcement in the hands of the few who can afford it, it seems a rather easy thing to control the impoverished populace, who have no recourse. Nor does it need to be said, but in the US, those affected the worse, will be minorities. Hence, inherently racist, to boot.

But but but, there will be many corporations in control, not just one! Let's go back to monopolies for a minute. Does anyone here think that very large, very rich corporations wouldn't get together and become one giant conglomerate to protect their interests, and make more money? (Like a....government?! Say it aint so!)

Not only will they have a monopoly, and thus possess the power of economic and legal coercion, but they will also possess a monopsony with regards to employees. It's win-win for employers, and lose-lose for individuals. Particularly individuals who are already experiencing economic hardships, without the added costs of privatized everything.

Which brings me to my next point, economic hardships, and the dangers they pose in a system like this.In the US, right now, twelve percent of the population falls below the federal poverty threshold. In my state, a whopping twenty eight percent fall below the poverty threshold. In this country, forty-seven million people are without any health insurance whatsoever, and another massive eighty million rely on government sponsored insurance for health care. The main reasons for going without, or going with state based insurance is economic hardship, meaning they can't afford private insurance, or uninsurable clauses leaving millions of people, such as myself, out in the cold because private insurance companies will not insure us.

For many, it's both. Why am I brining this up? If one hundred and twenty seven million people, roughly one third of the country, cannot reasonably afford private insurance, under what pretense would anyone believe that they could afford not only private insurance, but also private police protection, private education, private fire departments, private legal representation, etc? In what world does private based, single payer services cost less than a group rate for three hundred million people, who pay into it collectively? I've heard the argument that eliminating these taxes will save the people money so they can afford to pay for these services, individually.

On what planet?

The sheer economics of it will leave millions of people with no access to health care, police protection, or any otherwise "given" services offered by the government, funded by tax dollars. Leaving these communities poor, and wide open for criminal activity in their neighborhoods. Who will stop them? The individuals will still be under a Rule of Law, subject to criminal investigations, law enforcement, and court trials not of their peers, but of corporate entities competing for dollars. So they have no real way to defend themselves, should the criminals decide to "press charges" and use the ill gotten goods to fund private lawyers and police investigations, to be used against the victims, instead of the criminals. I won't even get into the fact that some advocate that only landowners and - street owners (those who pay for street maintenance?) - get to hire police protection services. It stands to reason however, that either way the victims will not have the money to hire private detectives, to investigate the crimes, or ever get any kind of justice, lest they take it on themselves "vigilante" style, and be prosecuted for breaking the law.

If anyone thinks that all of these people will have the same chances as anyone else, may I remind you that capitalist business practices are inherently hierarchical. It's built into the system, if you are an employee, and someone is your boss in a capitalist company, you are inferior, period. You will do your job as told, or get fired, and you will work for the wages the company is willing to offer, and in this climate, there will be no wage safeguards in place for individuals with no education because their parents couldn't afford to send them to school, or for anyone, regardless of qualifications.

The poor will actually become poorer, and everyone knows that poverty breeds crime, so they will now be wide open for further victimization, by default.We had might as well close the poor communities in, and spray paint a giant bullseye and an "Open for Pillaging" sign on the walls.

But this is a great system.

For all of the complaints about government restrictions on businesses, I read them while shaking my head. Let's look at these restrictions, minimum wage, any business complaining about minimum wage is an admission of guilt, of sorts, of wanting to pay employees less than the minimum amount. Otherwise, why complain if it doesn't affect you, or the great wages you're paying your employees? Hence the need for that regulation. Taxes, yes, companies have to pay taxes on profits they make. Complaints about that are particularly laughable coming from corporations who use federal subsidiaries, or corporate welfare. Fair labor laws and standards. Yup, businesses have to provide workers with safe work spaces, employee compensation (also funded by taxes), and aren't allowed to work them to death, without paying them accordingly for it. Child labor, do I even have to say it? Monopolies, no, businesses can't become financially coercive, forcing customers and clients to bend to their every will, because they have no alternatives to choose from. They can't automatically force our unions, or groups of employees coming together for work negotiations. My, my, my. Businesses can't simply squash workers rights to gather and negotiate better work conditions. How oppressive is that? Wow!

