You said if the question is how would you stop it, you should wait until it happens to figure it out. It reminded me of when Rothbard said we should not build theories around the fringes, or even that we should avoid even bringing the fringes into the discussion.
I think both of those approaches are backwards. When theorizing on political and legal systems, we should focus more on the fringes than the regular. Regular people in regular situations will figure things out themselves. It is in the fringes, and the unexpected, that we really need to be prepared.
Basically I am saying we should plan for every possible occurence, rather than just “wait until it happens.”
Idk, I feel like I just made that even more incomprehensible
And I would say perhaps (and I mean perhaps, as in I have given this no real thought at all) in a standing society we would worry about externalities, catastrophies or whatever. However, in a society that simply doesn’t exist or has no precedent in existence I just don’t see the need to think about it, in fact I think it is impossible.
So to point out:
a) The US ought to / could have a theory as to what would happen if there was a massive plaugue outbreak or something. That’s fine, I won’t argue with that now. And on 1st impression it makes sense.
b) An-cap society which doesn’t exist, never existed, and shows no rational expectations of showing up in the useful future ought to show a contingency plan for this stuff in a universe which never held such a society that never came into contact with an externality we are talking about (indeed the externalities may be defined in whole new terms in such a society).
It seems way to out there for me. I think the “discussions of the fringes” , if such a thing can be done, will be more and more apparent as something gravitates more and more toward what ever future non extant society you wish to talk about. I also think these fringes shift in context as wealth and custom changes. New things happen with new situations. Older precedents become more remote, and newer precedents are added to the list. We are talking about some type of paradigm shift that is to broad, too abstract, and too remote for me to make much sense of I think.
I mean how would you come up for laws in a “post cybernetic age”? While that future is imaginable, and we are probably one step closer to it than we were 100 years ago, and the dealings of such a society are probably more clear than they were 100 years ago…I don’t think it makes any sense to think of a concrete legal theory. Though what ever we came up with now would probably be better than what we would have come up with 100 years ago. But it isn’t our world.
a) The US ought to have a theory as to what would happen if there was a massive plaugue outbreak or something. That’s fine, I won’t argue with that now. And on 1st impression it makes sense.
Actually I think I agree with this, at least in a sense. But it simply wasn’t what I was really trying to discuss. That isn’t to say that current governments use in dealing with the fringes won’t be useful, or even vital to the evolution towards or put in use in an-cap society. In fact if such a thing can be discussed at all, I would bet money this would be the case. But even here I think this is something that can only be assesed after the fact (that is once the actual “target” society is achieved.).
P.S. If you have that Rothbard article, can you please link it? I don’t think I am aware of it.
It would take me a long while to dig up where I read that quote from. He really just said it in passing in an article on an unrelated issue, if I remember correctly. I’m pretty sure it for LRC tho, if that narrows it down. I don’t think it was in a book.
One thing that could potentially stop coercive action on the part of the wealthy capitalist is the booming sales of firearms when people start having their homes invaded.
Keep in mind several distinguishing factors, too. Even with billions to spend, Microsoft would play merry hell employing an army to remove by force wealth from the hands of the poor or middle class, and it would be much more difficult still to extract funds from other prosperous businesses who can afford to defend themselves. The current government of the United States gathers by mere writ, or indeed by the printing press, an enormous amount of money to employ nationwide reaches of oppressive seizure. And even then people manage to dodge taxes. That’s WITHOUT people opening fire on the tax collector. Bearing this in mind, how much would Anarcho-Microsoft have to pay their coercive forces to saddle up for these life-threatening extractions? At what point do you think the accountants are going to throw their arms up and say, “Look, maybe we should just design some software?” And let’s assume this to be modus operandi for several wealthy corporations. While they are throwing money into their personal armies, fightng turf wars, killing each other, etc, there will be others producing goods and rendering services, far more capably supplying demands. They will replace the ones who are removing themselves from the supply chain.
