To My Fellow Libertarians,On Improvements Needed in the Movement.

[liberty_student]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Q. But how did that 1% get their purchasing power?
A. By satisfying the needs of the 99%.

In a hypothetical society.

We’re talking about ancap. As I said, you are conflating ancap with an extension of this system. It is not.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

In reality some of that 1% may have. But some of them also recieved there purchasing power through feudal land ownership in europe, state displacement of natives in n. america, and state-capitalist (meaning the capitalists themselves, not the system of capitalism) siezing of native lands in s. america, and if not these direct expropriations of property, then through using state coercion to their benefit. I’m sure asia is no better, but I’m not quite familiar with their history.

This is my issue with leftists. Always concerned with anachronism. You can’t change the past. You can’t go back and right the wrongs against people who have long since died, based on historical accounts which may or may not be accurate and call it a just transition. I had a related debate with Wombatron here sometime last year I believe.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Wealth is created when people exchange something they value less, for something they value more. They are both better off after a voluntary exchange, and so aggregate wealth is increased.

That’s pretty abstract, but ok. I don’t see how any wealth is created if I trade you a stuffed bear for a piece of bubble gum (just our subjective desires fulfilled) tho. I think I was talking about how profits are created tho, and not neccesarilly wealth.

We both profit or we wouldn’t make the trade voluntarily. I want the stuffed bear more than the gum, and you desire the gum more than the stuffed bear. If you didn’t think the bear was worth the gum, you wouldn’t trade it.

We trade, and so we have better organized (without conflict) our property between us, resulting in increased satisfaction for both parties.

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Your long quote did nothing to enlighten me about how socialism is voluntary

My point was that you were mischaracterizing socialism as either marxism, or marxist-leninism. The only non-voluntary part of socialism is in Marx’s (as I said, not all socialists are Marxists) transitionary period (dictatorship of the proletariat; democracy) where the people would use the state to abolish the state;

If you take away my property from me, by resetting all ownership, then that’s not voluntary. If I want to own my capital, and someone stops me, that is not voluntary. If I want to enforce my property rights, and I am stopped, then that is not voluntary.

People can choose socialism in an ancap society, but they cannot choose ancap in a socialist society. One is smaller than the other with regards to freedom and choice.

The copy paste you provided again, did nothing to define socialism, except people trying to organize workers and focus on local structures. What separates socialism from ancap?

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

We’re talking about ancap. As I said, you are conflating ancap with an extension of this system. It is not

Fair enough.

This is my issue with leftists. Always concerned with anachronism. You can’t change the past. You can’t go back and right the wrongs against people who have long since died, based on historical accounts which may or may not be accurate and call it a just transition (marxism, not socialism)

If I steal from you, would you say the same thing? Suppose you didn’t find out about it until I died, but my children were still in possession of the object (let us imagine it is something very important to you), would you let it pass?

We both profit or we wouldn’t make the trade voluntarily. I want the stuffed bear more than the gum, and you desire the gum more than the stuffed bear. If you didn’t think the bear was worth the gum, you wouldn’t trade it.

We trade, and so we have better organized (without conflict) our property between us, resulting in increased satisfaction for both parties.

I don’t see how this trade gives me the ability to go out and get more stuff (while still keeping my gum). I never really thought of what profit is in a barter system. I always intrinsically seen profit as a monetary phenomenon.

If you take away my property from me, by resetting all ownership, then that’s not voluntary. If I want to own my capital, and someone stops me, that is not voluntary. If I want to enforce my property rights, and I am stopped, then that is not voluntary.

First, most social-anarchists are not really about forcible redistribution of property (the intellectual ones anyway).

Second, the question is; if these people are shown to have recieved stolen property (for lack of a better term), is it then ok to take said property back? Is it coercion to bring violence against a criminal?

People can choose socialism in an ancap society, but they cannot choose ancap in a socialist society. One is smaller than the other with regards to freedom and choice

Again, this conflates later developments of socialism, like marxist-leninism, with socialism as a whole. Many socialists see the process as much more transitionary where, when capitalism eats itself (according to their definitions) socialism will be the natural outcome, which will then progress to communism. The forcible breaking up of capitalism came from Lenin, and was only cursory based on Marx’s views of it, especially his earlier views.

