Libertarianism versus Anarchism

silverharp

synd wrote: »

capitalism can't since it actually ''requires'' unemployment to act as a disciplinary mechanism. Epochs of full employment and good wages tend to result in exploding inflation, capitalists diverting cost onto workers/consumers. In liberal discourse the unemployed must be blamed for their ''lack of initiative'' to offset potential criticism of the underlying structure.

Statist capitalism maybe as the obsession is trying to manage an economy from the centre with imaginary levers and mispriced price signals like interest rates. Logically production falls if there is unemployment so a specified unemployment rate is certainly not requiement of free market thinking.

synd wrote: »

One of the main myths of liberal capitalism is that people are payed according to how ''clever'' they are, which is complete bull****. High wages are maintained by upper middle class cartels and has more to do with their ability to place restrictions on entrance to particular fields. For instance the IMO is able to set a cap on how many medical students may progress into the field, thus keeping supply low and charging higher rates. Now, take an economy such as Cuba's, doctors exist in abundance due to the absence of private cartels - ergo more doctors and wages closer to the national average.

You are right it is a myth , in a free market people are rewarded based on what their customers/employers think they are worth. The same person could work on a building site and earn X , if an employers wants him to build a mine in Northern Canada he will get 3X.
Re your IMO example, cartels like this florish in state run or regulated markets. In a free market there would be several associations, each competing for students but balanced with the need to maintain their reputation, everyone that wanted and had the ability to become a doctor could do so.

asdasd

Ever hear of public works programs ?

Is this the anarchist, or Communist thread? I presume the question was how anarchist "society" would create jobs.

Sure the State can intervene and create unneeded public works, like the Famine period in ireland. Roads to nowhere are not all that useful.

asdasd

More anecdotal bull****, Cuba has an amazing medical system - trade embargo's taken into consideration ect.

And yet, I never see people migrate there for the health care. Or migrate there.

asdasd

In liberal discourse the unemployed must be blamed for their ''lack of initiative'' to offset potential criticism of the underlying structure.

The blame often comes from the working classes themselves. Probably because someone who works hard is hostile to those who dont.

Attitudes to the unemployed are milder in a recession than a boom, for obvious reasons.

Kama

silverharp wrote:

Statist capitalism maybe

What model of capitalism would you prefer? Is there a real-world example?

asdasd wrote:

Sure the State can intervene and create unneeded public works, like the Famine period in ireland. Roads to nowhere are not all that useful.

But roads, and infrastructure in general, are. Infrastructure our country is sorely lacking, due to our tendency to slash capital expenditure when we hit a downturn. An orthodox Keynesian would say go counter-cyclical; we went cyclical. I know which type of 'interference' I'd have preferred.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

Cuba actually has three medical systems. Two of them are pretty amazing.System 1 is for wealthy foreigners who come to Cuba as "medical tourists," mostly for cosmetic procedures such as Botox, plastic surgery, etc. These tourists are an essential source of hard currency, so they are treated very well in excellent hospitals. These hospitals are the ones shown to Michael Moore and the like when they come to rave about the "world-class" care that Cubans enjoy.System 2 is for the Cuban elite—Party members, military leaders, and the like. Again, the facilities for such individuals are top-notch.System 3 is for the general Cuban population, who are treated in crumbling, unsanitary hospitals that often don't even have basic medications such as aspirin and antibiotics. The hospitals don't provide bed linens, food, or even toilet paper. You may have seen the photos of the Cuban operating theatres with the cockroaches crawling around on the floor—that's in System 3. This is the system the Cuban government doesn't want you to know about.As for Cuban doctors, they earn around $25 a month, and spend most of their time driving cabs for tourists, which is much more lucrative than working in the Cuban health system.

