Libertarianism versus Anarchism

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's a benefit gig to aid the victims of the last benefit gig....

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To avoid accusations of 'avoiding questions' I have been working my way down the thread and responding as I go. I hadn't gotten to that link yet

Sunn

Soldie wrote: »

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.



Can you elaborate on this?



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?

Everything you have just typed out has already been answered pages ago.

The reasons anarchist oppose capitalism, the allowance for an idividual to function to their full potential in an anarchist society and we even discussed how art is considered a valuable part of an anarchist society. You haven't even answered (or probably read) any of my questions.

You are just assuming people are happy when they have money.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sunn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

again who said anarchism is majority rule or that an individual was bound to a community? We have stated innumerable times at this stage that anarchism is based on an individual IN a society and not taking society as a whole and treating them the same.

How can a person attain his full potential in your society of wealth based class systems where people with better backrounds are favoured over those who are not.


I think one of the main reasons this discussion has failed (and the other topics akrasia has started) is people seem to not fully understand anarchism at all or have just ignored the answered given to them. I don't see how your thread will be any different DF.

Soldie

Sunn wrote: »

Everything you have just typed out has already been answered pages ago.

The reasons anarchist oppose capitalism, the allowance for an idividual to function to their full potential in an anarchist society and we even discussed how art is considered a valuable part of an anarchist society. You haven't even answered (or probably read) any of my questions.

You are just assuming people are happy when they have money.

The reason I asked this question is because I didn't think it had been answered adequately. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to pore through every single post that is made, so if I've failed to answer one of your questions it wasn't because I'm avoiding a debate. If you care to highlight the question you want answered, I'll do my best to answer it.

The point has already been made that under anarcho-socialism, there is an allowance for an individual to function to their full potential - but how? I haven't seen anyone explain this properly. Also, how can art be valuable if it is worth nothing? Akrasia has explained that we might find Picasso and Van Gogh paintings in a public gallery - but who decides what goes there? If it was to be decided democratically, as I'd assume, then we'd be more likely to find copies of News of the World, FHM, Big Brother Boxsets, etc. with more cultural weight than the famous painters.

Also, I'm no more claiming that people would be happier with money than you are claiming they'd be happy without.

turgon

I think what's clear is that this "anacho-socialist" system is based on broad assumptions that are taken as gospel by its preachers. Every specific questions you ask is given a broad, wooly answer. Such as "Is not democracy mod-rule?" Answer: "there are many forms of democracy." That is the kind of answer one gets - a broad statement that is not backed up whatsoever and that any questioning of gets lost.

There are just too many ideals running here.

The ideal that a computer program can run a worldwide economy. The only thing this tells us about anarcho-socialism is that its proponents dont have a clue about computing. But instead of acknowledging that, they feign some sort of knowledge, and then use this false assuming knowledge to support their false assuming system.

The ideal that people will want to work for little or no gain. Yes I know it would all be great if everyone had the attitude of Linus Tovalds and other open source programmers towards every job they have. But the attitude they have cant be transfered onto other occupations. A lot of programmers do so as a hobby (as fun) and because one can create something extremely useful without even leaving a computer, in the small space of time after real work. But I dont think being a shopkeeper is "fun." I dont think being a farmer is "fun." In fact I can imagine very few occupations where the open-source mind-frame could be effectively applied.

But of course instead of actually understanding open source etc, the anarcho-socialists make broad idealistic claims, that only unearth their lack of comprehension. Open source people can only live so because they dwell in a socialistic state, therefore everyone will be like them in true socialism, and thus everything will be free. Its utter garbage.

The ideal that administrative staff arent needed. Well, easily known the anarcho-socialists aren't owners of companies. And their solution is of course to get the highly trained professionals to do this secretarial work. Put them through a 4 year Finance degree to send emails. You actually couldn't make up such nonsense.


And, believe it or not, these things have been said. And they refuse to accept real life examples. When the whole idea of welfare came up (the anarcho-socialists apparently provide the "basics" for free) I gave a real world example of my experience of the Irish social welfare system that showed that people were de-motivated to work. This was routinely ignored.

Offalycool

Not that I wish for any form of Anarchism.. but..

Soldie wrote: »

how can art be valuable if it is worth nothing?

Taste!


Edit: Fountain by Duchamp

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Sunn wrote: »

again who said anarchism is majority rule or that an individual was bound to a community?

Em ... yee?

Sunn wrote: »

We have stated innumerable times at this stage that anarchism is based on an individual IN a society and not taking society as a whole and treating them the same.

But of course they are not allowed leave said society because they would have nowhere to live, due to "societys" monopoly on housing provision.

Sunn wrote: »

How can a person attain his full potential in your society of wealth based class systems where people with better backrounds are favoured over those who are not.

