Some choice quotes from anarcho-capitalists (from the Mises Forum)

Economics Political Theory
121

Lyrics by the Kotton Mouth Kings;

Now, don’t get me wrong the 10 Commandments is cool,
See once upon a time I too believed in the Golden Rule
(Unemployment figures at an all time high) but
Their nation dwindled, society’s swindle
Got tossed the __out the window.
You know what I’m saying?..

It’s time for some realization,
Not fueled by media manipulations…

__your pensions if you’re paid, pay attention
Teachers of this land, yo your all on detention
You failed to mention about this everyday struggle,
Placed me in a bubble but it popped on the double,
Now your in trouble cause I’m older now I’m bolder now,
__ I’m a soldier now
Been raised to blaze in the sinful place,
Like a greyhound’s raised to race, it’s a disgrace

I’ve seen people stomped till there’s no life left,
I’ve seen heads kicked in for the words that they said
Police cracking skulls with no questions asked,
A suicidal shot from a shotgun blast
I didn’t have nothing to do with them homes that got bought
I didn’t have shit to do with the bombs that they dropped
I didn’t have nothing to do with the land that got stole
believe me mother__, I see right through your mind control

I won’t drown, drown, drown in your society
High times, it’s a high society
Lies, lies everyone keeps trying me
Why wont they just let me be? It’s a high society

First of all lets get this straight, this systems full of __,
They say ‘In God we trust’, your a __ hypocrite
Crooked politicians lying out their ass
Money hungry whores behind the doors smoking grass
No trust in the nation, trust in the nation
Spending all the money on the __ immigration
Walls caving in it’s getting hard to breathe
51-50’s what this system’s done to me!

Now a nation that’s stolen, can never be golden
Compassion’s not true in, in this shell of modern ruin.
Modern industry, the industrial complex
A system of no balance, and not enough checks
Diseased plan, transmitted through sex
Revelation through fruition
Can you pay the tuition? Can you make the grade ?
Is life really all about getting paid?
Money can’t buy nothing buried in a grave
Slave driven, unforgiven
The more you make, the better your livin’
So it’s all role-playing, playing roles, grave diggers diggin’ holes
Genetics strange, passed down through years of pain
So the cure you seek for the mentally weak is just the norm
As we weather the storm, so it’s conform or suffer

I think that’s a good way to put it, for the most part.

122

Honeslty LIberty, we should just stop using labels altogether. I call myself an anarchist because I make up my mind for myself; no rulers. But as far as what that means in practice, I don’t find any school adequately fits that. Voluntaryism could work, but then you get into debates on whether one can voluntarily sell themselves into slavery; I reject it.

123

Lol Kottonmouth Kings, is this what they rap about when they are talking about getting stoned?

I believe this is more appropriate:

http://eltmon.org/2008/11/02/the-usual-terminology-of-political-language-is-stupid/

124

Made a new thread since there’s so much spam in here, and because this thread is not about the labor market (I’m not sure what this thread is about, really). I would appreciate if you responded here, Response to Epicurus ibn Kalhoun

125

But voluntaryist sounds nicer. Then again anarchist is an old school term.

126

Lol Kottonmouth Kings, is this what they rap about when they are talking about getting stoned?

I believe this is more appropriate:

Ha, it came on while I was typing my last reply. It seemed to fit my description of myself as rejecting any coercive authority over the individual.

127

I mean you could’ve put up some Immortal Technique or something, it would probably be more appropriate. But w.e. The lyrics aren’t that bad.

128

If wages were determined by bargaining power then unions could potentially elevate wages. Let me repeat my self: if there was a total fixed amount of “surplus,” which had to be distributed amongst varying classes (typically land, labor and capital), and the remuneration to each class was determined by bargaining power, then unions would be capable of increasing the remuneration to labor. But this theory of wages, namely the “wage-fund theory of wages” has been entirely refuted. Wages are determined solely by the marginal product of labor which is a function of capital per worker and the sophistication of capital.

Unions do elevate wages, for thier members. There is also a case for their strengthening worker demands for wages across the board. Standard of living is a relative thing.

These terms like “function of capital per worker” have real meanings in people’s lives. They determine how much productivity will be potentially gained by the introduction of more labor, and how it effects costs/gains.

Organize your capital in increasingly efficient combinations.

I feel like that could include stock options, and/or lower wages for management. There may not be some fixed “surplus” that determines wages. But there are real profits, and their is real compeition between various parts of the company over those profits as compensation (it happens evertime someone asks their boss for a raise or promotion). Ownership has the highest bargaining power, and recieves by far the largest dividends.