Yes, the world health organization is a communist front - incapable of giving an objective comprehensive study. I know ! Lets take our information from stories circulated by Cuban exiles, and articles found in US tabloids BTW - The fact that cuban doctors are on $25 a month and still provide a good service was part of the economic explanation - (heaven forbid we get off point). In addition I much rather live in Cuba - than Hati or Jamaica.

silverharp

Kama wrote: »

Again, there's the unsubstantiated assumption that they will, necessarily, fail, given strong social safeguards. The flip answer to this is that if a greatly lowered tax and service provision worked so well, more countries would have centered towards it as an equilibrium. The key historical example (Britain) used was in context of an imperial project, and loses much of its strength as a generalizable example for that reason, to many.Taking the 2009 Competitiveness Report again, we have Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Singapore and Japan, all of whom have strong state involvement historically in their economies. Quite a number of high-tax mixed-economy regimes to be found in that list.

My "failing" was in relation to the newly set up left Utopia. As for your list of sucessful countries, the question becomes how do you analyse the causes and effects? how sustainable is it? looking at Japan, how do you judge a country that has run up massive debts or has a monster pension/social welfare crises building up? "if" some of the said economies fall apart over the next 20 years would the system be discredited.

Kama

silverharp wrote: »

My "failing" was in relation to the newly set up left Utopia.

Fair. But applies equally to any newly-founded statelet.

As for your list of sucessful countries, the question becomes how do you analyse the causes and effects? how sustainable is it?

I agree, unpicking correlation and causation is problematic, but imo regime comparison is as close as we can come to a empirical comparison. I'd also say that the Nordic regimes have a strong cultural ethos, which may not generalise well. Again, the argument over cause or effect; I assume they are mutually reinforcing. Nevertheless, they stand as testimony against the concept that a socialist mixed economy is necessarily inefficient; or more simply, that the libertarian possesses an anti-state bias, which colours their judgement and skews understanding, much as many Leftists possess an anti-market one.

looking at Japan, how do you judge a country that has run up massive debts or has a monster pension/social welfare crises building up? "if" some of the said economies fall apart over the next 20 years would the system be discredited.

Welfarist regimes worldwide, whether residual or universal, are under strong pressures, demographic and fiscal. My case was against the concept that a socialist economy is a basket-case, which has been parroted frequently in this thread and elsewhere; clearly many of them (up to now) have been quite durable, warts and all. The symbiosis between states and markets appears far more stable evolutionarily than those who have attempted to choose 'pure' forms of either.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

synd

You are right it is a myth , in a free market people are rewarded based on what their customers/employers think they are worth. The same person could work on a building site and earn X , if an employers wants him to build a mine in Northern Canada he will get 3X. Re your IMO example, cartels like this florish in state run or regulated markets. In a free market there would be several associations, each competing for students but balanced with the need to maintain their reputation, everyone that wanted and had the ability to become a doctor could do so.

Marginal utility - yuk. Fluctuating currencies obscure labor value, so you end up in a ridicules situation where one person will pay x for a dog collar while x will feed an entire family for a week in another country. As for the monopolies, state and market evolved in mutual relation. Monopolistic tendencies create states to protect power - competitive advantage ect.

Statist capitalism maybe as the obsession is trying to manage an economy from the centre with imaginary levers and mispriced price signals like interest rates.

Not a required element given perfect comp, rational actors and general equilibrium - none of which exist in the real market. Your theoretical model does not take certain variables into account. Namely, asymmetry in information which leads to imperfect competition ect. Again your equating the actual economy with an abstract model. Now forgive me for being a fiscal hermit crab but the ''actual'' market does not undergo self correction !

Logically production falls if there is unemployment so a specified unemployment rate is certainly not requiement of free market thinking.

Unemployment acts to create a buyer’s market for labor in that for every job there will be several applicants ect. Exploitative arrangements are thus facilitated, wages kept in check - labor kept responsive to command.

While wages rise in line with productivity, capitalism functions. However, in the event that labor is able to increase its wages and resist introduction of technology, crises emerges. The capitalist class facing the declining rate of return offset costs via rising prices - think of it as an indirect wage cut. Unemployment not only preserves discipline but the value of money. Inflation leads to higher profits by making labor cheaper. Inflation is the symptom of class struggle.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Not every conceivable one by a long shot, just those that are at the absolute centre of your conception of libertarianism. How can you try to order society according to principles massively abstracted from original conceptions of what it is to be human etc, if you dont even have the principles straight in your own mind to begin with? Im not asking for an elaborate treatise on human nature or a thesus on freedom, simply pointing out to you that your assumptions should not go unquestioned. Same goes for any other libertarians in the thread.

