Comments on: The 5 stages of “Anarcho”-Capitalist reaction.

By: Julia

Julia — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 22:53:13 +0000

I find that "an"-caps always try to "prove" that libertarian socialism doesn't work. For example, they'll point to the lack of worker coops in today's capitalist system as to why autogestion would fail, that sort of thing, despite the fact that even they admit that truly free markets don't exist anywhere on earth (except for maybe some campground somewhere in New Hampshire) so you can't really blame companies for failing. Or they try to equate communes, collectives, unions, and coops with states, which is completely ridiculous and makes no sense whatsoever. What I can't stand are these little pseudo-philosophical arguments like, "no one is entitled to anything except to be left alone, therefore I'm entitled to own as much property as I can homestead". Then there's the fact that they try to appropriate social anarchist subculture into their "an"-cap/Mises Institute/etc. culture, which is just ridiculous.

By: The stages of “ancap” grief… / The double standard of property « Check Your Premises

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:45:35 +0000

[...] of “ancap” grief… / The double standard of property Division by Zero made a great post about the “ancap” reactions to libsoc, going through the stages of grief. It’s [...]

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:31:38 +0000

The competition between social system might comprise of a state capitalist arrangement that forces other to accept their system through imperialism. It can lead to a totalitarian system becoming the norm because it can exploit the people living in it for leverage against all the other socioeconomic arrangements. I see no reason why you expect such competition between socioeconomic systems will lead by necessity to a better result for the individual within them. It might just lead to a worse one.

Of course such a scenario is highly unlikely in the first place as it's unlikely to see the state goes away unless a revolution is socialistic, and then, the resulting community is not likely to wish to compete with other socialist communities.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:27:12 +0000

Saying that it's unacceptable is not statist. It's a moral condemnation. The way you deal with it is what constitutes authoritarianism or not.

Again, if you're going to oppose hierarchies, you need to understand why some would "volunteer" to them. You would quickly find out that nobody would be willing to do it where it not for passive coercion in the form of lacking alternatives, ie, being forced into a "work or starve" relationship. This can only happen if you combine Private Property with social darwinism AKA free markets.

By: Darian

Darian — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:52:42 +0000

If ancaps and objectivists want to have managers making decisions about their company, I would peacefully agitate against that, but saying that it is "unacceptable" for them to do so sounds nanny-statish.

By: Darian

Darian — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 16:50:03 +0000

I did read that post and I find little to disagree with. I think that a free society with include many types of social arrangements, and that many people will deal with different types at different times. This competition and innovation among economic models is part of what I would call a free market. I realize that the term "market" might be confusing because in this case it doesn't require the use of cash, etc but that's how I think of it.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:10:34 +0000

One last thing for now – since one goal of my political philosophy is avoiding workplace hierarchy I don't see why I should be considered a capitalist.

I don't think I'd call you any kind of capitalist myself as that would imply you support wage-labour as the optimal way to organize production. However I do not know what to make of your passive acceptance of "voluntary" hierarchies.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:09:01 +0000

Because they might not want to sell, and since I don't see rent as inherently exploitative I think it should be accepted.

It's not inherently exploitative? It's non-labour income! You basically say that someone should be able to make money without working.

It's also authoritarian since the landlord has always the option to set terms to the rentor or even kick them out by cancelling their contract, something which would of course create a situation of domination based on fear (much like wage-slaver). None of these are good outcomes.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:07:19 +0000

My political agenda is the maximization of liberty for every individual. Freedom in work and freedom to trade are both part of this.

Have you read this post of mine?

If the worker has numerous satisfactory choices besides wage labor, and authoritarianism in all areas of life is frowned upon then I don't think wage work would be chosen by many.

You forget that what is frowned by many is determined by the system they live in. Wage-work got the name "wage-slavery" in a time where it and authoritatianism was frowned by many and yet as the time progressed and it became an unavoidable option, it slowly because not only acceptable for short periods but also for one's whole life. Again, if many frown on authoritarianism in all aspects of life, it's far better to make it systematically impossible in the first place rather than leave a possibility for it to recreate itself and hope for the best.

By: db0

db0 — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:03:38 +0000

That depends. Sometimes renting a place is beneficial for the reduced commitment it entails, so in that case the rent would be a service charge.

If the price of the housing was not so increased due to the possibility of rent then one could just as well buy their own house without it being a huge investment. Furthermore this idea of jumping jobs and locations very often and thus requiring low commitment in your housing is by itself a problem of capitalism and an effect most people do not enjoy. Those few would would like to do something like this on a regular basis would not be able to support a rent structure anyway and they would be able to do it by buying and selling their houses instead.