No one seems to have responded to my criticism of capitalism as an inherently authoritarian system:
'My case against capitalism is this: that Capitalism isn’t just an economic ideology, but like Marxism it is a politico-economic ideology, and it rests on the authoritarian right. This is why. Economically, Capitalism is on the right because it stresses individual ownership; politically it is authoritarian because it demands a structure in which the workers, the subordinate class, have to sell their labour to the capitalist class; this supposes: power relations, property relations and class relations - in other words, an authoritarian heirachy - and this is regardless of whether there is a state or not.’
'as long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves on the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, then there are striking elements of coercion and oppression that make talk of democracy very limited, if even meaningful.’
I don’t think that is true at all. Even in the UK, which is an mixed economy (you know, capitalist and welfare state), if I wanted to do a masters degree in philosophy I have to have £11,000, or around $18,000 to pay for the tuition, accomodation and living costs. I don’t see how I can do what I want. I guess it is true that some people in a capitalist society can do what they want, but only if they are rich enough. But go to the poor section of society, and tell them they can do what they want; they will laugh at you.
In your first answer the definition of “to do whatever they want” was missing. I need to rephrase that to be sure you really mean how I understand that now (then yes this is utopian):
I am allowed to quit the syndicate. And I still am fully provided by the society with education, a home, food, cinema, just what I want etc… The only condition is I am not allowed to harm anyone. Is this about correct?
Why should I even work then in the first place? Why should anyone even work in the first place?
The question you should be asking is, why should anyone do work they don’t want to do?
They shouldn’t. We can use machines to automate all the undesired tasks, this shouldn’t be too hard - we use machines to automate car production, so why not every job which is mundane? I don’t see any reason as to why we shouldn’t or can’t. This leaves humans to do whatever we want, whether that is painting, studying, inventing, watching tv, or whatever.
It is utopian in a sense, but not unrealistic. We are the humans who have put men on the moon, discovered penicillin, created the internet, cured diseases and we keep getting better at it. So, I don’t believe for a minute we can’t create technology that will take care of the boring mundane jobs.
This also means that we can focus on what is important, you know, human welbeing, scientific and technological discovery and so on, rather than focus on pieces of paper which are intrinsically valueless.
“Capitalism isn’t just an economic ideology, but like Marxism it is a politico-economic ideology, and it rests on the authoritarian right.”
I do not agree… economics is a value free subject… economic laws are deduced from Praxeology… political standing has nothing to do with it…economics stresses that if you do X, Y is going to happen. it does not say, "you SHOULD do X. some ‘lefties’ you should look up: a user, ‘Brainpolice’ on here, youtube and/or google… Samuel Edward Konkin III, or Fred Foldvary.
“It is true that economics is a theoretical science and as such abstains from
any judgment of value. It is not its task to tell people what ends they should
aim at. It is a science of the means to be applied for the attainment of ends
chosen, not, to be sure, a science of the choosing of ends. Ultimate decisions,
the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science.
Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows how a man
must act if he wants to attain definite ends” -LvMises, Human Action p 10
“Capitalism isn’t just an economic ideology, but like Marxism it is a politico-economic ideology, and it rests on the authoritarian right.”
I do not agree… economics is a value free subject… economic laws are deduced from Praxeology… political standing has nothing to do with it…economics stresses that if you do X, Y is going to happen. it does not say, "you SHOULD do X. some ‘lefties’ you should look up: a user, ‘Brainpolice’ on here, youtube and/or google… Samuel Edward Konkin III, or Fred Foldvary.
“It is true that economics is a theoretical science and as such abstains from
any judgment of value. It is not its task to tell people what ends they should
aim at. It is a science of the means to be applied for the attainment of ends
chosen, not, to be sure, a science of the choosing of ends. Ultimate decisions,
the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science.
Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows how a man
must act if he wants to attain definite ends” -LvMises, Human Action p 10
[/quote]
I’m not saying that ‘political standing’ has anything to do with capitalism, nor am I saying that capitalism tells us how to live our lifes. I’m saying that the capitalist structure, you know, the structure which states that one class - the oppressed class - has to sell their labour to the capitalist class or they starve or go to jail, is authoritarian by nature; and for that reason capitalism rests on the authoritarian right.