These are things that (a) are far beyond the scope of this thread, and

Not really, even answer the last few of them and Il be happy. If you want me or anyone else to buy into your ideology then at least have the principles on which it is based clear in your own mind. Every one of the institutions you list above are simply assumed by you and your fellow libertarians. When contradictions or vagueness is pointed out you cant respond.

(b) have been debated by countless philosophers, social scientists, legal theorists, and others down through the centuries.

Whats your point?

My problem is that, from my (admittedly relatively limited) reading of actual libertarian philosophers, not one single one of them ever questions the above institutions, but just as you have learned from them, takes them as axiomatic. Then you have complete numbers like Rand who can barely spell the word "human" and you end up with monstrously ill conceived, half baked theorising about stuff she shouldnt even be allowed talk about. The fact that anyone takes her even partly seriously is a disgrace.

synd

Do you understand where the World Health Organization (a sub-branch of the United Nations) gets its facts and figures? It collects them from governments themselves. So the alleged "objective comprehensive studies" issued by the WHO are nothing but recycled communist propaganda.

Yea, any stats released by those dam commies are evil - evil I tellz ya !

Feel free to ignore the testimony of Cuban exiles and the undercover documentation gathered by investigative reporters. Believe the state propaganda, if it makes you feel better.

Yea plenty of Ex-Batista supporters around little havana willing to give a good cry about how they where exploited under the evil commie regime.

The doctors don't "provide a good service" because they can't. They don't have equipment, drugs, or sanitary treatment facilities. Anyhow, they would rather drive cabs and earn money from tourists on the black market.

So say the god fearing dissidents in the Texan tabloid press.

Why don't you move there, then? I guess you couldn't report back to let us know how you're doing, though, because the Cuban government wouldn't let you have access to the Internet. :pac:

Il move to cuba, live there for a month come back and let everyone know how **** it is. You move to Hati or Jamaca and starve to death after a week - but hey, you would have died free ....and thats what matters !

Joycey

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually they only censor Cubans. There are internet cafe's which dont censor you but only foreigners can use them.

And no one is uncritically supporting Cuba. Its not perfect, far from it. However to just dismiss it as a failured economy and a totalitarian society as repressive as Stalin's Russia or Nazi Germany is rediculous.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kama

I wasn't able to sleep, because I was just hit by the irony between the fact that libertarians are unable to fulfil their utopian dream, due to the fact that all the worlds territory has been privately seized by force established contract, while this is precisely what is permissable to do to others in their own system. It's a beautiful irony, and one I'd only noticed now. Thanks guys!

donegalfella wrote:

I'm simply saying that challenging the legitimacy of every single concept that comes up, as Joycey seems to want to do, is way beyond the scope of the thread.

This is a thread on political theory in the political theory subforum, regarding differences between libertarianism and anarchosocialism, and you think that discussion of the basic origins of property relations and contract are beyond the scope of the thread? I can see the headlines already...

'Obsure Politics Argument Between Obscure Political Ideologies in Obscure Subforum Brings Up Philosophical Questions on the Origins and Legitimacy of Property, In Surprise Internet Shocker!'

That's another dodge. Posterity is counting.

donegalfella wrote:

I have them perfectly straight. But I don't see the point, every time I mention a basic concept such as a "contract," of being subjected to this—"What's a contract? Who decides when a contract is legitimate? Who can sign a contract? Why can't an insane person sign a contract? Who determines whether he's 'insane'? What if he's been declared insane but he's not really insane? What if he's only acting crazy? What if he's on medications that make him seem insane but then he goes off them and comes back to himself but he's been declared insane and can't sign any contracts for the rest of his life? Why can't children sign contracts? Who decides what a 'child' is? Why is someone aged 17 years and 364 days old a 'child' but someone aged 18 years and 1 day old is an 'adult'?" I can go on like this all day, too, you know.

