Comments (182)

• Reactionary

  There is no such thing as a "right to property" outside a human community whose inhabitants respect the rule of law. Anarcho-capitalists who call for recognition and protection of these purely human rights aren't really anarchists, they're minarchists. The anarcho-communists are just trying to be intellectually consistent. QED, Rothbard's argument against them is practical, not principled.

  Published: June 2, 2006 9:20 AM

• Dan

  Reactionary-

  If you are saying that rights only exist to the extent that the community respects them, why go so far as to imply they exist at all? If they don't exist there is nothing there to respect and your statement is meaningless. If they do, then they exist whether or not they are respected.

  Furthermore, if they do exist, then the rights-holder has more than just the one recourse you mention (the institution of law). Physical violence to defend the threatened right is also an option.

  Published: June 2, 2006 9:58 AM

• David C

  
  The movement may be a political tatic. Try to lump libertarians together with other violent radical groups that hate rights and property so as to nutralize people who are pro liberty.

  Published: June 2, 2006 10:11 AM

• Ulrich Hobelmann

  To quote Frank Zappa: "Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." Just don't argue about this with any left-anarchist.

  I totally agree on Rothbard's view. I've had my fair share of arguments both with "normal" leftists, and with left-wing anarchists. They are consistent in claiming that property is bad, and that it leads to exploitation (at this moment they usually point to industrialization; when you ask them why everybody actively *went* from the country to the cities, and when you imply that clearly there was a *choice* involved between living life as before (they did live before the big capitalists came out of nowhere, didn't they?), and going to work in the factories, they change the topic).

  Still, there is the axiom that property must be bad, but OTOH anarchists want freedom from central government who could enforce this "freedom" from property. At this point I like to pose the question, what will happen to more libertarian people?

  There is no answer, only silence. It seems that these people only have a longing for a utopian world that's first and foremost *unlike this one*. But they can never explain how that's supposed to work. How can they abolish property, when there is no violent government to take my belongings from me? They also never answer why it would even be *right* or *moral* to take my belongings from me (yes yes, my property is stolen! what an absolutely absurd point of view...). They also don't answer how economy would work at all, when I'm not even allowed to own a bike or a computer (would I have to hold an election to find out if I'm allowed to use the computer right now?).

  Basically, it's not worth argueing or wasting your time with left-anarchists, because they never talk anything to the consistent end. There's always some magic involved, but of course their dream world is much better than reality!

  Published: June 2, 2006 10:14 AM

• Reactionary

  Dan,

  Property rights do not exist in the state of nature. In the state of nature, you simply have what you have. A right to property exists only as a concept among humans who accept God's injunction against theft. (Rationalists purport to have a different basis, but since they can provide no a priori reason to be rational, their attempt at intellectual bootstrapping must fail.)

  Again, greatly summarized, property means community and community means rules, and rules mean, inevitably, that someone must on occasion cede their view of their rights to someone else. This is minarchy, not anarchy.

  Published: June 2, 2006 10:14 AM

• Don B

  This is a great quote from the piece, "At the root of all forms of communism, compulsory or voluntary, lies a profound hatred of individual excellence, a denial of the natural or intellectual superiority of some men over others, and a desire to tear down every individual to the level of a communal ant-heap. In the name of a phony "humanism", an irrational and profoundly anti-human egalitarianism is to rob every individual of his specific and precious humanity."

  But I think it could be more easily summarized that at the root of all forms of communism lies a lack of self-esteem.

  Published: June 2, 2006 10:19 AM

• Curt Howland

  Ulrich, I think it would come down to self-defense. If the state were to be eliminated, the property-rights individuals would still be trading, creating profits, wealth, productivity.
  

  Those who deny private property would be doing the same thing they do now, bitching and moaning and trying to live off of other people.
  

  Unless the parasitic-types join together in a big enough mob as makes "government" a defacto reality, the productive rights-respecting types will simply defend themselves and their property against expropriation by "looters" and "thieves".
  

  The reason that "rape", "looting" and "theft" exist as concepts at all is the assumption of private property first.

  Published: June 2, 2006 10:24 AM

• Don B

  Dan:

  What if God had been distracted that day and only handed down nine commandments, forgetting the one on theft? Would that mean theft would not be immoral? Or how about murder?

  Rationality, in the most bassic sense, simply means recognizing reality for what it is and living in a manner that is consistent with reality and the values you want to achieve within it. I.e., if you want to live, don't jump in front of a bus. Why? Because the nature of reaility is such that thousands of pounds of metal slamming into flesh tends to result in death. One can argue about whether or not God created that reality, but you don't need God's commandments for morality within that reality. Reality is a harsh judge. Try to live in a manner incosinstent with it--say jumping in front of a bus or practicing communism--and it will punish you for your lack of rationality, i.e., your willingness to live in a manner incosnsistent with reality. Even human action isn't axiomatic (ala Mises), it's dependent on the nature of existence and the type of beings we are--those are the axioms. The need for productive action flows from there--the need is an obvious truth, but not axiomatic in nature.(again, try to deny the need. Reality will spank you, regardless of what God does or does not do or say).

  Published: June 2, 2006 10:32 AM

• Roger M

  Don--"...you don't need God's commandments for morality..." The greatest philosophers of the 19th and 20th century disagree with you. A large part of part of philosophy has been devoted to attempting to discover a universal morality without God. They all concluded that it's impossible, especially Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre.

  That doesn't mean that people will not act in a moral way, or as if morals doe exist, because humans have a natural moral sense. But it does mean that without God, they don't have a rationale for acting morally.

  Most philosophers have agreed that to have real morals, the rules must come from an authority greater than man that has the power to enforce them. Without God, we're left with just agreements or contract between humans, none of whom possess authority or power to enforce over another.

  A large number of philosophers, including libertarians, have tried to build a "moral" code by reasoning from particulars such as "self-ownership." But you can't call these morals in the classical sense, again, because they lack authority and power to enforce, so it's not really honest to call them moral systems.

  Published: June 2, 2006 11:42 AM

• Don B

  Roger M:

  I appreciate your comments, but I don't know what, "they lack authority and power to enforce" means and why that is the key litmus test of morality being possible. I also value my own indpendent judgment far more than what "most philosophers...agreed...[on]." I have complete and abosolute power to enforce my own morality on myself--that's the essence of morality. Not stealing or killing because God told you not to isn't morality, it's simply following orders.

  And if it requires an authority greater than man to define morality (i.e., man is blind and can't gain the the knowledge to detect the proper code of ethics by which to live his life), then what is it that gives that higher authority the ability, does it also have a higher authority giving it commands? And don't just say "there is no higher authority." You could just as easiliy say that in an argument for man being the highest moral authority, so it would not be an argument for God's authority.

  Published: June 2, 2006 12:17 PM

• Ulrich Hobelmann

  Roger: if I need a reason to say that self-ownership and the right to property make sense, then that reason would be consistency.

  A moral code can only be universal and Moral, if it is the same for *everybody*, no exceptions. As soon as you extend ownership, as soon as you give anybody the right to rule over others, you lose consistency. Somebody is better than somebody else. Clearly that can't be a basis for a moral code for *everybody*.

  The right to keep your property and to be free from bodily harm is pretty obvious, once you require that such rights have to be true for everybody. At least we don't need a concept of God for that, even though some people prefer that (which is fine).

  Published: June 2, 2006 12:34 PM

• Adem Kupi

  The fact of the matter is, that anarcho-communism is self-undoing.

  One must at some point abandon either the anarchism or the communism. My guess is that if an attempt at anarcho-communism were made, there would be a massive secession of anarchists who wanted stuff of their own, probably occurring when there arose the first major shortage. Some hard-core ideologues might remain and starve away. Or they might try to "pull a Lincoln" and force the others back into the fold, at which point they're no longer anarchists.

  Published: June 2, 2006 1:14 PM

• David White

  In "The Biollogical Basis of Morality" (The Atlantic Monthly, April 1998), renowned entomologist E. O. Wilson wrote that "ethical precepts...are more likely to be products of the brain and the culture. From the consilient perspective of the natural sciences, they are no more than principles of the social contract hardened into rules and dictates -- the behavioral codes that members of a society fervently wish others to follow and are themselves willing to accept for the common good. Precepts are the extreme on a scale of agreements that range from casual assent, to public sentiment, to law, to that part of the canon considered sacred and unalterable."

  Neither handed down from above nor produced through individual reason, morals are thus a product of cultural evolution, such that what works best for the community as a whole is adopted by it and made part and parcel of it.

  Thus does the universal prohibition against theft acknowledge the fundamental right to property.

  
  

  Published: June 2, 2006 1:36 PM

• J. Wilson

  I have to take issue with Ulrich Hobelmann's claim that property rights do no exist in the state of nature. Forget about humans and look at the other inhabitants of the natural world - animals. Many animals have concepts of "property". Is a bear's den or a beaver's dam not "property" in a sense? If they dug it out or they built it - then it is theirs. A larger stronger animal might come along and take it from them but that animal created that "improvement" to nature and owns it as long as they want it or can defend it against usurpers. Prairie dogs create their burrows and have a territory, lions, tigers, and many other predators have territories that they will defend against other similar creatures (but will share with non competitive creatures) - is this not property of a sort? Humans have institutionalized and formalized the ownership of property as they do with everything but that initial instinct goes back to our prehistoric days when a band of humans would "own" a cave or build themselves shelter of whatever form. If you build yourself a lean-to and then go to the next tree to take a leak this does not give another human the right to come over and just start using it in your absence. The concept of property rights goes back to the basics of being a living thing on this planet and goes beyond just us a human beings. To say otherwise seems awfully socialist of you.

  Published: June 2, 2006 2:14 PM

• J. Wilson

  Sorry - made a mistake when I read the postings - I meant to say Reactionary's posting instead of Ulrich Hobelmann's.

  Published: June 2, 2006 2:18 PM

• David White

  J. Wilson,

  A claim on territory, whether by an animal or a human, does not ipso facto establish a right to it. In fact, you all but acknowledge this when you say that the property belongs to the claimant "as long as they...can defend it against usurpers." For this is but the law of the jungle, which is no law at all. And where there is no law, there is no right.

  Published: June 2, 2006 3:05 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  David,

  Just because a right is not recognized does not mean it does not exist. The Nazis claimed that Jews did not have a right to live. Their system of laws codified this. Does this mean the Jews ceased to have a right to live? Clearly this right, to be a right at all must preempt earthly laws that contradict it.

  Rights are inherent. Whether they are observed by any particular tyrant is irrelevant, whether local or national.

  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights, that among those are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

  Either we can all agree with these words or we can't. Jefferson and Co. were able to discern this with clarity 230 years ago.If we can't, it's a darn shame, but the truth is still the truth.

  Published: June 2, 2006 3:22 PM

• Keith Preston

  One area I where have to disagree with much of modern libertarian theory is this obsession with "rights". True natural law is rooted in the survival of the fittest and "might is right" as opposed to the Jeffersonian notion of "inalienable rights to life, liberty and property". The Jeffersonian perspective represents an ideal, not a natural law. As "Reactionary" says, so-called "property rights" exist because people have stuff and want to protect it. They do so by arming themselves, hiring mercenaries or security guards, lobbying the government for police protection or whatever.

  The idea of what constitutes "just" ownership of property is a conventionalist notion that varies from society to society. If you look at the Hebrew Bible, for example, you see that the Hebrews had an intra-communal code saying "Thou shalt not steal" but it was pretty much open season on the other ethnic groups around them.

  With regards to anarcho-communists, I've had extensive dealings with them and I agree that some of them would have to crawl up a few notches in order to reach the level of mere incoherence. The more intelligent or reasonable among them typically envision something like the Israeli kibbutzim or communal religious societies like the Amish. The actual economic record of these is rather mixed. The kibbutzim, for example, receive substantial subsidy from the Israeli (and therefore American) government. The Amish communal traditions are cultural rather than economic in nature and they do not reject private property completely.

