Libertarianism versus Anarchism

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

hold on a moment, are we living in bizaroworld?

One of the primary reasons for the existance of the state is to enforce private property rights, In fact, many libertarians believe that there ought to be a minimal state with the sole function of protecting property and enforcing contracts.

Now you say that there needs to be a state to enforce the non ownership of property?

Libertarians and so called anarcho capitalists have to go to very great lengths to think up methods of protecting their property that fit in with the rest of their ideology, and they all amount to either a minimal version of the current nation state, or varying types of private security firms (which would behave very similarly to the current oppressive police forces, except they would be essentially mercinaries for hire to those with the most money)


There is no necessity for a state in order to force the non ownership of property. Non ownership of property is the default system, it takes coersion and force to have it any other way.

silverharp

I've read through the posts but I am still cant picture how the left approach is supposed to work here are some questions that may help


no money (in the general sense), how does that work?

if it doesnt go global from day 1 how does the no money no market country trade with the rest of the world?

As the vast majority of people in a western country are middle class I find it hard to believe that they would vote away their property rights? does it not depend on some type of coup?

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

If a group of so called "anarcho capitalists" pooled their resources and bought land to set up a commune, then wouldn't that land be defaco socially owned?

In which setup?
In anarcho-socialism they would apparently be prevented from doing this.
In anarcho-capitalism there would be no need.

Akrasia wrote: »

If it was all owned by one or more individuals, there would be an immediate heirarchy

Apparently, which is why I dont subscribe to anarcho-socialism.

Akrasia wrote: »

There wouldn't be professional 'representatives' (a ruling class) there wouldn't be economic elites (the capitalist class).

This "economic elite" class is pretty wooly. Its something that is open to everyone.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you 'own' a shoebox apartment you are constrained by the rules of the management company on what you can or can not do to your property. You may be prohibited from having loud parties, keeping pets, dealing drugs, altering the structure of the building, putting down wooden floors etc etc etc... There are penalties for breaking these rules which range from fines to eviction.

Your level of freedom in 'owning' an apartment would be very similar to your level of freedom in inhabiting an apartment or house owned collectively.

You seem to have a warped idea that in socialism, you could be forced to share a dorm with 60 other people and eat and wash communally. Thats just comic book stuff.

There are housing associations and cooperatives that operate today where the inhabitants don't own the houses, but they have the same rights to privacy and freedom as any homeowner.

I don't see how you can possibly argue that systems that provide demonstrably superior education and health care do "harm." From the opposing perspective, however, you might consider that the drug rationing and long waiting lists for surgery within public health-care systems do cause demonstrable harm. And what about the many failing public school systems around the world, which suck up billions in taxpayer resources and deliver mediocre educational outcomes in return? Don't they cause harm?

The very purpose of private property and private education and private anything is that it is exclusive. In order for something to be private, it must have the ability to exclude others from using the resource.

You are arguing that basing an entire system around exclusivity is somehow going to increase personal freedom?

Yes, but surely "society" is simply an aggregate of all the individuals within it? Why not start with the concrete individual and move upwards to the abstraction, rather than vice versa?

Because from birth to death, and everywhere in between, humans are interdependent. It is a natural state to cooperate and interact with each other. Individuals are not physically capable of living their whole lives as fullyindependent individuals (for a start, they would never have been conceived, but if you start at birth, then they would die as a very young infant.)

We are who we are because of all the people around us, so selfish individualism is a folly, because if the people around us do badly, then so will we.
We might think that homelesness and poverty are other people's problems, but disadvantage increases crime and violence and that affects everyone.

I don't believe there is any evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that human nature is fundamentally altruistic, or that humans have evolved to exhibit altruistic behavior. Like other higher mammals, humans are fundamentally acquisitive and competitive. And that is the real reason why socialism can never work.

Thats your opinion, but the anthropological evidence is clear that we are a cooperative tribal species, and not an isolationist competitive species. A human by himself is a very vulnerable creature (rambo and chuck norris aside). But when we gather togeher, we can dominate the planet.

The prostitute has made a long series of choices that led up to this situation: She has probably flunked out of the public-school system; she became pregnant and bore three children; she acquired a drug habit and a violent boyfriend; and she committed crimes. Yes, you can say that she has f***ed up her life, and is in a sorry state—but whose fault is that?

Did she choose to be born into poverty? That is a fundamental flaw in your theory, intergenerational poverty will increase because there is no mechanism to redistribute resources to those who have nothing but their bodies to sell (menial manual labour) meanwhile the offspring of upper middle classes are born with assets without ever having to earn them.

She is "forced" to sell her body and commit crimes—why? Surely other women are raising children as single parents without resorting to prostitution, crime, and drugs?