All sarcasm aside, I don't even think an economy such as this would last all that long, anyway. If we look to history, what we see is that excessive poverty, plus excessive wealth equals market meltdown. And yes, there is such a thing as excessive wealth. In economics, excessive wealth is an amount of wealth that is accumulated by a person or group that goes so far above the normal amount of wealth it can no longer reasonably be used to purchase items, and thus, sustain an economic market. In other words, the uber-wealthy can only buy so many products, and when they stop buying products because they already have everything, their wealth becomes useless, thus excessive. If the poor don't have enough money to continue putting currency into the market, and the wealthy have nothing to buy, what you have is a market failure.

Either that, or the people pushed into poverty will not try to "climb ladders" but rather stage a revolution, and put a stop to it, anyway.

The moral of the story here is this, I am an Anarchist, but most people are not. Most people are regular old folks with regular old political leanings. SO while my post sounds eerily in favor of government here, I would like to make one thing clear. Capitalism should never, under any circumstances, exist without the checks and balances of a State. Which is why Anarchists oppose both State and Capitalism, because the two are linked at the hip. And one more note of observation, and ideology that supports the use of coercion - be it government force or economic force - while supporting laws against individuals and worshiping a Master known as the dollar when the end results would be chaos, violence, and oppression are in no way, shape, or form, Anarchists. Saying that one does not want regulation of something does not an Anarchist make, no matter how they tie up that package.



Sources:

Wiki source, monopolies
Tutor.net, monopolies
Stanford.edu, Monopoly regulation
Department of Labor.gov Minimum wage
Oregon state.edu Minimum wage
Wiki, minimum wage
Reference.com Minimum wage
usgovinfo minimum wage
Cornell University, fair labor standards
Census.gov Poverty tables
Census.gov Poverty highlights
Wiki, household incomes
Census.gov, CPS
Rural assistance center Health insurance coverage
Austrofascicm
Mises Institute

27 comments:

Alex Mcone said...

Where do you find the time to think this through ?

"corporate entities can be trusted with matter of ethos and morals, but individuals cannot, ergo individuals must still be regulated, but corporations do not" - that is so wrong on so many levels.

Competition is good. It's great for everyone if it's done in a good healthy way. I dont agree with monopoly because it halts progression rather than further it but having said that refusing to let a company grow in the name of competition is wrong. I'd invite you to my home state to show you just how wrong that is.

I'm glad you think taxes are essential and I agree with you on the fact that companies MUST pay taxes. A businessman crying over the fact that he has to pay his taxes is a whining dimwit.

Good points made, I truly enjoyed this post. You still havent made an anarchist out of me; I still favor big healthy business but it was a great post.

Anok said...

"corporate entities can be trusted with matter of ethos and morals, but individuals cannot, ergo individuals must still be regulated, but corporations do not" - that is so wrong on so many levels. Well, yeah that's my point LOL. Whoever thought up the concept (Mises, Rothbard, et al) that companies and businesses were more trust worthy than people, was - wow I dunno on something strong, in my opinion.

My point int this post is that if you're going to have capitalism, you're going to need regulation, it's not a self regulatory institution because it is far to easy to corrupt the entire system.

SO, yeah to make things clear I am NOT in favor of anarcho-capitlaism at all, whatsoever. :D

Ian Thal said...

Probably your best post yet.

What amazes me is how those who advocate for laissez-faire capitalism, never seem to grasp the basic points you make about what capitalists actually do when they aren't being regulated.

Mike Wasdin said...

Anok, still trying to make your point I see, only you know what it ia though (-; And no you still don't get it, nor do you have a clue what Anarcho-Capitalism is about. True Anarchy (in the form you use it) will always fail as it always has. True Capitalism (in the form I use it) is the only real freedom...I will let you get back to your Utopia now, lol.

Garg the Unzola said...

Great post! I don't agree that a laissez faire capitalist system would result in a centrally controlled system. That's now how it works in practice, and that's not the idea.

Sure, monopolies would form, but nothing would prevent you from starting your own alternative for poorer people, meaning laissez faire capitalism would result in more jobs and more affordable prices.

Currently, we have a centrally controlled system, which is the requirement for fascism to take hold. This means you only have to worry about one monopoly, which seems like a good thing on paper, but that neglects to make room for competition. Oh, and the freedom factor which would allow you to start your own competition for the monopolies.

