I talked at a dude. The main point he's making concerns wealth inequality leading to power inequality on a scale that could induce cartelisation and the rise of almighty mafias. An economist he is not. Sadly I can't find the source video but you all know that I'm not dishonest and that I will reproduce other people's words as they typed them.
As always, my annotations are highlighted in yellow.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
federico amadeo
+06hurdwp
"...you're dragging it in circles, refusing to respond to any point that destroys your argument." Well, that was fairly projected.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
06hurdwp
Vice versa for you. You don't have a clue what Anarcho-Capitalism is, it's perfectly evident reading through what you've said.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ChooseChoice
+federico amadeo
Anarchy does not mean an absence of merit based hierarchy or even an absence of hierarchy at all. Anarchy simply means absence of rulers. Anarcho-Communists can't get over this fact. Capitalism does not require government in fact pure capitalism requires no government because even in a "right-libertarian" scenario there would be fascistic industrial complexes that would arise in the justice, military, and police sectors that would be controlled by government in a nightwatch man state.
Anarcho-Communism requires force. Anarcho-Capitalism requires no force but only volunteering. If I go to an area that hasn't been developed and I build a small house for myself and I live there peacefully am I not the owner of the property? Do I not deserve the right to determine how that property is dispensed? Do I need a government for that?
If someone comes by says hi and is looking for food and I've collected food with my own hard work; Can I not trade goods with him to give him food or must I simply give away my food? What if for ridiculousness sake he requires so much food to survive that he takes a week's worth of food from me?
Anarcho-Communism isn't just and it isn't possible without a post-scarcity society. Many have tried and failed to get there and we see what marxist policies do.
Anarcho-Communism requires force. Anarcho-Capitalism requires no force but only volunteering. If I go to an area that hasn't been developed and I build a small house for myself and I live there peacefully am I not the owner of the property? Do I not deserve the right to determine how that property is dispensed? Do I need a government for that?
If someone comes by says hi and is looking for food and I've collected food with my own hard work; Can I not trade goods with him to give him food or must I simply give away my food? What if for ridiculousness sake he requires so much food to survive that he takes a week's worth of food from me?
Anarcho-Communism isn't just and it isn't possible without a post-scarcity society. Many have tried and failed to get there and we see what marxist policies do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
federico amadeo
+ChooseChoice
1) Even in trying to define away the problem it remains unclear. You can say anarchism is no rulers but immediately petitio principii: what passes for a ruler? Do those who enjoy concentrated capital not have de facto power over others? Hierarchy becomes a tacit issue because it perpetuates power disparities. As long as there are power disparities, there are rulers. Besides, it's not simply a nominal issue: anarchism has a concrete historical tradition rich in movements and literature that mostly understands the issue as I've just explained. You are trying to play the define game in purely synchronic terms while neglecting diachronic concerns.
Power is the capacity to coerce others and get away with it for whatever reason, so no dice there.
Next, re definitions of anarchy, anarchist and anarchism, Benjamin Tucker has some harsh words. Why does the definition of anarchism have to be set in stone ('it's the hierarchy, stupid') when the definition of socialism evidently doesn't?
2) Your thought experiment of the conquering of the non-developed area is hardly enough to extrapolate and apply to all forms contained in the notion of "property". No traditional social anarchist would argue with you. Property is not simply owning things for your livelihood. It's one thing to use resources for your needs and such, it's another to create an extensive domain for yourself at the exclusion of everyone else based on this. That, in fact, requires force.
Dichotomy between "...use resources for your needs..." & "create an extensive domain... at the exclusion of everyone else" is false as it's effectively saying (as Marx unwittingly implies) that the one justifiable way to live is landed subsistence of either the primitive or agrarian variety, depending whether we're talking about common ownership or usufruct.
3) Regarding trade, again, it's one thing to exchange freely with another individual on equal footing. Not a controversial phenomenon for anarchists of any type. The phenomenon you would defend as the "market" is hardly as simple. It's rarely ever just thousands of anatomically reduced individuales trading with each other face to face. You ought to acknowledge that a transaction between an individual an a conglomerate with the CEO, the stockholders, the legal department, etc. is hardly as folksy as you seem to want to illustrate. Once again, power is the name of the game.