  Classical anarcho-communists like Bakunin and Kropotkin were products of largely feudal societies. What they envisioned was the political autonomy of the peasant agricultural communes that were already in existence minus the exploitation of the landlords. Traditions of what might be called "private communal property" (i.e., "the commons") exist in a number of societies.

  The main problem I see with anarcho-communism is that however property relations are arranged, an "anarcho-commune" still has to function within a broader market economy, making the commune just another firm with an unconventional business structure. The only other alternatives are either localized autarchy (which is possible-most of the human species lived that way for thousands of years-but not very attractive as it is difficult to do beyond the subsistence level) or attempting to arrange the productive activities of the commune according to some kind of joint plan with other communes. The larger scale the latter becomes the more it begins to resemble some kind of state or, at best, a conventional corporate business entity.

  While I think Mises had it right by arguing that the pricing system of the market is necessary for a reasonably efficient allocation of resources, I don't know that property arrangements need to be organized according to any specific set of dictates. For example, in a stateless or quasi-stateless society, there could be anarcho-capitalist investment firms, anarcho-communist communes, anarcho-syndicalist labor unions, geo-anarchist land trusts, etc. co-existing as component parts of a broader economic framework. "Property rights" could vary in their definition according to geographic, cultural or institutional differences. Some might produce better results than others (however you define "better"), but the species has managed to survive this far with a plurality of economic systems.

  One good point "Reactionary" raises has to do with the idea of the relationship between anarcho-capitalism and property rights and the rule of law. Many if not most an-caps strike me as advocating not so much pure anarchy as much as de facto rule by quasi-feudal insurance companies. I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with that but it seems to differ somewhat from pure statelessness.

  My own version of anarchism isn't really predicated on any of this stuff anyway. I'm basically an individualist in the tradition of Stirner or Nietzsche. If we start with the more or less arbitrary presumption that the individual is sovereign, then it naturally follows that most individuals (hermits excepted) wish to exist in a community with others who share their particular values, beliefs, ideals, economic interests, lifestyle interests, religion, etc. The best way to accommodate this would be decentralized systems with different types of ethnic, cultural, religious, ideological or economic groupings being sovereign within their own enclaves. In early America, for example, you had the Puritans in Massachusetts, Baptists in Rhode Island, Anglicans in Virginia, Mormons in Utah, etc. I think a modern version of something like that is the closest we'll ever get to "anarchy" in the real world.

  Published: June 2, 2006 7:58 PM

• David C

  Keith Preston, rights become natural law rights not because they are "natural" as in law of the jungle, but because they are the only stable rights in a system where everyone's rights are the same. In a non natural law system, someome must always persume that they have more rights than others (eg a bureauocrat), or embrace rights that for the group are destructive (eg, if everyone had the right to kill people). My understanding is that the former is called statisim, and the later is called anarchy.

  While it is very natural for people to organize (in the form of government) to defend or secure their rights, it is better if they don't need to because the costs and risks involved.

  Contrary to being anti-community, IMHO natural law rights stabilize communities because members who don't percieve that they are getting a good deal are free to opt-out. Members who do percieve that they are getting a good deal are free to coalese together.

  Published: June 2, 2006 11:48 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  “Property rights do not exist in the state of nature. In the state of nature, you simply have what you have.�

  This statement is either irrelevant or wrong. If it is not irrelevant, here is why it is wrong:

  1. humans exist in the state of nature.

  2. humans naturally think and use reason

  3. humans naturally act

  4. resources are naturally scarce and hence conflict over them by acting humans is natural

  5. humans naturally wish to institute norms which will allow for the avoidance of conflict

  6. the institution of property allows humans to avoid conflict

  Therefore, the concept of property is naturally occurring.

  Or, if we say that the concept of property does not naturally exist outside of the realm of human reason, then such an observation is irrelevant.

  Such an observation is only useful if one is interested in living only at the level of non-human animals. No one discussing ethics and norms can possibly be interested in living this way. Therefore, the observation that the concept of property does not occur in nature is irrelevant.
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 12:31 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  “A right to property exists only as a concept among humans who accept God's injunction against theft.�

  Wrong. The institution of property, which is the right to exclusive control of a scarce resource, can arise from a rational understanding of the nature of acting man alone, a rational desire to institute norms that allow for such humans to avoid conflict, and a realization that only the institution of property, the connected concept of original appropriation of previously un-owned resources and of voluntary contract, which rules out the initiation of force, can provide for the possibility of conflict avoidance. That this is in accordance with God’s commandments is not likely to be a coincidence. There is nothing irrational about God, and yet, one does not need to be reminded that God created gravity, to know that jumping from a tall building will result in one’s early demise.

  “(Rationalists purport to have a different basis, but since they can provide no a priori reason to be rational, their attempt at intellectual bootstrapping must fail.)�

  Wrong again. All arguments of any sort presuppose the validity of rationality, reason and logic. There is no such thing as a proof that these things are valid because they would be fundamental (presupposed) in such a proof. At the same time, these presuppositions are indisputably true as any attempt to refute them, as is that case for any argument at all, would implicitly and necessarily presuppose these very things which one might vainly attempt to disprove - rationality, reason, logic. Such an inconsistency rules out the validity of such a refutation and confirms the undeniable validity of rationality, reason and logic.

  Therefore, with reason and logic as a basic and undeniable truth, we use them as a foundation for showing further, the undeniable justification for property.

  “Again, greatly summarized, property means community and community means rules, and rules mean, inevitably, that someone must on occasion cede their view of their rights to someone else. This is minarchy, not anarchy.�

  No Sir. Property implies you may not aggress against the property of others. There is no restriction on person A’s right to property in his prohibition from aggressing against person B’s property. The fact that voluntary police and courts can provide enforcement of property shows that no coercive state is necessary and that anarchy is very practicable, and perfectly consistent with libertarian values. Anarchy does not at all imply chaos. It is the final conclusion of libertarianism and respect for property.
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 1:03 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Keith,

  “One area I where have to disagree with much of modern libertarian theory is this obsession with "rights".�

  It’s one of my favorite aspects of libertarianism.

  “True natural law is rooted in the survival of the fittest and "might is right" as opposed to the Jeffersonian notion of "inalienable rights to life, liberty and property".�

  If so, then I am not interested in true natural law. I am interested in ethics: justifiable norms which allow humans to avoid conflict.

  “The Jeffersonian perspective represents an ideal, not a natural law.�

  This ideal, however, is not utopian, but a justifiable and practicable set of norms. It is human ethics.

  “As "Reactionary" says, so-called "property rights" exist because people have stuff and want to protect it.�

  They want to avoid conflict over scarce resources via the institution of private property and to enforce property rights through justifiable means:

  “They do so by arming themselves, hiring mercenaries or security guards,�

  And also through more dubious means such as:

  “lobbying the government for police protection or whatever.�

  “The idea of what constitutes "just" ownership of property is a conventionalist notion that varies from society to society.�

  I disagree: the institution of private property and acknowledgement of original appropriation of previously un-owned resources is more than conventional in the goal of conflict avoidance; it is necessary. A convention implies there are other varied means to achieve the same goal, such as a particular language as English is a convention. Private property is necessary. There is no other means to achieve the possibility of conflict avoidance.

  “If you look at the Hebrew Bible, for example, you see that the Hebrews had an intra-communal code saying "Thou shalt not steal" but it was pretty much open season on the other ethnic groups around them.�

  That is an interesting observation. If we were God’s chosen people, I suppose we could go with such an ethic if He handed it down to us. But we’re not, so now it’s the libertarian Golden Rule laid out subsequent to those Hebrew Scriptures.
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 1:39 AM

• kid mongo

  Nobody yet has remarked on the repressive and authoritarian nature of capitalism, which to my mind, must be considered in looking to understand the anarchist critique of property rights.

  The origins of property rights in the West seem to derive from the Judeo-Christian tenet of Man's Dominion over Nature. We can learn from the controversy between Pope John XXII and William of Ockham on Franciscan poverty. The Franciscans claimed poverty, and that they owned no property at all, but 'use of fact' instead of 'use of right'. The Pope replied that no one could use a thing without having a 'right' to it, and no one could justify 'use' over a thing unless they had 'dominion' over it. William of Ockham replied that rights either are obtained in 'heaven', or from the positive law 'courts'. In a natural state (the only state in which Kropotkin's 'gift economy' could exist), Man would have no conception of property as free use
  would be available to all. The origin of dominion is the origin of property. Though conceived by human agreements, 'property' is not a basic moral principle. Mises himself, in his "Omnipotent Government", considering the origin of property declared, "It would be contradictory or nonsensical to assume a ‘legitimate’ beginning." And, "Within the framework of a market society the fact that legal formalism can trace back every title either to arbitrary appropriation or to violent expropriation..." Are we that far from Proudhon's "Property is Theft"?

  
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 1:52 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Keith,

  “While I think Mises had it right by arguing that the pricing system of the market is necessary for a reasonably efficient allocation of resources, I don't know that property arrangements need to be organized according to any specific set of dictates.�

  I think he put it a little stronger than that. Private ownership in and therefore a market and the existence of prices in the factors of production are all necessary for economic calculation and the avoidance of complete and utter economic chaos and mass starvation. Any anarchic communities and economies that wish to prosper will necessarily lean heavily towards being of the anarcho-capitalist brand. All other anarchies will loose out to this brand, or will be consumed by the coercion of statist collectivism, depending on the gullibility of the people in those communities.
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 1:59 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Keith,

  “Many if not most an-caps strike me as advocating not so much pure anarchy as much as de facto rule by quasi-feudal insurance companies. I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with that but it seems to differ somewhat from pure statelessness.�

  We are suggesting that competing insurance companies with voluntarily subscribing customers seems a logical place to speculate that police, security and court services might naturally arise in a free and unhampered market. If it were to happen this way, can you explain how this would represent a quasi-feudal situation and how this suggests anything but pure statelessness?

  Further, in your anarchy, can you explain how police, security and court services would naturally arise in a free market, or would this be provided exclusively on an individual basis. I don’t think you would argue that, given that even today, private people choose to provide and hire private security services for instance, even when the state already provides a competing tax-payer subsidized, if yet still inferior service.
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 2:24 AM

• David White

  Vince,

  Laws that aren't universal aren't moral and therefore aren't laws at all but merely statutes -- i.e., the dictates of an inherently immoral state. Thus, the oppression of one group (Nazis) of another (Jews) via its statutes does not change the fact that rights exist through the observance thereof. Far from irrelevant, then, observance of the law -- i.e., of universal modes of conduct -- is what renders it meaningful, as human society cannot progress without it.

  Published: June 3, 2006 9:24 AM

• Keith Preston

  David C,

  I'm not unsympathetic to the point you are trying to make but I'm not sure there is anything "natural" about a "system where everyone's rights are the same". What is "natural", if the last five thousand years of human history is a valid source of evidence, is war, oppression, tyranny, slavery and "rights" that are decidedly unequal.

  Some groups of people may at some point decide, "Okay, we'll all have equal rights. I won't attempt to take what you have or kill or enslave you, and you will refrain from doing likewise to me." Good for them. But that's not exactly the norm. And it's no different from when some groups of people decide, "Okay, we'll all worship this or that god-figure and refrain from pork, alcohol, adultery, yadda, yadda". Again, this is a conventionalist view rooted in the subjective desires and cultural patterns of particular groups, not anything decreed by nature.

  Published: June 3, 2006 10:24 AM

• Ulrich Hobelmann

  Keith, equal right for everybody aren't normal, but they are what characterizes civilization.

  When the United States were founded with these premises in mind, they became the most powerful nation on earth, and the richest I think.

  The question is: do we want to go back to barbarism, or do we want a civilized, modern society, where everybody has the same rights? Most people prefer barbarism, which is fine for them, but I'd really prefer to live in civilization and peace with other humans, if I could.

