Its like a pillar of austrian economics, which backs ancap
It is only the foundation for all economic thought…
One being a contradictin in terms, the latter being a type of property. I know that you won’t accept that though and that you will accuse me of not understanding it. But this is a limitation inherent to all semantic/rhetorical debates which is all communists can provide. It’s not realy my problem. IT’s really the communist who must face the issues of wrapping their incoherent double speak around actual reality.
And so as I pointed out LadyAttis’s point here applies to these interpersonal exchanges. As was also confirmed here.
You can call it what you like. You can call it possessing, you can call it anything. Exchange always occurs. This is just further proof that property never really goes away. It just changes shape and form based on degree and application. The behavior of such depending on the normative preferences of individuals in the area. But modern day “property” which I am assuming you are referring to is not necesary for exchange to occur. Robinson Crusoe not only exchanged with others on his island (absent any concept of property) but he also placed trades with himself in whats called autistic exchange. Exchange is always present, both with ourselves and with those around us.
Which ofcoarse is imposible. You just throw behavior under the table. Many communist countries try to abolish exchange but it comes out in other forms or is found int he crooks and nannies(Usually in desperation). Abolishing exchange is abolishing social cooperation and collaberation all together.
So unless you expect people to be hermits, and tend to their own farm feeding themselves, exchange will always exist. Though I am curious that in such a scenario if you would say that the earth is then the employer and that farmers are slave laborers to the earth. Forcing them to toil the fields because food does not fall from the sky.
Why are you guys letting this man conflate the political philosophy of anarcho-capitalism with the value-free science that is economics? You’re hardly doing him a favor, and if he ever accepts Austrian econ and/or anarcho-capitalism he will just be another dumb libertarian who doesn’t understand what he supports.
I didn’t pick the actual topic of the thread, since I’d like to know how they ration. In capitalism “what to produce how” and “who gets what” is baked into one process, since everything that is produced, necessarily comes into the world as the property of someone, the producer (Yes I know the objection you want to raise there Apfelstrudel), who is absolutely free to use it or exchange it as he wants (except he does not use it to endanger/damage other people or their property). Both issues are regulated through the price system (which by the way keeps no one from giving his produced goods for free to anyone!)
In socialism production and the distribution is split up. They are not connected to each other any more through the price system/private property. Now socialists either think that their system is much more efficient and will create goods in so vast amounts that they are abundant and there never can be a supply shortage for any demand of any good/service, or the produced amount is somehow fixed, and socialism would have at least the same amount of production as capitalistic system. You really cannot help the former; they are lala-wonderland believers. The latter have to explain how to ration.
Now Mises stated the well warranted question of even how to know of how to produce what in socialism, and you can find lots of discussion and information for this topic on either side, but not on the distribution/rationing issue. So I picked the opportunity to ask one of their proponents about the MSDP, which ancom would have to suffer even if they could solve the ECP at least nearly as good as capitalism does.And that’s even not all the problems for them…
@ Apfelstrudel
I never said you are not allowed to have more than one rationing system, never! How’s it if for the start you just tell me at least even one of those vast solutions you claim to have. If you had them they’d come out like a machine gun fires bullets. But all solutions you did tell after pushing hard are crap! How many examples do you want to hear (BTW I even offered you to set the stage)? Too less butter, too few HDDs, too less beach available on the balearic islands, too few IC STK0040 Darlington Power Packs, too few hexagon head screw M4X8 ECO-FIX, too less Kirschtopfenstrudel, too less vanilla ice cream (this series goes to infinity, although too less vanilla ice cream alone will screw your dream any way ;).
wouldn’t hesitate to jump in and save him, free of charge.
Offcourse you would. I think you misunderstand my question; the point is not if people in ancom or ancap would jump or not. In any society there are people who would and those who would not. The question is if it would be ethical?
The point was to illustrate that, no matter what society we live in, taking advantage of a person in such a desperate situation for personal gain is unethical. I am sure that most people, capitalists or not, would agree with that.