4) You're right that the post-scarcity clause is necessary. However, this is also largely contemplated in the anarchist circles you criticize. It's not true, though, that every attempt has been a failure: a few examples of horizontally-functioning institutions include anarchist Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War, the recovered factories in Latin America that strung since the 90's and the Zapatistas in Mexico as three illustrations.
1) In my view for someone to rule another person is when they exact a monopoly over the creation of law. Not simply by having something that someone else doesn't have access to. Granted the problem that you give rise to could have been much more serious centuries ago, but now with the kind of vibrant service economy that exists the "means of production" are so diffuse that it is hard to imagine that someone would not be able to earn a living for themselves providing a service by selling their time and effort. Without government or even with a minimal government the opportunities would be endless for self-employment.
You're absolutely right if we look at traditions. Its unfortunate that because power is at stake people like to abuse the nature of language. Libertarianism is if I'm not mistaken essentially an Anarcho-Socialist word, or a minimal government socialism. Now in the west its used to replace Liberalism because the Americans have destroyed the true meaning of that word. Language is constantly evolving because opposed factions want to turn ideological nomenclature into a pejorative but I suppose its all in the name of gaining political power right? I agree with you that this matters though and I think that might be why many "anarcho-capitalists" simply call themselves voluntaryists. At the end of the day though you're right its the overall ideology that matters not mincing over words.
I mean there are a lot of things that the left anarchists and right anarchists agree on but because the ideal of property rights is so fundamental you often find brutal hate right under the surface of any discussion.
2) In essence do we believe that property "rights" are natural "rights" do we believe that if we turn nature into something that we have a moral ownership over it. If I turn a few trees that no person laid claim to into a home for myself do I not have the moral right to exclude others that I don't want there from entering it. If that home might also be where I do my business, or what have you. Am I not morally the owner of that which I put my labour into. From that can I not then volunteer away that property as I see fit as long as I do not use coercion but only persuasion. Is it coercive for me simply to have something someone else does not have?
I suppose another way to look at this too is does the community have a moral right to determine what an individual can or cannot have in their own possession? Can a community take from an individual and if so does this not lead to what is essentially tyranny that we're attempting to avoid? Or is creating egalitarian outcomes more important than avoiding the use of force.
When you say that exerting domain over a resource requires force do you mean that to protect your property right if other people decide you can't have it would require you to become violent thus using force? If so I think that those who decide they're going to take something from another person without the "owner" agreeing to the action, or without consent of a third party to arbitrate the dispute are committing the first act of force and that a property owner using force to defend themselves is not breaking the principle of non-aggression and is in the right.
Power is the capacity to coerce others and get away with it for whatever reason, so no dice there.
Next, re definitions of anarchy, anarchist and anarchism, Benjamin Tucker has some harsh words. Why does the definition of anarchism have to be set in stone ('it's the hierarchy, stupid') when the definition of socialism evidently doesn't?
2) Your thought experiment of the conquering of the non-developed area is hardly enough to extrapolate and apply to all forms contained in the notion of "property". No traditional social anarchist would argue with you. Property is not simply owning things for your livelihood. It's one thing to use resources for your needs and such, it's another to create an extensive domain for yourself at the exclusion of everyone else based on this. That, in fact, requires force.
Dichotomy between "...use resources for your needs..." & "create an extensive domain... at the exclusion of everyone else" is false as it's effectively saying (as Marx unwittingly implies) that the one justifiable way to live is landed subsistence of either the primitive or agrarian variety, depending whether we're talking about common ownership or usufruct.
3) Regarding trade, again, it's one thing to exchange freely with another individual on equal footing. Not a controversial phenomenon for anarchists of any type. The phenomenon you would defend as the "market" is hardly as simple. It's rarely ever just thousands of anatomically reduced individuales trading with each other face to face. You ought to acknowledge that a transaction between an individual an a conglomerate with the CEO, the stockholders, the legal department, etc. is hardly as folksy as you seem to want to illustrate. Once again, power is the name of the game.