Prices are not determined by decree. The entrepreneur, at least in the long run, does not get to choose how much he will sell his products for. For example, the market clearing price of commodity “y” is “p.” The entrepreneur may decide to increase his revenues by selling commodity “y” for “4p.” But this entrepreneur is mistaken, because this will not increase his revenues at all; in fact, it may very well cause his revenue to collapse entirely (consumers prefer lower prices, all other things equal). The entrepreneur now has a choice: (a) he can continue to charge “4p” for his product (4x higher than his competitors and the market clearing position) and go out of business, or (b) he can lower his price and make a profit.

How does this translate to busineses wanting to pay the least amount of wages possible to their workers, while still mainting efficiency?

The same is true for wages. For example: I just graduated college, and if a potential employer, during a job interview, offers me $200 a year as a salary, I will turn him down and look for employment elsewhere.

Let’s assume $200 is an appropriate wage for a second. So now he offers you 200, you say 250. He really values your potential, he wants you at the job, but he needs to profit. So he offers you 235. His intent is always going to be to pay the best workers he can find the least amount possible, it’s called maximizing profits.

Assume that the equilibrium wage rate (when it’s equal to the marginal product of labor) is “x,” and that all entrepreneurs collude and decide to pay their workers “x/4” in order to increase their profit margins. Now the first thing that’s going to happen is that workers that value their leisure above this arbitrarily suppressed wage rate simply won’t work. They will leech off others or demand welfare.

That’s a pretty broad jump. Why won’t they start their own businesses, or go on strike? Why won’t they just go home and grow their own crops and live “off the grid?” This is the conservative culture I’m talking about; the natural assumption that everyone is just trying to leech off the capitalist class. It’s like the marxist view of capitalists trying to leech off the productive class. It’s simply a biased definition of human nature that tries to say noone actually wants to be productive, they just have to.

*which is why unions would never exist, for any extended period of time*

Nobody said they had to. I have repeatedly said I don’t accept any plutocracy deciding people’s lives for them as beneficial.

Some businesses, though, know that offering a wage above the equilibrium level (efficiency wages) elevates morale and, in turn, will increase productivity and profitability (elevates agency problems). But this also causes macroeconomic problems in labor market.

Or you could streamline management, and use the extra proceeds to go to worker stock-options, or pension plans, or something. But alas, any extra proceeds go to ownership first, maybe labor after depending on market conditions.

Nope. A single murder does not prove that society is characterized solely by conflict and aggression. Again, for every one horrific example you can regurgitate, I can respond with 1000 examples that prove otherwise.

Hey guys, we shouldn’t worry about the holocaust because for every Jew that was killed, there were 50 people born. We actually came out ahead if you think about it… /sardonism

Good things happening do not mean the bad things are ok.

No one says that free markets will eliminate stupidity.

I’ll agree with you there

129

Epicurus, please respond here, Response to Epicurus ibn Kalhoun

130

Ya, I was trying to. I had a connection issue lol. It’s there now

131

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.

This seems like a rejection of the idea of the “unseen,” which is the basis for much of Austrian economics. And since capital has been expanding in America for the past 200 years, and the poor are better off now than 200 years ago, isn’t right now the “distant fantasy land” you’re talking about?

I also don’t try to disconnect rising living standards from the populist movement’s that demanded them.

Again, this seems like a rejection of Austrian economics and the Misesian conclusion that rising living standards are a product of capitalism, not labor movements that benefit one group at the expense of the rest of society.

132

Seems like the thread has moved on, but just for the sake of clarification, I never said the value of a 50$ bill was subjective. I merely said that it was currency, and as such not subject to the same principles and laws as commodities. Even Misesians acknowledge that fact.

133

This seems like a rejection of the idea of the “unseen,” which is the basis for much of Austrian economics. And since capital has been expanding in America for the past 200 years, and the poor are better off now than 200 years ago, isn’t right now the “distant fantasy land” you’re talking about?

Sure, it is. But still there is work to be done. Like I said, I’m concerned with prosperity in real time.

Again, this seems like a rejection of Austrian economics and the Misesian conclusion that rising living standards are a product of capitalism, not labor movements that.

I do reject this assertion. Capital expansion and technological progress are a product of the market, but the amount of compensation going to labor was not nor would have been nearly as dramatic (if noticeable at all) without labor movements. Just because capital expands and gets more sophisticated doesn’t mean the share in profits off capital are being spread more evenly.

Or are you saying those given strikers would have gotten raises without striking?

134

I was briefly attracted to Max Stirner, but I’ve concluded that his philosophy is mostly nonsense dressed up with rhetoric appealing to people’s desire to rebel against anything outside their arbitrary whims, with very little in the way of actual argumentation.