  Published: June 3, 2006 10:39 AM

• Keith Preston

  Paul,

  I'm not arguing against the legitimacy of private property, markets, and prices per se. The only way to completely abolish these is to go to a completely command economy (ancient Egypt, Stalin, Kim Il-Sung/Jon Il, et.al.)That can work for a time but it eventually collapses under its own weight. What I am saying is that de facto "private property" can take on many different forms. To use an extreme example, one might say that state-owned property in the old Soviet Union was the de facto "private property" of the Communist Party, given their legal right to monopolize the use of that property. As I said before, an anarcho-communist commune is the de facto "private property" of the communards (unless they allow any other group of communards who wish to do so to come in and help themselves).

  To use another example, I've heard some libertarians and free-market economists glorify Singapore as an exemplar of the free-market ideal. But from what I've read about Singapore's economy, it's basically a personal fiefdom of Lee Kuan Yew and his family and associates. Basically, it's just one big mercantilist corporation with the citizens of Singapore being de facto employees or, at best, minor shareholders. I once saw an article by Doug Casey glorifying Dubai in the same way.

  I agree with the standard libertarian/conservative/free-market view that control over economic resources and "property" needs to be decentralized and spread out over many individuals, families, groups, communities, associations, etc. for civilization and prosperity to advance, at least over the long haul. But arguing that this requires the whole of mankind to organize itself economically according to the preferences of Murray Rothbard intuitively strikes me as a bit reductionist to say the least.

  Also, I'm not so sure that adoption of the Lockean/Rothbardian/Randian view of property theory necessarily eliminates conflict. It might in some instances. If the Aryans are sovereign in their own private community and the Zionists are sovereign in theirs, and neither has yet to acquire the resources necessary to form an overarching state of their own, then confict might be minimized at least for the moment. But here's another analogy I like to use when dealing when this question. I call it the "Gilligan's Island" scenario. Gilligan and the castaways are shipwrecked on the island. Does the island become their private property by virtue of discovery? Or does it remain the property of whatever headhunters or Tarzan-like characters happen to be on the island? If it belongs to the castaways, how much of the island can they claim? The whole thing? Enough to farm for their own subsistence? Enough to build huts or tents for themselves? How does this break down on an individual basis? Are the Skipper, Gilligan, Ginger, Mary Ann, etc. each entitled to an equal share of the island? If the Skipper exerts more energy in pulling the Minnow ashore, fighting off savages, picking berries, is he entitled to a greater share than Mr. Howell who sits around complaining about the heat and mosquitos? What if another group of castaways is subsequently shipwrecked on the same island? Are Gilligan and his friends obligated to share the island with the newcomers? Or can they just push them back into the sea because Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard said they could? If so, is it realistic to expect the 2nd group of castaways to say, "Well, in the spirit of compliance of the idealized property rights vision of John Locke, as enunciated by his apostle Murray Rothbard, we therefore agree to subject ourselves to death by starvation, saltwater poisoning or drowning, or shark attacks, because of our sworn fidelity to the eternal spirit of Ayn Rand." I doubt it would go down that way. More likely, the 2nd group would arm themselves with bamboo spears and have at it with Gilligan and associates. True natural law put into practice, I might suggest.

  I don't mean to be overly sarcastic or pedantic here, but I think you can easily see where I'm going will all of this.

  As for the question of private insurance companies as the basis of law enforcement, here's my understanding of this theory based on my extensive reading of libertarian commentators on this question(Rothbard,D.Friedman,Tannehills,Barnett,George Smith,Bruce Benson and others):

  Instead of having an elected political government funded by compulsory tax payments to pass legistlation against this or that "crime", individuals simply pay fees-for-service to private protection agencies (like current security guard services) to provide whatever "law enforcement" they wish. Conceptually, I understand this. Here's where I think the "feudal" dimension comes in:

  Who decides what the actual "law" is? The subscriber? The owners of the protection service? Their individual employees? Let's say Joe's Protection, INC. says in its ads: "We promise the ultimate in law and order for the lowest price. For a mere (fill in the blank) monthly fee, we will machine gun all shoplifters, hang drug pushers from the lamposts in the town square, flog the guy who adulterated your wife and the kill the dog that keeps barking in the middle of the night. Satisfaction guaranteed."

  Now, I'm sure all of the libertarians reading this are by now saying, "Wait a minute! Libertarian law has to be proportional (yes, I've read Rothbard's "Ethics of Liberty", too), drug dealing and adultery are consensual acts and not legitimate targets of prohibition, the dog is the private property of its owner, etc."

  But the question is: Who will force the protectors to adhere to libertarian law theory? The standard answer is that the customers of the non-libertarian protection agency can take their business elsewhere but why can't the protectors just say "no dice" and assert themselves as a de facto protection racket as opposed to protection agency (after all, they're the best organized and with the most weapons)? The usual answer is: Well, such an agency would be criminals by libertarian standards and the other libertarian defense agencies would move against them? But what if it was more profitable for the other agencies to simply join them as partners in extortion? Would not the profit motive win out? Is this not what the state is anyway? This is why I say that anarcho-capitalism, in actual practice and taken to its logical conclusion, would probably result
  in the eventual creation of feudatories run by private insurance companies, who more or less demanded compulsory protection fees ("tribute")from their alleged "protectees".

  Even if you reject this scenario as implausible, how do you deal with issues where there is much disagreement over the proper application of libertarian law theory? Take the abortion question, for instance. Is there going to be an "Army of God's Defenders of the Sacred Unborn" conducting paramilitary raids on abortion clinics, presumably to be countered by the "Militia of the Supreme Uber-Womynists, Associated Homos and Straight Allied"? I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to such an event. It could even be broadcast on a pay-per-view "Culture War of the Week-Live on Satellite TV!"

  Anyway, these are questions that I think an-caps have yet to sufficiently answer. As for my own version of anarchy, I'm generally in the same camp with thinkers like Pierre Proudhon, Bertrand Russell or Paul Goodman who argued that "anarchy" is only an ideal (and a subjective one at that) that the species can only strive for. I think that the smaller and more decentralized a community is, the more "voluntary" or "anarchic" its nature. A neighborhood or village is more voluntary than a city, a city more than a province, a province more than a nation-state, a nation-state more than a global government. I think Socrates and Aristotle had it right. Socrates argued that the basis of legitimacy was chosen membership in the polis with the full right of emigration. For this to occur on any meaningful basis, the "polis" has to be small enough for emigration to be a viable option. That's where Aristotle's notion of the city-state as optimal scale political unit comes into play.

  Once again, all of this is subjective. You can take the Hobbesian/Jacobin/Marxist/Fascist/Buckleyite/Neocon view of "centralization=order" as the highest priority. The problem with that is that you end up with Napolean, Wilson, Stalin, Hitler, Roosevelt and GWB. (I saw a poll taken in Russia a while back showing that 50% of Russians still had a favorable view of Stalin and, I think, 42% said Russian would benefit from a Stalin-like character today). Or you can take the decentralist view (which can either mean the Cayman Islands and Liechtenstein or Iraq and the Sudan, depending on historical, cultural or geographical factors and the influence of outside forces). Or you can opt for a middle of the road position (like much of Western liberalism, I guess, with its attendant bureaucratization, stagnation, mediocrity and inertia, and creeping tyranny).

  Published: June 3, 2006 12:06 PM

• Jeremy G. Snyder

  "What if another group of castaways is subsequently shipwrecked on the same island? Are Gilligan and his friends obligated to share the island with the newcomers? Or can they just push them back into the sea because Ayn Rand or Murray Rothbard said they could? If so, is it realistic to expect the 2nd group of castaways to say, "Well, in the spirit of compliance of the idealized property rights vision of John Locke, as enunciated by his apostle Murray Rothbard, we therefore agree to subject ourselves to death by starvation, saltwater poisoning or drowning, or shark attacks, because of our sworn fidelity to the eternal spirit of Ayn Rand."

  Since when have Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, and John Locke ever said that property belonged to whomever merely claimed it first. Property rights as envisioned by John Locke is the area of land that an individual transforms or mixes their labor with. The first group of castaways hasn't transformed the entire island, only certain parts and the second group can even still enter those parts if the first group lets them, which they might if there's some friendship or charitableness involved.

  Published: June 3, 2006 1:06 PM

• Vic

  Sorry about the formating, I don't know how to use HTML tags.

  Keith Preston,

  I appreciate your cogent arguments. I'd like to say a few words in reply to your objections to protective insurance agencies.
  I many theorists have addressed these concerns, I will try my best.
  
  You express three concerns:
  1. one company advertising punishment for victimless crimes
  2. one company becoming a protection racket
  3. cartelization

  
  A. I start with the assumption that most people prefer peace and a non-violent lifestyle. Most poeple would agree with this, you might not. What the exact percentage comes to I don't know, but I would guess it to reach well above majority.

  
  B. In free market anarchy, the population remains heavily armed.

  
  C. Most R&D in FMA would focus on defense, rather than offense. This might include alarm and detection systems, neighborhood mobilization plans, hidden traps, electronic jamming, limited access communities, underground tunnels, etc. Lots of money would pour into this kind of infrastructure.

  1. Many people might oppose prostitution, prefer thiefs to get shot, etc. But very few people would willingly dish out monthly to see these goals implemented. Under the present system, the costs do not seem apparent, and neither does the direct moral responsibility, because we do not write a check for it. Furthermore, the costs of an insurance company with this policy would skyrocket, as you can imagine how difficult it would become to enforce this policy, compared to the libertarian policies of competitors.
  Yes, a small minority would feel strongly enough to pay for such a society, but they would end up with a community where most people agree to live this way.

  
  2. You assume that a legitimate company that built a customer base suddenly gets taken over by the mafia. As unlikely as this seems, let's assume it happens. A protection racket becomes expensive to enforce. Imagine the difference between checks coming in and having to go collect them with armed guards. How do you force the bank to hand over someone's finances? And remember everyone has a gun at home. Most neighborhoods would probably also have local militias, with neighbors looking out for each other. And as soon as one company tries this, all their income shift to a competitor willing to protect their new customers. Now you might say a nice little war will break out between the two companies. We could have started with this assumption - what if one company simply tries to take another one over by force?
  This becomes a whole new topic, I will just touch on it.

  a) The rogue company would quickly bleed its finances.

  b) The attacked company most likely has protection contracts of its own

  c) the attacked company most likely lacks a central command center to take over

  
  3. Without an existing monopoly on force in place, cartelization never worked in history. You have to worry about new competitors entering the market, but more importantly, price cutting enters the picture sooner or later. Historically, this usually happened. You might say that this cartelization would essentially bring on a monopoly on force. I suppose that could happen, but then we might just end up where we are today. Apologists for the historical inevitability of the present system like to take this line.
  But once a FMA system takes root, this would become immensely more difficult. They couldn't rely on an income tax in place to finance them. Again remember the armed populace. And I also assume a culture of liberty would follow, making resistance very likely.
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 3:32 PM

• Robin Cox

  As an anarcho-communist I consider Rothbard's article to be seriously misinformed on a number of points - from the vexed (but ultimately symbiotic) relationships between the state and private property (means of production) to the period of so called "war communism" following the state capitalist revolution inaugurated by the Bolsheviks in Russia. Like most anarcho-capitalists, Rothbard did not have much of a grasp of the nature of anarcho-communism and many of his criticisms seem to me to be highly pejorative (do we really "scorn reason") and based on knee-jerk prejudice. The so-called Economic Calculation Argument advanced by von Mises has been refuted on very rational grounds and I have covered some of these counterarguments in my article http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm.

  One final point - while anarcho-communists do all embrace a common vision of a future communist society as involving the elimination of money, markets, and wage labour as Rothbard recognised, we do not all sing from the same hymn sheet in every respect. There is diversity as well as unity in the ranks of the anarcho-communist movement, something that Rothbard did not appear to appreciate

  
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 4:35 PM

• Brett Celinski

  However, Robin, the 'socialist' organizations that you outline are still voluntarily agreed upon by individuals. They do not apply to all other property owners not in agreement with the enterprise and that prefer their own organization. It is still a free market capitalist system and not socialism. Nothing in the way of the Calculation Debate is addressed in that regard.