There are lots of women (and single fathers) doing that, but thats because we have a social welfare system that provides them with an income so they don't have to work or steal.

Regardless of the bad choices the mother makes, the children are innocent victims, they are getting the worst possible start in life. Welfare programs are there to try and cushion the children against neglectful or incapable parenting. In your society, there would only be charities to do this task, in an anarcho communist society, great care would be taken to address the source of these problems and to give the children, and the parents every opportunity to become full productive members of the community.

You assume that throwing welfare at "those at the bottom" somehow helps them break out of the cycle of failure and underachieving. It doesn't. It does quite the opposite. For instance, a study in the USA showed that a $200/month increase in welfare to single mothers increased the teen pregnancy rate by 150 percent. A classic instance of welfare actually causing the problem it claims to be solving.

Yeah, but that's not an argument against anarcho communism. They are making a choice in that situation between going on welfare, and going to work in a rubbish underpaid job that they don't find satisfying or challenging for the rest of their lives until they die.

We would structure society differently, the choices would be different.

Oh, well, I guess anarcho-socialism is the end of the line for artists, composers, novelists, poets, filmmakers, etc.

Why is that then? Are you suggesting that artists are all in it for the money?

That clearly doesn't bear out the facts as the vast majority of artists around the world don't make very much money and often have to work second jobs to pay the bills.

I would suggest that in an anarchist society there would be much much more art and culture as people would have more free time and wouldn't be forced to choose between being surviving and pursuing their art.

I can go outside right now and walk around in a community of people who know each other, care for each other, and have genuine bonds. "Society" is very different. The government will tell a worker in London that he should pay higher taxes to keep people on Northern Ireland on the dole, because it's for the "good of society." Why should the Londoner be expected to care?

That point is irrelevant to this discussion. Are you falling back to arguing against the state and/or state socialism?

Please remember that this thread is about debating between anarchism and libertarianism.

I've asked this before—but in a anarchist socialist society where there is no state, what is going to happen when individuals lay claim to property? What is going to happen when Farmer Joe has an oversupply of apples in his orchard and sets up a stall, selling them? Without a state, how are you going to prevent the natural order of private property and markets from re-emerging?

As I've already said, private property is not the natural order. It needs to be manufactured, and then defended from others who also want to use it. If Farmer Joe wants exclusive ownership of a field, he would need some mechanism to defend that ownership, and if he was surrounded by anarchists who would refuse to recognise his 'property rights' he might get very very frustrated (and possibly violent)

headmuzik

So how would you classify someone such as Murray Rothbard?

As an anti-state liberal.

The exclusion of "land and buildings" as legitimate "personal possessions" is due to the fact that land and buildings are generally used by more than one person, and if one person owns the building and rents it to others, this would constitute exploitation. The same applies with ground rent for land. The point is to exclude exploitative economic and social relations and to ensure that everyone has a say in the decisions that affect them. If you do not have an ownership share (or the equivalent) in something that you use, then you will not get an equitable say in something that affects you quite directly.
If you live in a one-bedroom apartment for instance, neither you nor anyone else is entitled to "OWN" the entire apartment block but you are entitled to what you might call an "ownership share" of that particular apartment since you are the one using it and it cannot be used to exploit others. Insofar as what you do to that apartment does not affect others in the apartment block, of course you should be free to do with it what you like. An anarchist society will not be dictating the colour of people's wallpaper!

An anarchist society would use social planning to allocate for human needs including shelter (houses) and the land thereon. For one thing, this would ensure communities were allowed to determine their owns needs in terms of facilities, schools, parks, recreational areas etc.

what if the computer was being used to run a profitable website, or to write computer programs for sale?

The problem here is that you are asking questions about changes in the social and political idea of "property" in the overall context of an assumption that capitalism and the market will continue on much as before. At least, thats what you seem to be suggesting since you are talking about a "profitable website" (profits would not exist under anarchism) and selling computer programs (which would require a market).
An anarchist society would construct economic systems which allocated goods and services without the robbery of profit-making, or the inequities of market exchanges.

What are some concrete "manufactured articles" that can be used to "control and exploit others"? Are we talking about things like guns?

Of course, guns be used to control and exploit others. But so can buildings, either residential or industrial, machinery or almost any other productive tool you might think of. If the social relationship is a hierarchical and exploitative one based on ownership by few and use by many, then you have a problem.

So how will currency, land, buildings, productive tools, ideas, inventions, etc., be handled in your socialist-anarchist world? If I write a novel, I can't copyright it? If I come up with an invention, I can't patent it? I can't borrow money from a bank and buy land, buildings, and tools to start a business?

