Libertarianism versus Anarchism

Soldie

CatacombKittens wrote: »

I'll make another. You are completely and unfathomably unable to debate maturely. You cannot debate without sinking to the level of pretending to laugh at your opponent, or otherwise mocking them.

Sweden is not in any state of "decline" due to socialism. This just shows how delusional you are. Sweden has enjoys excellent healthcare, public services, scientific research among other things and since it actually has it's own industries(Nokia, Ikea etc.) it's managed to do quite well. There is no part of reality that agrees with you. The Scandanavian countries have consistantly been excellent to live in.

Isn't this a little bit hypocritical? He provided a statistic which shows that Sweden is in fact in a state of decline, but instead of acknowledging that you rattle on about him being incapable of mature debate.

You don't even consider the world outside your little socioeconomic bubble. I am not interested in just "proving" left wing economics work, I am interested in finding out what it best for everyone.

Are you though? From what I can see your only contribution to the debate has been to make the claim that the right are in a 'little socioeconomic bubble', that they're 'elitist', that they they make 'snide' remarks, and that their arguments are 'worthless ****'. If the moderators are unhappy with the discussion then I'm sure they'll intervene, so why not respond to some of the many unanswered question instead?

Sunn

Soldie wrote: »

moderators are unhappy with the discussion then I'm sure they'll intervene, so why not respond to some of the many unanswered question instead?

such as?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

I for one think it would be a horrible irony if anyone felt they had to request moderation in a debate between anarcholibertarianism and libertarian socialism. So hopefully we can all be civil, with a little less heat and a little more light.

Kama

Just a suggestion, but perhaps this would be easier if we took key questions raised by either side in turn, and explored those in detail, rather than all moving in seperate tangents, which tends to produce a less cohesive and coherent conversation? There are any number of issues here which deserve to be explored, from each contributor.

I'd also ask that we attempt to refrain from slurs and name-calling; whether of the 'Stalinist' or 'sociopath' variety. As well as being ugly and unpleasant, it weakens the arguments, both sides of which imo have merits.

Soldie

Sunn wrote: »

such as?

Perhaps this, for a start. There are plenty more on previous pages.

Sunn

While I'm at it, can an anarcho-socialist explain how this voluntary subsistence-style society would sustain itself?As I've already pointed out, attempts at pushing through collectivised policies coercively have been met with fierce resistance, so I'm unsure as to why you think people will be willing to forfeit all of their property and work for nothing voluntarily

Its what we have discussed since the first page. Unless you have a specific question I am pretty sure thats already been answered, don't take that as a smart ass response by the way.

Also; suppose I worked on a farm with some others. One fine evening we convene in the barn and decide, democratically, that we're now going to sell our produce instead of simply giving it away. What will happen to us?

Theres nothing stopping anyone really, but why would people suddenly decide to turn their back on a system of allocation to buy your produce? If you were the only people doing it there would be nothing to gain, nobody would recognise your money. The question is really why would people suddenly decide to switch back to capitalism?

asdasd

ts what we have discussed since the first page. Unless you have a specific question I am pretty sure thats already been answered, don't take that as a smart ass response by the way.

Oh believe me, tons of my questions have remained unanswered. As have the questions of Turgon. And Soldie. And DF.

If we can all agree to actually answer the questions we put then I will collate the questions about how we transition to anarchism from here and post them again.

What is not acceptable is "Just So" answers. this will happen becuase people will be angry with capitalism etc.

The questions I asked, in particular, were related to factories I had worked in, and occupations of my extended families, and how they would function under anarchism ( my extended family is lower middle class and working class). Whenever asked, these questions disappear into the ether. The thread moves on. We asked how the complex activity of producing an airplane ( but it could have been an iPhone) could happen with this system. No answer. I wrote a piece about how the barter system could not possibly function - using a hospital as an example. No answer.

It may be that this thread title is a bit too two-faced. The anarchists don't answer any questions, but merely ask questions of the sole libertarian on this thread ( who is wrong about Sweden as far as I can tell).