  Published: June 3, 2006 5:25 PM

• Keith Preston

  Vic,

  I, too, appreciate your efforts at reasoned argument.

  "...most people would prefer peace and a non-violent lifestyle."

  Well, it's not really most people that you have to worry about. Most people are sheep who simply follow the norms/prejudices of their own herd/tribe. It's not the sheep you have to contend with but the wolves. It's usually the wolves who become societal rulers. Remember Hayek's insight about the worst getting to the top due to their superior level of cunning and ruthlessness.

  "...the population remains heavily armed."

  This is an important deterrent to a foreign invasion, but it's a little less effective in preventing domestic tyranny. The reason is that most people don't think of themselves as being victimized when it's the perceived authority of their own tribe/herd doing it to them. This may not be rational but it seems to be true. Many of the same folks who were ready to take up arms against the Clinton regime now sing the praises of the Bush regime even though the Bushies have behaved every bit as egregiously as the Clintonistas, perhaps more so.

  "...very few people would willingly dish out monthly to see these goals implemented. Under the present system, the costs do not seem apparent, and neither does the direct moral responsibility, because we do not write a check for it. Furthermore, the costs of an insurance company with this policy would skyrocket, as you can imagine how difficult it would become to enforce this policy, compared to the libertarian policies of competitors. Yes, a small minority would feel strongly enough to pay for such a society, but they would end up with a community where most people agree to live this way."

  How does the present system work? If you want to repress your competition in business, cultural or social groups you don't like, etc., what do you do? You hire a team of lobbyists, lawyers, PACs and politicians to make up the relevant laws for you. How does this differ from hiring a "free market" agency to do the same for you? Now, I think you're on your strongest ground when you say that a disincentive to this kind of thing in a private system would be the inability to pass the enforcement costs on to others via taxation. But I don't know that that's enough. Politics is dominated by loud-mouthed special interest groups who typically are motivated by uber-greed or uber-ideological fanaticism. These kinds will go a long way to get what they want. Removing their ability to shift the costs of enforcement may deter them partially, but I doubt it would deter them completely.

  Here's how I think it would work out: Political interest groups would hire enforcement agencies to carry out the enforcement of whatever laws they wished. The enforcement agencies, like today's politicians and police, would be comprised mostly of opportunists and careerists rather than people who adhere to any specific set of ideals. The enforcers would simply sell their services to the highest bidder. Pro-choice offered us the most cash-for-service? No problem, pro-choice we shall be. Pro-life made substantial offer to one of our competitors? We'll make a deal to pay them down before they take us out. Meanwhile, we'll stay out of the jurisdiction where their customer cash flow is largest and ours is smaller.

  In other words, "the production of law" would be just another series of bribes, backstabbing, treachery, threats, underhanded backroom deals and the like. Pretty much the same way it is now.

  From what I recall, David Friedman, who is a leading theorist and advocate of anarcho-capitalist legal institutions, actually spectulated that non-libertarian law might very well remain in place in an an-cap system. And Hoppe all but admits that his version of anarcho-capitalism amounts to the restoration of feudalism.

  "You assume that a legitimate company that built a customer base suddenly gets taken over by the mafia. As unlikely as this seems, let's assume it happens. A protection racket becomes expensive to enforce. Imagine the difference between checks coming in and having to go collect them with armed guards."

  I'm probably opening a can of worms with this one, but considerable life experience has taught me that the dividing line between businessmen, polticians, policemen, criminals, gangsters and "civic leaders" is usually rather difficult to determine. A protection racket is the easiest kind of "contract" to enforce. A voluntary agency has to provide its customers with something they actually want. A protection racket simply takes what THEY want! A substantial number of "legitimate companies" in the present system rely quite heavily on the state for their sustenance.

  "...And remember everyone has a gun at home. Most neighborhoods would probably also have local militias, with neighbors looking out for each other. And as soon as one company tries this, all their income shift to a competitor willing to protect their new customers. "

  I doubt that many people are going to be quite that eternally vigilant in the defense of liberty. Human nature is to blithely line up for the gulags and gas chambers, not to resist oppression.

  "Without an existing monopoly on force in place, cartelization never worked in history."

  Well, how did the present-day states get to their position? They didn't just pop out of thin air. Eventually the strongest come to dominate by weeding out the weak. Once the strong have eliminated their competition, they have a monopoly. And then, of course, the rot and decay begins due to complacency and the resulting malaise.

  "And I also assume a culture of liberty would follow, making resistance very likely."

  You're on your most solid ground here. In the end, culture rules. People will resist only when they think their sense of identity and the security (real or not) they think it brings them is under attack. This is why so many "conservatives" go crazy over gay marriage or "kicking God out of the classroom" but see no problem with Bush and cronies sending their kids to die in some god-forsaken desert somewhere. This is why so many "liberals" would cheerfully accept a Stalinist state so long as abortion remained legal and recycling was declared a sacrament.

  BTW, I'm actually in favor of the decentralized, polycentric, common law arrangements many an-caps also favor. I actually agree that the greater decentralization and less frequent cost-shifting (though not as infrequent as some would fantasize) exhibited by this kind of system would probably result in an overall net gain for liberty. I just don't think it would be the anarchistic utopia some would imagine it to be. It would probably be more like the polycentric order of the Holy Roman or Ottoman empires.
  

  Published: June 3, 2006 10:21 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Robin,

  You ask, “do we really "scorn reason" and in the same post, you write "...while anarcho-communists do all embrace a common vision of a future communist society as involving the elimination of money, markets, and wage labour as Rothbard recognised,…�

  No approach to human affairs that ignores the economic facts of life can also embrace reason. You scorn economic reason, ergo of course yes, you scorn reason.
  

  Published: June 4, 2006 1:31 AM

• vic

  Keith, thanks for your reply to my arguments. My humble reply below:
  “Well, it's not really most people that you have to worry about. Most people are sheep who simply follow the norms/prejudices of their own herd/tribe. It's not the sheep you have to contend with but the wolves. It's usually the wolves who become societal rulers. Remember Hayek's insight about the worst getting to the top due to their superior level of cunning and ruthlessness.�
  So you assume the power hungry in a free market anarchy (FMA) society would gravitate towards the protection agencies, since this would allow them the biggest potential for power. I can easily see some entrepreneur exploiting this weakness to his/her advantage. Market an organizational structure that disallows this to assuage the customers. Off the top of my head, how about rapidly revolving leadership, heavily decentralized command structure, watchdog agencies, enforceable oaths of office, etc.
  on an armed populace:
  “This is an important deterrent to a foreign invasion, but it's a little less effective in preventing domestic tyranny. The reason is that most people don't think of themselves as being victimized when it's the perceived authority of their own tribe/herd doing it to them. This may not be rational but it seems to be true.�
  You assume here the people don’t perceive getting victimized, which implies agreement and acceptance of the situation. Some communities might prefer this, and with the much larger freedom of movement in the society as a whole, they would end up with mostly voluntary participants.
  “How does the present system work? If you want to repress your competition in business, cultural or social groups you don't like, etc., what do you do? You hire a team of lobbyists, lawyers, PACs and politicians to make up the relevant laws for you.�
  In a FMA society, I don’t see laws per se, I see contracts and then arbitration and adjudication when conflicts arise. So the special interest groups would have to bribe a judge. Such a judge would not stay in business long.
  “How does this differ from hiring a "free market" agency to do the same for you?�
  A defense agency defends, bribing it to become a rogue agency that initiates aggression would amount to a take-over of the agency. Forcefully repressing competition would have to involve direct aggression, which basically means the agency went rogue. Same arguments as above apply. Also, I want to point out that before any two agencies went to battle it out, they would go to court. Nonviolent resolution often (perhaps always) cost less for both parties. Any agency that directly initiated an attack would become an obvious aggressor. Most likely, treaties against this kind of aggression would arise between different agencies.

  
  “The enforcers would simply sell their services to the highest bidder. Pro-choice offered us the most cash-for-service? No problem, pro-choice we shall be. Pro-life made substantial offer to one of our competitors? We'll make a deal to pay them down before they take us out. Meanwhile, we'll stay out of the jurisdiction where their customer cash flow is largest and ours is smaller.�
  I think you essential describe this: A group collects money, probably for months, to organize an assault on an abortion clinic. They hire a group of mercenaries or a protection agency or perhaps a terrorist. First, realize the outright naked aggression as compared to passing a law banning abortion under the present system. But I grant that people still might exist who would engage in this kind of plotting. But this now seems like an instance of crime. The attack happens. An investigation ensues. The financers now face the court system with its focus on victim restitution.
  “From what I recall, David Friedman, who is a leading theorist and advocate of anarcho-capitalist legal institutions, actually spectulated that non-libertarian law might very well remain in place in an an-cap system. And Hoppe all but admits that his version of anarcho-capitalism amounts to the restoration of feudalism.�
  I agree with Friedman. But in such a system, the level of voluntary participation in such law systems would appear much higher. Hoppe does seem to have a soft spot for the medieval times. I don’t get it.
  “I doubt that many people are going to be quite that eternally vigilant in the defense of liberty. Human nature is to blithely line up for the gulags and gas chambers, not to resist oppression.�
  I think such vigilance grows in direct proportion to the amount of liberty enjoyed by the population.
  “Well, how did the present-day states get to their position? They didn't just pop out of thin air. Eventually the strongest come to dominate by weeding out the weak. Once the strong have eliminated their competition, they have a monopoly. And then, of course, the rot and decay begins due to complacency and the resulting malaise.�
  It actually took quite a long time. And this happened before anyone ever uttered these ideas. Molinari wrote in 1849, so these ideas have seen the light for only 150 years.
  “You're on your most solid ground here. In the end, culture rules.�
  I think a strong culture of liberty would either have to precede or evolve with such a system. I don’t know where the tipping point lies, what percentage of population, but I don’t even think it would have to reach a majority. Just a guess.
  “BTW, I'm actually in favor of the decentralized, polycentric, common law arrangements many an-caps also favor. I actually agree that the greater decentralization and less frequent cost-shifting (though not as infrequent as some would fantasize) exhibited by this kind of system would probably result in an overall net gain for liberty. I just don't think it would be the anarchistic utopia some would imagine it to be. It would probably be more like the polycentric order of the Holy Roman or Ottoman empires.�
  I don’t know what you mean by utopia. I just think such a system better than the one we have now. Overall, I make the argument that once in place, a FMA with protection agencies would remain a stable system, strongly resistant to perturbations.
  

  Published: June 4, 2006 3:08 AM

• Ulrich Hobelmann

  Robin: nice to hear from a Anar-communist that does take into account other views. We might not agree, but that's IMHO rather irrelevant.

  We all want anarchism, and the central point of anarchism is voluntary association (I'd say). So *any* real anarchist society would - simply because different people want or choose different lifestyles - contain both capitalist and socialist regions, and this would IMHO be a good thing.

  The important thing is to abolish the state, and with ith centralized violence.

  I disagree on the abolition of money, though. It's not realistic, because money wasn't created, but it rather evolved as a convenient medium of exchange. I don't think any organization that doesn't use violence (the state) could really abolish money. The same goes for markets: as long as everything is scarce (and that's a fact of life, I'd say), there'll be markets.

  Still, in a free country, many individuals might choose to live more socialist lives, and that's totally ok. We have common goals.

  Published: June 4, 2006 4:43 AM

• Robin Cox

  Paul

  
  You say:

  "You ask, “do we really "scorn reason" and in the same post, you write "...while anarcho-communists do all embrace a common vision of a future communist society as involving the elimination of money, markets, and wage labour as Rothbard recognised,…� No approach to human affairs that ignores the economic facts of life can also embrace reason. You scorn economic reason, ergo of course yes, you scorn reason."