There's a lot of stuff on the internet that you can read to learn a bit about this stuff - I will try to go through as much as I can but I think you are still missing the big picture view - I am not talking about minor modifications to the capitalist structure of property relations or slight rejigs to the way the market economy functions. I am not talking about passing a couple of laws here and there to stop people from borrowing money or copyrighting things. The sort of changes required for an anarchist society require social revolution - a transformative change in the economic, social and political relationships within society.

A "currency" implies market economics - not a runner. Idea's and invention would not be copyrighted because no enforcement mechanism would be in force to prevent duplications or punish them. I don't know if yo've heard of "creative commons" or "copyleft" - these are alternative systems that allow the copying of works with attribution to the originator of the idea but not necessarily the provision of remunerative royalties. Maybe you think that innovation will not occur without monetary reward but there is plenty of historical empirical evidence to the contrary.

Who is actually going to be out on the streets driving drunk people home from the pubs at 3 a.m. on a Sunday morning?

Maybe people who would like to be driven home from the pubs at 3 a.m. on a saturday morning?

On class struggle:

It simply doesn't account for the complexity of modern economic life.

As I said, I do think there are significant gradations between the classes. But I think the fundamentals are sound. Do you think that class struggle doesn't really exist? Do you think "partnership" is real? Do you think employers and workers have similar interests? What complexities exist that you think damage the usefulness of the ruling class/working class analysis?

Well, this is what Marx said 140 years ago. We're still waiting!

Maybe if less people were waiting and more people got organised, we might be a bit closer?

Likewise, I'm not attracted to the "collectivist" vision either - I would tend more towards communist-anarchism.
Anarchist FAQ:

The major difference between collectivists and communists is over the question of "money" after a revolution. Anarcho-communists consider the abolition of money to be essential, while anarcho-collectivists consider the end of private ownership of the means of production to be the key. As Kropotkin noted, collectivist anarchism "express[es] a state of things in which all necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes, while the ways of retribution [i.e. distribution] of labour, communist or otherwise, would be settled by each group for itself." [Anarchism, p. 295] Thus, while communism and collectivism both organise production in common via producers' associations, they differ in how the goods produced will be distributed. Communism is based on free consumption of all while collectivism is more likely to be based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed. However, most anarcho-collectivists think that, over time, as productivity increases and the sense of community becomes stronger, money will disappear. Both agree that, in the end, society would be run along the lines suggested by the communist maxim: "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs." They just disagree on how quickly this will come about

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

In which setup?
In anarcho-socialism they would apparently be prevented from doing this.
In anarcho-capitalism there would be no need.


Apparently, which is why I dont subscribe to anarcho-socialism.



This "economic elite" class is pretty wooly. Its something that is open to everyone.

Sorry, I don't understand your points, are you saying that you are in favour of heirarchy? and dont like anarchism because it doesn't divide people into landlords and tennants?

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand your points, are you saying that you are in favour of heirarchy? and dont like anarchism because it doesn't divide people into landlords and tennants?

I am against hierarchy.

The hierarchy that socialists see in the current capitalistic system is really nothing more than a conspiracy. You talk of the "elite capitalist class" as if it were some untouchable group of people. The fact is however that anyone can set up their business, employ people and become dirty conniving capitalists. Even 15 year olds have been known in Ireland to set up internet businesses and sell them for over a million euro at the age of 17.

Socialists' problem however lies with people being employed, I believe. An employer is exploiting the labor of the workers. But the workers do have a choice. In Ireland we even have free education right up to third level, so people who are lazy, get a job in a factory and start moaning about the bosses nice BMW are just being bitter about that fact they were not ambitious.

So it is my belief that hierarchy in Ireland is made up.

Now, back on topic. As I said, I think Anarcho-socialism is a bit of contradiction. Socialism will always require some form of coercion. Otherwise me and five of my friends will start trading things we have made (such as toys, computer programs), using buttons as currency. But this is apparently not allowed in the Anarcho-socialist society. So who stops them?

What happens when they take it a step further and decide to completely disengage themselves from the community. They create a "state in exile," where they grow food and trade amongst themselves for material wealth. Of course the community owns that land they live on, so they arent free to live in their own community? But who enforces this? Will a group of socialists come along with guns and force them off of their "state-in-exile"?

So here you have created a hierarchy - the socialist majority over the material-demanding minority.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just cause you state it doesn't make it a fact.

Some animals are individualistic and defend territories, other animals are nomadic and other animals are social and work together to provide for each others needs without any individual ownership.

Your absolutist description of animals as hoarders and 'property owners' is simply wrong.

The 'entirety of human history' certainly does not show that people have always had private property. people evolved to live in tribal communities where they shared food and shelter. Up until the enclosure acts people shared farm land.

Private exclusive ownership of land is a relatively new feature of human society and most of that land was acquired illegitimately through violence, theft and war.

Can you name any society historically where non-ownership of property was the "default"?

