In that case, I was confused by your wording - I figured “never, never” was just a rhetorical device for emphasis. Sorry about that.
Well, what reasoning do you have to support this point? I’d also like to know what you take “capitalism” and “human greed” to mean.
Sorry, I should have made that clearer; looking back on it, it does look a bit rhetorical.
By capitalist I mean an economic system where the means of production is privately owned, workers have to sell their labour in a wage system and where the focus is financial profit. By human greed, I am referring to, in this case, financial ambition in which one puts private profit before anything else.
My reasoning is simple. Right now, even with government interference, we see the rich and wealthy driving for more; although an anarchist myself, my fear is that without the government these individuals would have free control to do anything; their greed would know no bounds. And so I object to Anarcho-capitalism.
No worries, I think we have it all cleared up now. 
Thanks for the clarification. Forgive me if I feel that I must ask more follow-up questions.
When you say “privately owned”, do you mean “individually owned” or “exclusively owned”? My own sense of it falls to the latter, but you might differ.
If workers don’t sell their labor in a wage system, how else would they sell it? Or is your contention with workers selling their labor at all?
Where do you think the focus on financial profit comes from? I’d say it’s derived from the more general desire for a state of affairs that’s seen as “better” over one that isn’t - what I’d call “profit” in the general sense.
Now with those questions out of the way, I’d say that an anarcho-capitalist society would be a society where the Non-Aggression Principle is honored by most everyone, most of the time. (We can’t expect to be honored by all people, all the time - that’s utopianism.) This means that most people would not put financial profit before anything else (most of the time), because if they did, that would mean they’d be willing to aggress against others to obtain it.
A quibble, but “rich and wealthy” seems to be redundant. What I mean is, I don’t see how the two groups can really be considered different from one another.
I feel that I have to ask whether you think all means of “driving for more” are equivalent. My own opinion here is that they aren’t. I have no problem with a person driving for more wealth, as long as he doesn’t aggress against others in so doing. Maybe I need you to clarify what you mean by “the rich and wealthy driving for more”.
Do you think everyone in the government is perfectly and completely altruistic - that they really are “public servants”? Or do you think at least some people in the government are just as greedy as people outside of it?
I agree - exclusively owned, I think that would explain how a company could come to own something.
It’s my contention with workers selling their labour in the first place.
I think you’re right, it seems that people often think something like, ‘more wealth=better life’. But I don’t think that that is the case.
Purhaps, but a dictatorship only requires one party.
Yeah, you’re right; would I be correct in saying that ‘rich and wealthy’ would be somewhat of a tautology?
I would have no problem with ambition, providing it isn’t at the expense of other people’s happiness. An example of the rich driving for more could be the Iraq war, no doubt it’s all for oil, at the expense of our soldiers and the Iraq populace.
I think government is another example of authority that needs to be removed, there is no doubt in my mind as to the horros the governments are responsible for. But I also am equally as weary of the corporations and their power. So, for the moment, the government counteracts the corporations.
Only a state, since it has the monopoly of force, has the power to decide which mode of production it wants to enforce. It might want to enforce socialism, a mixed economy or a minarchist economy. As soon as the state is away there will only be one mode of production possible, the one that naturally will arise of free interaction between people. Since only free market economists are able to explain from scratch how subjective values are expressed and how exchange of goods and services among different people works, I guess it will be anarcho capitalism. Point is that without a state like organization you cannot prevent people from using the capitalistic mode of production. The only thing you can hope for is that syndicalist/socialistic mode of production is by far superior over capitalistic one, so that people just wouldn’t engage in capitalistic mode of production.
Big corporations have too much power because of the government, not despite of them. Big corps use the government to get that power → lobbying, without government no lobbying.
BTW: I still don’t have any clue how the anarcho-syndicalistic/socialistic mode of production would work. Info about where I could find this would be highly appreciated.
I would say by definition you can’t enforce socialism, otherwise it would be this so-called state-socialism; however, socialism is defined as, ‘the means of production being in the hands of the workers’, which excludes any state control, and so I don’t know how you could enforce it without the state.