Socialism means worker control of the means of production (if every worker owns stock in the company, that’s pretty much socialism), central management is a Bolshevick thing. Marx viewed markets as both the most progressive system ever created, and neccessary for the development of socialism. The way to end the supposed exploitation of the workers wasn’t to end the most productive system ever created, it was to turn the masses into its controlers.

The copy paste you provided again, did nothing to define socialism, except people trying to organize workers and focus on local structures. What separates socialism from ancap?

Good question. And I think it is a good answer to the OP.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Generally, socialists see capitalism and markets as distinct. This is why you will hear them say “an-cap is a contradiction.” To them, capitalism requires a state to protect the capitalist’s interests. Markets are the economics, capitalism is the politics.

I tend to take a slightly different view (capitalism != corporatism), but, just throwing that out there.

[apehead]

@Scott F

Only ideas which benefit the state i.e. either directly in giving it the veil of legitimacy or making it seem like it actually works or should do x.

this doesn’t mean all ideas are evil or false,even if society is dominated by ideas,which it is.

Ah, but this begs the question,

How can one determine which ideas are “true” or “false”, and which are “good” or “evil”?

[filc]

@Liberty Student

Wealth is created when people exchange something they value less, for something they value more. They are both better off after a voluntary exchange, and so aggregate wealth is increased.

@Epicurus

That’s pretty abstract, but ok. I don’t see how any wealth is created if I trade you a stuffed bear for a piece of bubble gum (just our subjective desires fulfilled) tho. I think I was talking about how profits are created tho, and not neccesarilly wealth

This is where praxeology kicks in.

Wealth is not something tangible, it’s subjectively decided. If both parties exchanged voluntarily it follows that both received something of greater value then they had prior to the trade. Were this not the case the trade would never had occurred. The consequence of the trade, as far as subjective valuation is concerned, is that the overall wellfare has increased. The objects in question are now in posession of people who have the most urgent need for said objects.

[filc]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Generally, socialists see capitalism and markets as distinct. This is why you will hear them say “an-cap is a contradiction.” To them, capitalism requires a state to protect the capitalist’s interests. Markets are the economics, capitalism is the politics.

I tend to take a slightly different view (capitalism != corporatism), but, just throwing that out there.

I fail to see how the word market is not a synonym of anarchy. Any thoughts?

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Wealth is not something tangible, it’s subjectively decided. If both parties exchanged voluntarily it follows that both received something of greater value then they had prior to the trade. Were this not the case the trade would never had occurred. The consequence of the trade, as far as subjective valuation is concerned, is that the overall wellfare has increased. The objects in question are now in posession of people who have the most urgent need for said objects.

Yeah, I realized that I wasn’t talking about wealth at all. I was talking more about profits and capital expansion, I think.

Afterall, even if my subjective wealth increases, that does not give me any ability to obtain more goods.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I fail to see how the word market is not a synonym of anarchy. Any thoughts?

I agree. As far an-caps define capitalism (which I largely agree with, our current system is much better characterized as corporatism, fascism minus eugenics, national socialism, or state-capitalism) markets are synonymous with no rulers.

Most socialists do not equate capitalism with simply markets. They view it as bouergouisie (I can’t spell that lol) appropriation of markets protected by the state.

[filc]

@;Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Wealth is not something tangible, it’s subjectively decided. If both parties exchanged voluntarily it follows that both received something of greater value then they had prior to the trade. Were this not the case the trade would never had occurred. The consequence of the trade, as far as subjective valuation is concerned, is that the overall wellfare has increased. The objects in question are now in posession of people who have the most urgent need for said objects.

Yeah, I realized that I wasn’t talking about wealth at all. I was talking more about profits and capital expansion, I think.

Afterall, even if my subjective wealth increases, that does not give me any ability to obtain more goods.

If it was your desire to obtain more goods, you may have decided to restrict your trading, and become thrifty. So in that case you may see a trend towards saving, or a temporary absence of immediate trading.

You may decide to save up many stuffed bears, so that you can trade for higher volume of gum, or higher quality gum in the future. Or perhaps your own gum making machine!