Apparently you can go like this A: indefinitely and B: without answering any questions. Instead you supply an attempt at absurdity, ignoring any of the points indicated.

I asked some questions. I then explained their relevance, to whit, the internal contradiction in your position of bodily self-ownership, and the foundational question for a libertarian of the competence to contract. You then declared all questioning of foundational concepts of your political economy to be, and I quote, 'silly' or 'absurd', declaring it to be 'natural law' that your conception of property was intrinsically correct. You then resorted to argument-by-Holocaust, and now your argument (in response to WHO figures) is that Cuba = Nazi Germany. Weak attempts to link your antagonists to the National Socialism aren't very convincing, especially when lacking even an attempt at justifying this hyperbolic claim. Deriding others isn't an argument; and throwing up a youtube link in lieu of an argument or reply? Seriously? A youtube entitled 'The Crimes of Communism', which begins with the overthrow of Batista?

Please answer the following question, asked you by synd:

Would you rather live in A: Cuba or B: Haiti.

Akrasia

at what stage does the transition from not being able to make a contract to being able to make one occur?

donegalfella wrote: »

On one's 18th birthday.

So donegalfalla I'm very pleased to note that in a Libertarian society Child Labour would be prohibited before the childs 18th birthday.

This is a much more acceptable position than what you have said on other threads where you defended child labour in international sweatshops.

There is a problem however with youth homelessness. In your system, there is no welfare safety net, and children are not allowed to make a contract, so what happens to orphans and runaways under the age of consent?
(yes I know you already declared that this would not be a problem in libertarianism, but I didn't understand your detailed explanation of how it would work) (or rather the complete lack of one)

Akrasia

silverharp wrote: »

ok so a practical question on this, it will not work unless a significant part of the globe participates from day 1, lets assume we are talking about Ireland, all the industrial equipment would need to imported and the energy to run the plant. From day 1 you would need to run a moneyless economy within the new boundaries and some form of barter or find some ways of earning foreign currency to trade with the rest of the world. I just see the economy breaking down, people leaving in droves......

That's if you presume there would be a lightbulb switch over. I believe the best chance for anarchism is when capitalism is at its lowest ebb (this global depression is still a long way from the bottom by the way)

There would be a huge number of unemployed and factories and buildings boarded up, the banks would be collapsing or in a state of chaos. A few union driven factory/farm/house occupations could start a wave of revolution which could roll across the economy. There could be initially forms of exchange, like the current currency, but after the dust settles, there would be time to get more organised and to develop the syndicate structure.

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

That is going to be tough on a lot of pensioners.

At least there would be provision for them in the aftermath of an anarchist switchover. When they lose their pensions due to a financial meltdown, in a libertarian system they would be wiped out and left with nothing.

If their skillset is Viagra, viagra is what they will produce. They had better produce something that "sells" because there is no hope of other capital. I say "sells" because I cant really see the moneyless system working all that well.

If their skillset is pharma, they can produce almost any drug (there are generic drug plants that produce a wide variety of different medications, much cheaper than the branded drugs) The plant can be fabricated by other syndicates in return for a supply of drugs from the factory, the fabrication syndicate would be linked to local and specialist hospitals through their links to the drugs companies. All these are mutually beneficial relationships that through networks provide essential services to a very wide base of interconnected people.

The main "buyers" for most pharmaceuticals ( although, not viagra necessarily) would be Hospitals. Let's skip past understanding how the hospitals would even be funded, or exist, in an anarchist society. So the hospitals have a product - health, and they need to buy medical equipemnt, or drugs. They can, in a bartering system, sell health only for these two things. They don't need chickens, or a cheeseburger. So the workers in the Pharmaceutical Commune are in luck, provided that they are all sick. Everybody else is out of luck because the Hospital* does not need chickens, pasties, a haircut, or two days of your software development.

There would be interconnected networks of syndicates, see above)

[/quote]
All other communes would have to swap their haircut, or half written software project, or cornish delicacy for a kitchen table; which could then be bartered for a large lamp; which could then be bartered for a chicken, which can be be bartered for a IUV device which can then be bartered to the hospital for a 2 minute checkup.

