[Phemios]

I used to debate with anarchists back in high school ... they were talking about how great anarchy would be ... but then I asked them how would they live? Would they grow their own food? Would they like life without running water or electricity? What about their clothes? Would they begin making their own?

Apparently, it's not the people you debated with whose thoughts are misguided concerning anarchy - it's you. Why is it that when the word "anarchy" is uttered, the words chaos, madness, and destruction seem to spring to everyone's mind?

Anarchy is not the lack of order, nor is it chaos. From a political standpoint, anarchy simply refers to a system in which there is no established government. However, it is a social construction, established by the very powers that be which anarchy intends to abolish, that society cannot exist without government. This is an absurd proposition - to say that government has always been the main precipitating factor in the formation of a society is downright absurd. It would be easily possible for a society to exist without a government.

Also, it seems to me that the Saint seems to feel that the abolition of government would preclude the abolition of capitalism, an idea which makes no sense at all - indeed, many political thinkers state that the most functional form of capitalism would exist in the absence of government controls on it.

To answer your questions as quoted above, all the functions of government as we see them today would be privatized, as there would still be a definitive market for these services. Obviously, you would still be able to buy food from farmers, clothing from textile distributors, etc. etc...

I have no doubt that functions of the government would be privatized, and due to the ingenuity of the market, systems would be developed to provide these services to consumers, probably at a better quality and a lower price. Government has never been as efficient as the market, because the government treats people like citizens who pay for these services involuntarily, regardless of quality or service. The market treats people as consumers, who pay for the service ONLY because they are satisfied with the product they are buying, and the service they are getting.

[Catria]

Also, it seems to me that the Saint seems to feel that the abolition of government would preclude the abolition of capitalism, an idea which makes no sense at all - indeed, many political thinkers state that the most functional form of capitalism would exist in the absence of government controls on it.

Capitalism without controls? Since the market will only provide for peoples needs if there is profit, I can't see how that would benefit the people.

Using your description, what's the difference between anarchy and Libertarianism?

[Phemios]

According to the general rules of economics, if a group of consumers in a market desire a product sufficiently, there will always be a profit to be made in that particular sector. For example, people desire clothing, so there is always a market, and a profit to be made, in the provision of clothing. On an even larger scale, if government were to abolish the Department of Transportation, there would still be a desire for drivable roads, and therefore a group of market innovators would vie for control over rights to an efficient system for providing consumers with roads, a project which they assumedly would undertake for the profit involved.

Similarly, if the FDA were abolished, consumers would still desire information on which corporations provide quality meats and pharmaceuticals which would obey standards which suit consumer desires. Once again, in an effort to turn a profit, certain individuals would create businesses to provide information to consumers about companies involved in meat packing or pharmaceutical production. Those companies which disobey such standards would go out of business, as consumers who are privy to the information provided by such companies would not buy their products, knowing that they were in some way tainted.

I am completely aware that such a system would require a much larger amount of effort on the part of the individual consumer, and this is a definitive downfall of such a system. But I do not advocate this system for the benefit of all mankind, I advocate it for the benefit of people who are rational in their decision making - a system of which I consider myself a definite proponent. However, I completely believe that such a system would provide a much more autonomous system, much more agreeable to the concept of individual liberties, than that which is currently in place.

[Freedom]

This is a little bit of Anarcho Capitalism, which is further right than i dare travel.

However the only major difference between me and Phemios is the rule of law, like a famous person said "There can be no Liberty without the Law".

So i ask, what are your views on the law?

[Phemios]

First off, I object to calling anarcho-capitalism a theory of the right - I think that with the addition of libertarian and authoritarian ideals to the political spectrum, a more appropriate spectrum adds a Y-axis with libertarian at the top, and Authoritarianism at the bottom. Anarchy is definitely not an idea embraced by rightists, and it would be unfair to simply slap the libertarians to the far right.

In law lies the most difficult opposition to anarchy's principles. I'd say there's a couple of options.

1) Individuals would have to take responsibility for their own safety and security. This isn't much of an idea, since it would make the world a little more dangerous than I'd like to deal with. I like the other option more.

2) As in every other sector of currently public service industries, the enforcement of law and order could easily become its own market, again with multiple market innovators vying for their chunk of profit. Communities or neighborhoods or whoever could contract with these companies to provide security, based on the laws that the community decides are correct.

There are a couple of problems with this. First, it would create a very fragmented legal system, where it may be legal to, for example, take narcotics on one block, it may be punishable by a prison sentence the next block over. Second, this system makes it simple to discriminate. With no one to stop them, a community of bigots could easily discriminate against whomever they please, with the "force of law" on their side. Third, this system makes it simple for human rights abuses to take place - if the police are simply the strongest guys on the block, then they could definitely beat the hell out of a suspect if they wanted, because no one has the might to stand up to them.