I have already crossed swords with DF on different threads, from a centrist point of view I cant really be bothered attacking both sides.

asdasd

By the way, it is clear that anarchists have no clue how business works. And I mean at any level. I am guessing they are students, or the perennial students of the full time academic classes. And almost certainly from the posher parts of town. As to why this may be, asdasd has many answers. There is one obvious one, though. If we are all waiting for the impossible transformation of society we will not spend much time on the piecemeal changes needed to Ireland's society - which is not a problem of capitalists owning too much wealth, ( my mom is a retired civil service and a stock holder which makes her a capitalist) but old wealth, and privilege getting too easy a ride.

asdasd believes in a 100% inheritance tax, for instance. Or at least over some value, say 50K. And why wouldn't he - he is set to inherit nothing.

Now that is something that could happen tomorrow.

Asdasd thinks that doctors, dentists, pharmacists run a cartel. He thinks that cartel could be broken up. Libertarians may even agree.

That could happen tomorrow.

Instead we are waiting for a anarchist revolution where all State workers lose their jobs, all workers who own shares lose their wealth, all workers in American industry will find themselves in reality out of a job, there is no more wages, and no more "private property" ( and yet no-one tells us who lives where).

i think I know why post kids are radicals.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Sunn wrote: »

Theres nothing stopping anyone really, but why would people suddenly decide to turn their back on a system of allocation to buy your produce? If you were the only people doing it there would be nothing to gain, nobody would recognise your money. The question is really why would people suddenly decide to switch back to capitalism?

Well, I see that as problematic. From what I can make out, an anarcho-socialist society is based on voluntary mutual co-operation. Hypothetically, suppose the farm workers who provide the food for Dublin feel as though they're not being adequately rewarded for their labour and decide, democratically, to charge for their produce. Suppose the same of those working in the clothes and medicine factories. Suppose, then, that the employees of each come up with a currency between them for the purchase of goods. Suppose, then, that someone with an entrepreneurial spirit contacts the aforementioned and is given permission to set up a bank to issue credit in said currency. Suppose that the works agree, democratically, to pay eachother for their work in this new currency. Then there could be all manner of people who would wish to accrue this new currency so that they could buy food, clothes, medicine, etc. - such as Joe the gardener and Jane the painter. The way I see it is that this is very organic and decentralised, and follows a natural order of things. I assume that freedom of association is a central tenet of anarcho-socialism, so there's no real way to stop that happening, and I certainly think it will happen. Without coercion, how will anarcho-socialists ensure that the above won't happen?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think it's quite funny that you demand that I answer a question, when you have consistantly ignored most of my questions, even ones I placed emphasis on in bold. (regarding the creation of gangs as defence by the landless against the 'private security forces' who would not be representing them)

But because I believe in debate and not rhetoric, I believe that Einstein would make an enormous contribution to the society he was living in, but he would not be entitled to live a life of luxury or domination over others just because he was blessed with a high intellect.
In terms of hours worked, that is only one of many possible ways of calculating renumeration, but even if that was the system chosen by the collective he chose to join and live in, the most important thing would be that he was allowed the time and resources with which to continue developing his theories. I would assume that Einstein would choose to join an education/university syndicate where he would conduct research and teach students from affiliated syndicates locally and around the world.

Again, you're dodging the question. Whenever people don't have access to "official" currency (e.g., when they are in prison, or when currency has been abolished, or when it has been eradicated by hyperinflation) they tend to instate their own informal currencies and create black markets. How would you prevent this from happening?

This would be mitigated by the consumer councils. The goods that are most in demand by the society would be high up on the list for the syndicate to procure a steady supply from outside.
(the cigarettes are in demand in prison and there is a reduced supply which makes them valuable)
I'm not going to say that there wouldn't be any black markets or instances of people doing favours for the procurement of commodities, but the system is developed to try and minimise the damage that this would cause.

Do you not believe that there would be black markets in Libertarianism? (especially in patented and copyrighted goods)

Picasso happily sold his own art to private dealers across the world; he was actually quite a canny capitalist, from what accounts we have of his dealings. So on what grounds do you now say that Picasso's work "belongs to the world"? Surely it belongs to those to whom he willingly sold it—or people who have subsequently bought it in the market?

Says who? What does 'belong' mean? Can the 'owner' justify their 'ownership' in an anarchist society by saying 'I bought it for 10 million dollars,fair and square'
Probably not.

"Artist communities" churn out nothing but worthless tripe. No artist has ever produced great work in such an environment.