4) You're right that the post-scarcity clause is necessary. However, this is also largely contemplated in the anarchist circles you criticize. It's not true, though, that every attempt has been a failure: a few examples of horizontally-functioning institutions include anarchist Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War, the recovered factories in Latin America that strung since the 90's and the Zapatistas in Mexico as three illustrations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ChooseChoice
+federico amadeo1) In my view for someone to rule another person is when they exact a monopoly over the creation of law. Not simply by having something that someone else doesn't have access to. Granted the problem that you give rise to could have been much more serious centuries ago, but now with the kind of vibrant service economy that exists the "means of production" are so diffuse that it is hard to imagine that someone would not be able to earn a living for themselves providing a service by selling their time and effort. Without government or even with a minimal government the opportunities would be endless for self-employment.
You're absolutely right if we look at traditions. Its unfortunate that because power is at stake people like to abuse the nature of language. Libertarianism is if I'm not mistaken essentially an Anarcho-Socialist word, or a minimal government socialism. Now in the west its used to replace Liberalism because the Americans have destroyed the true meaning of that word. Language is constantly evolving because opposed factions want to turn ideological nomenclature into a pejorative but I suppose its all in the name of gaining political power right? I agree with you that this matters though and I think that might be why many "anarcho-capitalists" simply call themselves voluntaryists. At the end of the day though you're right its the overall ideology that matters not mincing over words.
I mean there are a lot of things that the left anarchists and right anarchists agree on but because the ideal of property rights is so fundamental you often find brutal hate right under the surface of any discussion.
2) In essence do we believe that property "rights" are natural "rights" do we believe that if we turn nature into something that we have a moral ownership over it. If I turn a few trees that no person laid claim to into a home for myself do I not have the moral right to exclude others that I don't want there from entering it. If that home might also be where I do my business, or what have you. Am I not morally the owner of that which I put my labour into. From that can I not then volunteer away that property as I see fit as long as I do not use coercion but only persuasion. Is it coercive for me simply to have something someone else does not have?
I suppose another way to look at this too is does the community have a moral right to determine what an individual can or cannot have in their own possession? Can a community take from an individual and if so does this not lead to what is essentially tyranny that we're attempting to avoid? Or is creating egalitarian outcomes more important than avoiding the use of force.
When you say that exerting domain over a resource requires force do you mean that to protect your property right if other people decide you can't have it would require you to become violent thus using force? If so I think that those who decide they're going to take something from another person without the "owner" agreeing to the action, or without consent of a third party to arbitrate the dispute are committing the first act of force and that a property owner using force to defend themselves is not breaking the principle of non-aggression and is in the right.
3) The problem here is that the big corporations that left-anarchists seem to despise or fear very well might not exist without government. That is the belief of most right-libertarians/anarchists. Our belief is that state power and corporate power are linked and that with a reduction in state power special favours cannot be handed out and that instead of using political means to gain economic ends; a company must satisfy the needs of the market (the people) or go out of business. There are a few stark differences obviously in ideals from left to right. The left (I believe) thinks that without the collective holding people to account they will become too powerful with or without government assistance. That goods and services are like a game of monopoly where there will be a winner eventually and that winner will exert domination over the people. Whereas on the right we believe that without cronyism and political power that a winner can never arise unless that winner is beyond benevolent in which case no person would care. Also that this is highly HIGHLY unlikely and the vast majority of monopolistic industries have been created by government rather than individual choice.
4) I agree and understand this to be the case too. I mean this is the reason why some made the decision to use the power of the state to create post-scarcity and then it went terribly awry. (USSR, CHINA)
Obviously if we were in a post scarcity environment there would be no need for money because everything would be worthless. Things in unlimited supply have no price; just as (in most places) the air we breathe is free.
Lol.. unless government keeps expanding then they may tax it. :-)
The original poster is a hypocrite. Collectivism itself is a power disparity.