Native americans for one.

The reality is that whenever people have been prevented from owning property, it has always been by the legislative fiat of the coercive state. Those who have been barred from owning property—serfs, slaves, Catholics, Jews, women, people under communism—have often been subjugated underclasses, marked by dispossession and dependency. As such, progressive liberals over the centuries have fought to extend the rights of property ownership to all.

You're framing the argument to force only one answer, You say people are 'prevented from owning property' but there were many historical examples of property being owned in common thus 'preventing' an individual from taking it as exclusive private property. is that 'coersive'?
Anarchism is not about preventing people from owning posessions, it's about owning everything in common.

Historically speaking, property ownership is the very hallmark of the "freeman." Look up the word, and you'll see the centuries-long close association between freedom and property rights.

thats because the alternative to being a 'freeman' was being a slave. If you have two choices, to either work someone else's land for a pittance, or to work your own land (and have others work for you), then of course the preferred option is to own your own land. But this does not discount the third option, to own the land in common and to work cooperatively with others and share the rewards.

History shows that the only way to prevent property ownership from naturally reoccurring is through the militaristic power of the state. As soon as state authority disappeared, people would seize property, call it theirs, and fight to protect it. And what does the anarcho-socialist do then?

If people want to fight to protect their own plot of land and refuse to engage with others, then I wouldn't try and stop them, unless they claimed ownership of land that others were already using and tried to force them to pay rent. That is an act of domination, not freedom, and anarchists would fight to liberate those who are being oppressed.

Its hard to imagine that without the state to imprison them, that tenants would voluntarily side with the landlord given the choice of paying rent, or sharing ownership. Libertarians would try and enforce 'contracts' that the tenants may have signed to pay rent breach of which may carry criminal penalties, but how is that more free than a state fining or imprisoning them for failure to pay rent?

To be honest, I don't see the difference between being oppressed by a landowner, or being oppressed by the state, except that the state government is at least nominally accountable through an election process, while property rights are seen as absolute in a libertarian system.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

Anarchism is not about preventing people from owning posessions, it's about owning everything in common.

Thats a contradiction. If I want to posses certain things, like land, I will be prevented from doing so due to you forcing me to own things in common.

Your system assumes a change in human mindframe, where everyone wants to share things but the reality is they don't.

On the other hand, libertarianism at least allows people with diverting mindframes to live in harmony. Those who live for profit can live alongside those who live as part of a socialist community. Anarcho-socialism does not afford such freedom of choice. Everyone has to live in the community.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

I am against hierarchy.

The hierarchy that socialists see in the current capitalistic system is really nothing more than a conspiracy.

I'm sorry but thats simply not true. It's the clearest kind of heirarchy imaginable. Bosses and workers, landlords and tenants. Owners and renters. The owners make the rules, the renters follow the rules.

If you don't do what your employer tells you, you get fired, if you don't do what your landlord tells you, you get evicted.

How is that a conspiracy theory?

Socialists' problem however lies with people being employed, I believe. An employer is exploiting the labor of the workers. But the workers do have a choice. In Ireland we even have free education right up to third level, so people who are lazy, get a job in a factory and start moaning about the bosses nice BMW are just being bitter about that fact they were not ambitious.

thats very judgemental.

People have different circumstances that give them different opportunities.
There are very many hard working people out there who have very little wealth to show for it (people who choose to care for their sick relatives, for example, work extremely hard for long hours providing an essential service for practically zero reward.

A recent study has shown that people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have work really hard save money and go back to education and managed to get a university education see almost no increase in their salaries compared with people from middle class backgrounds with exactly the same qualifications. The difference between these two categories of people? The education came easier to the middle class child, and they had access to contacts and the self confidence to get high paid jobs compared to the harder working individuals from a different background, but their rewards are much higher.

So it is my belief that hierarchy in Ireland is made up.

Because a small percentage of people are able to move between classes?

You could say that because there is a National Lottery, everyone has a chance to become a millionaire.

Now, back on topic. As I said, I think Anarcho-socialism is a bit of contradiction. Socialism will always require some form of coercion. Otherwise me and five of my friends will start trading things we have made (such as toys, computer programs), using buttons as currency. But this is apparently not allowed in the Anarcho-socialist society. So who stops them?

What stops them is the fact that if you demand money for a service, there is nobody to enforce that demand.

Without someone to enforce contracts, commercial transactions would not be tenable.

You could barter all the buttons you like, there would be nobody forbidding you from doing so, but you might have a hard time trading them with someone who doesn't accept them as a valid currency.

What happens when they take it a step further and decide to completely disengage themselves from the community. They create a "state in exile," where they grow food and trade amongst themselves for material wealth. Of course the community owns that land they live on, so they arent free to live in their own community? But who enforces this? Will a group of socialists come along with guns and force them off of their "state-in-exile"?