Again, your fixation with 'greatness.'

Yes, I have. I've already told you that children who genuinely had been abandoned could be cared for by charities. They could also be adopted by people who wanted children. The irony in the current statist system is that there are more than enough homes for abandoned children—but people have an enormously difficult time being approved for adoption. This is all thanks to the vaunted "social services" you keep going on about.

If I was that kid they wouldn't let Madonna adopt—boy would I be pissed when I grew up!!

So you would place no restrictions at all on adoption?
That would be rather excellent for the sweatshop owner who wouldn't even have to pay his workers, he could just adopt them all and make them work for free.
(especially seeing as the children have no capacity for contract and would not be able to challenge the authority of their 'parents' who in your society have 100% responsibility over them

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

I guess you'd better tell Akrasia that. For starters, private property isn't allowed in an anarcho-socialist world, so not only would my friend be without a shop, but he'd be without all of its contents - not to mention the staff who'd regret to hear they're out of a job. Also, I'm sure a tenuous link between the aforementioned agreement and exploitation/selling units of labour/otherwise can be drawn. My friend obviously thought that getting the neighbour to strim the weeds was worth more than the cost of hiring out the strimmer.

The shop could very well still exist, it would just be run as a cooperative rather than a sole trader or ltd company.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sunn

Soldie wrote: »

Well, I see that as problematic. From what I can make out, an anarcho-socialist society is based on voluntary mutual co-operation. Hypothetically, suppose the farm workers who provide the food for Dublin feel as though they're not being adequately rewarded for their labour and decide, democratically, to charge for their produce. Suppose the same of those working in the clothes and medicine factories. Suppose, then, that the employees of each come up with a currency between them for the purchase of goods. Suppose, then, that someone with an entrepreneurial spirit contacts the aforementioned and is given permission to set up a bank to issue credit in said currency. Suppose that the works agree, democratically, to pay eachother for their work in this new currency. Then there could be all manner of people who would wish to accrue this new currency so that they could buy food, clothes, medicine, etc. - such as Joe the gardener and Jane the painter. The way I see it is that this is very organic and decentralised, and follows a natural order of things. I assume that freedom of association is a central tenet of anarcho-socialism, so there's no real way to stop that happening, and I certainly think it will happen. Without coercion, how will anarcho-socialists ensure that the above won't happen?

Thats alot of supposing, again theres nothing to stop people from doing it but you speak of being rewarded? How about the reward of having an input into the direction your job goes, a say in the produce and how its built.manufactured, farmed or the general satisfaction of not having a boss over your head telling how to work and when to work.

They are also important factors to be considered, the allowence of an individual the freedom to be creative at their vocation. Its something that capitalism doesn't allow for or in fact take into account.

I don't see how capitalism is a natural order of things, in fact it has been mentioned a number of times in this discussion. How is coercion a good thing?

ASDASD :by the way, it is clear that anarchists have no clue how business works. And I mean at any level. I am guessing they are students, or the perennial students of the full time academic classes. And almost certainly from the posher parts of town. As to why this may be, asdasd has many answers. There is one obvious one, though. If we are all waiting for the impossible transformation of society we will not spend much time on the piecemeal changes needed to Ireland's society - which is not a problem of capitalists owning too much wealth, ( my mom is a retired civil service and a stock holder which makes her a capitalist) but old wealth, and privilege getting too easy a ride.

To be fair the vast majority of anarchists I have met are particularly clued in with regards history, law and economics. Most come from a backround of leaving political parties as they are tired of the current model (alot from sinn fien)

Instead we are waiting for a anarchist revolution where all State workers lose their jobs, all workers who own shares lose their wealth, all workers in American industry will find themselves in reality out of a job, there is no more wages, and no more "private property" ( and yet no-one tells us who lives where).

Hasn't the average worker already lost their job and wealth due to the current economic world wide crisis already, yet the rich kept their millions. How in your society would people be protected from such events happening again? tighter regulation from some benevolent leader? Let the markets take care of themselves? What happens when there are worse recessions how are you going to keep the people happy?