This is uncalled for.
Let me concentrate on what I consider your two main points so as to keep things reasonably brief.
As I've said before, your thought experiments of the lone explorer of the wild are neither an apt illustration of the phenomenon of property or a controversial point within left-anarchists. There is a distinction to be made here between use of resources for your livelihood and the crystallization of this the form of "property". The example that Proudhon uses is that it's one thing to bathe and fish in a river to meet your needs and another to draw a line all around it excluding everyone else from using it for the same purpose. That's what I meant when i said that property requires force.
I'm aware that "anarchists" of the right, defenders of capitalism, believe that without any government interference in the economy, competition would be supposedly so fierce that the rise of monopolies would be nearly impossible. Well, if you if you take into account the problem with property, this is pretty unlikely. The assumption you guys seem to hold is that power is somehow forcibly juxtaposed by the state and that things would be relatively unproblematic without it. That just strikes me as naive.
Not a single free market monopoly is attested as yet. Sorry.
You're welcome to point out if I failed to address anything important. I'm just trying to keep things compact so as to avoid things spiraling out of control in terms of length.
federico, what this ultimately boils down to is us having a different definition of anarchism. Your definition is abolition of power disparities (despite the inherent paradox of that), whereas our definition is complete freedom of the individual without violating the freedom of others.
4) I agree and understand this to be the case too. I mean this is the reason why some made the decision to use the power of the state to create post-scarcity and then it went terribly awry. (USSR, CHINA)
Obviously if we were in a post scarcity environment there would be no need for money because everything would be worthless. Things in unlimited supply have no price; just as (in most places) the air we breathe is free.
Lol.. unless government keeps expanding then they may tax it. :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
06hurdwp
The original poster is a hypocrite. Collectivism itself is a power disparity.
This is uncalled for.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
federico amadeo
+ChooseChoiceLet me concentrate on what I consider your two main points so as to keep things reasonably brief.
As I've said before, your thought experiments of the lone explorer of the wild are neither an apt illustration of the phenomenon of property or a controversial point within left-anarchists. There is a distinction to be made here between use of resources for your livelihood and the crystallization of this the form of "property". The example that Proudhon uses is that it's one thing to bathe and fish in a river to meet your needs and another to draw a line all around it excluding everyone else from using it for the same purpose. That's what I meant when i said that property requires force.
I'm aware that "anarchists" of the right, defenders of capitalism, believe that without any government interference in the economy, competition would be supposedly so fierce that the rise of monopolies would be nearly impossible. Well, if you if you take into account the problem with property, this is pretty unlikely. The assumption you guys seem to hold is that power is somehow forcibly juxtaposed by the state and that things would be relatively unproblematic without it. That just strikes me as naive.
Not a single free market monopoly is attested as yet. Sorry.
You're welcome to point out if I failed to address anything important. I'm just trying to keep things compact so as to avoid things spiraling out of control in terms of length.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
06hurdwp
federico, what this ultimately boils down to is us having a different definition of anarchism. Your definition is abolition of power disparities (despite the inherent paradox of that), whereas our definition is complete freedom of the individual without violating the freedom of others.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
+federico amadeo
Y'know, however wealthy a person is their power is the same, they just have that power over more stuff... not over actual people.
'Stuff' above can mean money, land, a house, a few fancy cars, cocktail parties in the Hamptons and so on... but at no point does being wealthy involve as a constituent of its nature any coercion of another human to do a single solitary thing.
Sadly the other guy never gets to grip with this point despite quoting it below.
Love you; learn econ.
You might have a point in a world where "stuff" and "people" were compartmentalized in separate dimensions that don't influence each other and every individual were a self-sufficient irreducible atom. But as a matter of fact,
1) Being able to concentrate resources and having such a phenomenon protected as a "right" gives you de facto control over others: everyone requires resources to meet their needs and, in this scenario, in order to achieve this, they are dependent on you.
Proved wrong by absence of labour-market monopsony.