A centrally controlled system means only the gaps the government see fit to fill are filled. The idea of a laissez faire system is to allow individuals to fill any gaps they see fit, and let the free market decide which ideas stick and which don't.

A few ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism I haven't really thought through are the idea of completely privatised police and judiciary systems. The idea is that if you and I had a dispute, we would find a private court we both agree upon, and sign a contract to stipulate that we are bound by its outcome. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe not.

Ultimately, simple problems need centralised, dictatorial solutions like what you have in a factory (this nut needs to go on that bolt). Complex problems need less centralised authority, which is exactly how the open source movement works (read up on it, they're a bunch of anarchists too..).

Anok said...

Ian, Thanks, I agree.

Mike, it looks as if other readers certainly get what I am saying. Once again, you've failed to notice the obvious. I'm going to officially nick name you Capitan McMissestheobvious.

Garg: To address a few points you've made,

Sure, monopolies would form, but nothing would prevent you from starting your own alternative for poorer people, meaning laissez faire capitalism would result in more jobs and more affordable prices.

There is nothing stopping people from starting their own companies now, in fact the monopoly laws were put into place to protect smaller upstart businesses from being crushed out of the market. I've heard other An-caps express that "everyone could be their own boss, everyone could be self employed" but capitalism doesn't work that way. You can only have so many cooks in the kitchen, lest the ability to produce anything would cease.

Particularly if the market of concern is already dominated by large wealthy corporations, or monopolies.

Currently, we have a centrally controlled system, which is the requirement for fascism to take hold. This means you only have to worry about one monopoly, which seems like a good thing on paper, but that neglects to make room for competition.

Our central monopoly however, at least has some say by the people it affects, and not just corporations. It has at least some checks and balances, where representatives can be removed from office, taken to court, and even sued by any person - not just those who can afford it.

It would not create more jobs, well, yes it would. But it would create more jobs only if slave wages would be allowed. Otherwise, it's profits as usual.

I see deregulation of corporate entities coupled with abolishment of the only thing balancing corporate power as the ultimate chance for one - it only takes one - megalomaniac to take over completely. With US democratic checks and balances this is much harder to do (it' snot impossible, but would require a military coup, instead of a large bank account and a conglomerate of companies).

Too much of a risk to allow it to ever come to fruition.

The idea is that if you and I had a dispute, we would find a private court we both agree upon, and sign a contract to stipulate that we are bound by its outcome. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe not.

Why use court litigation at all? For what purpose? Why pay private industries in competition for dollars when you can litigate yourselves? It brings into question the legitimacy of authority being given to private "lawyers" who are upholding "laws" brought about by another private firm - all to make a profit.

Complex problems need less centralised authority, which is exactly how the open source movement works

Open source movement? Is this another name for Anarcho-capitalism, or is this a different free market ideology altogether?

My real problem with the whole of it is that government regulations have not stopped business from flourishing, and yet some people want more, more, more even to the detriment of others. If we are going to have capitalism, we MUST have something regulating it, outside of the capitalist system. Ergo, a State.

That is assuming you can afford to at that point. AT least with the US government in these situations, you can get legal representation if you can't afford private ones.

Renegade Eye said...

There is no getting around, as long as classes exist, a state exists.

Anarchism is hindered by ridiculous obstructions. Laws, taxes, prisons, regulations have a place. You can't gain as a movement unless you have 2 things.

1) Strong principles (which you have).
2) Tactical flexibility (You need work on).

In this election period, telling people voting is evil, keeps you on the sidelines.

See Larry at the blog "Porcupine Blog." He is a socialist anarchist. This post flirts with Milt Friedman type reaction.

Anok said...

Hey Ren, thanks for stopping in! I'm a little confused about your reply...what is this about voting in this election? I tell people that if they can't support either candidate vote, "NONE OF THE ABOVE", but to vote on voting day. I'm not sure what that has to do with Anarcho-capitalism?

I popped over to the Porcupine blog, looks interesting, I'll have to read it in depth a bit more.

I'm not sure what the Friedman reference is about either. My post is Friedman type? Someone's response here is? I thought he was for a free market, a Libertarian, and almost an anarcho-capitalist but with the opinion that the government still had it's purpose and proper uses with regards to economics. From what I understand is that the likes of Rothbard didn't think he was a free market advocate at all, and other's felt his policies were too far out (or too short sighted), criticisms by Kruger, for example.