So here you have created a hierarchy - the socialist majority over the material-demanding minority.

I don't see anarchists having any real problem if a bunch of libertarians want to set up their own 'state' as long as they didn't try force their will on any anarchists, it would probably be quite amusing to watch their quaint outdated tradition, a curiosity, like the Amish community.

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sorry but thats simply not true. It's the clearest kind of heirarchy imaginable. Bosses and workers, landlords and tenants. Owners and renters. The owners make the rules, the renters follow the rules.

Whats to stop the renters from becoming the owners; the workers from becoming the employers?

Akrasia wrote: »

thats very judgemental.

Not really. A trait of human beings is that they are sometimes bitter of those who have been successful. More often than not relative success is due to ambition; thus being bitter towards success is being bitter towards ones own lack of ambition.

Akrasia wrote: »

There are very many hard working people out there who have very little wealth to show for it (people who choose to care for their sick relatives, for example, work extremely hard for long hours providing an essential service for practically zero reward.

Agreed. But imagine everyone were to to this. The economy would collapse as about a fifth of the population would be tied up minding another fifth. Instead people could get a normal job and pay for a nursing home etc.

Akrasia wrote: »

A recent study has shown that people from disadvantaged backgrounds who have work really hard save money and go back to education and managed to get a university education see almost no increase in their salaries compared with people from middle class backgrounds with exactly the same qualifications.

And your solution is to penalise those who are born into middle-class homes. In the same vein as your education proposal. Force everyone to get a mediocre education.

Akrasia wrote: »

Because a small percentage of people are able to move between classes?

A small percentage? Everyone is equally entitled to start a business.

Akrasia wrote: »

You could say that because there is a National Lottery, everyone has a chance to become a millionaire.

Yet there is no element of luck in capitalism. Its not random who can start their own enterprises - everyone can.

Akrasia wrote: »

You could barter all the buttons you like, there would be nobody forbidding you from doing so, but you might have a hard time trading them with someone who doesn't accept them as a valid currency.

Well once a group of people subscribe to it, and agree to accept it as legal tender. So you concede that the capitalist market will be in fact allowed in anarch-socialism?

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't see anarchists having any real problem if a bunch of libertarians want to set up their own 'state' as long as they didn't try force their will

Heaven forbid you would be forced to be allowed do what ye want. In a libertarian society, what is stopping you an 5,000 communists buying lots of land, building a town and setting up a commune proper?

Joycey

turgon wrote: »

I am against hierarchy.

The hierarchy that socialists see in the current capitalistic system is really nothing more than a conspiracy. You talk of the "elite capitalist class" as if it were some untouchable group of people. The fact is however that anyone can set up their business, employ people and become dirty conniving capitalists. Even 15 year olds have been known in Ireland to set up internet businesses and sell them for over a million euro at the age of 17.

And what if there is an equivalent 15 year old kid who cant read, who has a conviction for joy riding and is out taking pills a couple of days every week. Surely you recognise that that child hasnt "chosen" (in the sense of it being possible to hold them morally responsible) to not be able to read etc, and yet you believe they should not be suported by society because they are now "choosing" not to start up their own software company :rolleyes:

Seriously, you need a reality check.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh come on, nobody is in favour of that, that's such a straw man argument that it's a genuine fire hazard.

You insist on portraying anarchist society as some kind of haphazard free for all, when there would be complex social arrangements to govern how the resources are used.

But who does own the houses? They are not simply owned collectively, by everyone in society, are they?

There are a number of ways resources could be collectively owned, one example is through housing cooperatives similar to how it's described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative though suitably adjusted to take into account the different economic mechanisms of an anarchist society.

So, in your socialist world, nobody would be restricted from using any resource, or accessing any service? That means unlimited free petrol, electricity, gas, coal, phone service, broadband internet, etc., for everyone?

No, there would be restrictions, it's not a free for all as I already said, but these restrictions would be decided in a democratic manner and run for the benefit of the community at large, and not just for absentee landlords or distant capitalist 'shareholders'

I disagree completely. Humans are instinctively selfish and individualistic. They will cooperate only when it serves their interests to do so, and have few qualms in cheating and defrauding the collective when it suits them.

That's a very negative view of humanity. You seem unable to comprehend that human nature is flexible and there is no such thing as any single 'intrinsic' human trait.

people will adapt to the circumstances. If we build a system that rewards corruption and greed then that's the kind of behaviour that will flourish.

If we build a society where cooperation and mutual aid is rewarded, then I think that would be a much nicer place to live.

I am not naive, I fully expect that there will always be people who will try and take advantage of other people, but that is why I am in favour of limiting the power that any individual can exert over his neighbours through democracy and the elimiation of private property.