  Now, a "reasonable" approach to this debate would be to consider what the other side has to say and marshall evidence to back up your claims.

  You havent even begun to do this - in fact you you have absolutely no idea of whether I scorn economic reason or not - or what this consists in from my point of view. In short, your position is totally based on prejudice.

  
  Rather than offer unsupported opinion why not have a look at the article in question at http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm. and THEN come back and tell me why in your view it ignores the "economic facts of life" as you put it.

  Now thats not an unreasonable suggestion is it now?

  
  For real communism

  Robin

  
  ps Your assertion "You scorn economic reason, ergo of course yes, you scorn reason" isnt even logical. If I scorned reason then yes ipso facto I would scorn economic reason but it does not follow that the converse is true. There are other kinds of reason apart from economic reason and there is nothing to say that I must reject these too along with economic reason

  Published: June 4, 2006 11:15 AM

• Curt Howland

  Kid Mongo, "Nobody yet has remarked on the repressive and authoritarian nature of capitalism"
  

  That is because capitalism is just respect for private property. It is neither repressive, because everyone has private property, nor authoritarian because, again, everyone has their own property, beginning with their own self.
  

  In order to be repressive or authoritarian, some people would have to have more "rights" than others. Such privileged class structures are a symptom of socialism in its varied forms, not capitalism.
  

  Now if you wish to argue that capitalism is repressive and authoritarian because some people have more money than others, I suggest you are actually talking about envy.

  Published: June 4, 2006 1:13 PM

• David White

  Curt,

  Surely Kid Mongo has succumbed to what virtually all anti-capitalists have succumbed to: confusing the crony capitalism of the corporate state with the voluntary exchange that is the essence of the social enterprise and thus of the free market.

  The state, of course, thwarts this enterprise at virtually every turn, resulting in gross inequalities that would not otherwise exist (while lesser inequalities would).

  That said, we all know the role that envy plays in the communist mindset and the impetus it provides for state action.

  Published: June 4, 2006 3:39 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Robin,

  “you have absolutely no idea of whether I scorn economic reason or not�

  Actually I do. It may well be that you have absolutely no idea that you scorn economic reason, but that is a different question. Furthermore, if Mises and Rothbard have not given you an inkling to this fact, then my modest talents directed at such an undertaking are not likely to succeed any better.

  You state:

  “Your assertion "You scorn economic reason, ergo of course yes, you scorn reason" isnt even logical. If I scorned reason then yes ipso facto I would scorn economic reason but it does not follow that the converse is true.�

  You can’t be selective about reason, Robin. You either choose it as a principle to pursue and apply in general, or you don’t. If you say “I like to use reason in math but not in economics�, then you have a scorn for reason because it takes a back seat to your other political agendas.
  

  Published: June 4, 2006 8:04 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Robin,

  I took a look at your article and here is one slice at one argument you made. I believe all significant points that you make can be addressed with similar dispatch. Your arguments are based on a superficial and/or inaccurate understanding of economics and/or Mises’s arguments, and so they naturally fail to refute his position that socialism cannot calculate.

  Mises:

  “Every single step of entrepreneurial activities is subject to scrutiny by monetary calculation. The premeditation of planned action becomes commercial pre-calculation of expected costs and expected proceeds. The retrospective establishment of the outcome of past action becomes accounting profits and losses�9.
  
  Cox:

  This statement is revealing. It inadvertently highlights a serious flaw in the ECA. The ability to compute profit and loss is what in theory is supposed to ensure the efficient – that is “profitable� – allocation of resources. But it turns out that it ensures nothing of the sort. Just because a system of market prices affords one a set of figures with which one can perform precise calculations does not mean that these figures will turn out to be correct – that is to say, will unerringly guide the entrepreneur towards a positive net income.

  Edwards:

  This reveals no flaw in Mises’s position. So what if profit and loss calculations don’t ensure that individual entrepreneurs will necessarily speculate correctly in every case? They are also human and will make mistakes. Profit and loss calculation merely provides to the entrepreneur an incentive to pay attention to, as well as providing the needed objective feedback itself, that his speculative attempts at satisfying consumer demand were either successful or not. It does not, nor is it suggested that it guarantees individual success in this endeavor every time.

  What it does guarantee, is that in the long run, those entrepreneurs most suited to successfully speculating on and delivering what the consumer wants most will be rewarded financially, and the others will be eliminated from this entrepreneurial role in the market. To complain that the profit and loss sheet does not “unerringly guide the [particular] entrepreneur towards a positive net income� is a reflection of an absurdly simple minded and superficial understanding of Mises’s argument.

  To elaborate on the process further, large profits in a particular industry, or segment of an industry, will draw other profit seeking entrepreneurs to this area, which will draw resources and productive efforts away from other less profitable endeavors and into this one. This arbitrage process will increase the supply of this profitable product which is high consumer demand, reducing its price on the market, and will increase the demand and hence the price for the factors of its production, both phenomenon having the impact of eventually reducing the profit in the production of this product, until in the long run, the rate of profit for production of it is the same as all others. This process of profit and loss motivated shifting of resources from one industry to another ensures maximized consumer satisfaction and maximized efficiency of allocation of scarce resources.

  This is economic calculation, and it is this that a centralized socialist economy simply cannot do because there is no private ownership in the means of production and hence no prices, and no entrepreneurial profit based motive to shift resources to their optimal application for optimal consumer satisfaction.

  Published: June 5, 2006 2:33 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Ulrich,

  “We all want anarchism�

  I think it is best first to determine what the socialist-anarchist hates more: the state or free markets. I think when it is revealed they hate free markets more, and that it is a state that is required to eliminate free markets, we may see more plainly that we do not ALL want anarchism.

  Published: June 5, 2006 2:41 AM

• Reactionary

  Paul,

  You are describing nothing more than a minarchist form of government, held in check by the right to secede. In practice, this means selling your property and moving out or having your property seized by force to avoid free riding. This may spur numerous people to describe in intricate, numbing and purely theoretical detail how the Internet, space travel, nuclear fusion, etc., will all make a free market version of a voluntary society feasible. Conveniently, there is no response to a purely theoretical construct. This is the common theme of anarcho-capitalists: they all get on a space ship and head off to create Galt's Gulch.

  Property is a human institution. Again, as David White pointed out, animals (and Robinson Crusoe) simply have what they can hold. Anytime you have groups of people interacting, their views of their rights are going to conflict and somebody is going to have to declare war or submit to the rule of law.

  I have argued for many paragraphs with objectivist anarchists who insist that rights cannot conflict. This is pure bovine excrement. Humans are subjective beings whose opinions of their rights clash all the time.

  Only the anarcho-communists purport to describe a truly 100% voluntary society. So-called "anarcho" capitalists should disentangle themselves from this variant of Marxism.

  Published: June 5, 2006 9:28 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  Reactionary said;

  "Anytime you have groups of people interacting, their views of their rights are going to conflict and somebody is going to have to declare war or submit to the rule of law.

  I have argued for many paragraphs with objectivist anarchists who insist that rights cannot conflict. This is pure bovine excrement. Humans are subjective beings whose opinions of their rights clash all the time."

  I'm afraid YOUR statements are larded with more than a little bovine excrement - there is absolutely no reason anyone's rights need to conflict. It is only their WANTS that conflict.

  Anarcho-capitalism, or whatever you want to call it, does NOT mean every ancap has to get on a 'rocketship' as you facetiously point out. All that is required is for government to stop stealing our property and doing things for others that they should be doing for themselves.

  For example, if all government were suddenly eliminated, I would poll my neighbors to assess their ability to protect themselves and their property. Based on this assessment, I or others would offer a free-market protection service based on a level of service they required. They could pay me up front. by the month, or not at all, preferring to instead purchase an insurance policy that would pay my agency to bring trespassers in front of a (private) restitution committee.

  Similarly, roads and the maintenance of rights of way and electrical power could be handled privately (wells and septic systems are already private where I live). And so on.

  Most of us already inhabit a world where some large percentage of their lives is completely un-impacted by government. For years, many individuals have also grown to understand that the remaining areas where government DOES have a direct management role, government performs those functions in a costly, extremely nefficient manner.

  You seem to propose that this is an irreducible percentage, yet there are people who live even farther out in the sticks than I do that experience an even smaller percentage of interference with self-government. Should we impose, say, San Francisco-style taxes and controls on these people?

  Or is it abundantly clear yet that those who wish to have government run large percentages of their (and others) lives should be the ones who bear the full burden of both paying for and living under it?
  

  Published: June 5, 2006 11:20 AM

• Reactionary

  Vince,

  "They could pay me up front. by the month, or not at all, preferring to instead purchase an insurance policy that would pay my agency to bring trespassers in front of a (private) restitution committee."

  And the trespassers argue that they are not actually trespassers, or that the committee is colluding with your Mafia, or etc., etc., so somebody either has to stand down or declare war. And there goes your voluntary society. Again, you're a minarchist, not an anarchist.

  BTW, where did this site's fixation with insurance germinate? Is it from anyone with actual experience in insurance underwriting or risk management?

  Published: June 5, 2006 11:43 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  “You are describing nothing more than a minarchist form of government, held in check by the right to secede.�

  The state by its very nature claims a territorial based coercive monopoly of jurisdiction over the occupants of this territory. This includes its right to tax and does not in practice, include any right to secede. Where there is no compulsory involvement in any organization (i.e. where individuals reserve the universal right to secede), there simply is no state.

  When you think of a completely voluntary government, you are not thinking minarchy, you are thinking anarchy. It really appears to be between us, simply a matter of terminological confusion, rather than disagreement.

  On the other hand, this statement “Only the anarcho-communists purport to describe a truly 100% voluntary society�, in my mind, represents a gross misunderstanding of the implications of the “communist� aspect of that philosophy. Due to inherent human nature, and our natural and justifiable inclination to create and participate in free markets, socialists can only ultimately rely on the coercion of the state to enforce their socialist ideals on others. Anarchy is ultimately impossible for the socialist.

  Published: June 5, 2006 12:02 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Reactionary argues;

  "And the trespassers argue that they are not actually trespassers, or that the committee is colluding with your Mafia, or etc., etc., so somebody either has to stand down or declare war. And there goes your voluntary society. Again, you're a minarchist, not an anarchist."

  Um, no. In reality, I can simply leave my neighbors alone, and they can do likewise. I was simply being neighborly in my example. The trespassers, in order to be eligible for ajudication by the restitution committe, must be members of and subject to that committee. Otherwise, they might be simply ostracised, or shot. Property rights could still be conserved without government.

  (BTW, under an-cap, insurance, freed from government regulations would be VERY different than what we have come to think of now as "insurance" which is in reality often nothing more than socialism.)

  Minarchy still implies theft by force on the part of a force monopoly. Voluntary mutual assistance, on the other hand, means those who participate freely offer to pay for the services they use, or think they will use. No one is compelled to provide or use anything under anarcho-capitalism.

  Published: June 5, 2006 12:16 PM

• Reactionary

  Paul,

  As I pointed out to Vince, the voluntary society ends the moment someone is forced to abide by an arbitrator's decision with which he disagrees. To get around this problem, the anarcho-communists simply abolish the institution of property. No rights can conflict because no rights are ever enforced. This is the state of nature called anarchy.

  Even if all government were abolished overnight and people adopted some voluntary model, they would form coalitions and adopt codes of conduct operating within a territory. And how does the anarchic utopia handle children? What if a member of a community wills his property to his children who, upon turning 18 promptly declare that none of the community's covenants apply to them? (And just what is the age of majority in anarchy anyway? How is it decided? And what if somebody disagrees with it?)

  To get around such problems, anarchists spend hours spinning complex scenarioes (usually involving space travel and the Internet) which, if ever realized, would consist of thickets of competing and contradictory contracts, codicils, covenants, insurance policies, reinsurance treaties, etc. (No different than the government's shelves and shelves of statutes, regs, and EO's, actually.)