I dunno, Maybe I'm too tired to read your reply right!

Although I agree so long as there is a class system, there is a State.

The BoBo said...

I did a little research on this before I read your post. A little scary even for this staunch evil conservative clown. I've linked back to this from my blog.

Anok said...

Hey Bobo - good to see you again. You know, I think we have more in common then most people would imagine, politically speaking.

Out of all the comments I have received about this post, here, privately, on other forums and in other debates about this I have found that most of the people who oppose it (namely, just about anyone who isn't into it, officially) has stated they oppose it for the same or similar reasons, and they come from all across the board.

Conservatives, Liberals, Moderates, A politicals, Anarchists, Communists (obviously LOL) etc. Even people - like my own brother who loves to make money in the system - has voiced his disapproval of such a system.

It's interesting to me - the opposition to it goes across all boundaries, it seems. That's saying something.

A.B. said...

Why you would spend time writing such a long post about anarcho-capitalism without taking the time to at least understand it properly is a mystery, but I encourage you to actually read what it's about not guess. I stopped reading after you claimed anarcho-capitalism supported "the rule of law for individuals but not corporations". This is dumb, there is no such idea in anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism emphasises right, not law. Individuals have certain natural rights which must not be infringed. Corporations do not exist as subject of right, they are just a way to describe the action of a bunch of people. If "a corporation" does something bad, the chain of individuals involved in this action are responsible for it, as individuals.

Jane said...

Then why have corporations at all?

Anok, I don't understand how one can have anarchy while at the same time abolishing capitalism.

Anarchy, to me, means no laws, PERIOD -- including no laws against capitalism or corporations.

I added you to my blogroll, BTW.

VH said...

Hey Anok,
You said: "I'm not sure what the Friedman reference is about either. My post is Friedman type? Someone's response here is? I thought he was for a free market, a Libertarian, and almost an anarcho-capitalist but with the opinion that the government still had it's purpose and proper uses with regards to economics. From what I understand is that the likes of Rothbard didn't think he was a free market advocate at all."

Your right about Murray Rothbard, he was a true Anarcho-capitalist; Friedman was not as radical. Friedman even believed that the state had a role, albeit very limited, in collecting taxes and redistributing it. For example, Friedman's idea of school vouchers does not mean to privatize or abolish all public schools but to have a state collect taxes for public schools and then redistribute said funds to families to spend on schools of their choice.
Very interesting post.

VH said...

On my post above. I just realized that it was probably David D. Friedman that was being mentioned and not Milton Friedman. My bad.

Ian Thal said...

Garg the Unzola:

That's now how it works in practice, and that's not the idea.

The problem is that if you agree that that's how laissez-faire capitalism works in practice, then your constant stumping for it on BlogCatalog and your own blog, makes even less sense.

we would find a private court we both agree upon,

There are such things as agreed-upon mediators can resolve a dispute, but doesn't the idea of an "agreed upon private court" require that at least one party trust the other's good will (which is not always the case when there is a dispute.)

a.b.:

Anarcho-capitalism emphasises right, not law. Individuals have certain natural rights which must not be infringed. Corporations do not exist as subject of right, they are just a way to describe the action of a bunch of people.

a.) How do you protect "natural rights" from being infringed under anarcho-capitalism?

b.) No one has invented a magic wand that sweeps corporations out of existence. They are a force with which society must contend.

c.) Corporations (or the groups of individuals that make up a corporation) have a self-interest in ensuring that they are not held accountable or responsible for harmful actions. What is the countervailing force to keep them in check?

d.) Historically speaking, "rights" are enshrined by law. Rights don't exist in "a state of nature" anymore than laws or corporations-- unless one buys into some sort of Hobbesian fable.

Jane:

Anarchy, to me, means no laws, PERIOD -- including no laws against capitalism or corporations.

Anarchist thought has evolved over the years. In the 19th century, after the abolition of slavery, it seemed to many that the only form of oppression worth noting was state-based tyranny (i.e. laws, police, courts, armies). Anarchist thought has since evolved to seeing the role that economic arrangements play in oppression (absorbing elements of Marxist thought, while rejecting the authoritarianism of Leninist communism) as well as grasping the importance of feminist critique.