So why is it any different when he is starving? Why is placing him in a sweatshop OK?
Regarding your question, there will always be conflicts like that. Ancom is not an utopia.
Take what Orwell writes in Homage to Catalonia:
“…The normal military punishments existed,
but they were only invoked for very serious offences. When a man refused
to obey an order you did not immediately get him punished; you first
appealed to him in the name of comradeship. Cynical people with no
experience of handling men will say instantly that this would never
‘work’, but as a matter of fact it does ‘work’ in the long run. The
discipline of even the worst drafts of militia visibly improved as time
went on. In January the job of keeping a dozen raw recruits up to the
mark almost turned my hair grey. In May for a short while I was
acting-lieutenant in command of about thirty men, English and Spanish.
We had all been under fire for months, and I never had the slightest
difficulty in getting an order obeyed or in getting men to volunteer for
a dangerous job. ‘Revolutionary’ discipline depends on political
consciousness–on an understanding of -why- orders must be obeyed; it
takes time to diffuse this, but it also takes time to drill a man into
an automaton on the barrack-square.”
So yes, at some point, if all appeals, all attempts to explain why we need that object fails, and it is somehow REALLY important and we REALLY can’t go without it (nevermind why we used such an important resource for a toy to begin with!), lives depend on it… well someone would have to take it. It’s the standard reply to total pacifism, really, just stated a bit differently; violence is morally acceptable if it can be shown to directly prevent far more an greater violence and is the only option.
I can also ask you the same question; what if someone in an ancap society owns something that is vital for the survival of everyone, and he refuses to sell it. No price, no deal, no offer, hell no appreal to comradeship or his consciousness, works. What would you do? Die rather than violate the principles of the free market?
The question is irrelevant - both scenarios are extremely unlikely for many reasons. Some solution can, in practice, always be found that does not involve force. This is the basis of both our philosophies.
Thanx for the link also.
filc,
Don’t argue semantics. Think whatever you wish of the terms and how they sound; I personally think that anarcho-capitalism is the mother of all contradictive terms but arguing about that would be missing the point.
It’s not what you call it that is important, it’s what it is. If “wage slavery” and “possessions” bother you, call 'em Bob and Alice. Just learn about them and what they mean, and they are very important in anarchist thought.
The ancom position is still that exchange in the capitalist sense would not occur because it would make no sense. That it is not forbidden doesn’t mean that it would be prevalent.
You cannot debunk a philosophy by pointing to an act that would make no sense given that society. It would be like me asking “what if I burned all the money I have?” or something; in a capitalist society it’s just crazy…
You do not understand was possession is, or how it differs from property, at all.
Nor does even the theoretical possibility that some people will wish to exchange their possessions (rather than give them away as gifts, or anything else that does not involve a tit-for-tat exchange, which is common in non-market societies) discredit the philosophy. As I have pointed out before, an objective account of value still allows for personal differences. We all have a need for art and beauty, but I happen to prefer your painting to my sculpture (and vice versa), so we exchange them. Why does this discredit the entire system, which is concerned mostly with the organisation of and purpose of production? That money or a market is needed somehow does not follow, unless perhaps one assumes that exchange like that would be the basis on which commodities are distributed (which would contradict ancom theory).
Defining exchange to include all social cooperation and collaboration misses to point. Such collaboration is not subject to ladyattis’ critique at all.
ladyattis’ assumes that “production cycles start and stop on their own schedules free from consideration of consumers (and their demands)” which is false. It is simply in no way true. Ancom would very much take people’s demand into account, as it is essentially an economy planned by the people (both in their role as producers and as consumers).