2) Nobody ever gets rich on their own. Any enterprise requires legions of people and they rarely share equal leverage or bargaining power.
Most enterprises are composed of between 1 and 10 people. A very large number consist of between 50 and 500. Barely any are larger than that, so the 'legions' point is completely wrong. Bargaining power point is another appeal to labour market monopsony. False.
"...but at no point does being wealthy involve as a constituent of its nature any coercion of another human to do a single solitary thing."
You're conflating power with coercion. A dubious move. If what I described constitutes a power disparity it doesn't require coercion.
Power is the capacity to coerce without consequence or it is nothing.
You have said nothing to suggest that wealth itself necessarily grants me power over you if you are not wealthy...
Full disclosure, I ain't :( but I can dream for purposes of Youtube thought experiments.
This is all very well, Matt, but you're about to over-extend yourself...
Also history demonstrates the opposite of this "concentration" you're talking about, so there is no reason to take your premise as read.
Should have shown some evidence of increase in number of property titles and businesses, but such evidence is hard to get a-hold of.
'Stuff' above can mean money, land, a house, a few fancy cars, cocktail parties in the Hamptons and so on... but at no point does being wealthy involve as a constituent of its nature any coercion of another human to do a single solitary thing.
Sadly the other guy never gets to grip with this point despite quoting it below.
Love you; learn econ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
federico amadeo
+Matthew HaydenYou might have a point in a world where "stuff" and "people" were compartmentalized in separate dimensions that don't influence each other and every individual were a self-sufficient irreducible atom. But as a matter of fact,
1) Being able to concentrate resources and having such a phenomenon protected as a "right" gives you de facto control over others: everyone requires resources to meet their needs and, in this scenario, in order to achieve this, they are dependent on you.
Proved wrong by absence of labour-market monopsony.
2) Nobody ever gets rich on their own. Any enterprise requires legions of people and they rarely share equal leverage or bargaining power.
Most enterprises are composed of between 1 and 10 people. A very large number consist of between 50 and 500. Barely any are larger than that, so the 'legions' point is completely wrong. Bargaining power point is another appeal to labour market monopsony. False.
"...but at no point does being wealthy involve as a constituent of its nature any coercion of another human to do a single solitary thing."
You're conflating power with coercion. A dubious move. If what I described constitutes a power disparity it doesn't require coercion.
Power is the capacity to coerce without consequence or it is nothing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
You have said nothing to suggest that wealth itself necessarily grants me power over you if you are not wealthy...
Full disclosure, I ain't :( but I can dream for purposes of Youtube thought experiments.
This is all very well, Matt, but you're about to over-extend yourself...
Also history demonstrates the opposite of this "concentration" you're talking about, so there is no reason to take your premise as read.
Should have shown some evidence of increase in number of property titles and businesses, but such evidence is hard to get a-hold of.
Still, even where concentration of capital through mergers and acquisitions HAS increased there has been no erosion of competition whatsoever, and no erosion of customer service whatsoever. The Coca-Cola Company and PepsiCo between them sell roughly 90% of all non-alcoholic beverages on Earth measured by revenue, yet they hate each other venomously and no cartelisation between them has ever ever ever come to light.
Currently there are at least 100 million discrete consumer goods alone, though this figure is both restricted and inflated. It is restricted by only applying to general merchandise and apparel, and inflated by counting every tiny variant of every item as a separate product.
Currently there are at least 100 million discrete consumer goods alone, though this figure is both restricted and inflated. It is restricted by only applying to general merchandise and apparel, and inflated by counting every tiny variant of every item as a separate product.
However most businesses have other businesses as their customers. This is a result of the deepening of the structure of production.
This means the total number of different types of goods and services in the world is astronomically high, and the total number of industries required to produce them all must also be enormous. Let's assume the number of industries is one-1000th the number of discrete products.
This means the total number of different types of goods and services in the world is astronomically high, and the total number of industries required to produce them all must also be enormous. Let's assume the number of industries is one-1000th the number of discrete products.