  The really silly thing is, all the heavy lifting has been done for the anarchists already in English common law and in the traditions of other conservative institutions such as the Church and the extended family. Anarchists, being mostly cultural Marxists anyway, traduce the very institutions that make a free and prosperous society sustainable.

  Published: June 5, 2006 12:36 PM

• Roger M

  Don B—“I don't know what, ‘they lack authority and power to enforce’ means…� An example might help: Remember as kids when a brother or sister insisted that you do something you didn’t want to do and you replied, “You’re not my mother!�? Kids intuitively recognize who has the authority to make rules and who doesn’t. Our peers lack that authority; only recognized superiors carry rule-making authority. In the world of humanity, only God is superior to humans. That’s why for most of history kings tried to convince subjects that they descended from or represented God. Philosophers have never been able to get around that problem. They recognize that no human has the authority to tell another one what to do.
  But man isn’t blind to the morality of God, even without revelation from God. Natural Law philosophers believed that man’s ability to reason would enable him to discover those laws.
  “…then what is it that gives that higher authority the ability, does it also have a higher authority giving it commands?� God has the authority because He created us, just a parents have authority because they gave us birth.
  Ulrich—“… as soon as you give anybody the right to rule over others, you lose consistency.� You’re right if the authority is human, but not if that authority is God, in which case all humans are treated equally and consistently.

  You don’t have to accept the philosophical consensus on morals. I’m just saying that the best minds in history have struggled with the issue of morals and have left a deep body of material on the subject that libertarians don’t seem to be aware of. And, you shouldn’t use the word “morals� when speaking of norms for behavior unless you’re using their definition. Otherwise, it’s deceptive and somewhat dishonest. That’s why most writers today speak of “ethics� or “mores� because they refer to what humans think other humans should do. With ethics, you subscribe to the norms of others in order to get along and maintain a good reputation. You rarely read an informed person write about “morals� because they know that without God, there is no such thing as morals.
  

  Published: June 5, 2006 12:41 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Reactionary sez;

  "Even if all government were abolished overnight and people adopted some voluntary model, they would form coalitions and adopt codes of conduct operating within a territory. And how does the anarchic utopia handle children? What if a member of a community wills his property to his children who, upon turning 18 promptly declare that none of the community's covenants apply to them?"

  You are simply wrong - coalitions and codes do not have to be applied to a contiguous area. In fact that's what gets us into the force predicament with government - they claim a monopoly on force across a geographic area. Voluntary agreeements need not be restricted thus, as long as they could be maintained. This opens up possibilities for competing agreement organizations in the same geographic area - another point for our side.

  What kind of covenant should be enforced upon people who no longer wish to be bound by it? I'm curious. The heirs should be bound by as few covenants as are necessary to ensure that neighboring property owners may continue to enjoy their full property rights. There is no reason to continue any others.

  (Unlike such things as zoning, which are either enforced in perpetuity, or else abridged or changed without the consent of the property owner in question).

  As far as how an anarchic community will 'handle' children, presumably the parents will be the ones responsible for 'handling' them, or, should the parents die, guardians appointed by the parents, whose wishes are made known to friends or relatives. I believe this role used to be called "Godparent".

  Published: June 5, 2006 2:25 PM

• Reactionary

  Vince,

  The idea of different covenants within a single geographic area is simply untenable. People favor the simple over the complex and the predictable over the unpredictable. The idea of millions of people each running around with their own contract between themselves and the rest of the planet, subject to change upon unilateral notice, is absurd and unworkable, which is why no successful system of human organization has ever adopted such a model.

  Even in a radically decentralized society, localities will (as they have done for all of history) adopt rules applicable to their members by virtue of their residence in the locality. Individuals purporting to dissent from the local covenants would be driven out as free riders.

  Say, for example, a private community decides by unanimous vote to ban the public display of nudity. Then, a homeowner dies, leaving the property to his son, who decides his right to the enjoyment of his property includes the right to masturbate on his front yard. Is the community's ban on public nudity applicable to him?

  Now, you may demonstrate by arduous and lengthy reasoning, that the exhibitionist who inherited the property is perfectly within his rights. But in the real world, very few people would choose to buy property in a legal environment where covenants could be so lightly tossed aside. The example can be extended to holders in due course of negotiable instruments, descent and distribution of estates, etc. People will naturally demand a single legal code for a geographic area and, by extension, a corresponding body of law with other polities. As I said, all the heavy lifting in this area has already been done.

  And of course, in the real world, vigilante action would probably render the question moot. Again, so much for the pipe dream of a voluntary society.

  Published: June 5, 2006 3:56 PM

• Keith Preston

  Reactionary: "BTW, where did this site's fixation with insurance germinate? Is it from anyone with actual experience in insurance underwriting or risk management?"

  That's a great comment!! As one who has dealt with real-world insurance agencies, I am skeptical as to whether political rule by insurance companies would be as efficient or beneficient as anarcho-capitalists like to claim. In Randy's Barnett's "Structure of Liberty" (which is actually a pretty interesting book) he outlines a vision of a future society run by so-called RMOS's ("Rights Maintenance Organizations" modeled after HMOs"). Given the sorry track record of HMOs, I'm not so sure RMOs are anything to look forward to.

  I agree with Vince that legal systems need not be geographically connected or mono-centric in order to function. In fact, as I mentioned in an above post, both the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire functioned with polycentric legal systems, where competing law codes overlapped with one another (common law, canon law, manorial law, merchant law, admirality law) or applied to different population groups within close geographical proximity (the Ottoman millet system). However, I think "Reactionary" has a valid point as far as semantic questions go. If you define "anarchy" in the perjorative sense of "no rules at all" what you end up with is a war of each against all where "rule" is carried out, formally or informally, by the biggest and the baddest.

  I would define political anarchism as the idea of voluntary communities functioning according to their own mutually agreed upon rules without the interference of outside entities (like a central government). I agree that "anarchy" on the individual level is a bit difficult. There are plenty examples from history of anarchic communities (see "People Without Government" by Harold Barclay) but these communities typically had some set of norms rooted in religion, culture, family traditions, etc. If an individual wishes to exist apart from any kind of community at all, then the only option is to become a hermit or a vagabond. In the middle ages, they had a thing called "outlawry" which meant an individual was no longer under the protection of the law and anyone who wished could rob or kill him. This was a way of dealing with bandits or habitual criminals. America during its colonial and pioneer stages was relatively anarchic with lots of wide open unclaimed land and easy mobility, but there were still hangings of cattlerustlers and even religious persecution like the witch trials at Salem.

  For a real world anarchist or quasi-anarchist civilization to come about, I think two things would have to happen. First, conventional states would have to come cascading down to due economic collapse or loss of public confidence (like the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact circa 1989-91). Second, there would need to emerge an intellectual/cultural/philosophical elite with a generally anarchistic or quasi-anarchistic outlook (like today's elites are mostly liberals or Marxists). I think the end result would be small-scale political systems like the ancient Greek or Renaissance era cities, the polycentric order of the middle ages I've already mentioned, early America, indigenous-tribal societies, the traditional Chinese provinces, and contemporary micronations. Each of these would manage themselves according to their own norms, local customs and traditions, ideological preferences, material needs,etc.

  When discussing these questions with anarchists and libertarians, I always like to point out the many ways where we disagree: property theory and economic arrangements, children, abortion, animal rights, the environment, religion, racial views, cultural differences, the handling of criminals and much more. I suspect these differences would play themselves out along geographical and institutional lines. The main problems are: How do you minimize the damage of skirmishes between localized groups (the original justification for Leviathan in the first place) and how do you prevent a new tyrannical central power from emerging (power tends to become more concentrated with time)?
  

  Published: June 5, 2006 4:00 PM

• Reactionary

  Keith,

  Your point about polycentric legal regimes is well taken, and I would also note that it is the competition between these different institutions which tended to limit their reach. Those are the very institutions, btw, which the anarchists seek to destroy.

  IMO, the way to mitigate conflict would be to allow people with diametrically opposed views of morality and culture to segregate themselves by whatever criteria they choose. This is at odds with the Tower of Babel vision pushed by the progressivists and necessarily means some level of aggression by people seeking to preserve "merely" a way of life.

  History shows that the only way to keep government small is to keep the governors in fear of being killed. Threatening capital flight is not enough. As we are seeing, when the central government needs a larger tax base, it simply imports one.

  Published: June 5, 2006 4:25 PM

• Roger M

  Keith,
  You make some good points. I have argued in the past that the entire world would have to be anarchist in order for anarchism to survive, because it would be very weak against an invading army of statists or any group of thugs within the anarchist societies who wanted to take control and didn't care about the niceties of consistency in logic.

  Published: June 5, 2006 4:28 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Keith Preston sez;

  "If you define "anarchy" in the perjorative sense of "no rules at all" what you end up with is a war of each against all where "rule" is carried out, formally or informally, by the biggest and the baddest."

  I would submit, in light of recent events, that that end is EXACTLY the place to which -archy has brought us.

  Published: June 5, 2006 4:52 PM

• Robin Cox

  Paul

  
  You say

  
  "This is economic calculation, and it is this that a centralized socialist economy simply cannot do because there is no private ownership in the means of production and hence no prices, and no entrepreneurial profit based motive to shift resources to their optimal application for optimal consumer satisfaction"

  
  Evidently you havent read my article carefully at all otherwise you would have realised that one of the main points I make is that in order for a socialist economy to meet the objections raised by the economic calculation argument it cannot be a centralised economy; it has to be polycentric since that is the only way one can ensure an adequate feedback mechanism is in place without which economisation of factors cannot proceed effectively

  
  Clearly you have not understood at all the arguments I have been making against the ECA; I suggest you re-read the article with a little more circumspection this time

  Robin

  Published: June 5, 2006 6:55 PM

• Keith Preston

  Reactionary:"IMO, the way to mitigate conflict would be to allow people with diametrically opposed views of morality and culture to segregate themselves by whatever criteria they choose. This is at odds with the Tower of Babel vision pushed by the progressivists and necessarily means some level of aggression by people seeking to preserve "merely" a way of life."

  Reactionary:"History shows that the only way to keep government small is to keep the governors in fear of being killed. "

  These two are probably as insightful as any political statements ever made. I couldn't agree more. A point that I'm always trying to drive home to liberals and leftists is that if you try to force populations naturally inclined to distrust or dislike one another together, what you end up with is Rwanda, not Scandanavia.

  Roger M:"I have argued in the past that the entire world would have to be anarchist in order for anarchism to survive, because it would be very weak against an invading army of statists or any group of thugs within the anarchist societies who wanted to take control and didn't care about the niceties of consistency in logic."

  A federation of anarchic communities, each with their own militia/guerrilla/mercenary army, could probably hold its own fairly well against an invading force controlled by a cumbersome, bureaucratic foreign state. (It seems to be working well enough for the Iraqis and Afghans. Of course, not all invaded nations are lucky enough to have the likes GWB and Rumsfeld commanding the enemy, LOL!) But the need to combine their forces would probably result in the emergence of something approximating a central goverment even if the invaders were successfully repelled.

  Switzerland is far from an anarchy, but it's probably closer to it than most other states. Yet Switzerland was one of the few European nations to stay out of both world wars, despite the fact that the Swiss border the Germans.

  Vince:"I would submit, in light of recent events, that that end is EXACTLY the place to which -archy has brought us."

  The problem of controlling power has existed since time immemorial and probably always will. The only real solution I can think of is the one suggested in the above quote from "Reactionary".

  
  

  Published: June 5, 2006 10:06 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Robin,

  “Clearly you have not understood at all the arguments I have been making against the ECA; I suggest you re-read the article with a little more circumspection this time�

  I didn’t have the inclination to refute the entire article line by line. What I did was to show you how this significant statement of yours “It inadvertently highlights a serious flaw in the ECA.� is plainly false and demonstrates your lack of understanding of his argument. Perhaps you would like to address this and show me how I am wrong, rather than to redirect to another point your paper makes which is also mistaken, but which I did not address and won’t until we finish with the one at hand.