Wheeew. I think we'd introduce money pretty quick.

* not that I think the Hospital could even exist.[/QUOTE] Ok, now that i've clarified that there wouldn't just be one to one barter, do you think you could review your opinion?

Akrasia

Kama wrote: »

I agree. Which leads to the much more fertile question: who gets to make money? What form does it take? Do we separate unit of account, and store of value? If not fiat currency, what is its basis? Etc.

If there was a form of exchange, I would like to see something akin to 'reputation points' or 'units of solidarity' to keep track of which syndicates are pulling their weight, meeting their commitments and acting in good faith, and which syndicates are trying to get a free ride.
(similar to ebay reputation)

Akrasia

asdasd wrote: »

it doesn't even work on boards. A democratic boards.ie would have no moderators, or elected moderators. result chaos.

In anarchist meetings, there are 'facilitators' elected at the beginning of each meeting to moderate the discussion.

These people are accountable to the meeting and they can be voted out if they act inappropriately (and not necessarily by a majority vote either, to protect against the likes of the ceann comhairle in the dail restricting debates in the governments favour)

In a participatory society like anarchism, facilitation and communication skills would be developed from an early age (it's only really a matter if experience and practise)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

turgon wrote: »

Goody. Can I request a grand piano, a few variations of guitars and some string instruments then with no problems? Ill get these all for "free"?
I could also do with a surround sound system, a camcorder, and ipod and a new computer. Every year. Is this ok?

There would be mechanisms for allocating resources and luxuries so that people would get their fair share once the basic needs are catered for.

I am not going to say what they would be, but they could take the form of points that are shared amongst the community that each individual can spend on small luxuries, or save up for the bigger ticket items.

So we have skilled IT workers cleaning cafeterias? In the same system you say will be efficient?

It will be efficient if there is not an artificial shortage of IT professionals. The irony of capitalism is that there are polish migrant workers in Ireland with masters degrees who are serving sandwiches and cleaning toilets for a living because their qualifications are not recognised here.

I think it is more 'efficient' to have extra IT people who help out with hoovering the floor once a week than to have limited IT people doing overtime, while other human beings are unemployed and others are reduced to maid services.

An overly simplistic view of life, to say the least. So you are going to get people to go through 3 years of a Law degree, and then spend half their time doing work that someone trained for a month could do?
Because like it or not, secretaries are very necessary.

the fact that you used lawyers as an example of a valuable service in an anarchist society is proof that you are simply not listening to any of the things that we are saying. (or that you are not capable of understanding these simple concepts)

And finally, the issue of the past. Before anarchism/communism occurs you must go through the stage of setting up anarchism. Now I realise anarchism has never occured, but an attempt to create it has. Whats is to say the next time ye decide to set up communism it won't end up like all the other failed attempts?

We live in hope.

Akrasia

synd wrote: »

Society would attempt to create employment for people of all persuasions. Under capitalism if your disabled you don't contribute - I think everyone can offer a contribution.

exactly.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Soldie

Akrasia wrote: »

There would be mechanisms for allocating resources and luxuries so that people would get their fair share once the basic needs are catered for.

I am not going to say what they would be, but they could take the form of points that are shared amongst the community that each individual can spend on small luxuries, or save up for the bigger ticket items.

I find it laughable that people are grilling donegalfella over amputee fetishism and the above goes unquestioned. Are you genuinely serious...? It boggles my mind how anyone could think people who warm to such an approach voluntarily. The 'fair share' and 'everybody is equal' approach was tried coercively and still didn't work, what makes you think people will adopt it without the gun pointed at them? And we'll have no currency but we can spend points? Come off it... :rolleyes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7945816.stm

How many points for a pizza? (Once we all gather in the townhall to make a democratic decision as to whether the factories should make pizza for the greater good, of course)

asdasd

And we'll have no currency but we can spend points? Come off it...

Spend and accumulate. Seems like currency to me.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.