So from 100 million products we get 100,000 industries. That seems reasonable, with 100,000 discrete industries serving 100,000 discrete markets. Let's also assume that this figure includes all of the many labour markets (chef, healthcare assistant, lawyer, lathe operator) so as to keep things neat.
How does that number of total industries compare with the total in 1900? 1500? 0AD? Inviting the question though I am, I don't have a cardinal answer, only an ordinal one; ASTRONOMICALLY LESS!
Remember how capitalism over time drives prices down? That applies to the price of capital goods as well, such as computers, phones, cars, trucks, tractors, power-tools and so on. All these things have gotten cheaper, which actually lowers the barriers to entry into any industry in which one might need to make use of such capital.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
federico amadeo
+Matthew Hayden
There is if you pay attention to my comment just now. I specifically addressed this. Not only with you, but several times in this comment section.
As to what history supposedly demonstrates, I just don't know what you're talking about.
The concentration of wealth has only gone down, whether in terms of land, capital goods, or consumer goods. Only money has become more centralised because its production process is centralised by the state and thus is inflated over time.
The obvious solution to that problem is a free market in money itself.
What follows reads like it's addressing Federico directly, but I regret to say that it is not because Youtube keeps deleting long-form comments and I can't be bothered arguing with unreasonable people anymore.
First off, let me just say that you're right. I said most of what I said above in light of my belief that you were talking about increased concentration of land and capital ownership over time. But I know that's not the case because the exact opposite has happened.
I misunderstood your point. I realise now that by 'concentration' you were talking about the assertion of private ownership through homestead and trade, and the right this affords the claimant to use violence to defend their claim against subsequent claimants - generally called trespassers, vagrants or home-invaders depending on the context.
But presumably the property rights of communities in your ideal come from somewhere, right? Is that somewhere the collective? Who is the collective? Who isn't? Where does one collective begin and another end? Why should property rights be delineated this way? Obviously they should not because no such collective exists prior to the individuals in it and so it cannot exercise claims prior to those of individuals. But let's humour this a moment longer...
And presumably people from outside the community won't be allowed to make use of that community's resources, non? That's private property bro. If it's exclusionary, it's private | if it's private, it's exclusionary.
Owners get to use it and non-owners don't except at the owners' discretion. Communes will own the land under their participants' feet and all the capital goods on that land. Why? What's so morally or economically superior about this?
I thought you were saying that capital had become more and more concentrated from 1800-ish (insert whatever date you consider to be the birth of modern private property on a large scale here) to now. So my "history says..." shtick was in reference to the fact that the exact opposite has happened over whatever stretch of time you care to name, as any hockey-stick graph of GDP, life-expectancy, infant mortality, self-reported happiness etc will attest. Indeed I'm using a previously inaccessible means of production to type this comment.
Gapminder is a great place to get a look at sound data on these sorts of things. Or one could look at an analysis of standards of living in the world throughout the past two centuries. That second link is an in-depth breakdown of economic progress over the last two Centuries positing that crucial turning points in our past led to massive poverty reduction from the mid/late 19th Century to the mid 20th in the nations now in the OECD (though the paper mainly deals with countries that came later to the capitalist party) and so makes the case in favour of economic freedom (which would be near absolute in Ancapistan) brilliantly.
I completely agree that nobody gets rich on their own, but usually it was the person taking the biggest risk who made the biggest bucks out of whatever activity they undertook, whether financial or entrepreneurial. Any employees who contracted to work for the entrepreneur did so precisely because they didn't want to assume the risks of running such an enterprise.
The one(s) with their property at stake get the rewards if things go very well and are punished if they go very badly precisely because they put their property at stake. The punishment means - absent limited-liability laws - the loss of some or all of that property!
This is epistemologically obvious. That's how day-to-day operations at all businesses participating in the buying and selling of stocks function, whether on or off a public stock market.
For evidence see... every single day at any of these. You can see who's losing and winning every day!