By putting in hard work. I come from a very moderate household, and both me and my brother have been successfully academically. In fact my brother just topped his Maths Science degree class in UCC getting an 84% average and has attained a TCD masters scholarship, despite the fact we come from such a modest home. He never paid one cent for education. How do you explain this?

Sunn wrote: »

people seem to not fully understand anarchism

Whos fault is that, do you think?

Sunn wrote: »

at all or have just ignored the answered given to them.

Thats just a bit much now, isnt it?

Sunn

The point has already been made that under anarcho-socialism, there is an allowance for an individual to function to their full potential - but how?

I explained this already, I can't make it any simpler really.

how can art be valuable if it is worth nothing?

So art can only be valued in monetary worth and gain?

Akrasia has explained that we might find Picasso and Van Gogh paintings in a public gallery - but who decides what goes there? If it was to be decided democratically, as I'd assume, then we'd be more likely to find copies of News of the World, FHM, Big Brother Boxsets, etc. with more cultural weight than the famous painters.

Again its the same principles of collectives, syndicates and federations. Why would you think people would want NOTW or fhm cover girls in a mueseum? Its not majority rule, not everyone has an interest in picasso?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

asdasd

again who said anarchism is majority rule or that an individual was bound to a community? We have stated innumerable times at this stage that anarchism is based on an individual IN a society and not taking society as a whole and treating them the same.

Why not say that a tomato is an orange?

If the system is non-hierarchical then it must be majoritarian. A commune factory has to decide what to produce, everybody cant really be producing their own product, or their would be no need for the commune. The name for the system where individuals can strike out alone is capitalism.

The non-hierarchical system is itself a joke, by the way. I have no idea how big the communes are going to be, but if you have a Plane, or Car, or Mobile Phone making commune - which I agree is unlikely - then you will need the international communes to have employee numbers in the tens of thousands. Having mass meetings would be a tad bit impractical.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Sunn wrote: »

I explained this already, I can't make it any simpler really.

I must have missed that so. Perhaps you'd like to link me to your post?

So art can only be valued in monetary worth and gain?

Again its the same principles of collectives, syndicates and federations. Why would you think people would want NOTW or fhm cover girls in a mueseum? Its not majority rule, not everyone has an interest in picasso?

If it's not majority rule then what is it? Akrasia pointed out that Picasso's valuable work (culturally valuable, I assume, since there's no money) would be found in a public gallery where everyone could enjoy it, as opposed to being a private possession in someone's home. Who decides what goes in the gallery?

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

Exactly—and hasn't Akrasia already described the process by which anarcho-socialists would decide things democratically? By "democracy," I assume he means a majority vote.[/QUOTE

Among the "many forms" of democracy mentioned earlier, the following are examples:

1 person 1 vote majoritarian democracy
each person having a say proportional to a decision that affects them
decision by consensus

Soldie

Joycey wrote: »

Among the "many forms" of democracy mentioned earlier, the following are examples:

1 person 1 vote majoritarian democracy
each person having a say proportional to a decision that affects them
decision by consensus

Can you give me an example of this?

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

I thought I answered this question. Why would people need to "defend" themselves against private security forces? The point of security is to defend private property, not to attack people. But you have already admitted that they would be legitimate in attacking people who violated other people's property. These people are likely to be propertyless, and would not fall under the protection of any private security companies. Eventually those who could not afford to hire security to defend themselves would band together and create voluntary militia or 'gangs'

But if Einstein gets more time and resources than the dustman, isn't the latter going to feel unhappy and underprivileged?

The 'dustman' would have chosen his role based on the benefits that he preferred. It is unlikely that any individual would be satisfied to be purely a 'dustman'. They might choose to work in sanitation a few days a month as needs require, but they might also choose to study or make cheese, or become an artist or whatever his interests were. (of course, if his life long dream was to be a dustman or if he really enjoyed the work, he could do it full time, but then I doubt he'd be as unsatisfied as with the inequality of someone else getting more than he does.

I think you honestly believe that humans are children (you used the analogy of 2 year olds before but I thought we were past that) We are not going to be constantly watching everyone else to see who got the biggest slice of the cake. Its much more important that there is democratic decision making structures and workers self management.

The prohibition on private ownership of the means of production is specifically designed to prevent any one individual from becoming economically powerful enough to be in a position to subvert the democratic process or to dominate others. The inequality of one person living in slightly a nicer house than someone else is nowhere near the inequality of one person owning 10 houses, and others living on the streets.

I can think of lots of thing that wouldn't necessarily get democratic approval in your town hall meetings—drugs, guns, and pornography, for instance. And you've already mentioned the possibility of your society outlawing electric toothbrushes and bicycles. Such goods would likely be distributed through black markets.

Hold on a minute I never said anything even remotely like electric toothbrushes would be banned. Did your private school not teach you how to read?

Pretty much everything would be sold freely in a libertarian society, so there would be minimal black markets.