  I have shown in refuting one simple and significant aspect of your paper that you don’t understand what Mises was talking about. Understanding him first, or show signs that you do, and then refute him if you still feel inclined.
  

  Published: June 5, 2006 11:31 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  “As I pointed out to Vince, the voluntary society ends the moment someone is forced to abide by an arbitrator's decision with which he disagrees. To get around this problem, the anarcho-communists simply abolish the institution of property. No rights can conflict because no rights are ever enforced. This is the state of nature called anarchy.�

  There is no getting around this problem of requiring conflict arbitration and resolution given that we are imperfect humans. Abolishing private property and not enforcing property rights is not anarchy, it is simply chaos. Those who most rampantly dominate and threaten and take the possessions of the others by force will be the state or some other form of criminal organization. The others will be the ruled class. We have a semblance of this right now, with some respect for property which mitigates it to some extent.

  Published: June 6, 2006 12:43 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  “BTW, where did this site's fixation with insurance germinate? Is it from anyone with actual experience in insurance underwriting or risk management?�

  There’s nothing magical about insurance companies, aside from them seeming to be a logical place to suspect that protection, police and court services might immerge from in a free market. The point is that the free market could and would provide such services, and insurance companies seem plausibly motivated to provide them.

  You, on the other hand, have no interest in considering how the free market would provide such services because you are convinced this is the exclusive role and domain of a coercive state (minarchy). But if you were to consider how these services could possibly be provided in anarchy, it might seem to you, as well, that insurance companies would indeed be highly motivated to provide such protection services to mitigate costs associated with paying out claims due to theft and aggression.

  Published: June 6, 2006 1:07 AM

• Sione

  In my long experience of dealing with communists (including the anarcho variant), socialists, facists and all the other sundry types of collectivists, they are all characterised with the same overwhelming lust for getting something for nothing- especially other people's property. In each and every case they are fixated on seeking an easy way to obtain the benefits of propety but without the responsibility owning property brings, nor the effort to earn it or even the effort to maintain it. They want your stuff for nothing.

  What it boils down to is that these guys want to steal, destroy and discard. Most of them lack the honesty of the common crook and they definately lack the stomach to embark on the actual act of mass theivery themselves. They need trained muscle to do that for them. Hence they tell lies in order to disguise what it is they are proposing and what it is they are supporting.

  As the Matai would maintain: all collectivists are liars who should never be trusted (or ever assisted).

  Forget the collectivists. They have nothing to give you (including their ideas which they can never explain rationally) but you have everything to lose. You are wasting time arguing with such critters.

  Sione

  Published: June 6, 2006 1:56 AM

• quincunx

  "As one who has dealt with real-world insurance agencies,"

  You have dealt with insurance companies in an anarchic state?

  I had no idea that there were insurance companies that did not have to comply with state law. News to me, where do I sign up? I would like to get the most basic coverage for my car and my health.
  My only vice is smoking, I'm a relatively safe driver, can I pay according to my risk?

  Or did you deal with government regulated pseudo insurance companies? Was it in a mandatory health or auto insurance state?

  "A federation of anarchic communities, each with their own militia/guerrilla/mercenary army, could probably hold its own fairly well against an invading force controlled by a cumbersome, bureaucratic foreign state."

  That's precisely what decentralized non-geographically contiguous private insurance agencies will do. I don't see how you can say "federation of anarchic communities" and discard the decentralized insurance model as a different species of animal.

  "The idea of millions of people each running around with their own contract between themselves and the rest of the planet, subject to change upon unilateral notice, is absurd and unworkable, which is why no successful system of human organization has ever adopted such a model."

  Lets compare this to wireless networking:

  That's like saying that each person will have a wireless network card with its own protocols, its own frequencies, and will bleed into other frequencies. There is no way to work it out- it's absurd and unworkable - oh wait except there
  is a standards body (private organization) that allows you to use your card anywhere in the world, with some trivial modifications. There are litereally thousands of technological standards that work together. Open Source is just about the best example. Thousands or programs, developed accross the world, tied together by people accross the world, packaged, and transmitted to people accross the world. None of them have to cooperate with each other - but the authors realize that it would be best if it did. And the packagers specifically ties together those cooperating programs to increase consumer satisfaction. I have been satisfied with this decentralized model for 9 years.

  People and insurance companies will have every incentive to work out a decent legal system
  among themselves - subject to pear review (a la ebay, ex). There will be no 'up is down' contrarian organizations that will actually be able to survive - merely because people like predictability - and will choose to enter an organization that is compliant with the largest possible 'conflict-free' market. The only exception of course is local communes (a pooling together of previously private property in order to socialize that property) who will indeed adopt a very different set of rules. But eventually, some sort of workable solution will be reached for those that want to deal with that society - even if it's a middle ground, lose/lose or win/win outcome.

  "Even in a radically decentralized society, localities will (as they have done for all of history) adopt rules applicable to their members by virtue of their residence in the locality. Individuals purporting to dissent from the local covenants would be driven out as free riders."

  Our ancestors didn't have the internet nor the telephone. I find more in common with certain people all over the world than on my block. My only preference for neighbors is that they act in a civil non-threatning manner, however my standards for others is a bit higher (I'm sure this applies to most people on this board). I would prefer to do my business with anyone I please, not subject to the rules decided for me by my physical location. For instance, I would not like my block to tell me I can't receive products from X, because I can obtain it from someone on my block.

  "Say, for example, a private community decides by unanimous vote to ban the public display of nudity. Then, a homeowner dies, leaving the property to his son, who decides his right to the enjoyment of his property includes the right to masturbate on his front yard. Is the community's ban on public nudity applicable to him?"

  Only those that vote DECIDE. He doesn't have a special right to masturbate on his front yard, he does have the right not get physically aggressed for doing so. People can actually look down on him for doing it, but can't attack him.

  However this problem can be solved by a type of contract. The owner agrees to abide by the rules of 'no public nudity' PRIOR to purchasing his home. Upon death, the contract is transfered to his son, who has the option to ACCEPT it whole or REJECT it in part. If he rejects it in part, his only remaining option is to sell or rent the property (whatever measure he [or others] think is fair in stopping him from masturbating in front). If he ACCEPTS it but then violates the rules - he will be subject to a fine (I think this will be a pretty standard clause, with the possible added rule that his non-compliance will be reported to his agencies and possibly effect his contract rating).

  "And of course, in the real world, vigilante action would probably render the question moot. Again, so much for the pipe dream of a voluntary society."

  If the voluntary society is a pipe dream, then either you are a nihilist or ansoc is not a voluntary society?

  That's what I get from deconstructing that sentence.

  I agree with the latter.

  It's preceisely that rub of anti-voluntarism that I get when I debate ansocs.

  Published: June 6, 2006 2:10 AM

• Robin Cox

  Paul

  To begin with I do not claim that the economic calculation argument actually asserts that the ability to compute profit and loss that guarantees individual success in the market. So your inference that my significant statement "is plainly false and demonstrates your lack of understanding of his argument" is itself plainly false and demonstrates a lack of understanding of my own argument

  What I wrote in the article does not seem to me to be particularly contentious: "Just because a system of market prices affords one a set of figures with which one can perform precise calculations does not mean that these figures will turn out to be correct – that is to say, will unerringly guide the entrepreneur towards a positive net income". What I was merely pointing out was that emphasising the "preciseness" of market calculations - which what the ECA certainly does - can be highly misleading and that is indeed a flaw. Or shall we call it a contradiction that proponents of the ECA unwittingly tend to overlook.

  You can't quite seem to make up your own mind on this matter characterising what I say as an "absurdly simple minded and superficial understanding of Mises’s argument" and then in the next breath as something that is "plainly false and demonstrates (a) lack of understanding of his argument"

  
  You then go on to completely contradict yourself. Having conceded the point that the ability to compute profit and loss is no guarantee of a positive net income you then go on to assert: "This process of profit and loss motivated shifting of resources from one industry to another ensures maximized consumer satisfaction and maximized efficiency of allocation of scarce resources." Note the word "ensures" in the above sentence. This exactly illustrates the completely muddleheaded approach of proponents of the ECA that I was getting at.

  Now perhaps you might care to address the point raised in my earlier post:

  
  "Evidently you havent read my article carefully at all otherwise you would have realised that one of the main points I make is that in order for a socialist economy to meet the objections raised by the economic calculation argument it cannot be a centralised economy; it has to be polycentric since that is the only way one can ensure an adequate feedback mechanism is in place without which economisation of factors cannot proceed effectively"

  
  You claim this point is "also mistaken". Perhaps you might care to explain why you think this is the case. Also, you might care to explain how you imagined I advocated a centralised socialist economy when I explictly and on several occasions rejected this.

  Robin

  Published: June 6, 2006 4:46 AM

• Reactionary

  Paul,

  You are laboring under a misunderstanding of the business of insurance. You claim that insurers "would indeed be highly motivated to provide such protection services to mitigate costs associated with paying out claims due to theft and aggression." If that were the case then they would already be doing it. Insurers would be actively involved in the day-to-day management of their customers' affairs. They don't do this because it is an unwarranted and uneconomic exposure to risk well beyond their premium receipts. Insurers who involve themselves in a customer's risk management are no longer insuring just the customer; they have to insure themselves as well. In a market competing for premium dollars from good risks, your idealistic but financially ignorant anarchist insurer would quickly go bankrupt in competition with more savvy insurers.

  I've got it! We could grant an insurer a territorial monopoly over a certain pool and, to encourage the insurer's active role in providing various risk management services, we'd grant it limited immunity!

  Here's how it would work: everybody in the pool would pay a certain amount to the insurer to spread the risk of accident, criminal behavior, and sickness. In exchange, they would agree to be bound by the insurer's covenants. Violators would be arrested by the insurer's enforcement arm and tried before the insurer's tribunal. Those convicted would have their property seized and would face their choice of indentured servitude or exile.

  Is this sounding familiar yet?

  Published: June 6, 2006 8:49 AM

• Keith Preston

  Has anyone here actually observed how municipal police departments actually work? The citizens of the affluent, politically connected sections of town receive the most efficient protection and the most courteous treatment from the police while violent crime in the poor sectors is ignored or neglected and the residents of these areas are more likely to be subject to harassment or abuse by the police. Police resources are allocated according to the influence of political pressure groups. More effort will sometimes be devoted to keeping unsightly creatures like vagrants, drunks or prostitutes off public sidewalks near affluent residential areas than to combatting armed robberies, rapes and murders in poor communities. How is this any different from what police departments run by Prudential or Aetna would do? They would provide whatever services their most wealthy customers wanted and let crime run rampant everywhere else.

  I think "Reactionary" is correct about insurance companies not wanting to get into the law enforcement business for reasons of financial prudence. For that to work, the insurance companies would have to charge premiums so high as to be economically prohibitive for most people. Therefore, "law enforcement" would be the personal security force of the very wealthy few (like the private armies maintained by the drug lords of some of the Latin American companies). These individuals would use their private security forces to dominate their local regions. And most of them would not be libertarian ideologues who make a distinction between proportional and disproportional "justice", victim and non-victim crimes, voluntary and involuntary consumers of protection "services", etc. This is why I say the kinds of legal/protection institutions anarcho-capitalists tend to favor would amount to a type of feudalism in practice.

  A more reasonable approach to private law enforcement might be something along the lines of the volunteer fire departments, citizen posses or community militias some rural communities or smaller towns have maintained in the past. Something like that could theoretically exist in large metropolitan areas on a neighborhood to neighborhood basis (basically an expanded or glorified "neighborhood watch" program"). There might also be deputized local citizens led by a precinct constable or something to that effect. Private security guards could play a role in that as well but those work the best when employed by individual or small groups of property owners (shopping malls, recreational facilities, apartment buildings, universities, business districts). These are arrangements that have actually existed and worked with reasonable proficiency (but not perfection). Wider use of these might actually contribute to both making police power more accountable and controlling serious crime. But something akin to the LAPD run by Prudential is absurd.