Have you ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma game, from economic game theory?

I am intimately aware of that theory and it fully supports socialist anarchism rather than individualism.
If both parties agree to share all the time then they will both be much better off in the long term. If one person cheats, he is better off. If both people cheat, they both do very badly. The game shows that there are a lot of people who will cheat out of fear and greed.
The problem with that game is that it is manufactured to exclude memory and knowledge of how the other person has behaved in the past.

If you introduce memory to the game, the people who cooperate will always cooperate with each other and these people will all benefit. The people who cheat will do well for a while, but as their reputation spreads, they will do very badly.

Cooperation works when people trust each other. Anarchism tries to promote cooperation through the rules of the game. Capitalism tries to promote competition, One system is inherently made up of winners and losers, the other system is dependent on sharing prosperity.
People will behave according to the rules of the game.

You seem to envision humankind as a very large beehive. In your view, individuals (bees) are so weak, vulnerable, and ineffectual that they almost don't merit recognition qua individuals; the collective (hive) is strong, powerful, and dominant. But was William Shakespeare a collective? Was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart a collective? Was Albert Einstein a collective?

You seem fixated on 'greatness'. to the extent that you ignore the billions of people out there who just want to live peaceful ordinary lives. Sure, individuals have a lot to contribute, and geniuses are extremely valuable, and would still play a role in an anarchist society, but even these geniuses are a reliant on society. Who taught Shakespeare how to read? Who helped develop the language he spoke? Ordinary everyday people, on whom everything else rests.

Are you saying that children from poor families can't go to school, get educations, work hard, and acquire wealth and property? In reality, the biggest factor contributing to what you term "intergenerational poverty" is social welfare, which disincentivizes education and work, and perpetuates cycles of dependency and misery.

Perhaps, and doubtlessly welfare does play a role in marginalising people, but that is not an argument against Anarchism.
Welfare marginalises people in a capitalist system because it creates a poverty trap where people make a living without working, and lose those benefits if they get a job. the longer they stay in that situation, the less employable they become and so become reliant on welfare to survive. This is a flaw of capitalism as much as the welfare system itself.

The alternative of capitalism without any welfare safety net would lead to much greater misery and suffering than the current system as people who are unable to work, or unemployable (due to an surplus of workers, or a lack of marketable skills) would have no way of supporting themselves.

What would you suggest that these people, with no money and no income, do in your free society?

Aren't people going to work in your anarchist society? If not, how will all the free resources mentioned above be provided?

People will work and contribute what they can to maintain their standard of life, but the work will be organised and allocated differently

And I completely disagree with this. A two-year-old child may not be capable of reading Hayek or Ayn Rand, but she completely understands the meaning of "my toys." The desire to possess, to own, is absolutely intrinsic to human nature, and only an utter utopian would deny this evident reality.

We are not 2 year olds, we are supposed to be Adults.
A 2 year old child also understands the concept of sharing. Have you ever had to endure a small child constantly handing you bits of his soggy biscuit to share with you?

Why do you choose the possessive aspect of a developing personality and ignore the will to share?

Look at the ape, a close ancestor to man. Apes are highly territorial and hierarchical. To suggest that they are "social and work together to provide for each other's needs without any individual ownership" is nonsense -- they frequently fight over territory, food, and females, and build "private" nests in trees that are their exclusive domain. Potential intruders often get pelted with stones and branches. This doesn't exactly dovetail with your collectivist vision.

I really have to stop you there there is no such animal as "the ape" There are many different species of primates, and these have different character traits but are usually highly social and cooperative creatures. I really don't know where you get your zoooligical information but it's woefully inadequate

You're really now trying to argue that private land ownership is a feature of the modern era? What about the private land ownership records found from the earliest periods of Egyptian history? What about Abraham's purchase of Ephron's field for 400 shekels, as recorded in the book of Genesis? It's a complete Marxist myth that there were no private land markets prior to the modern world. Land has been owned and used privately since antiquity.

And its also been shared and owned collectively.

Are these the same Native Americans who fought to drive settlers off "their" territory?

There was conflict when the settlers started fencing off the land killing them and wiping out all the wildlife yes.

A community having a local territory is not the same as private ownership of land by the way. And a tribe or society protecting their ancestral hunting grounds from hostile invasion by foreign monarchs is perfectly understandable, Anarchists would do the same.

As in the Soviet kolkhozy? But are you aware that Stalin's agricultural "reforms" drastically reduced the production of grain and livestock -- so much that they produced major famines? I wouldn't worry about there being too many "rewards" to share, since collectivizing agriculture has always spelt disaster for any nation that has tried it.

Are you calling us stalinists again?