I think the only way to justify these problems is to say that the market, hopefully, would be able to compensate to deal with them. Innovations in the market could handle the fragmentation problem, as a sector together, but assumedly there would be a profit to be made in the promotion of discriminatory policies for those people who desire that. Unfortunately, there would be little to be done with that except to stay out of the neighborhood, not patronize businesses which accept enforcement of discriminatory policies, etc. But it is questionable if even this could mitigate such problems. I also think the market would be able to handle the abuses issue, as it is most likely that people would not desire people to be abused by their particular enforcement company, as this would also draw negative long-run consequences for the community involved. Also, the company which abused would most likely in the end be hurt by their transgression, losing business as a result of it.

There are a lot of questions about the rule of order in an anarchic society. I would say with a fair degree of certainty that in an anarchic situation, one may encounter a more dangerous daily life. However, I would have faith that someone would step in to enforce order, again, for a profit.

Phemios

[Freedom]

First off, I object to calling anarcho-capitalism a theory of the right - I think that with the addition of libertarian and authoritarian ideals to the political spectrum, a more appropriate spectrum adds a Y-axis with libertarian at the top, and Authoritarianism at the bottom. Anarchy is definitely not an idea embraced by rightists, and it would be unfair to simply slap the libertarians to the far right

Wait a minute so Capitalism isnt a right wing ideal? Come on Phemios the Free Markets is a right wing economic theory. Simple. You believe in the Free Market you are a right winger...you may be a Conservative, Right Wing Dictator or a Libertarian, but you are all just different types of righties. Just like there are different types of Lefties.

And so what if you add a Y axis. that means you will right and up. You are still a right winger...unless you wanna add a Z axis....

http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politic ... ysis2.html

[Phemios]

What am I supposed to respond to there? Your misguided views of political classification? Your reference to a website called "Digital Ronin," which essentially provides the same classfiication system, except with a switch of libertarian and authoritarian?

Sounds like this post is getting off the topic...

[Freedom]

You are not actually attempting to claim that Capitalism is not a Right Wing political theory are you? Holy shit...people say the weirdest things...

You dont need to respond to this. Just because you have some misguided prejudice about "Rightists" doesnt mean you can go around saying you a Capitalist but not on the Right side of economic scale...jesus...its not off topic, you brought it up after i asked you a question on the rule of law, you are the one claiming that Capitalism is not a Right wing theory...really so what the hell would Socialism be?

Digital Ronin tells you this: You can divide the right wing into TWO groupings. Authoritarian and Libertarian. But you notice you are still on the right...simple really...
-------------

A question that is on topic i think, do you really trust Business men to run the country without any regulations?

[Enigmatic]

Whatever political classification such views fall under coughlibertarianextremerightcough, I'm pretty sure it's doesn't fall under traditional definitions of liberalism.

One also wonders whether the profit-motivated corporations would be able to defeat my consortium attempting to restore government based on the principles of populism and power? Assuming, of course, that their self-interest hadn't led them to follow a path completely alien to the concept of the free-market - that of collusion and coercion (arguably making them a de facto government)

[Catria]

Anarchy is definitely not an idea embraced by rightists, and it would be unfair to simply slap the libertarians to the far right.

Yet anarchism is cynically exploited by the Libertarians, at least according to this British anarchist it is:

Stealing from anarchism is done. . . by the 'libertarian right,' who are willing enough to add the denunciation of anarchism as criminal of itself. They deny the virtues of government when it infringes on business or is used for the extraction of tax from the propertied class. Ideally, for them, government should be bought by the rich and used against workers in defense of ruling class interests. It should resemble a hired, privatised police force affordable only by the privileged. 'Anarchist' sounding slogans are used by them just as they were used by Lenin, and for the same reason.

Albert Meltzer

But I do not advocate this system for the benefit of all mankind, I advocate it for the benefit of people who are rational in their decision making - a system of which I consider myself a definite proponent. However, I completely believe that such a system would provide a much more autonomous system, much more agreeable to the concept of individual liberties, than that which is currently in place.

Survival of the fittest. Such a system wouldn't appeal to me because I would rather see myself as a citizen than a *consumer*...reduced to a mere economic unit, in total and absolute submission to market forces. I'd seriously question how conducive to individual liberties that would be in reality.

A free market does still exercise social force because rejection of all values and trends in the surrounding society is impossible. So there is always some reduction in individual freedom through 'interarchic' effects. In a free market, the individual consumer does not simply have freedom of choice...the freedom can only be exercised collectively because only what is popular and profitable will be catered to. Those consumers whose choice coincides with the outcome of market forces will be satisfied, while others will have to either face market pressure to adapt their choice or lose out. Average-taste choices benefit. We'd risk losing many of the non-profitable but nonetheless valuable aspects of civilization we have now because the market wouldn't subsidise them. For example, a consumer watchdog society, which you claim the market would provide, could easily fail because not enough Average Joes cared to pay for the service or couldn't be bothered or weren't interested...and ultimately it wouldn't be in the interests of the market to provide one, especially when more profit can be made by deceiving the public than protecting it.

