I don’t have a problem with Brain Police’s concept of anarchy, not at all. But just as human nature won’t fundamentally change in anarchy, neither will the history that we’ve already been through. That’s why I think an anarchist society would not be radically different from our current society, at least not initially. Over time, changes will accumulate and an anarchist society will eventually start looking very radical, but not at first. My main point is merely that already existing models would be utilized at first, and only then will they start to morph into newer models and innovative structures and communities.
An obvious example would be the roads. The existing roads would obviously be used at first, and only over time would new, alternate road systems develop to meet market needs. Most likely some existing roads would continue to be maintained and used while others would be abandoned and converted to other land uses.
Well, I am referring primarily to anarcho-capitalists who think the current market is the outcome of free enterprise, and that it is therefore justified.
I beg to disagree. I think that a free society would be highly uniform in one and only one aspect - the respect for individual rights. So, anything is possible in a free society as long as individual rights are respected. Now, ask the anarcho-communists if they are willing to respect the property of their neighbours. If they are not so inclined, I don’t see how they can be part of a free society. The same can be asked of so called ‘cultural conservatives’…
The current market is producing what consumers want in the best possible way given the constraints imposed by government. It is as justified as any other market.
Would you then consider, for instance, Apple’s substantial wealth due to IP law (a state-granted monopoly) to be fully justified and a feature of a free market?
Culture in a free state of liberty would be very homogenous. Any change in anything would make people worry about how it will effect their liberty. U.S. is the most prime example of conservative culture and its relation to liberty. The Puritan ideal still haunts America because that was when people felt “free”. I agree with Thomas Jefferson on his “blood of tyrants and patriots are liberty’s manure” quote, because people who are free do not think about liberty as much as people who are not free ( US on this forum). You would never see something like this in an anarchist society, people would not worry about liberty. And when people don’t, that is when it is taken away.
So a change in the ideas of society would reflect fear of losing liberty, because people see the culture they have as a result of liberty, but do not consciously think that. I think that culture would become so static in a free society it would inhibit progress.
This is no defense of having a state, but the coo coo quote from the movie the " 3rd man" I see as having truth too it. Only Oppression leads to Liberty.
I believe that the idea of liberty would not exist if there was never a state. It is only when people are oppressed to they long to be “free” and think of liberty. Which raises the question if it would be better to have liberty and not know it?, or to have it and know that you have it.
If people know that they have it, pluralism would dominate, If people had it but didn’t know the concept of liberty, I think culture would be static.
It’s amazing that Apple can make money selling overpriced copies of ordinay gadgets. I guess people are just that snob. On the other hand the fact that competition is outlawed by IP laws clearly shows that Apple is not really a free-market entity - despite Stranger’s opinions.
And you see no problem whatsoever in Apple possessing a monopolistic privilege in the form of IP laws, Stranger? What of Blackwater and its privileged position? Or Wal-Mart, and its clamouring for a higher minimum wage? When the State is actually out of the picture, and firms compete solely on their merit, I’ll wholeheartedly agree with you; but I don’t see why market anarchism should resemble the status quo except in those areas where it already approximates a free market; something many large corporations do not fall under.
You’re following the same perfect market fallacy of academic economists, the idea that just because there isn’t a pure free market (there can never be such a thing) that the actual market doesn’t provide the goods that people want.
The problem of privileges is separate of the problem of earned wealth. Apple plays the same rules as everyone else. So long as those are the rules, they have to play. That makes them no better or no worse than you and I.
People who derive their earnings from government granted privileges are not legitimate market players - that much should be self-evident. Absent IP laws Apple would probably make less money than they do now.
As you reluctantly admit, you don’t know that for sure. Apple could find many others ways of protecting its intellectual property.
A perfect market is a chimera. Even if the state is abolished, there will always be some individuals who are favored by circumstances more than others. That doesn’t mean that the wealth they earn by selling goods is illegitimate.
Sorry, I say ‘probably’ because they may find other legitimate ways of making money. However, since the real Apple rely on government protection, they show by their actions that they actually prefer to be partners of the state than earn their money in a honest way.
Besides you are also confused as to what a ‘perfect market’ is. When academics talk about a ‘perfect market’ what they are advocating is a so called level playing field - a form of socialism. On the other hand, the strict enforcement of property rights that libertarians advocate can’t be regarded as a ‘perfect market’ - property rights are the precondition for a market.
You said in another thread that Enron benefited from government regulation. I don’t see why you don’t want to admit that Apple do just the same thing.
Hold on a second here! Apple doesn’t make money off of some special privledge the government provides. They make money off of a product that people like and are willing to pay for. They don’t enjoy some protected privledge because they hold a patent. That isn’t why they they control 85-90% of the market. They control the market because they have a better product than anyone else. But they aren’t the only ones with MP3 players. Microsoft has the Zune (which I think is better anyway). Then you have a dozen others from Creative Labs, Archos, Sony, Samsung, iScan, ScanDisk, Coby, ZEN, Panasonic, Toshiba, iRiver, etc., etc. The money Apple earns off of their devices isn’t because the state has granted them a special privledge. They earn money, legitimate money, because they have a product that people want and they view is the best value for their money.
Even if they didn’t have a patent you still couldn’t rip off their design and their technology.
Everyone is in bed with the state, for the simple reason that the state has a monopoly on several essential goods. Unless someone is actively working to protect this monopoly, they are not illegimate members of the market. They are just looking out for their self-interests, just like you are.
Even without a state, there would never be perfect enforcement of property rights. Some people would have better protection than others. That is what is implied by the fact that some property protectors are more efficient than others.
Sure, but then why defend the current arrangement as the model of market anarchism? How market anarchism plays out in practice may be very similar, and it may be radically different. I can see the virtue in defending firms whose profits are beyond question, but what is the gain of defending Blackwater as the model PDA, for instance? Vulgar libertarians tend to defend the current situation using free market theory, when a free market scarcely even exists.
The problem with leftist-anarchists is that they see expropriation and destruction of property as legitimate actions. See, for example, this little gemstone from a Marxist website: sabotage. Notice that the lady is wearing an A on her cap. We, on the other hand, regard such actions as criminal, and entirely inconsistent with liberty.
As for me, I prefer “libertarian” over “anarchist”, so as to distinguish us from the eco-terrorists and cop-killers.