Just-in-time and on-demand methods of production have already been referenced to. In other words, we stop producing when people stop ordering, just like in capitalism. Measuring demand is a similar technical process both in a free market system and a non-market society. You look at for opinions and trends. The only difference is the purpose of production.
skylien,
What I meant with more examples wasn’t “lack of good x”, and then you insert a bunch of different things that x can be. I meant a detailed example: How much do we have, how much is needed, who needs and for what do they need it? What is the cause of the shortage? Can it be remedied within an acceptable time-frame, or must we begin considering other options?
Where are we, what neighbouring communities do we have, and what is their situation in regards to this commodity? Are there substitutes, can we access them and what is the comparative cost in labour, energy, resources, environmental impact, etc.? Is that cost worth it? Is it necessary? Or are people willing or able to wait for more of what they demand to be produced? If not, why not, and how long would producing more take?
Why was the shortage not avoided? Is it a failure of the system, or something we could not have possibly foreseen? Etc.
As I said, psychosis-level megalomania. Just count the number of “we” or passive verbiage above! To even think that “we” (or “our” central committee with their genius assistants running Cockshott algorithms on TVP/TZM super-computer mainframes) could provide answers to these questions and, more importantly, shove “The Solution” down everyone’s throats (without coercion, mind you!) is bordering on sheer lunacy. I’m out.
“We” as in our community. The one with the problem. Seeing as, in an ancom society, you wouldn’t be involved in the decisions that don’t affect you, I assumed that I am one of the people deciding here.
You ask me what I would do, and then accuse me of being a megalomaniac when I reject that I would do anything and insist that this is a collective problem? Shit, seriously, are you in such a hurry to attack me personally?
I am sick of it. I have been nothing but polite, and yet I have to endure ad hominem after ad hominem. I do my best to understand your philosophy and position, you just accuse me of standing for the opposite of what I stand for.
I have over and over denied the existence of a single solution (that is your god damn position!) or coercion. You just ignore this. You can’t even be bothered to put some thought into how you insult me.
You’re out? No, I am out. I decided to stay on because some people where actually engaging me in a serious debate. Now I leave because of you, personally, and your immature behaviour and inability to actually discuss something. Congrats, you actually bullied me out of the forums, hope that makes you really proud.
Thank you to everyone else, I’ll be sure to read up more on praxeology.
Apfel
“Just-in-time and on-demand methods of production have already been referenced to. In other words, we stop producing when people stop ordering, just like in capitalism. Measuring demand is a similar technical process both in a free market system and a non-market society. You look at for opinions and trends. The only difference is the purpose of production.”
There you go again treating natural resources and commodities just like consumer goods. That’s why I gave you my steel mill example, That’s why I brought up the example of Soviet Russia’s failure to plan for their wheat harvests. Ancaps understand the need for capital investment and entrepreneurship, There’s a reason commodity markets exist.
There’s an interesting piece on Oildrum.com today titled:
Time to Wake Up: Days of Abundant Resources and Falling Prices Are Over Forever
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7853
Ancoms like you are going to end up subsistence farming, working in the fields 10-14 hours a day just to survive because of your lack of planning.
I lol’d, because so true… some people just LOVE to control other people and imagine that they know what they want better than themselves.
“ladyattis’ assumes that “production cycles start and stop on their own schedules free from consideration of consumers (and their demands)” which is false. It is simply in no way true.”
Wait one second there, um you probably never worked in a factory. But the fact is all productions from simple butane cartrages to air conditioner units isn’t done with regard to consumer demand like what you have in retail sales, and even those are decoupled from day-to-day demands. The reason is pretty obvious if you know why, but lets not bullshit about stuff you haven’t dealt with IRL. The fact is, even in a farmstead situation, exchanges are decoupled from each other. Consider granny making an apple pie, does she really need to think of what grandpa is doing in the field if grandpa cultivates wheat? Of course not. Exchanges even in a strictly non-economic pattern or structure are decoupled because space and time make them so. Even within the same person exchanges (Austistic exchange as Mises called them in HA) are decoupled too by space and time. This is a given. I strongly suggest hunkering down and reading HA to understand this point.