The point is that anarchism now articulates itself as being for human dignity untouched by oppression and unnecessary hierarchy-- and so capital is just as much a problem as the state in the anarchist's eyes-- after all, corporations without state regulation become a new state.

The real question becomes, "does anarchism offer workable solutions to go along with its critique?" I'm not convinced that the answer is "yes."

proletarian said...

Anok, rsh here, I see your blogging still, lol. Another great post, another great read. Although, I'm sorry to hear you've read about anarcho-capitalism, lol. Anyway, I hope you're doing well, comrade.

Here's a little something from Albert Meltzer...

What Constitutes an Authoritarian Society?

Exploitation -- Manipulation -- Suppression. The organs of repression consist of many arms of the State:

The Apparatus of Government: The legislature, the judicature, the monarchy, the Civil Service, the Armed Forces, the Police etc.

The Apparatus of Persuasion: The educational system, the media, including TV, radio and the press, the Church, and even forms of apparent dissent that in reality condition us to accept the present system -- the parliamentary Opposition is the most obvious, but many other alternatives to the accepted system too, e.g., revolution presented as merely one in lifestyle or musical preference, academic teaching of Marxist-Leninism etc.

The Apparatus of Exploitation: The monetary system; financial control; the Banks; the Stock Exchange; individual, collective, and State employers; land ownership. Under capitalism there is no escaping this.

Most political reformers have some part of the unfree system they wish to abolish Republicans would abolish the monarchy, Secularists would abolish or disestablish the Church, Socialists would (or used to) wish to abolish the apparatus of exploitation; pacifists would abolish the Army. Anarchism is unique in wishing to abolish all. The only true definition of an Anarchist is one who wishes to believes it desirable to abolish all; who believe it possible to abolish all, the sooner the better; and who works to bring such abolition about.

Anok said...

Why you would spend time writing such a long post about anarcho-capitalism without taking the time to at least understand it properly is a mystery, but I encourage you to actually read what it's about not guess.

No guesses here, I've been reading extensively. Between the originator's words and anarcho-capitalist's words, what I say stands even more truthful, although I also understand that supporters of AC hate hearing that.

Anarcho-capitalism emphasises right, not law.

Then why do the supporters and originators of Anarcho-capitalism want police (law enforcement), lawyers, and courts?

Because they want laws. Start reading what supporters and bloggers are saying abo9ut what they see fit as anarcho-capitalist systems. They want A Rule of Law, and some have even said as much. Although Rothbard originally starts off about Natural Law he goes on to describe how the courts of law, law enforcement, and arbitration would work in privatized industries.

Hence, Rule of Law.

Anok said...

Then why have corporations at all?

Anok, I don't understand how one can have anarchy while at the same time abolishing capitalism.

Anarchy, to me, means no laws, PERIOD -- including no laws against capitalism or corporations.


Anarchists oppose corporations and capitalism along side of State establishments for the very reasons I posted above - the two cannot be separated. Ian answered it well enough!

Oh, and thanks!

Anok said...

On my post above. I just realized that it was probably David D. Friedman that was being mentioned and not Milton Friedman. My bad.

Thanks VH, I think the person they meant to say was David Friedman as well!

Anok said...

Ian, thank you you summed it up well.

And even I agree with your last question - there is an evolutionary progress to Anarchism - workable solutions for various arguments do indeed exist - but not for all arguments or tenants.

RSH, HEY man! Good to see you about. Fantastic quote - yes yes yes!

Anonymous said...

abolish the holy roman pedophile church

http://katolskaeuhydrahelvetet.blogspot.com/

Please spread

Avskaffas
Democracy, science, etc. during the 100 years = and not abolished the non-developed, true, liberating and non-disinterested projects (to kk).
Self (paedophilia, fine buildings, thick smack stomachs and wine as pisseriet in ancient monasteries = fin righteousness). Gamle Luther gave the course a boot and became "I protest" (Protestant).