LSE
NYSE
NASDAQ
The power disparity doesn't exist. That's why I used the word coercion. If there was a power disparity that one could point to it would be because of the exercise of such power by those with it (more of it) over those without (or less) through some kind of actual coercion like you get in all that political theatre. Otherwise you might as well say a spatula hides behind Titan just because nobody can point it out and say it ain't there, which is an anti-epistemology and an ass-backwards use of burden-of-proof.
The only way you could say such a disparity actually exists in the world is if people defending things they've acquired non-violently against attackers are themselves somehow attacking their assailants. I guess this points at the one thing we really disagree on -I favour private property in land if acquired without violence, and you don't/do/maybe depending on what kind of anti-private property anarchist you are.
After all, as stated above, communes will privately own the land they're on otherwise the world is one commune and anybody can go anywhere without any regard for people already in a place, escalating into a tragedy of the commons like none you've ever seen before. It would make deep sea fishing, Indonesian/Brazilian deforestation and the god-awful state of the government streets, highways, public parks and toilets look like a picnic.
"The example that Proudhon uses is that it's one thing to bathe and fish in a river to meet your needs and another to draw a line all around it excluding everyone else from using it for the same purpose. That's what I meant when I said that property requires force."
It is quite true that defending one's claim to the external stuff one has claimed does require force, but if others are trying to take something peacefully claimed they're attacking the previous claimant and that claimant is defending themselves. Folks can always ask or buy the use of scarce resources from those who have troubled to acquire, work or create them.
The vast majority of wealth in the world in 2015 consists in tangible goods and intangible services that are entirely human-created and, at least moreso than land and buildings, portable.
Check out that table in the AnCap homeland called the Huffington Post.
Further stats from a separate (and Keynesian) source also confirming the point in time when poverty reduction in the US ceases (it's the text-based table near the bottom of the page) so one can appreciate that my case actually has some basis in reality.
The case in favour of economic freedom is displayed by the Economic Freedom of the World project.
What's the effect of economic freedom, long-term, on pollution? Turns out that wealthy, economically free societies are considerably cleanlier than those less free. In service to the paper behind that link, here are some explanations of the two most jarring terms in the paper, environmental Kuznets curves & extreme bound analysis.
But can free people be happy? Sure they can! They're more peaceful too.
As to what history supposedly demonstrates, I just don't know what you're talking about.
The concentration of wealth has only gone down, whether in terms of land, capital goods, or consumer goods. Only money has become more centralised because its production process is centralised by the state and thus is inflated over time.
The obvious solution to that problem is a free market in money itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matthew John Hayden
+federico amadeoWhat follows reads like it's addressing Federico directly, but I regret to say that it is not because Youtube keeps deleting long-form comments and I can't be bothered arguing with unreasonable people anymore.
First off, let me just say that you're right. I said most of what I said above in light of my belief that you were talking about increased concentration of land and capital ownership over time. But I know that's not the case because the exact opposite has happened.
------------------------------------------
RESOURCE CONCENTRATION
------------------------------------------
I misunderstood your point. I realise now that by 'concentration' you were talking about the assertion of private ownership through homestead and trade, and the right this affords the claimant to use violence to defend their claim against subsequent claimants - generally called trespassers, vagrants or home-invaders depending on the context.
But presumably the property rights of communities in your ideal come from somewhere, right? Is that somewhere the collective? Who is the collective? Who isn't? Where does one collective begin and another end? Why should property rights be delineated this way? Obviously they should not because no such collective exists prior to the individuals in it and so it cannot exercise claims prior to those of individuals. But let's humour this a moment longer...
And presumably people from outside the community won't be allowed to make use of that community's resources, non? That's private property bro. If it's exclusionary, it's private | if it's private, it's exclusionary.
Owners get to use it and non-owners don't except at the owners' discretion. Communes will own the land under their participants' feet and all the capital goods on that land. Why? What's so morally or economically superior about this?
-------------------------
I WAS MISTAKEN
-------------------------
I thought you were saying that capital had become more and more concentrated from 1800-ish (insert whatever date you consider to be the birth of modern private property on a large scale here) to now. So my "history says..." shtick was in reference to the fact that the exact opposite has happened over whatever stretch of time you care to name, as any hockey-stick graph of GDP, life-expectancy, infant mortality, self-reported happiness etc will attest. Indeed I'm using a previously inaccessible means of production to type this comment.