There would be massive black markets on property artificially limited by 'intellectual property'. How would you deal with music piracy or cheap generic drugs, or fake rolexes?

If my grandfather bought it from Picasso himself, and bequeathed it to me, it doesn't "belong" to me? Would ownership of art be possible at all in your society?

If you made a case that this piece of art is of sentimental value to you, you might be be permitted by the democratic will of the collective to keep it, but if you started charging people to look at it, or 'image rights' to recreate it elsewhere, then you would be barking up the wrong tree.

What is the purpose of art?

For you, it's clear that art is a commodity to be speculated on, hoarded and traded for profit. (which is quite sad really) For others, art is an expression of human creativity and it can be very different things to different people.

When did I say that? The courts would obviously restrict pedophiles and violent criminals from adopting children, for instance.

so the courts would appoint people to assess which people would make good parents... like social workers?

If the parent or guardian is using the child for the purposes of full-time forced labour, surely the child could pursue court action against him/her?

I don't think that is adequate protection to be honest. Relying on exploited children to sue for their own rights means that they will have no rights.

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

The 'dustman' would have chosen his role based on the benefits that he preferred. It is unlikely that any individual would be satisfied to be purely a 'dustman'.

Again - this vague reference to benefits. What benefits? Do people get remuneration for their work or not? Is it in the form of these points that you mentioned before? If not, what are the benefits? I can't imagine a situation where dustmen, sewage treatment workers, bathroom cleaners, etc. would work for the good of society and nothing else. Also, with all this talk of anarcho-socialists enjoying greater creative input in their work, can someone explain what this means to a bathroom cleaner? Scrubbing the toilet bowl clockwise as opposed to anti-clockwise? Decorative urinal cakes? Or does this entire theory fall apart once we go beyond discussing factories?

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

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.

Intellectual property, branded goods, price discriminating monopolists (eg movie studeos, technology companies, who try and carve up the international market by region codes, books, drugs, music etc etc
All of these things could be traded in a libertarian black market

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

Why not say that a tomato is an orange?

If the system is non-hierarchical then it must be majoritarian. A commune factory has to decide what to produce, everybody cant really be producing their own product, or their would be no need for the commune. The name for the system where individuals can strike out alone is capitalism.

The non-hierarchical system is itself a joke, by the way. I have no idea how big the communes are going to be, but if you have a Plane, or Car, or Mobile Phone making commune - which I agree is unlikely - then you will need the international communes to have employee numbers in the tens of thousands. Having mass meetings would be a tad bit impractical.

You guys are just inventing your own objections and refusing to engage in what we are saying.

I have already explained the syndicate structure about 4 times and you still don't understand the condept of autonomous groups acting together to produce things. It's quite strange because you claim to believe in capitalism.

Imagine if I said to you "How is one company supposed to invent the plane, mine all the raw materials, build them all and drill and refine the oil in one little factory? Plane building is impossible!!!"

If I said that to you, Which would you conclude? that capitalism is impossible? or that I haven't got a clue how it works?

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

Intellectual property, branded goods, price discriminating monopolists (eg movie studeos, technology companies, who try and carve up the international market by region codes, books, drugs, music etc etc
All of these things could be traded in a libertarian black market

Hold on - a black market is an illegal place where you can obtain goods at a cheaper price than in shops. Clothing and watches with a fake brand is not the same thing you'd buy in a shop, so that example is hardly applicable. I accept that, at the moment, it is impossible to adequately deal with everyone who downloads music illegally. Generic drugs can already be bought over the counter in places like Spain, costing a fraction of what they cost here - peel away the layers of government regulation, taxes and levies and you'll find that there's not much point selling Panadol in a back alley when it's dirt-cheap anyway. I can't say I've ever encountered a black market selling 'fake' books.

donegalfella wrote:

This post has been deleted.

And this is the human being at his most free, apprently.

asdasd

I have already explained the syndicate structure about 4 times and you still don't understand the condept of autonomous groups acting together to produce things.

You havent explained anything. You say stuff. You write profusely. But you explain nothing. The " the concept of autonomous groups acting together to produce things" is meaningless garbage.

If I said that to you, Which would you conclude? that capitalism is impossible? or that I haven't got a clue how it works?

I would surmise you have no clue how it works. Because

1) it does work.
2) The exact procedures of how it does work can be enumerated. Line by line. With everybody's role will be explained.
3) This system is capitalistic, and entirely hierarchical. Some of how it exactly works is available on Google. Some of it is proprietary. It doesnt matter. See 1). Planes get built in this system ( and to be fair in a Soviet System but that would be hierarchical).

In any case I dont have to explain to you how something that already works, works.

You are making the extraordinary claim that something that is clearly unproven ( and utterly mad) will work with no detailing of the actual procedure. You are claiming that a company with no hierarchy, no management ,and no pay, and no way of paying suppliers will work. Because of "autonomous groups acting together".