2000 years of skithistoria
Original, superior, women prostitutes, genera Bora / Medicis influence of horse-trading, haggling and murder and lie and ränksmiderier on this helvetstron (cf. old Byzantine hell where bla women had influence = may well have been a female pope once)

It may itself seek info

Legend, prophecy (based on human empirical work and obvious prediction and conclusion = vicious helvetskyrka).
There is no (tips on lotto and will continue with the conclusion of tex Satan takes over the horse because all I have experienced).

Did themselves on the beach as it says in johannes revelation
A genklonexperiment in the catacombs orchestrated by nazistpåven Råttan Benedict ( "I'm going to make a new world")
What world is this?

http://culbreath.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/anthony-esolen-on-the-new-barbarianism/

A question is who are the barbarians?

In the Middle Ages (like hanging after all this kärleksreligion äggtjuv and fisketjuv in England and France, among others).
Dom söp down the judgement in bla Provence (and sold the harvest expensive and lived loppan themselves).
Exiles in Revenes.

A righteous revenge for all paedophilia, prostitution gross (bla Russian monasteries = no sexual needs could not be performed there) and bla Catholic smaller states (Genoa tex galärflotta as a punishment and the legalization of brothels)
It was hanging up the judgement in the trees and took just rov

http://vinakro.blogspot.com/


I don´t think US wins - it´s Sweden, Italy, Franch, England and China

Us may win in short but not in long

With the new ufo ships who will patrol our borders

And the swedish grundlow and it´s attitudes on religion, information freedom etc

http://strikeforcevetansvarreligionen.blogspot.com/
Then, it is the Jewish question - many Jews in the labour movement (selling in intellectual solutions that kommunistpacket today "mass empty words without substance").
The same mentality today = perhaps that nature is moving towards eradication. The control of some media - and similar organizations.
The Devil's people (easy on eliminating).

Count 1 million times
What gave nybyggaranda etc

Spider, which can kill judgement

It was a jew girl who now is named Rebecca Lord
She was not horny, but well on the crafty manipulation of others (Rebecca mata hari).
She was fitted and dejected, but one day she committed suicide.
Then came a klumpedunsröv from israeli higher uni, Haifa, and would learn empiricism but then struck schizopartikeln to, and it scratched at the robber and he pulled out a hemorojd
it was shown to contain a worm that later destroyed a large part of the human world

it was late in the history books
astroillium israelis

particle =
nervous system has, of course, new data on databasförmåga (activates when the schizophrenia of us)
Tex send nano-robots and religious cultural context and play on (socialpsykologi) and then endanger humanity
threat to humanity

YogaforCynics said...

Ultimately, what "anarcho-capitalists" (who include most people on the right side of the political spectrum who call themselves "libertarians") want is not anarchy but fuedalism, which, unfortunately is what we're moving closer and closer to with the increasing gap between rich and poor, gated communities, and private security companies that increasingly resember private armies. Then, generally, when right wingers talk about freedom, they mean feudalism: a system in which a tiny elite has the freedom to do anything it wants, including freedom to enslave the many. In other words, as you point out, it's a lot closer to fascism than anarchy.

Tony Cathey said...

So are you a Ron Paul Fan? :)

Tony Cathey
http://www.imablogger.net

Dave Dubya said...

I'd like some of what "anonymous" had...only about half the dose.

I can't remember where I first heard it, but a good concept of what we now live under is socialized corporatist fascism. Maybe it was Chomsky. It's private profit at public expense, along with public bailout of corporate risk.

It's a sick convoluted state of human life and well-being sacrificed to corporate "personhood".

The revocation of this personhood of corporate entities is the beginning of our struggle.

This Brazen Teacher said...

Everybody posting such intelligent sounding words. I wonder if it's really this complicated.

jadedconformist said...

Anok said: "I have serious doubts that if you removed these laws from official law status, that hoards of otherwise normal people will begin raping and pillaging. Dealing with people who do commit these crimes is a topic for another post, however."

I believe criminals would prefer to be dealt by the police than by an angry mob!

Great post - and I admit, I'm not very well versed in these things, but you've sparked an interest. I'll be cyber-stalking you via blogger. Take care.

Ian Thal said...

I believe criminals would prefer to be dealt by the police than by an angry mob!

I think the wrongly accused (whether accused by malice or mistake) would rather deal with police and courts rather than angry mobs.

* * *

The last few weeks, however, have shown us clearly what happens when the state exercises minimal regulation of the market.