I think you are purhaps right about corporate power partially being due to the government; but I see them both as needing to be removed, not just the government.
Rudolf Rocker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Rocker) was an anarcho-syndicalist historian who wrote about the Syndicalist movement in Spain during the Spanish Civil War. One of his works which might be of interest: ‘Anarcho-syndicalism: Theory and Practise’. Noam Chomsky is contemporary anarcho-syndicalist as well, he gives a good account of it in: ‘Chomsky on Anarchism’.
In that case, all ownership seems to be exclusive, doesn’t it? Even in a socialist commonwealth, those who aren’t members of the commonwealth would be excluded from possessing, using, or otherwise controlling the means of production within it.
Okay. What do you think workers could/would do instead of selling their labor?
That’s actually a narrower meaning than I intended. A “better” state of affairs to one person may actually be that which leaves him with less wealth, not more. My point is that what constitutes a “better” state of affairs is entirely subjective. It’s certainly not always dependent on financial wealth.
A dictatorship doesn’t require just one party. It requires large numbers of people, both to follow the dictator’s orders and to not engage in resistance. Otherwise, every crime would be a civil war in the making.
It’s not a tautology because it doesn’t assert any relationship between “rich” and “wealthy”. I’d rather call it a pleonasm - a redundant phrase.
“Happiness” seems like a very vague term to use here. For example, by your reasoning, I could say that you preventing me from stealing your wallet is an instance of you pursuing ambition at the expense of someone else’s (namely my) happiness.
Did “the rich” form their own private armies and invade Iraq? Otherwise, I don’t know how you can say that the Iraq “war” was solely an example of the rich “driving for more”.
Why are you equally wary of corporations? I don’t see how they and governments have the same kind of “power” at all. Furthermore, whatever “power” corporations do have, it pales in comparison to that of governments. On the other hand, governments often seem to do things for the benefit of corporations, so I think it’s hardly true that governments always counteract corporations.
Not if ownership is democratic. The workers who would own the means of production, could decide to let anyone use it.
Something meaningful; what I mean by that is that it would be something which they wanted to do, and something which they aren’t forced to do - out of [wage] slavery, that is.
Well, in a sense that’s correct. What I meant is that it only takes one party to actually engage in some action to power, the rest of us would just have to be passive. Although, you’re correct in saying that being passive is some form of action, I didn’t mean it like that.
I think by ‘vague’ you meant ‘subjective’? Also, by my reasoning you could justify killing a whole race if it brought you happiness. Well, I wouldn’t say so. I guess I need to clarify my position. I think when considering what action to take - when it involves someone else’s happiness, in fact, I think it would be more accurate to say ‘well-being’ than happiness - then the best action would be that which take’s into account the other persons well-being and equally weighs each preference. But when it comes to stealing someone’s wallet, it is entirely dependent on the situation - if you were starving you might think differently about someone’s wallet.
That’s because the rich don’t need a private army, they have yours and mine - why would they pay people, when they can just use the tax payers money?
The reason the government seems to work for the corporations is because it is the corporations who put the government in place. Take the US election, you only win if you have huge sums of money to promote your campaign, so whoever gives that money then is owed by the winning president. Consider the power of the media, which is corporately owned, you think they don’t have power? Look at the links between President Bush and the corporate world, it is often hard to distinguish between government and coporate power.
As Autolykos said, the owners still decide. The non-owners, don’t. Or could anyone just walk in and also decide?
The workers decide, the non-workers don’t. You could walk in and become a worker, in which case you would also help in deciding what to do with the means of production.
Anyone could just walk in and become a worker (i.e. owner, decider)? 20 guys from Bangladesh could walk into a metal shop in Pennsylvania and start “deciding”, too? How many places would one be allowed to walk (work) in at the same time? How long (days, hrs per day) must one be “working” to become an owner/decider? Who decides that?