So you're saying that if a group of people moved to a completely unused territory, you would permit them to start up their own market-based economy from scratch? And you would respect their autonomy? What would you do if other people decided to move from your collectivist society into the free-market society? What would you do if your anarcho-socialists started to complain, pointing out the far higher levels of productivity and living standards across the way? Would you let them join the free-market system too?

If the people in the anarchist society decided democratically to introduce markets and private ownership, then there would be markets and private ownership. (btw, I'm not just talking about a majority vote by the way, there are other forms of democracy)

The 'libertarians' would eventually turn into an oppressive state however as they would inevitably try to force their 'property rights' on the anarchists. (this would be inevitable if the local anarchists who don't believe in copyright started reprinting 'copyrighted materials' or travelling on 'private land' without paying the toll.

There would be conflict because capitalism is violent and expansionary and it inherently limits the freedom of others

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Apart from the fact that I disagree entirely with your conclusion on the basis, among many other things, that this child is simply the most recent instance of a cycle which has probably been perpetuating itself for much longer then 1 generation, and is symptomatic of society as a whole, id like to know who you think is responsible for that child if they have no parents? Or what if their parents are not capable of taking care of them (drug problems, chronic illness etc)?

I mean, you seem like a fairly decent person from what ive seen of your posts on boards, ive seen you give good advice to a few people, why would you want to institutionalise dickheaded selfishness if you dont exhibit it as an individual in such a disconnected setting as the internet, where it cant (except possibly extremely indirectly) benefit your chances of breeding or otherwise achieve personal gain?

Soldie

headmuzik wrote: »

The exclusion of "land and buildings" as legitimate "personal possessions" is due to the fact that land and buildings are generally used by more than one person [...]

What about a Nintendo Wii?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Anarcho capitalist is an oxymoron. Anti state liberal is a valid discription of that position, anarcho capitalism is inherently contradictory. and therefore doesn't exist, like the lizard mammal

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

Akrasia wrote: »

therefore doesn't exist, like the lizard mammal

Come now, your not really going to attempt a refutation of the lizard mammal now are you? :pac:

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You love your totalitarian analogies.

We are not stalinists, we are not going to build walls to force anarchists to stay in anarchyland.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

Come now, your not really going to attempt a refutation of the lizard mammal now are you?

Amazed no-one has mentioned the Platypus...or perhaps I didnt catch it...

"At first glance, the platypus appears as if it was the result of an evolutionary accident...[but]...What we found was the genome, just like the animal, is an amazing amalgam of reptilian and mammal characteristics with quite a few unique platypus characteristics as well"

Perhaps ideological 'genetics' can also be as hybridized, convoluted, and wacky as the platypus; issues and subsections of belief trading back and forth like bacteria, the fixity we tend to ascribe to them being less certain with a longer view?

turgon

Akrasia wrote: »

there would be complex social arrangements to govern how the resources are used.

And yet, of course, no state.

Akrasia wrote: »

restrictions would be decided in a democratic manner and run for the benefit of the community at large

No, you mean 50% of the community plus one. Because that is what democracy is.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm not just talking about a majority vote by the way, there are other forms of democracy

Like in Soviet Russia?

Akrasia wrote: »

We are not stalinists, we are not going to build walls to force anarchists to stay in anarchyland.

Im sure Stalin said the exact same thing before he came to power.

donegalfella wrote: »

So how would the drug-addicted prostitute or the pregnant teen be handled in a socialist society? Are you say there would be no welfare net, that these people would just be cared for automatically as part of the collective?

And if so, could the socialist anarchists give us one reason why any women in their right mind wouldn't want to get pregnant and thus have a life free of work?

Or is it another case of you thinking everyone will want to work purely for the social good?

Akrasia

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did you read the bit where i said ""suitably adjusted to take into account the anarchist economy

The housing cooperatives have to be 'privately owned' in the wikipedia because we're in a capitalist system at the moment, its how they operate that is relevent. It really doesn't take much imagination to move beyond the capitalist aspect of 'owned'and çorporation

Each member has one vote, they occupy the houses but don't own them, and the resources of the cooperative are pooled together for the common maintanance of the buildings and community.

You've criticized the idea of private education, because you say that it accepts some and excludes others. Now you're saying that there would be "restrictions" on the amount of publicly owned resources that an individual would be allowed to consume. Isn't that much the same thing?

No it's not.

I agree that it would be nice to have a society where we all hold hands around the campfire and sing "Kum ba yah," but unfortunately that just doesn't mesh with human nature.

Your version of human nature.

But private property does limit the power that one any individual can exert!

No it doesn't. If Libertarians had your way, there would be few if any restrictions on what the individual can do with his own 'private property'. So the owner becomes dictator within his boundaries. In order to expand his power, all he has to do is buy more land.