People don't need bosses to go to work, most things will stay the same its just the base of power is removed. Also why are you referring to yourself in the third person?

asdasd

Thats alot of supposing, again theres nothing to stop people from doing it but you speak of being rewarded? How about the reward of having an input into the direction your job goes, a say in the produce and how its built.manufactured, farmed or the general satisfaction of not having a boss over your head telling how to work and when to work.

They are also important factors to be considered, the allowence of an individual the freedom to be creative at their vocation. Its something that capitalism doesn't allow for or in fact take into account.

I am dying with laughter here. We are talking about food producers, who own the means of production and run their farms, and can make autonomous decisions as they please, subject to proper ( State controlled) environmental and health safechecks. The vast majority of food producers being owners.

YOu would deprive these people of their ownership, push them into communes where a "democracy" will tell them what to produce, and tell them they are freer.

In the general sense we dont want everybody not having a " boss over your head telling how to work and when to work." For instance, the Police. DOnt want them doing what they want. Or a young inexperienced Doctor.

As for the idea of no hierarchy - the "democratic" commune would be at best, a majoritarian institution telling people what to do. If you want to be your own boss we have a system for that, capitalism, and small business.

asdasd

To be fair the vast majority of anarchists I have met are particularly clued in with regards history, law and economics.

Thats not what I said. I said none actually worked.

Akrasia

Valmont wrote: »

That doesn't prove that humans are naturally altruistic. We most definitely are not, if you read up on a few of the many social psychology experiments that have looked at this topic you will see that most people act in an altruistic manner in order to make themselves look good or desirable i.e. they get something back in return.

This isn't a matter of opinion, these sorts of experiments have been conducted since the 70's in some form or another. I can link you a few if you want.

I never said humans are naturally altruistic, I said we are naturally cooperative, and I also went to great pains to point out that human nature is not fixed, and our behaviour can change depending on our environment and the rules of the game. (if competition is rewarded, competitive people will succeed, if cooperation and mutual aid is rewarded, then people will cooperate.

Anarchism is not about altruaism, it's about solidarity. The best way to ensure that your own circumstances are improved, is to work together

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I was there for a few weeks in 1992, they didn't look like they were on their knees to me, and they looked pretty happy to me.

Sunn

I am dying with laughter here. We are talking about food producers, who own the means of production and run their farms, and can make autonomous decisions as they please, subject to proper ( State controlled) environmental and health safechecks. The vast majority of food producers being owners.

YOu would deprive these people of their ownership, push them into communes where a "democracy" will tell them what to produce, and tell them they are freer.

Not everyone has their own farm, what happens if you work on a farm. Should you not be entitled to a say in the way its done? If you run your own small farm nobody is going to run in demanding you do it this way or that, again one of the major points of anarchism is to allow an individual take his/her life in a direction they want to go.

n the general sense we dont want everybody not having a " boss over your head telling how to work and when to work." For instance, the Police. DOnt want them doing what they want. Or a young inexperienced Doctor.

The police do what they want anyway from what I have experienced. They are at best a reactionary force that does the bidding of the state, 300+ police at rossport?

As regards the Doctor, having a boss tell you what to do and a "teacher" are completely different. For instance its pretty common sense you would have procedures for young doctors in training, but for the most part workers in general know their jobs inside out and the need for a boss is redundant.

As for the idea of no hierarchy - the "democratic" commune would be at best, a majoritarian institution telling people what to do. If you want to be your own boss we have a system for that, capitalism, and small business.

Not everyone can be their own boss, this was already brought up, where are the employees in this great age of self employment, should they not have a valuable say in the direction of their jobs, the company?

Also who said anarchism would be majority rule? Some communities might do things differently, what you described sounds more like our current system anyway.

Thats not what I said. I said none actually worked.

A sad assumption and has nothing to do with the discussion.

Soldie

Black markets wouldn't really exist in an anarcho-capitalist world - black markets typically exist due to goods being sold at artificially high prices due to government policy. An example of this is cigarettes, which cost about €8 a packet if I'm not mistaken and, by law, aren't allowed to be sold in less than packets of twenty. This explains why cigarettes are smuggled into Ireland from Spain and Eastern Europe. Under anarcho-capitalism, anyone would be free to farm tabacco on their own property and sell cigarettes - for as little as €0.02, if they liked, as there would be no taxes affecting the price.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Sunn wrote: »

Thats alot of supposing, again theres nothing to stop people from doing it but you speak of being rewarded? How about the reward of having an input into the direction your job goes, a say in the produce and how its built.manufactured, farmed or the general satisfaction of not having a boss over your head telling how to work and when to work.