Gapminder is a great place to get a look at sound data on these sorts of things. Or one could look at an analysis of standards of living in the world throughout the past two centuries. That second link is an in-depth breakdown of economic progress over the last two Centuries positing that crucial turning points in our past led to massive poverty reduction from the mid/late 19th Century to the mid 20th in the nations now in the OECD (though the paper mainly deals with countries that came later to the capitalist party) and so makes the case in favour of economic freedom (which would be near absolute in Ancapistan) brilliantly.
--------
RICH!
--------
I completely agree that nobody gets rich on their own, but usually it was the person taking the biggest risk who made the biggest bucks out of whatever activity they undertook, whether financial or entrepreneurial. Any employees who contracted to work for the entrepreneur did so precisely because they didn't want to assume the risks of running such an enterprise.
The one(s) with their property at stake get the rewards if things go very well and are punished if they go very badly precisely because they put their property at stake. The punishment means - absent limited-liability laws - the loss of some or all of that property!
This is epistemologically obvious. That's how day-to-day operations at all businesses participating in the buying and selling of stocks function, whether on or off a public stock market.
For evidence see... every single day at any of these. You can see who's losing and winning every day!
LSE
NYSE
NASDAQ
--------------------------------
POWER VS. COERCION
--------------------------------
The power disparity doesn't exist. That's why I used the word coercion. If there was a power disparity that one could point to it would be because of the exercise of such power by those with it (more of it) over those without (or less) through some kind of actual coercion like you get in all that political theatre. Otherwise you might as well say a spatula hides behind Titan just because nobody can point it out and say it ain't there, which is an anti-epistemology and an ass-backwards use of burden-of-proof.
The only way you could say such a disparity actually exists in the world is if people defending things they've acquired non-violently against attackers are themselves somehow attacking their assailants. I guess this points at the one thing we really disagree on -I favour private property in land if acquired without violence, and you don't/do/maybe depending on what kind of anti-private property anarchist you are.
After all, as stated above, communes will privately own the land they're on otherwise the world is one commune and anybody can go anywhere without any regard for people already in a place, escalating into a tragedy of the commons like none you've ever seen before. It would make deep sea fishing, Indonesian/Brazilian deforestation and the god-awful state of the government streets, highways, public parks and toilets look like a picnic.
-----------------------------------------
PROUDHON VS. ECONOMICS
-----------------------------------------
"The example that Proudhon uses is that it's one thing to bathe and fish in a river to meet your needs and another to draw a line all around it excluding everyone else from using it for the same purpose. That's what I meant when I said that property requires force."
It is quite true that defending one's claim to the external stuff one has claimed does require force, but if others are trying to take something peacefully claimed they're attacking the previous claimant and that claimant is defending themselves. Folks can always ask or buy the use of scarce resources from those who have troubled to acquire, work or create them.
The vast majority of wealth in the world in 2015 consists in tangible goods and intangible services that are entirely human-created and, at least moreso than land and buildings, portable.
Check out that table in the AnCap homeland called the Huffington Post.
Further stats from a separate (and Keynesian) source also confirming the point in time when poverty reduction in the US ceases (it's the text-based table near the bottom of the page) so one can appreciate that my case actually has some basis in reality.
The case in favour of economic freedom is displayed by the Economic Freedom of the World project.
What's the effect of economic freedom, long-term, on pollution? Turns out that wealthy, economically free societies are considerably cleanlier than those less free. In service to the paper behind that link, here are some explanations of the two most jarring terms in the paper, environmental Kuznets curves & extreme bound analysis.
But can free people be happy? Sure they can! They're more peaceful too.
The US Census Bureau has a database covering poverty from the well of returned census forms - this link neither supports nor rebuts my case but I felt it was unfair to only put sources that support me down here.
Comments
Post a Comment