That's the whole point of private property. Democracy, on the other hand, is simply a way of enforcing the tyranny of the majority. If 51% want something that the other 49% don't want, then 49% of the population have to submit to it, whether they like it or not. That's not exactly anarchism.

That's not exactly democracy. and it's certainly not the way democracy works in Anarchism.

Anarchist direct democracy at the very first instance, gives everyone who is interested, a role in formulating the policy that will be implemented, there would be opt outs and freedom for people and groups to choose not to participate in controvercial decisions.

In Anarchist theory, democratic structures place enormous emphasis protecting minority rights and the right to ceceed from any voluntary association is everpresent if these minorities feel like they are being oppressed or treated unfairly. Compare this to Libertarianism where people are bound up in hundreds of legally binding 'free contracts' that can prevent people from revoking consent when it becomes apparent that they have been taken advantage of.

The free market promotes both cooperation and competition. When it is in people's best interest to cooperate, they will do so. Otherwise, they will compete. And I don't accept the "winners and losers" dichotomy, since even the "losers" often make significant gains under the free-market system.

If market forces are to work, businesses must constantly start, and fail. The dynamic of capitalism is competition. If busineses 'cooperate' to generate more profits, then that is to the cost of the consumer and is called a cartel. The only thing worse than capitalism where people are constantly losing everything they own because of bad business decisions, is capitalism dominated by oligarchies and cartels where the ordinary person has no real choice and new entrants to the market are constantly bullied out of existence by the cartel.

But did "ordinary everyday people" write Hamlet? No.

I don't really understand your point.

So how would the drug-addicted prostitute or the pregnant teen be handled in a socialist society? Are you say there would be no welfare net, that these people would just be cared for automatically as part of the collective?

Would you be a prostitute if nobody had money to pay you?
If someone was in need of help to break a drugs habit they would be offered it. I can assure you, If I was addicted to drugs and wanted to quit, I know I would much much prefer to live in an anarchist society than a libertarian one.

If they were in a genuinely free society, they probably wouldn't have wound up in this situation. You're discounting the extraordinary moral hazard created by the welfare state.

How would a 'free society'under libertarianism ensure that there would be no drug addicts or destitute?
I don't understand the mechanism for helping people bounce back from a series of very bad luck, or very bad decisions.

Yes, I have. But I've also seen a two-year-old child in an absolute rage when someone tried to take away his possessions without his approval.

Lesson being, 2 year olds are not in command of their emotions.

No, I'm just pointing out some of the pitfalls of collectivized agriculture. This is not exclusive to Stalin, btw.

Yeah, when some political party thousands of miles away from the farm makes uninformed binding decisions that certain crops be grown based on ludicrous 5 year plans, of course the agriculure will fail, but that's not how anarchists would operate.

And yet we have never been so free as we have been under free-market capitalist regimes!

There are more people in U.S. jails (2.3 million) than there are in china (1.6 million) and china has 4 times the population. The most common crime in america is poverty, and the private prisons are more than happy to accept all these ''clients'

Kama

I'm very interested in this discussion; close family tend to have the bitterest arguments, and libertarianism and anarchosocialism often appear indistinguishable to anyone without an ideological stake in either position, or an advanced degree in political science.

Both tend to rely rhetorically on something close to Eric Berne's Wooden Leg Game...If only capitalism didn't exist, true human nature would express naturally in an anarchist eutopia, if only the State didn't exist, the free and unregulated market wwould oproduce a similar eutopia, liberated from moral hazards...If only I didn't have this Wooden Leg...

To me, the hard question for the anarchist side remains, as it has been, demonstrate an allocative mechanism, or more crudely (and forgive the Nike-ness) Just Do It. Instantiated systems > rhetoric about democracy.
And anarchist co-operatives nowadays tend to be crushed by right-wing paramilitaries less, in the West at least, so there isn't the old excuse.

One way out (to me) is acceptance of markets (most anarchists or socialists do, they just differ in how markets should be governed) without necessarily accepting oligopolistic, corporate or rentier capitalism. But to accept this, and to create shared communal properties, accepting the right to private property is, again imo, an inarguable necessity.

For the libertarian side, it's similar. Demonstrate a functioning advanced market economy without a strongly supportive state. As you iken Akrasia to East Berlin, is not the Libertarian Eutopia Somalia?

Minarchist 'NightWatchmen' formulations cherrypick the parts of the state which protect propertied interests, and as in the anglo-liberal case mentioned by Akrasia, the United States, those massive 'minimal' prison systems are disproportionately populated by the less-propertied. 'Small' states on this model correlate quite well with high prison populations, and high-and-rising expenditures on the penal-justice complex; the apparent link between liberal policy and high incarceration seems an indigestable one for those who profess a love of liberty.