Ontological Egoism is an existential reality, not some half baked hipster political theory. And morality and ethics are in a very literal sense of the word nonsense when used in any logical argument. They simply can not be spoken of with any coherent sense (much like God). Important nonsense, perhaps, but nonsense all the same.

Do not confuse Ontological egoism with some form of radical skepticism or cosmological nihilism it is neither of the two, and is in fact in direct opposition. Do not confuse ontological egoism with some “being a bastard nihilist for the sake of being a bastard”…In Stirner’s own words (from Stirner’s critics) an egoist still can have devotion, be a “socialist”, or whatever.

135

As of right now, this has the status of a bald-faced assertion, as does most of Stirnerism. In either case, I don’t think anyone or any particular criteria can function as an arbiter demarkating what can and cannot have meaning (and, btw, despite being an atheist, I maintain that religious language has meaning). I just consider that linguistic nazism, usually based on some bunk attempt at reductionism or the pretense of being concrete. The logical positivists failed at this, and I don’t see other attempts doing much better. A healthy dose of Wittgenstein and some humility should cure this.

Well, yes, this is exactly why Stirnerism is a politically useless and vacuous notion, as it is compatible with literally anything on the grounds that it is what you whimsically favor (as opposed to an alleged “fixed idea” that is above your precious concrete ego), and it cannot produce any normative guidelines or point you in any particular direction. But, of course, Stirner’s “voluntary egoist” is a mythical creature, as it is impossible to psychologically and epistemologically transcend social constructs and somehow be a pure “unique one”. The notion flies in the face of the very nature of language and thought. Everyone is an “involuntary egoist”.

136

Thanks for the clarification.

137

This. My opponents frequently try to make it about me or my style (an aesthetic) and rarely my arguments. It’s a non-argument, and generally a big waste of all of our time.

I was reading up on Tim Ferriss who is sympathetic to the ideas of the stoics, and he had a list of principles for dealing with haters, and they are quite good in my opinion.

  1. It doesn’t matter how many people don’t get it. What matters is how many people do.
  2. 10% of people will find a way to take anything personally. Expect it.
  3. “Trying to get everyone to like you is a sign of mediocrity.” (Colin Powell)
  4. “If you are really effective at what you do, 95% of the things said about you will be negative.” (Scott Boras)
  5. “If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid.” (Epictetus)
  6. “Living well is the best revenge.” (George Herbert)
  7. Keep calm and carry on.
Is This Principled Libertarianism (Walter Block on Child Abuse)?
138

A healthy dose of Wittgenstein and some humility should cure thi

Are we going to speak of the same Wittgenstein who called ethics “transcendental” in Tractus? I am non cognitive as to how one can seperate Wittgenstein from Stirner. The logic is one and the same. Wittgenstein, by his own admission, was a great admirer and under much infuence of Kierkegaard. It is all part of the same concern for inter-subjectivism.

As for humility, you really want to speak of judging other people ethically by crumby theoretical linguistic lifeboat situations? It is absurd to the nth degree on level after level and it runs the risk of being nothing more than Shumpeteresque intellectualism at its most base, dangerous, and ugly. Ethics are personal and trancendental if they are to be thought of at all.

I just consider that linguistic nazism, usually based on some bunk attempt at reductionism or the pretense of being concrete

No, No that would be some type of ontological nihilism or something. A materialistic egoist would say there is simply a recatagorization of facts within logical space. It is contextualism and perspectivism, not so much reductionism. We are I suppose more in the world of Nietzsche, rather than the world of the positivists.

politically useless

I consider this a redundant phrase. I consider Stirner to be radically apolitical if a political tag is going to be given to him. Don’t blame Stirner for a bunch of half-wits giving him the term “anarchist” (an already silly and counter productive political term by almost any standard). If anything though hopefully a reading of him will make one realize the hopelessly silly little politcal positions of the Enlightenment and the German Idealists.

as it is compatible with literally anything on the grounds that it is what you whimsically favor

As opposed to what other type of favor, a non whimsical one?

But, of course, Stirner’s “voluntary egoist” is a mythical creature, as it is impossible to psychologically and epistemologically transcend social constructs and somehow be a pure “unique one” . Everyone is an “involuntary egoist”.

Umm “render unto Ceaser”? Hmm, I think you are still too concerned with some political position, or some violation of a personal aesthetic. While thinking of grand political schemes or totally sweet social situations beyond any power I have other than writing about them over the internet may be kind of fun, it is better to read Stirner as an existentialist rather than a political theorist. If you wish to label him in politics the phrase “apolitcal” is probably the best word that could be used.