A company of 10,000 workers probably makes millions of decisions a day. Somebody is responsible for all those decisions. Building a plane, in particular, needs double, triple, and quadruple checks on everything and someone in authority signing off on that bolt, or that electrical system being safe.

In your system, there would be a mass meeting. For all decisions.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

While libertarians would only put up with anarchists if the anarchists could somehow manage to buy enough land to set up a commune somewhere (and would still be subject to all the various laws and rules of a libertarian system regardless of whether or not they were compatible with anarchism.)

I don't think the two systems could co-exist without constant conflict or complete separation (which wouldn't be possible in the real world)

asdasd

The inequality of one person living in slightly a nicer house than someone else is nowhere near the inequality of one person owning 10 houses, and others living on the streets.

Um, no it isn't. the big house could have 20 rooms. The owner of multiple properties could have two one bedroom flats - assuming that the homeless are somehow the responsibilty of the The People - I would push them into the richer house. **** it, do that now.

By the way, if come the revolution, Bob from Killiney gets to live in the five bedroom Killiney for all his life, and Bob from Tylestown gets a room in Tylestown, then equality does not really exist. In the extreme case Prince Charles would keep HighGrove while my sister - who rents out her old one-bedroom flat now she has moved in with her boyfriend - would have her flat seized ( although, by whom? There is no State).

I can see why, when I run into anarchists, they sound posh. Come the revolution Mamma and Pappa get to keep the pad in Killiney.

Akrasia

Soldie wrote: »

Again - this vague reference to benefits. What benefits? Do people get remuneration for their work or not? Is it in the form of these points that you mentioned before? If not, what are the benefits? I can't imagine a situation where dustmen, sewage treatment workers, bathroom cleaners, etc. would work for the good of society and nothing else. Also, with all this talk of anarcho-socialists enjoying greater creative input in their work, can someone explain what this means to a bathroom cleaner? Scrubbing the toilet bowl clockwise as opposed to anti-clockwise? Decorative urinal cakes? Or does this entire theory fall apart once we go beyond discussing factories?

As has already been said about 1000000 times, it is unlikely that there would be full time bathroom cleaners, unless there were volunteers to take that role) these jobs that nobody else wanted to do would be divided up equally.

Of course the idea of having to spend a few hours a week hoovering and cleaning toilets (and cleaning up after yourself as you go) is a nightmare to the average capitalist who sees himself as much too important to be doing things like that.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

Um, no it isn't. the big house could have 20 rooms. The owner of multiple properties could have two one bedroom flats - assuming that the homeless are somehow the responsibilty of the we the people - I would push them into the richer house. **** it, do that now.

By the way, if come the revolution, Bob from Killiney gets to live in the five bedroom Killiney for all his life, and Bob from Tylestown gets a room in Tylestown, then equality does not really exist. In the extreme case Prince Charles would keep HighGrove while my sister - who rents out her old one-bedroom flat now she has moved in with her boyfriend - would have her flat seized ( although, by whom? There is no State).

I can see why, when I run into anarchists, they sound posh. Come the revolution Mamma and Pappa get to keep the pad in Killiney.

Is that your only purpose in this thread, to call anarchists posh and out of touch? I'm not even going to engage in that kind of purile debate with you. You don't know anything about me or anyone else on this forum, and your constant ad hominem attacks only show you up as having nothing constructive to say.

asdasd

to the average capitalist who sees himself as much too important to be doing things like that.

do you use the word "capitalist" to mean workers in capitalist society. Or just anybody who opposes you.

I'd say bin collection would be fun and social, if paid the same as dentistry the problem would be lack of dentists not bin collectors. The utopian idea that we can all do a bit of this, or a bit of that, breaks down when you need experts to be trained for years to do something which isnt all that pleasurable. Like dentistry.

We would need those guys concentrating on dentistry.

Anyway, there are plenty of voluntary schemes to clean up stuff. I am thinking of volonteering to clean up part of the cotswold way near where I live. Et tu? All theory and no action?

Am I right.

I am right, am I not.

asdasd

Is that your only purpose in this thread, to call anarchists posh and out of touch? I'm not even going to engage in that kind of purile debate with you.

No. I gave an example of how my sister, who owns two properties, is not as rich as someone in Killiney who owns one. I would've thought this would be a pressing problem for an egalitarian. So, far from engaging in ad hominens, I was contradicting your claim that the number of properties is relevent in any way. As for anarchist being posh, I have never met one in my working day. Or life. Coming across them on the street they talk posh.


And as for Ad Homimens:

is a nightmare to the average capitalist who sees himself as much too important to be doing things like that.

I am a worker as I have made clear numerous times.

I think you mentioned something about private schools to DF.

But my post was pointing out a huge inconsitancy in anarchism. Who gets to live where.