The implication here seems to be that capitalism necessitates having a slave-driver boss which, of course, is simply untrue. It could be entirely possible for ten people to privately own a farm and make democratic decisions about who does what, and what to produce. It's also possible for nine of those ten people to decide that Joe has better administrative skills than they do, so they vote for him to oversee the production, as it will lead to increased productivity at the farm, leading to greater profits. Under anarcho-socialism, you could have 500 people working in a factory - given the fact that their input into the direction of the factory would be miniscule, I think they'd be much happier to be paid for their work, so that they can buy food, clothes and medicine from the farms and factories from the aforementioned example.

They are also important factors to be considered, the allowence of an individual the freedom to be creative at their vocation. Its something that capitalism doesn't allow for or in fact take into account.

Can you elaborate on this?

I don't see how capitalism is a natural order of things, in fact it has been mentioned a number of times in this discussion. How is coercion a good thing?

Firstly; where did I say that coercion is a good thing?! Secondly, I see free-market economics as a natural order of things in that, as I've said before, it's organic and decentralised, and happens on a voluntary basis. If someone were to offer me some kind of payment for a detailed carving I made out of a piece of wood, I'd sell it to them if I thought that what they were offering was worth the effort it took me to make it. If I was a good painter, and I liked doing it, I could charge people to paint their property. Under anarcho-socialism, the implication seems to be that because I can make carvings out of wood and paint very well, and like doing it, I should do it for absolutely no remuneration for the greater good of society. Which seems more natural?

Sunn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Where did you get that notion from?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

Oh believe me, tons of my questions have remained unanswered. As have the questions of Turgon. And Soldie. And DF.

If we can all agree to actually answer the questions we put then I will collate the questions about how we transition to anarchism from here and post them again.

What is not acceptable is "Just So" answers. this will happen becuase people will be angry with capitalism etc.

The questions I asked, in particular, were related to factories I had worked in, and occupations of my extended families, and how they would function under anarchism ( my extended family is lower middle class and working class). Whenever asked, these questions disappear into the ether. The thread moves on. We asked how the complex activity of producing an airplane ( but it could have been an iPhone) could happen with this system. No answer. I wrote a piece about how the barter system could not possibly function - using a hospital as an example. No answer.

It may be that this thread title is a bit too two-faced. The anarchists don't answer any questions, but merely ask questions of the sole libertarian on this thread ( who is wrong about Sweden as far as I can tell).

I have already crossed swords with DF on different threads, from a centrist point of view I cant really be bothered attacking both sides.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge my answers doesnt mean they weren't given.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

By the way, it is clear that anarchists have no clue how business works. And I mean at any level. I am guessing they are students, or the perennial students of the full time academic classes. And almost certainly from the posher parts of town. As to why this may be, asdasd has many answers. There is one obvious one, though. If we are all waiting for the impossible transformation of society we will not spend much time on the piecemeal changes needed to Ireland's society - which is not a problem of capitalists owning too much wealth, ( my mom is a retired civil service and a stock holder which makes her a capitalist) but old wealth, and privilege getting too easy a ride.

asdasd believes in a 100% inheritance tax, for instance. Or at least over some value, say 50K. And why wouldn't he - he is set to inherit nothing.

Now that is something that could happen tomorrow.

Asdasd thinks that doctors, dentists, pharmacists run a cartel. He thinks that cartel could be broken up. Libertarians may even agree.

That could happen tomorrow.

Instead we are waiting for a anarchist revolution where all State workers lose their jobs, all workers who own shares lose their wealth, all workers in American industry will find themselves in reality out of a job, there is no more wages, and no more "private property" ( and yet no-one tells us who lives where).

i think I know why post kids are radicals.

This is a specific thread about a discussion between anarchists and libertarians. I have contributed to countless other threads on this forum and others where I proposed practical changes to the current system that I believe would improve things without having to resort to all out revolution, but this is not the thread for them.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Each specific question would need its own thread to reduce the chance similar chaos as this one, while we're at it, it would probably need its own sub forum.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.