Did anyone die of shock?
I don’t understand how your not an anarchocapitalist if:
A) You don’t think government should exist.
B)You endorse free markets.
Do you believe in some type of mechanism for controlling the market? A different view of what free markets are?
In my personal opinion, my differences are mostly with the culture of an-cap. I think many of its adherents simply don’t like poor people. I agree with much of the methodology and theory. Just many of the conclusions drawn by some of the more cultural conservatives I find to be very distatsteful.
Well, it should first be established that anarcho-capitalism, at least in the Rothbardian sense (a more Friedmanite sense may be a bit different), assumes a certain general view on property rights that colors what the concept of “government” and “free markets” ends up meaning. Since I don’t believe in neo-lockean land property (in fact, I think it’s compatible with statism and anarcho-capitalists generally don’t realize it), this immediately disqualifies me as an anarcho-capitalist at least in this sense. I think that even if the state’s territory was homesteaded, it’s authority would still be illegitimate (I.E. the absolute decision-making power and all of the functions associated with it), while the implication of Rothbard’s views stated in “For A New Liberty” and “The Ethics of Liberty” seems to imply that it would become legitimate while it’s status as a state is semantically defined out of existence at that point. But if it functions like a state, I don’t see how “homesteading” makes a difference. As such, I hold the view that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is really just another form of statism with a new standard for legitimacy, and that the propertarian position is compatible with violating people’s personal autonomy via appeal to the authority of land owners.
I also think that the non-aggression principle is not an axiom (because it’s not a first principle that doesn’t rely on other concepts), that most of the attempt to philosophically support it are rife with flaws (especially argumentation ethics and UPB), and that it suffers from serious ambiguity. The demarkation between aggression and non-aggression, or between initiation and defense, inherently depends on and is colored by other concepts and norms (Gene Callahan was smart enough to wake up to this fact). Especially differenting views on property rights radically effect what ends up counting as aggression and what the non-aggression principle amounts to. Consequently, libertarianism fragments into a multiplicity of incompatible views that are only superficially united by a rhetorical opposition to aggression. Also, as a result of this, anti-state ideology fragments, with there being differences about what really constitutes a state.
There are more pluralistic and less ethics-based versions of anarcho-capitalism, ones that sound a bit more like panarchy, that sort of reduce to treating law and enforcible norms as a commodity on the market in and of itself, but I think that this kind of position either amounts to communitarianism or is likewise compatible with any concievable form of governance (including absolutism), basically imploding the concept of anarchy into incoherancy. By ceasing to treat liberty as a disambiguated moral standard, this position basically amounts to open-ended barbarism in which there are a bunch of local mini-states that can take the form of anything from monarchy to democracy to theocracy. The background of a book like “Snow Crash” exemplifies this kind of dystopia. It is basically legal pluralism and localism taken to the point of the absurd.
I like poor people. I was poor most of my life. I’m far from a cultural conservative. Does that mean I’m not an anarcho-capitalist? Oops, I guess I’m a leftist. You know I see my self as an anarcho-capitalist because I believe it’s the only way to truly redistribute wealth fairly and efficiently.
Screw cultural differences. I don’t understand how anyone can associate culture with anarchist views. It seems shallow. Everyone is different.
@Brainpolice. Very interesting. So ancap with georgist/mutualist overtones? I’m assuming you have a blog of some sort if you post so much. I’ll be checking that out.
BP do you have a theory of property that you endorse?
Yes, but it’s limited.
It seems the market anarchist school is much more diverse then one would think. That’s a lot for such a small group of people.
^So what’s your theory of property.
I like poor people. I was poor most of my life. I’m far from a cultural conservative. Does that mean I’m not an anarcho-capitalist? Oops, I guess I’m a leftist. You know I see my self as an anarcho-capitalist because I believe it’s the only way to truly redistribute wealth fairly and efficiently.
And that is well and good. But this is the culture I’m referring to as well. This whole aspect of snarky out of context comebacks. Did I say that cultural conservatism = an-cap? No, I said there is a culture around an-cap of conservatism and prejudice, and it makes me see it as jaded.
I have no problem with Rothbardian theory, or an-cap in general. Whatever gets coercion out of people’s lives, even if just al little bit, is a-ok with me. \
Screw cultural differences. I don’t understand how anyone can associate culture with political views. It’s shallow.
That would be like saying racists, if given the chance, wouldn’t legally disenfranchise minorities. I think one’s cultural views highly influence their politics. It is what leads you to anarchy imo because you reject the initiation of violence, and are tolerant of people’s individuality.
Just cause a person smokes pot, is gay, or something else that is not important, doesn’t mean anything. Suddenly people who have the same political ideas are bourgesie? (Not that I’m gay).
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. If you have the choice to either work, or live off dividends from capital (rather than just work) you are bourgie, regardless of your political affiliations. Just because a rich man’s son donates to charity doesn’t make him a prole.
