Bigthink - Idea Comments Feed

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 05:09:41 +0100

I also just want to point out before I go that the resources capitalism needs in order to continue relies on natural resources, which are limited.

There's only so much coal.
There's only so much oil.
Eventually, because of global warming, there will only be so much water and edible food.

So we can privatize water systems? They tried that in Bolivia and there were mass demonstrations until the corporate had to give up and leave.

Should people pay for air too?

So I make $50,000 a year let's say. I can only afford water thats only slightly tainted with disease and toxic chemicals. Too bad, that's the beauty of the market.

But John Doe over here makes $300,000 a year. Whoa he must be a really savvy anarchocapitalist!(he probably made his money legally too-- whoops there are no laws under anarchocapitalism-- so he is basically a gangster or a thug then). He gets to afford PREMIUM air to breathe and FANCY UPSCALE drinking water. Oooh.

How are worldwide living standards going to be raised for everyone if everyone is living like a wasteful American? There's not enough supply to equal the demand.

Thinking in the long term, not just "anarchocapitalism" but capitalism itself is unsustainable if we want to live on a planet that isn't dying.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 04:57:39 +0100

Ah, where to begin?

First of all, if you so vehemently believe in capitalism then (surprise!)
you are a conservative: a fiscal conservative.

#1. The examples of human exploitation I discussed were perpetrated by corporations,
capitalism, or government used by corporate power.

Sweatshop child labor are exploited by multinational corporations because it is cheaper
for them to do so. Rather than pay an American worker, who might unionize and demand
higher wages, Nike and Old Navy can simply outsource the factory work and have little
girls make their products for much cheaper, letting them save money which = more money
to invest in global expansion (advertising and indoctrinating non-consumer capitalist
cultures with their hegemony of surplus-value and needless consumer desire), and =
more $$$ for the executives.

There is no incentive for a corporation to give its employees higher wages except
under the rule of law, enforced by yes, the state.

The state can actually be relatively benevolent when it works well. Citizens under
democracy can run for public office, be elected by their peers, and then implement
policies that further human rights and raise living conditions. There are myriad
examples of this: child labor laws were brought about by government, not corporations.
An eight hour work day? Government and unions. Minimum wage? Government and unions.

The fat cats never gave up until people got together and fought for it. I recommend
books by Howard Zinn or Eric Foner for more information on our nation's labor history
(a subject rarely taught in public schools or private universities anymore because
it doesn't benefit corporate power).

#2. "In an AnCap society, money drives decisions".

Right, so now we live in a world where human rights and Constitutional doctrine have been
surpassed by the power of currency: the means of exchange for goods and services.
Never mind human achievements such as art, music, philosophy, literature, poetry, dance,
and so on that rest on a firm establishment of human enjoyment for, if nothing else, their own sake.
Relatively unpopular forms such as jazz, avant garde art, poetry, "artsy" movies that don't
make much money: all of these will be bulldozed by market forces. Hey, if it doesn't sell,
then who needs it right? If it doesn't make money, then to hell with it, right?

Mexican workers in America don't just work for low paying jobs because they're afraid
of being deported. They work such jobs because its all they can get: they are unskilled labor.
Having fled their own countries populated by multinational corporations operating freely in
"free trade zones" making pennies an hour, the logical thing for them to do is to flee north
where a better living condition is available. Of course, this has risks because they are denied
citizenship. Of course, they all WANT citizenship, as that would guarantee them certain rights,
but until then they are simply corporate refugees and living as stateless invidivuals, which
anarchocapitalism would make all of us.

#3. Your subprime mortgage argument makes no sense to me. No offense, but I suspect you are
not actually familiar with what is going on with the stock market right now.

Free (meaning, unencumbered by law or government oversight) market forces created these subprime
loans: lending companies wanted to capture a market portion of consumers who had less-than-desirable
credit, but had to construct a "product" that would allow sound financial deals to create profit.
These loans were then "securitized" as investment products and even sometimes bundled as collateralized
debt obligations, or CDOs as they are called, and offered to investors around the world as means
of leveraging the original positions of the lender and the security underwriter.

The American worker, who often times was pressganged into the subprime loan by "predatory lending"
(which all lending would essentially be under anarchocapitalism) had gone for years without
pay raises while their chief executives enjoyed larger and larger exit packages: eventually
the mortgages defaulted, leaving the mortgage-backed securities and the CDOs completely valueless.

The result has been the stock market craziness of the last week, and there is more sure to follow.
Had government been doing its job, proper laws and regulations would have stopped this "bubble"
from forming, years ago. Of course, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan
sat back and did nothing while the bubble formed (keeping in mind Greenspan is an avowed fan of
Ayn Rand and free market libertarianism, which is essentially the same thing as anarchocapitalism).
When corporations and the market run themselves, they generally create instability and
extreme boom-and-bust cycles: these cycles are usually no problem for the rich, but the poor
are usually left jobless and at the mercy of the free market.