My comments in bold:
All the issues have been addressed. To wit:
I’m not the communist. So I am not. The definitions I employ can be found in the webster dicitonary or any other common dictionary. The terms employed are terms that have been used for centuries. The semantic issues are found on your end. You should know this is an inherent problem to the communist methodology(Since 90% of their argument is one of semantics and rhetoric. Very little scientific or logical analysis is involved). Some people call this doublespeak. “Wage Slavery”. “Exploitation”. “Exchange”. “Property” are all terms that must be changed in order for your line of thought to even begin to make sense.
And ofcoarse the response is going to be that these terms were tainted by the capitalistic society. An inherent flaw of people who believe in insane idea of polylogism.
(Justin)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2-7.html
You give the impression of being unessecarily eltisit. You need money to plan?? Are you certain? Maybe Communism failed in the USSR b/c they probably weren’t using the scientific method to arrive at decisions. Perhaps, it was b/c it was an elitist, totalitarian, and militant regime where an elite created a false representation of reality? That’s why, seemingly, information from the outside world collapsed the regime. Unlikely it was b/c of using a scientific economics which didn’t use monetary prices. I have never seen ANY EVIDENCE directly showing the monetary market systems are actually necessary. I need some causative evidence, not just anecdotal evidence.
You have probably realized before that correlation does not equal causation? Monetary Market operations are “faith based” upon “In God We Trust”/InvisibleHand of God are not scientific evidence or reliable.
(Adam Smith - Wealth of Nations)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand
Secular reasoning from Noam Chomsky.
There’s something inherently invalid about the Monetary Market System. I don’t think even Chomsky supports a moneyless economy. I’m just pointing out something he said. Along w/this link, providing some evidence of inherent invalidity.
No if they employed the Scientific method to social sciences you’d probably get the same outcome.
Look bottom line is you guys are throwing out all kinds of nonesense but nothing cited here or presented addresses the underlying fundamental issue that praxeology presents(The very point of this thread). Economic Calculation.
Unless you are omniscient, and you can see the ordinal preferences of every man women or child on earth of every second of every day, your plan for society logically is incapable of working. You are essentially trying to make 2+2=5 by changing the definitions of 2. It just doesn’t add up. Only when you delve into the realm of nonesense and incoherency is such discussion permited because reason can be ignored(Hence the reason communists hide themselves in rhetoric and semantics).
Ya, the guy saying “capitalism = voluntary exchange” is not engaging in semantics and linguistic gymnastics.
Or “acting actors act” ie, praxeology (I read Danny’s article. I don’t think it adequately addressed this issue, or the verification issue.)
Ya, no perversion of language there.
Filc: No if they employed the Scientific method to social sciences you’d probably get the same outcome.
Oh my ass. I don’t think that statement makes much logical sense.
-
Voluntary exchange can only occur within a system of private property rights, hence the ability to exchange.
-
Acting actors do act. It’s implicit in the definition. Now this isn’t enough, of course, since one has to figure out how you get from a definition to where you point at something and say, “That thing over there is an actor.”
2+2=4 doesn’t make logical sense to someone who never took basic arithmetic either. In the same light your arguing economics but y our entire economic education is founded on communist rhetoric(little of it having a logical or scientific premise).
Any how the point of the following statement.
Is to point out that radical empiricism cannot be applied to the social sciences as there are no constants. Anyone who’s studied some basic economics knows this dilemma. The fact that I have to repeat it to y ou is a testament to the type of research you’ve actually done on the subject.
Your being sarcastic because your definition of Capitalism is actually fascism. Remember we’re the ones using the webster dictionary, not you.
If it happens “within” then it is not “it.” It’s called conflating terms.
Gravity can only happen within a system of matter. Gravity is not matter.
Ya Filc. Except if you remember (I tend to think you’ve intentionally, but subconsciously forgot) I was the one always linking the dictionary definitions. And you and your friends were the ones saying I would “just have to accept (y)our definitions.”