That’s another point I would like to get across. Class conflict is less about the people in the class than it is about the classes themselves. Ownership is always trying to disendfranchise workers (so it can satisfy consumers better) with lower wages and harsher working and living conditions. It’s ___ the system, not ___ Bill Gates.
^You mention culture, so the last part was just a weak attempt to give examples of ancaps that do not fit the cultural conservatism mold. Forgive me, I’ve been very busy today.
Absolutely incorrect. This is neither supported by empirical evidence nor economic theory. Businessmen do not determine wage rates in capitalistic competitive systems, profit is not the result of exploitation, and high worker morale is very profitable.
Not georgist in that I don’t focus on “ground rent” or propose a single tax, but certainly similar to georgism in that there is a skepticism toward land property (my hangups about land property have to do with authority over people within territories).
My blog is linked on my profile, but I haven’t posted there for months. But there is over 2 years of material there.
Absolutely incorrect. This is neither supported by empirical evidence nor economic theory.
How many businessmen do you know that are pro-union (and not just in the “our current unions exploit” but not collective bargaining at all)?
How about the Chicago fire when they were accused of chaining the doors shut?
Have you ever went through the process of worker’s comp? The business’ lawyers will do everything they can to not pay you a dime.
Many economists use their theory to say that raising wages in fact is detrimental to the business.
How can you honestly say ownership does not work against labor?
Businessmen do not determine wage rates in capitalistic competitive systems
No, but they play a large role in it. Wages are determined by competition between laborers is what you’re getting at, I take it? Who determines who wins said competition? I find supply to play a much larger role
profit is not the result of exploitation
I never said it was. I simply said ownership and labor are in constant conflict over who should recieve the larger share of said (gross) profits.
and high worker morale is very profitable
Ya, if only we could get more businesses to realize that. We’ve all worked jobs. We all know most places of business could care less if the people there are happy outside of work. Worker morale could be friendly people and vacations, it doesn’t neccesarily entail a good standard of living.
So how do you suggest the free market should be run? Can the free market even be controlled in anarchy? It seems like it would be entirely up to the population. I mean look at Somalia. That’s market anarchy to a degree, but it’s not Rothbardian ideally.
We can talk about all this stuff, but I wonder how it’ll actually play out in real life.
Being pro-union =/= being pro labor. Unions are labor cartels that increase the remuneration of their own members at the expense of those that are not part of their organization (the outsiders). Wage rates are determined by the productivity of labor at the margin, which is, in turn, determined by the total degree and sophistication of capital. The average American gets paid so much more than the average Indian, not because of labor unions, but because America has accumulated that much more sophisticated capital. Being pro-labor means being pro-capital accumulation.
Is this a serious comment? This doesn’t even begin to address the fact that high worker morale is extremely profitable, which is why firms frequently offer wages above productivity levels (endogenous wage rigidity/efficiency wage theory). Letting all of your laborers die in a fire is extremely unprofitable, and it wont draw additional labor towards your firm. But either way, for every one firm that purposely kills its employees, there are thousands of firms that try to make their employees happy (Ikea, Google, Microsoft, Ford, my local grocery store, etc, etc).
Nope. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Nope.
Businesses that don’t realize this arbitrarily place themselves at a disadvantage and will suffer. Ford was able to dominate his market, in part, because he made his workers happy. Simply put, businessman try to do what’s profitable, which is why so many donate to charitable causes (charity is good PR), and high worker morale is profitable.
[EDIT]
My problem with leftists (for lack of a better term), besides the fact that they’re almost always ignorant of economic theory, is that they hold onto an untenable theory of social organization, that’s entirely disconnected from reality. Their narrative is one of exploitation and conflict. But society is defined by, for the most part, completely voluntary cooperation and mutually beneficial interactions. No one forces you to join society. You are free to live as a hermit in the mountains somewhere, and yet you’re here. Society is so efficient, that even government has been unable to make isolation a superior condition (yet).
BP I read half of http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2010/04/propertarianism-voluntaryism-and.html and I agree on your take on propertarianism. However I think even the so called absolute propertarians aren’t absolute. There can’t be absolute ownership of anything ever. Saying that property is absolute is as silly as life is absolute; saying that one can own something forever is as silly as saying one can own the entire universe. There’s always going to be limits in ethical theories no matter what a human says, because human action itself is limited.
So I think you should just drop the talk against propertarianism and rather focus on theories of property and ethics themselves.
Unions are labor cartels that increase the remuneration of their own members at the expense of those that are not part of their organization (the outsiders).
Seriously? “Hey, members of this local plant here, we should unionize so we can have a better positioning at the bargaining table” is equivalent to “let’s unionize so we can keep everyone who doesn’t work here at a lower wage.” That has to be a joke, right? If unions renumerate their own members at the expense of other laborers, then it is just as valid to say boards of directors renumerate their own members at the expense of their workers. I don’t think either of those statements are valid.. maybe in a slight, indirect way, but that’s it.
