[liberty]

Any really good books (or articles) about Anarchy?

I mean anarcho-capitalism

[SpiderMonkey]

anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchy. It is rich people running their own totalitarian microstates.

[U184]

You mean like counties in the USA right

Each county is completely under the rule of 2 men. 1st is the sheriff who is only answerable to the people who elected him, he can arrest anyone or choose not to do so and servers un regulated for 4 years. 2nd is the District Attorney who can prosecute or not, entirely at his discretion and again is only answerable to those who elected him. These men if they get along and are crooked and many are sense they can make loads of cash and pretty much keep getting reelected for one reason or another.

There is a fine line between anarchic-capitalism and fascist control. Although that dose not really fit the definition either.

[canadiancapitalist]

I hear Man Economy and State is good :P I think Thomas Friedman has some books on the subject. Some sort of Friedman anyway.

[SpiderMonkey]

Handing over the powers of the state to unelected people selected only for their greed is no way to liberate people - it certainly is not anarchy.

[liberty]

Handing over the powers of the state to unelected people selected only for their greed is no way to liberate people - it certainly is not anarchy.

Who get's the powers of the state (in Anarcho-Capitalism) if there is no state?

[Dr House]

Who get's the powers of the state (in Anarcho-Capitalism) if there is no state?

Whoever has the biggest guns.

[liberty]

Whoever has the biggest guns.

Right, but it sounds like to me he's saying that greed is the problem. There is greed in Anarchy Communism too. There is greed everywhere.

lol

[Dr House]

There is greed in Anarchy Communism too.

Actually, by definition there isn't, otherwise the system implodes. Anarcho-communism depends on a gift economy after all, remember?

[liberty]

Actually, by definition there isn't, otherwise the system implodes. Anarcho-communism depends on a gift economy after all, remember?

The system Implodes then, because you can't remove greed from humans.

(This was my whole point)

[Dr House]

How is that relevant to what I said, or to your question?

And greed is the problem. In the absence of the state, coercive force goes to the hands of the highest bidder, which happens to be corporations, which are profit-driven. No longer do corporations have to buy the state to screw over the little guy, they are the state.

[liberty]

How is that relevant to what I said, or to your question?

And greed is the problem. In the absence of the state, coercive force goes to the hands of the highest bidder, which happens to be corporations, which are profit-driven. No longer do corporations have to buy the state to screw over the little guy, they are the state.

I know that. Thats not what I was talking about.

Dr House
Whoever has the biggest guns.

Me
Right, but it sounds like to me he's saying that greed is the problem.

I'm not arguing with you. I was stating that Spidermonkey is complaining about something that can't be changed. i.e. It's like complaining that humans grow hair.

[SpiderMonkey]

Bearing in mind I don't subscribe to anarcho-communism, but the basic idea it and other forms of non-coercive communities is not the greed ceases to exist, but that it becomes a marginalized part of the human condition - such as slavery has in western society.

[Ademir]

Bearing in mind I don't subscribe to anarcho-communism, but the basic idea it and other forms of non-coercive communities is not the greed ceases to exist, but that it becomes a marginalized part of the human condition - such as slavery has in western society.

Yeah, I've never understood why people keep railing on about greed and how it will always exist and how apparently socialists are attempting to eliminate a part of the human psyche. When has anyone ever claimed greed would cease to exist? A communist society would simply place checks and balances on this greed, and minimise it because it would actually be in peoples' interests to work together.

[liberty]

and minimise it because it would actually be in peoples' interests to work together.

A communist society would eliminate most of the incentive to work all together.

[Ademir]

A communist society would eliminate most of the incentive to work all together.

Because the desire for private property and a capitalist economy are written into our genes, right? If only we could change human nature...

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Anarcho Communism isn't a bad society, there is just no way to grow or develop, technologically or economically. Plus it's made of liberals, and I couldn't stand that.

[Dr House]

Because the desire for private property and a capitalist economy are written into our genes, right?

Not the desire for a capitalist economy, but rather the desire to do nothing, and to be compensated if we do contribute. Sure some people will do certain kinds of work simply because they enjoy doing it, but we can't guarantee everyone will, especially for menial work nobody likes anyway (which encompasses most productive work in the first place). That means an economy built solely on goodwill will have a less efficient distribution of labor than a capitalist economy, which will cause it to be poorer. Is your ideal non-capitalist, non-hierarchical society worth making people poorer?

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Also, the idea that anarcho-communism can work is based on communes and the Native Americans, both of which did not have to deal with national security and mass production. How can you mass produce in an economy based on gifts?

Eventually everyone would starve.

[Dr House]

Mass production is not necessary for survival, only food sufficiency is.

Mass production is desirable because it generates a higher living standard, and more leisure time of properly applied.