To better their own lives. To improve their current circumstances by exchanging value for value. If it’s voluntary why is there a problem?
Maybe we shall see these technological advancements in the future. Who knows? It’s good you recognise that labour is not an end in itself. Labour is a means to improve material wellbeing. The problem is you seem to be arguing that this technology should be implemented right now to improve human welfare. But the fact is that you don’t know whether this is a efficient use of resources or not. (Do we even have the resources and technology to do this?)
This happens to be the main problem with anarcho-syndicalism. You guys praise voluntarism and decentralisation but still have a central plan of how the world should be run. Why not let us work it out on our own?
Would an anarcho-syndicalist society use gold as money too? haha
Socialists always tell me what questions I should ask.. It seems you don’t like my questions.
Anyway, that’s really a nice dream you have there, but I think we are not discussing about an uncertain future but about the present. Your statement means nothing more that your society presupposes a state in which any restraint through limited supply of resources and technology already is overcome. But I am sure you are already for a switch to anarcho syndicalism now. So I must rephrase my questions into:
Why should I or anyone work in an anarcho syndicalist society when there still is a limiting factor of resources and technology, although I still am fully provided with everything I want?
If someone wanted to work, then they would be free to do so, but they wouldn’t have to do so if they didn’t want to. That’s one difference between capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism. In capitalist society you have to work as a means to survive, in a anarcho-syndicalist society you wouldn’t have to work as a means to survive. That said, if someone wanted to work then they would be free to do so, but they wouldn’t be doing it for the sake of survival.
I wouldn’t say that I am that informed on the matters of our current technological level and whether it could be implemented now. But it does seem that it is possible at least, and I would say we should at least try. In fact, there is one product on the market (http://www.irobot.com/) which is an automated vacuum cleaner. But we’ll have to see where the technology goes from here.
Whilst we are saying we think the world should be run differently, I don’t think it is as centralised as you think; I mean, just because there are a few of us who share some ideas, doesn’t mean we are going to start forcing people into this kind of society if it ever came to that. I think any introduction of an anarcho-syndicalist society would be because the majority wants it - for that matter, I don’t even see any other way of it coming about other than that.
I think the common thinking goes along the lines that money is a root of a lot of our problems, so there would be no currency.
And by the way, as you I am free to argue that as soon as anarcho capitalism overcomes the state of restraint by technology and resources, all things people want are also abundant which means there is no price anymore, and hence everyone can do what he wants…
People can’t “do what they want” because of scarcity. Society does not have enough resources for everyone to only do what they like to do and consume as much as they want to. Abolishing the need to pay for stuff is not going to change that. Scarcity is a fact of life, not of a market economy. In fact capitalism is the reason that we can do what we want to a much larger degree than people in non-capitalist societies.
Certainly we can automate undesirable tasks, in fact we are well on our way of doing that in the first world. But this isn’t something we have to implement by design, it naturally happens as capitalism evolves. And being anarcho-syndicalist does not do anything to get us there faster. In fact, it delays that progress by misallocating resources.
LOL. Sorry, I didn’t mean to tell you what questions you should ask.
If I’ve understood your question correctly, then I think we will be partly overcoming the limited supply of resources and technology when we overcome capitalism (I say ‘when’ optimistically, hoping capitalism won’t last forever). For example, from an energy point of view it would make far more sense, from the communities point of view, to completely switch to renewables and develop along those lines. But, that won’t make profit, or at least, as much profit in a capitalist society, and so is frowned upon. Once we overcome the profit motive, we will overcome some technological obstacles as well. So I think moving into an anarcho-syndicalist society will produce a move forward in terms of resources and technology.
Although, I’m not sure if I’ve understood your question properly.
If that is true, then great! But I don’t think it is. The profit motive will always keep people in a state of restraint in regards to technology and resources, since it makes more money that way.