Wage rates are determined by the productivity of labor at the margin, which is, in turn, determined by the total degree and sophistication of capital. The average American gets paid so much more than the average Indian, not because of labor unions, but because America has accumulated that much more sophisticated capital. Being pro-labor means being pro-capital accumulation
Perhaps you could elaborate a little further? How does it not fit into businesses deciding wages based upon the productive output v costs of labor that businesses will in turn pay the least amount possible to the rank-and-file that allows their business to attract new laborers? Isn’t that the basis of all buying and selling, to buy low?
This doesn’t even begin to address the fact that high worker morale is extremely profitable
No, it doesn’t. It addresses the fact that ownership is in constant conflict with labor over compensation and working standards.
Letting all of your laborers die in a fire is extremely unprofitable, and it wont draw additional labor towards your firm.
They didn’t think about the fire at all when they chained the doors. They just didn’t want workers taking breaks (working standards).
But either way, for every one firm that purposely kills its employees, there are thousands of firms that try to make their employees happy (Ikea, Google, Microsoft, Ford, my local grocery store, etc, etc).
I agree. But I think it is erroneous that the demands of labor don’t play a large role in that. As you said yourself, worker morale is profitable.. because workers like good standards of living/working. The stronger worker demand is, the stronger worker morale will tend to be.
Nope. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
“Well, just to be clear, we’re talking about worker productivity, which is how much stuff we make every hour,” Barshay replied. “And the Labor Department reported this morning that the hourly output per worker increased 4.9 percent in the third quarter. That’s the biggest jump in labor productivity we’ve seen since 2003. Another part of the report also says that labor costs fell a bit, so we’ve got employees being more productive and costing companies less. And this is important because it shows that the economy might be able to grow without generating inflation.”
In fact, I don’t. I didn’t say all, or most, I said many. I didn’t even say whether their economics were sound, merely that some economists do attempt to make the argument.
Nope.
Wages are created by the productive capacity of labor at the margins (the efficiency of hiring additional labor power), union wages are detrimental because it supposedly disenfranchises non-union labor (same for min wage and non-skilled labor, supposedly)… and yet wages are not determined by competition over hiring?
Businesses that don’t realize this arbitrarily place themselves at a disadvantage and will suffer. Ford was able to dominate his market, in part, because he made his workers happy. Simply put, businessman try to do what’s profitable, which is why so many donate to charitable causes (charity is good PR), and high worker morale is profitable.
Not many will disagree with you here. It still does not mean businesses try to pay the lowest costs they can to increase their profits (and that labor is a cost). A business could be paying their workers $15m/yr, it doesn’t mean that’s what they want to pay. If it were possible, that pay rate would drop fast.
My problem with leftists (for lack of a better term), besides the fact that they’re almost always ignorant of economic theory, is that they hold onto an untenable theory of social organization, that’s entirely disconnected from reality.
Just one second;
Their narrative is one of exploitation and conflict. But society is defined by, for the most part, completely voluntary cooperation and mutually beneficial interactions.
Then what’s your problem with the state? Most of society is defined by cooperation, so what does the state matter? Is there not a conflict between the state (and the political class) and the economy? Does the state not try to exploit the market?
No one forces you to join society.
Yes they do. Have you ever heard of vagrancy laws? Even besides that, my parents tried, my teachers tried, my “boss” (im self-employed, it’s not really a boss) tries, the system itself tells me if I want to eat anything other than squirrels and berries that I have to. What is this nonsense?
You are free to live as a hermit in the mountains somewhere,
No, you’re not. If it is someone’s property they can force you off of it (not that this is wrong or anything). Most of america has vagrancies laws. That claim is erroneous at best.
and yet you’re here. Society is so efficient, that even government has been unable to make isolation a superior condition (yet).
We’re humans, we create societies. Isolation is rarely anyone’s (subjective) “superior condition.”
@ Brainpolice & Epicurus
A lot of this seems to be simply attitudes, how do your views differ from “orthodox” market anarchist views in real life? Examples of situations that may play out differently.
I’m not grouping you together. though.
Not much. But we take a lot of heat because we stand up for workers/the poor (or I do anyway) in real-time, as opposed to some distant fantasy land where capital has expanded. I also don’t try to disconnect rising living standards from the populist movement’s that demanded them. Nor do I define capitalism as distinct from statism, and conflate socialism with statism (if the USSR was socialist, than the US is capitalist. in fact, both are statist versions of the pure theorys).
So it’s just definitions. I could care less. A socialist friend of mine we’re talking about these useless labels. He told me thought government was whatever system arises. Whatever, it’s not a big enough difference to me to give it a bigger label. You don’t have enough in common with the anarchist socialists. You guys don’t split off from Rothbard enough for me. Your anarchocapitalists to me, whatever it means to you. Lol all this time I thought you were some sort of mutualist or ancom. No wonder Liberty Student gets into all these bs arguments about bs.
Or I am going to just use what I consider the neo anarchists without adjectives word to use: voluntaryism. I’m actually writing something about this, I really think the term should be used as sort of a pan anarchist label between all anarchists, not just those who like Rothbard.