#4. So what information is a construction worker going to sell to a rival competitor? How to mix
concrete better? What is a Subway sandwich worker supposed to do when his pay is cut or his
hours are expanded to where he can no longer live a normal life? What are truckers going to do,
tell rival companies better routes to drive?

Of course not. They could STRIKE however and bring corporations to their knees. This is course
would not follow in line with "anarchocapitalism", but historically, most improvements made
to working men and women have been because of unions and strikes.

I also noticed how you didn't address the polar bear. This is because the environment does not
stand a chance to unbridled capitalism. Wilderness, animals and the health of the planet
itself rely on governments to enact law in order to make progress on these issues. If corporations
had their way, the poles could melt, sea levels could rise, we could all eat cloned meat or
fish with high levels of mercury (we already do that), buy toys with lead in them (already do
that: thanks, Chinese capitalism!) and watch the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer.

"The state is an entity which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force."
Right, and there is no reason corporations with unchecked power would not have a monopoly
on the legitimate use of physical force.

In fact, here's two: Halliburton and Blackwater.

Finally, I'm amazed you think these corporations actually compete with one another. They're
all buddy-buddy, and go golfing on weekends with one another. Competition? Please. They know
how to cooperate with one another more than any anarchist collective ever has.

I suggest you read some Noam Chomsky and leave sci-fi writers like Neal Stephenson to teenagers.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:14:49 +0100

Also I'm not conservative. I consider that an insult [G].

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:06:51 +0100

Many points.
#1: You mentioned many different tragedies of human exploitation. In ALL of them, you spoke of private companies dealing with GOVERNMENTS that OPPRESSED THEIR PEOPLE. If there were not GOVERNMENTS that put the money over their people's lives and happiness, there would be no OPPRESSED PEOPLE. These governments are the reason these horrible situations occur. By oppressing the populace into submission and not developing their countries' resources, the GOVERNMENTS are the ones at fault here. A corporation would not do things like this, because they know that a happy worker is a productive worker, and a fairly-paid with decent benefits is also a productive worker. And, if you were to read my post from 11:05PM 1/24, you would know why I think that exploitation by underpayment is improbable. In an AnCap society, working conditions and wages would go UP. If more people have more money, there is more demand. If there is more demand, more businesses will sprout up to meet demand and create more jobs.

#2: In an AnCap society, money drives decisions. Since there is NO CITIZENSHIP (no countries to have it in), Mexican workers would not be forced to work for lower wages because they would not have to worry about getting deported.

#3: Subprime mortgages will no longer be a problem. When the economy goes downhill, businesses lose money because there is less demand, and therefore they cannot sell their goods for as much. What's bad for the economy is bad for business; there would be no subprime mortgages in an AnCap society.

#4: Employees are also consumers. Since an employee will realize when his/her company is trying to monopolize, he/she will likely sell company information to the competition to keep prices from going up.

In short, AnCap society heralds an improved standard of living for everyone.

I read this quotation on the "favorite quotes" thread under Inspiration: "The state is an entity which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force." -- Max Weber

I am also passionate concerning this subject.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:41:39 +0100

Also, I would like to bring up the fact that the political movements entailing the works of Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman, William Godwin, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky and John Zirzan is referred to as "anarchism", not "anarchy".

I understand there is a literature and tradition concerning "anarchocapitalism", but it is steeped in classical liberalism, the prevailing paradigm today, not Marx: if "anarchocapitalists" so richly feel that human freedom would be enhanced through a truly free market (although often rule of law and government intervention actually creates competition and busts tyrannical monopolies), why are aggregate collectives known as corporations, unaccountable to the public in their role as citizens (oh, but as consumers, which of course there is no actual Constitution detailing consumer rights, but the rights of citizens) are somehow less powermongering, bureaucratic and oppressive than the apparatus known as the state?

The state should keep corporations in check, and vice versa. Too much of either destroys human liberty.

I wonder what the 10 year-old factory girls working in Thailand and China making Old Navy clothes and assembling wasteful, toxic toys no one needs think about anarchocapitalism?

I wonder what thousands of dead Iraqis who are now dead for the sake of oil contracts think of anarchocapitalism?

I wonder what a dying polar bear adrift on an ice flow, the last of his kind, thinks of anarchocapitalism?

I wonder what a Mexican laborer working for $20 a day in a country that hates him but needs to exploit his labor in order to continue its economic authority thinks about anarchocapitalism?

I wonder what the unemployed men and women of Michigan left high and dry by their corporate "betters" think of anarchocapitalism?

I wonder what the people of Darfur, slaughted by the government of Sudan which is bankrolled by Chinese financiers who in turn are bankrolled by American corporations sponsoring the Olympics this summer in Beijing where the air is so awful athletes will only arrive shortly before they are to compete, think of anarchocapitalism?

I've made my point. It is the stuff of science fiction.

(sorry my rhetoric is harsh, I feel passionate about this subject, nothing against you).

Thank you.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:20:37 +0100

Well, I apologise if I offended anyone by associating "rich conservative types" with greed, although that in itself is not actually an ad hominem argument.