I could not find it for free. I only can buy it, which I won’t do. This information should be available online somewhere for free. I read already some of the anarchist FAQ, but that does not address my questions. Since you are proposing this ideology I am sure you understand it and can answer my questions. There are several, but I guess one will do for the moment. Since it does not fit into this thread, I invite you to a new one.
As I understand it, “democratic ownership” simply distinguishes a certain way in which ownership decisions are made. Furthermore, it implies that more than two people (jointly) own something, which I think is already perfectly legitimate in private ownership. That said, if the worker-owners of certain means of production decide to let anyone use them, my understanding is that they can still revoke that privilege at any time in the future. So the ownership still rests with them, and it’s still exclusive.
However, I realize my earlier statement about a socialist commonwealth is inaccurate - it should read “could be excluded”, not “would be excluded”. Unfortunately it’s too late to edit that post.
I strongly suspect that your definition of “forced” here is much different from mine. Typically people are not threatened with, or subjected to, physical violence unless they sell their labor for a wage.
How did you mean it, then?
I guess the real issue here is the likelihood that the rest of us would be completely passive in the face of an aggressor.
Not only did I mean “subjective”, I also meant “imprecise” - but maybe I’m repeating myself. 
It sounds to me like you’re essentially talking about the Non-Aggression Principle. I don’t think that’s an accident, as I think the NAP is essentially hard-wired in all of us - except in dire survival situations, as you point out.
Good point! To take it one step further, do you see how using taxpayers’ money effectively makes things cheaper for the rich (or whoever’s using it) to do? If the rich had to field armies solely from their personal stockpiles of wealth, do you think they’d be so carefree in embarking on military (mis)adventures?
On the other hand, politicians and bureaucrats may not have a lot of personal wealth, but they may nevertheless have control over a lot of "public wealth". They may not be rich, but they’ll certainly feel rich. Even better, since they didn’t have to earn that control the hard way, through hard work and accumulation of ownership, their care in managing it will be substantially lower - i.e. they’ll be more willing to blow it on boondoggles and frivolities that give them mainly psychic profit (and mainly nothing to anyone else).
If the corporations put the government in place, then doesn’t the government actually work for the corporations instead of just seeming to? However, the power exercised by the government is still much different from that exercised by corporations per se. Corporations don’t wage war or force people to do things at the point of a gun. Again, you could say that corporations subcontract out to the government for that, but that’s not saying all that much. Some extra specificity would be appreciated there.
On a final note - are you using the word “corporation” refer to any business, or specifically to those (typically large) businesses that enjoy limited liability?
Chris_Bacon,
So your argument is keep the big bad evil organization, because without it there’s a minute chance that another one might form?
Well, they don’t need to be threatened, they have a simple choice: either get a job, or starve to death.
I meant by saying it only takes one party, that it only takes one party to form a dictatorship with everyone else being passive.
I don’t think it is hard-wired into all of us. If it were hard-wired into all of us, then how do you explain aggression in non-threatening, or non-dire survival circumstances; for instance, aggression over a game of cards?
Well, to see how US companies shape US politics, consider a different case. Would the US government’s foreign policy be what it is if the majority of the US energy sector was solar powered and not oil focussed? I think both, government and corporations, are as bad as each other.
In using ‘seem’ I was just carrying on from what you said a little earlier, but I don’t think it is of much consequence since I’m sure you got what I meant. I would say that the government works in the interest of the corporations. An example of a clear instance of this is the Wisconsin bill that will effectively shatter the worker’s unions; if the workers can’t organise effectively then this will benefit the corporations. Or you could say that the government is one big corporation. My view is that in our current society government and corporation work hand in hand; if you remove government, then the corporations will come to govern. Generally, I’m using it to refer to big business, but it could refer to small as well.
My argument is remove government and replace capitalism - I’m an anarcho-syndicalist.
In the purely anarcho syndicalist society it is: Become a memeber of a syndicate or.. ?
Ideally, but this might be a bit utopian for you, they would be able to do whatever they want to do - providing they harm no-one.
The same is true for capitalism.
Quite a few comments smack of “When capitalism is abolished there will be a New Socialist Man.”