I kind of butted in the middle of that dialogue so sorry if this is completely off-base.

As far as profits go, we’re still talking about subjective valuation.

@Epicirus

that does not give me any ability to obtain more goods.

It may.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

If it was your desire to obtain more goods, you may have decided to restrict your trading, and become thrifty. So in that case you may see a trend towards saving, or a temporary absence of immediate trading.
Yes, but this is saving, not exchange.

[filc]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

Yes, but this is saving, not exchange.

Quite right, which is another form of wealth creation.

It defines the process called Capital Accumulation.

[Libertyandlife]

I just realized something that’s fundamentally different of the relationship between different anarchists and different statists. With statists, different groups can either A) Compromise in some way. B)A certain group “wins” certain laws. However, if all anarchists have voluntaryist ideals (aka, you can have your anarchy if I can have mine, just don’t force me), anarchists will not have the same relationship between each other then statists, because they can BOTH have their own solutions. This would mean the only time different “political” groups could mutually benefit each other completetly by working together.

Ironically different statists are friendlier towards each other then between anarchists.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

Ironically different statists are friendlier towards each other then between anarchists.

You find it more likely for Hannity to work with Michael Moore, than for Ron Paul to work with Chomsky?

[liberty_student]

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I don’t see how this trade gives me the ability to go out and get more stuff (while still keeping my gum). I never really thought of what profit is in a barter system. I always intrinsically seen profit as a monetary phenomenon.

Money is another good. Money qua money, it’s a medium of exchange. An intermediary good which allows people to trade without a double coincidence of wants.

This ^^ is why econ is so important to developing a political and social philosophy.

You can get more stuff by producing more things. But if you want gum and don’t have the means to produce it for yourself, then you will need to trade for it, and unless the person with gum wants whatever it is you have to trade (a dance, a poem, wood carving, blueberries) you will need a medium of exchange (money) to facilitate the transfer.

That’s why seeing “the bosses” or “capitalists” as being different from consumers is very short-sighted. Both parties are trading to their mutual satisfaction. Consumers trade cash, but only because the capitalist can’t scale his business if he only trades with the people who can provide him EXACTLY what he wants (double coincidence of wants).

When you understand money, it helps you understand trade. When you understand money and trade, it’s very difficult to be a socialist.

[Libertyandlife]

Those are extremes Epicurus, but I feel like a regular republican and regular democrat would be willing to work together on certain issues they agree with. I may be wrong.

Of course my last post there would be an exception. It would only work with anarchists. While left or right wing minarchists may have to compromise, anarchists would not have to.

[liberty_student]

filc, I fixed your posts, but however you quote people, breaks threads pretty consistently. I’m not sure how to fix the problem, but it might be real simple. Definitely try to avoid copy pasting with this rich editor. It’s a really lousy solution.

[Libertyandlife]

Wait, actually I may be right. You mentioned Ron Paul and Chomsky. Here’s Chomsky’s opinion of Ron Paul (hint: he’s harsh and obviously ignorant):

http://anarchismtoday.org/News/article/sid=74.html

“his form of libertarianism would be a nightmare, in my opinion, on the dubious assumption that it could even survive for more than a brief period without imploding”

Obviously Chomsky is not as friendly as you are to market anarchists.

[filc]

Hmm I don’t get it. I manually type in [ quote username = “” ], thats all I’m doing? =/

The only copying and pasting I do is from the thread itself, I don’t use any editor of any sort, short of the built in WYSWYG editor here. At any rate things were rending ok for me? What happened?

[liberty_student]

There were DIV tags instead of P tags and that tends to break the forum. Also, I think the typing of the username into the quote tag is creating an issue because I had to use that to fix the last one.

I can keep correcting it, but I thought I would point it out. All the subsequent posts get bolded and look weird when that error happens.

[Epicurus_Ibn_Kalhoun]

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying LS. My position is that there has to be overproduction (more than what the producer is going to consume) for a profit to be made.

If I trade an apple that I would have normally ate, for your orange because I wanted something different, I didn’t make a profit. at least not materially. The material transaction was a wash, the only profit gained was a spiritual one. The key difference is I cannot reinvest my spiritual profit into capital expansion.