Secondly, I'd like to point your proposal for "anarchocapitalism" are drawn from two fiction books, not actual political science, philosophy or history studies.

Next, its important to remember that despite the 14th amendment, corporations are not in actual fact "individuals". Therefore, they do not enhance personal liberty but actually restrict.

Historically, corporations have always oppressed "stakeholders" and acted immorally when not bound by law (Bhopal disaster, Pinkerton terrorism, tobacco companies, Enron, etc.)

Despite the propaganda so prevalent today, there is most likely very little "market solutions" to global warming, the Holocene extinction event, or the entire loss of wilderness worldwide. The environment, clean air and drinking water are treated as "externalities" according to such "luminaries" as Milton Friedman.

Finally, as of right now we are seeing what happens when corporations and free markets hold unchecked power: securitization of subprime mortgages sold worldwide are held off the books by major multinational banks and are revealed to be valueless, creating wild volatility in the stock market, a very possible recession.

Who will suffer the most? The working men and women of the world.

Anarchocapitalism is essentially a free-for-all for the rich, and would be a farce of human rights and liberties.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 04:05:57 +0100

At least, giant trusts are what I thought you were getting at when speaking of creating "a giant playing field for corporations."

If, on the other hand, you meant corporations in general being given free reign, and you think this will cause them to lower their standards and degenerate in quality and pay (and suchlike), I'll address these topics now:

Lowering of Standards.
Won't happen. If your product is bad, people will buy elsewhere.

Lowering of Pay/Employee Benefits.
Be not concerned. In an AnCap society, information brokerage will be a booming industry. Employers will have to pay their employees enough and steadily enough keep them from selling what they know about the company and then moving on.
__________________________

Anyhow. I've said this before, I'll say it again:
@Trevorjones--
Don't assume something about someone's life and experiences in order to discredit their argument. Use their argument or your own to discredit their argument. When you talk about other people in order to argue against them, you in effect lower your own credibility by showing everyone reading your post that your mind is closed to opposing ideas. That is all.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 03:57:38 +0100

Feudalism is not something that will happen in a society with interdependence and instant communications.

What I was thinking of was more along the lines of everything being privatized. Monopolies would not occur because they would be to no one's benefit, as prices on monopolized goods rise without fail. Therefore, giant corporations with huge reaches would not happen. The more competition, the better things are for everyone.

Anarchy with socialism is too idealistic. Anarcho-capitalism is actually feasible (I think) as long as there is some stability before government gets taken out of the picture.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:39:15 +0100

I don't think of "anarchocapitalism" as a very useful or meaningful term. It pretty much translates to unbridled free market libertarianism to me, and today we see this term bandied about by rich conservative types who want to identify themselves with something purportedly radical or "cool". What they really desire is a giant playing field for corporations to act as they please: certainly more feudalistic than anything actual anarchism entails.

Historically, actual anarchist movements have always been tied to socialism and the left, and with the exception of Ted Kaczynski, will continue to be so.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 01:06:38 +0100

I usually lump AnCaps in with other utopians. The ideas seem just fine until one gets into the details and takes into account that most of society won't really act in their own rational self-interest. Most AnCaps I have run into base their philosophical stance on an almost fanatical reverence for the Non-Aggression Principle, which they then expand far beyond any practicality.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:31:02 +0100

Those comments of mine were definitely with a grin - not intended to question the value of the references. I would like nothing better than time to appreciate the wisdom of others.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:38:01 +0100

I was just using the books to help me define the terms, in case anyone had read them. Plus, "The Ungoverned" is a short story. You can get it in full text off the web.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:52:15 +0100

Too many book-references I AM - all my spare time is taken up nowadays in posting to this forum [g].

In any case, I far prefer to make up my own theories, rather than try to understand anyone else's [G].

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 07:24:22 +0100

Some unfailiar terms, very nice. Will have to rad up on both anarcho-capitalism and communism, but i think i get some idea from the names.

Anarchy i belive is the ultimate political goal of mankind. I belive true anarchy has never been seen (tribes are socio political structures). It will take us some time before we are evolved enough for such a system (or lack of one) to work. Curently we relly to much on instinct. And as such we need rules in order to coexist because otherwise not only would chaos ensue but goverment structures would begin to form anyway out of groups organizing togather.

I imagine most of you have read Huxleys Brave New World. Well there the state atempts to supres the instinct by rules and drugs, not so diferent from what we see today. Now let us take that to the extreme an say we evolve past instnct an al that is left is rationality. WE would be giving up the thing that makes us what we call human but then no rules would be nessisary.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:52:12 +0100

Such as is described in Heinlein's _Stranger in a Strange Land_? I think anarcho-communism requires much more maturity than the average human exhibits for it to work.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:45:36 +0100

While I do have some respect for anarcho-capitalism, I much prefer anarcho-communism.

Comment on: Let's talk anarchy.

Bigthink — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:04:27 +0100

Well, neither are actually specifically about Anarcho-Capitalism, but both have it as part of the fabric of the story.