Apart from all that, too many people who weren't "rational enough in their decision making" [whatever that means] would fall by the wayside and the market wouldn't give a damn about them. Even if I were one of the elite who benefited, I still wouldn't want to be surrounded by poor and angry hoards whose *individual liberty* extended only to the freedom to miss out. That could make for a very ugly society.

[Phemios]

Freedom, you're not the sharpest tool, are you? You're misreading Digital Ronin's political spectrum. In fact, the one that you linked me to is exactly the same as the one I described. You're missing the fact that the scale doesn't divide the right into two bits, it creates a Y axis, so a libertarian rightist would actually be down/right, rather than just on one side of the right line. A pure libertarian, according to DigitalRonin, would be classified DOWN, and an authoritarian UP. Any mixture of conservative and libertarian ideas would be DOWN/RIGHT.

And be serious, have you seen a Republican in the US in the history of the nation that has been a believer in a completely free, unimpeded market structure? I haven't. And for this reason, I cannot classify libertarian market thinkers as rightists. It just doesn't line up with what the right actually thinks - maybe a little more with what they theoretically think, though.

[Freedom]

Ugh Political compass in its own words...Phemios reading is really hard isnt it and being able to physically distinguish between right and left is hard...but then again anyone seriously advocating the absolute disolution of Government and leaving absolutely everything into the hands of businessmen, really are insane anyway...



All i ask is that you look to the RIGHT. Notice how the RIGHT is actually broken up into two categories...

They distinguish between Ghandi and Stalin like this:

By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist.

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner

Can you read Phemios, are you blind Phemios. This group of political scientists are telling you that your extreme-libertarianism is essential Right Wing on the ECONOMICS SCALE and more Liberal in social issues, which was my point all along. The Capitalism is a right wing political theory.

You will also notice the Anarchism could be a Left or right win thing depending on which way you decide to go about it. But since you suggests totally unregulated free market capitalism, this makes you a right wing anarchist. This of course distinguishes you from the Republican Party...but still places you in the right of the politcal compass...is this really so hard to understand?

And be serious, have you seen a Republican in the US in the history of the nation that has been a believer in a completely free, unimpeded market structure? I haven't. And for this reason, I cannot classify libertarian market thinkers as rightists

Are you being serious Phemios. As i've stated in all post considering this, you are a different kind of rightist than the conservative rightist...the whole argument was me simply telling you that Capitalism by nature is on the right of any economic scale. Is this so hard to understand?

[Cruxus]

Assume tomorrow morning that, when you wake up, there is no government--federal, state, county, or municipal. The military is gone; the police are no more. The laws that forbid murder, theft, and coercion no longer have institutions enforcing them. Yet, with the collapse of the government, strangely enough, the for-profit corporations still exist. In other words, this is a hypothetical scenario of anarcho-capitalism.

Assume that the directors and major stockholders of every corporation will attempt to turn their corporations into a means of self-defense and personal advancement. The corporations would, in all likelihood, hire security forces to protect corporate assets and to protect the people important to the corporation.

As an individual, what would you do? You probably wouldn't initially bother shopping up for work. If you're charismatic, you might try to form a neighborhood defense coalition to protect the health and property of your community. Many other people, though, would loot, rape, and generally make nuissances of themselves.

I'd imagine the neighborhood coaltions would try to establish protection agreements with local retailers and small businesses to further protect their communities from the looters and robbers. I'd imagine, as well, that the corporations, with more resources at their disposal, would have an interest in protecting the sellers of their goods--and to find a way to get their employees to come to work (i.e., intimidation).

The more democratic neighborhood coalitions might federate with other such groups when/if they see that the more powerful, oligarchial corporations do not share their interests. This could lead to civil war, which would probably result in victory for the corporations.

With the corporations now in control of the population, the communities (the land on which the communities are located, the shops, the houses, the roads, etc.), the experiment in anarcho-capitalism, in only a few days, would have devolved back into a form of state--and a a more violent, less egalitarian one at that.

I know my dystopian scenario was completely hypothetical, but it is just as likely as any more utopian theoretical outcome of anarcho-capitalism. Indeed, libertarian socialism could end up similarly if the change were sudden.

History has lessons; whenever anarchy appears, new powers form to fill the void. Germanic kingdoms established themselves where Roman power disintegrated in Western Europe, and the result was a feudal arrangement under which the powerful promised to protect the weak. After Saddam Hussein's government was destroyed in Iraq, a variety of groups attempted to gain influence before the United States and its coalition could. In other words, the idealized anarchist versions of socialism and capitalism are never likely to be the outcome.

[Faceless]

In other words, the idealized anarchist versions of socialism and capitalism are never likely to be the outcome.

I would probably agree with this if the state just "vanished" but that doesn't happen. There would have to be a collective public opinion which would cause anarchy. If such an overwhelming number of people spontaneously said "I want anarchy" then maybe the Utopian images would come about. I have a great antipathy towards the libertarian right (and there is such a thing, Phemios) as it suggests that once the people reject the state they still try to capitalise against eachother. Why, if such a mass of public support can be maintained would they still want to monopolise eachother's markets and would one man want to profit from another's loss?