  Published: June 6, 2006 9:37 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  Reactionary said,

  “As I pointed out to Vince, the voluntary society ends the moment someone is forced to abide by an arbitrator's decision with which he disagrees.�

  How do you figure? If you enter into an agreement whereby both parties agree that in case of a dispute they are bound by the decisions of a mutually agreeable arbitrator, then you have ALREADY GIVEN your consent, therefore the result does not violate the pronciple of voluntarism, QED.

  By the way, these are all just technical asides. Nothing in a completely voluntary society has to follow a prescription that I or others (see Stefan Molyneux's articles at LRC, Walter Block's fine work, etc)write here or elsewhere.

  I am simply pointing out that your premise (i.e., that society will descend inevitably into chaos and murder absent a government like the present ones) is simply incorrect, whether you can conceive of that or not.

  Independent individuals cooperate freely for reasons of mutual benefit, from collecting each other's mail and cutting each other's grass to defending their fledgling independence (i.e., here, 1776) with arms. But it requires government force to impose uniform, costly solutions on all but the very wealthy, and it requires government force to invade and murder in other lands. Anarcho-capitalism must by its voluntary nature be freer and cheaper than forcible government. And Anarcho-communism must either be purely voluntary, in which case it loses people and resources, or purely forcible, in which case it loses freedom also. In its purest sustainable form, anarcho-communism isn't anarchy, it is banditry.

  Published: June 6, 2006 9:52 AM

• Brett Celinski

  In terms of rich and poor neighborhoods being cared for by private law enforcement agencies, you still have to take into account the now absent levels of taxation and regulation in such communities. These factors have a huge hand in reducing dependence and crime.

  There certainly would still be poor neighborhoods who pay lower for lower service. But why must it be imagined superstitiously in that same old Hobbesian terror?

  Published: June 6, 2006 2:23 PM

• Bill Anderson

  I am one of these so-called "Anarcho-Communists" (more appropriately, an Anti-Authoritarian Anarchist) I must say that Rothbard here is spouting complete lies and fabrications.

  I actually identify myself as an Anarchist first, and only secondly as a communist (meaning one who views society and state through a class perspective) and a luddite (meaning one who believes in technology that enhances and empowers, rather than degrades and homogonizes humanity by turning us into machines)

  My first comment, before we even delve into these details:

  When has there ever been a state, without there also being class divisions? Inequality is a necessary condition for the existence of the state, because some people must hold the reigns of power, while the rest don't. Systematic inequality, and social stratification is impossible to uphold without force. This is a basic fact if you were to ever take an anthropology course, or simply study the development of state-based human societies over the last 10,000 years. As the state becomes more and more centralized, so does the degree of inequality between those at the top and those at the bottom.

  Now I have to take issue with a number of false statements Rothbard makes here.

  If there is one thing, for example, that anarcho-communism hates and reviles more than the State it is the rights of private property; as a matter of fact, the major reason that anarcho-communists oppose the State is because they wrongly believe that it is the creator and protector of private property, and therefore that the only route toward abolition of property is by destruction of the State apparatus.

  They totally fail to realize that the State has always been the great enemy and invader of the rights of private property.

  First he's failing to draw the distinction between property and possession. The modern nation-state system was developed in Medieval Europe, where it's primary purpose was to secure the estates and revenues of Monarchs. Monarch of course, meaning rule by ONE, is the ultimate system of individualist rule.

  I wrote the below letter-to-editor, which is being published in next edition of this journal, Liberty Tree Foundation for the Democratic Revolution. Its not exactly an Anarchist journal, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be read and considered for its own merits. (After all if If I only read Anarchist journals, I wouldn't be discussing with capitalists right now)

  Here's the letter, about an article on the history of the corporate entity--

  Much thanks to Ben Manski for a in-depth and interesting article. In "The Essence of the Corporation" he aptly explains that "The corporation in any era is an embodiment of the relationship between state power and private organization." However, on page 19, the Anglo-Saxon shire-reve is mentioned, and only a paragraph later the Sheriff of Nottingham, without drawing the etymological connection.

  In The Medieval Origins of the Modern State, Joseph R. Strayer (Professor of History, Princeton University) discusses the problems that Medieval rulers experienced in the collection of taxes, dues, fines, and tolls. Thus Strayer states, "rulers who wanted to preserve their status and hand it on to their sons had to make some effort to form coherent political units out of the scattered lands and rights of government which they possessed … The first permanent functionaries were estate-managers -- the reeves and shire-reeves (sheriffs) of England … They centralized the scattered revenues of their territories and made them available to their masters."

  This suggests that Sheriffs, or shire-reeves, were of an Anglo-Saxon Germanic tradition, rather than of a Roman tradition as suggested by Manski. Of course, since Sheriffs were the monarch's local estate-managers to begin with, it is likely that they were bought off by the new Norman ruler.

  Indeed, the line between public and private is blurred in the analysis of the corporate entity. One could even argue that states are themselves private entities, merely with a public face, that in truth represent the interests of a ruling class. The origin of the modern state, in the various corporate forms of Medieval Europe, would seem to suggest so.

  
  

  Now after showing you that, of course, I'm going to contest this statement of Rothbard's--

  Anarcho-communists have always been extremely vague and cloudy about the lineaments of their proposed anarchist society of the future.

  ...

  Philosophically, this creed is an all-out assault on individuality and on reason.

  Clearly he's never read Kropotkin or Malatesta.

  Many of them have been propounding the profoundly anti-libertarian doctrine that the anarcho-communist revolution will have to confiscate and abolish all private property, so as to wean everyone from their psychological attachment to the property they own.

  Furthermore, it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money.

  Ironically enough, Rothbard is now parroting an old Stalinist line. These claims were complete fabrications created by the Soviet forces

  But while our condition of scarcity is clearly superior to that of the cave-man

  So what's he saying, that the state provides material abundance? Hunter-gatherer societies had plenty of material abundance, they spend less time working than we do because they didn't need to produce anything, they let the processes of nature do that for them! And they lived without states, and without epidemic diseases, in egaltarian societies that understood the natural world around them better than we do, and with more heightened senses and awareness than those of us in the industrialized world.

  I'm not suggesting we "go back" because we now live in a densely populated, industrial society. But that means we need to devise a new plan of action, if we are to abolish the state. This perhaps speaks to the monumental failure of "anarcho-capitalism", in its complete failure to 1) provide a PLAN OF ACTION for dealing with our current situation, and 2) Its failure to study or consider anthropology, the rise of agriculture and sedentary societies, or the history of human societies before European conquest of the world. There's an excellent book I'm reading right now entitled "Guns, Germs, and Steal" by Jared Diamond. He's not an Anarchist, but he does give an extremely thorough account of the ultimate and proximate factors that caused some societies to militarily conquer others.

  I might add that if a libertarian is truly one who abhors coercion, then you should be a vegan, or at least a vegetarian (which most Anarcho-Communists I know are) The coercion which humans commit against domesticated animals is abhorrent, even more so than the violence we commit against each other (with a few notable exceptions, like the extermination of the Indian tribes of North and South America, the largest genocide in world history) Domestic animals in Eurasia are what brought most major diseases into the human population to begin with.

  I'm not against violence or killing, because death is a natural part of the system of life. I'm simply against domestication of animals, as well as commercial hunting of wild animals (i.e. hunting for a montary profit) I'm fine with hunting as long as it is for personal use of those doing the hunting.

  There's also this comment from the comments, I can't help but address

  They are consistent in claiming that property is bad, and that it leads to exploitation (at this moment they usually point to industrialization; when you ask them why everybody actively *went* from the country to the cities, and when you imply that clearly there was a *choice* involved between living life as before (they did live before the big capitalists came out of nowhere, didn't they?), and going to work in the factories, they change the topic).

  Actually, people did NOT voluntarily go to work in factories. As has been argued eloquently by numerous authors including Kevin Carson.

  Peasants had to be forced off their land via powerful central banks, landlords, and "land reform" implemented by the bourgeoisie state. Further, the Industrial Revolution was impossible without protectionism and usury (usury of course, being unsustainable and unprofitable without state privilege to the usurer. Usury is precisely what Proudhon wrote "What is Property?" against)

  Your support for Industrialism actually puts you closer to Marxists than it does to genuine Anarchists. Marxists see the development of capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie class over Feudalism as a necessary step to create the conditions neccessary for socialism. For example in the USSR, where the Bolsheviks did the exact same thing to Russia in the 1920s and 30s that individual capitalists and their politicians did to Western Europe a hundred years earlier -- force peasants off their land, against their will, and into centralized system of factory production.

  Regardless, if you are going to attack Anarcho-Communism, you should also be aware that there is a strong tendency among modern Anarchists (of the anti-capitalist variety) usually termed "Post-Leftism", that also attacks socialist and other leftist ideologies as being no better than the capitalist system they seek to replace. This "post-left" critique varies from writer to writer, but usually claims that the syndicalist tactics and methods are outdated for Anarchism and are simply echoes of a by-gone era. Just as the state and capital have continued evolving, so must Anarchists continue evolving and changing. This post-left revolution began in France in the 1960s with a group called the Situationists (best exemplified in the U.S. by CrimeThinc magazine) but also expands to other schools of thought such as Nihilism and Green Anarchy.

  My personal views on the subject are mixed. I think both side of the leftist/post-leftist debate have good points, and ultimately need to be understood not as contradictory, but as complimentary. Yes, there is certainly an important and powerful critique to be made of the traditional left, but if we are ever to move our current society towards Anarchy, we cannot allow ourselves to be content with inaction and bourgeois lifestyle politics. In other words, the state is NOT just going to fall on its own weight from an economic or ecological crises, and thus bring about an Apocolyptic Anarchy. A socialist agenda is required, in the most fundamental sense of the word, meaning we must actively engage society in a transformative struggle, from the statist, violent class-based society we live in, to a society free from domination and control.

  Someone in the comments section said: In its purest sustainable form, anarcho-communism isn't anarchy, it is banditry.

  No, that is capitalism, in the only form which it has ever existed in the real world. Capitalism simply is not sustainable without continual expansion of the marketplace, which entails violence, imperialism, and standing armies to "open up" new markets for the ruling class, and uphold the hegemony of existing ones, against the will of those who recognize their exploitation.

  I don't claim that communism is the solution, but understanding the history of class struggle provides many insights (from a materialist, scientific standpoint) as to the nature of the state, which cannot be understood through idealist deduction (in other words the a priori starting point of Austrian economics - that the ideas in the human mind precede the matterial conditions of existance, which is an unscientific and irrational viewpoint)

  As I said at the begining -- as long as there have been states, there have been class divisions. And as long as there have been class divisions, there has been class struggle. You aren't going to do away with that by the waving of your magical Austrian wand. The class struggle must be understood and directed into the most libertarian and revolutionary way possible, because the state sure as hell isn't going to give up its power voluntarily. It must be overthrown. That is reality, like it or not.

  Published: June 6, 2006 6:48 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Robin,

  “What I wrote in the article does not seem to me to be particularly contentious: "Just because a system of market prices affords one a set of figures with which one can perform precise calculations does not mean that these figures will turn out to be correct – that is to say, will unerringly guide the entrepreneur towards a positive net income". What I was merely pointing out was that emphasising the "preciseness" of market calculations - which what the ECA certainly does - can be highly misleading and that is indeed a flaw. Or shall we call it a contradiction that proponents of the ECA unwittingly tend to overlook.�

  Thank-you. Now I can respond to your response to my objection. First of all, your point seems to me to be extremely contentious, and fundamental. This is why I think it is worth debate. Secondly, there is no emphasis on preciseness in Mises’s argument. It is only important that profit and loss can be easily discerned by the entrepreneur. The existence of prices in a market fulfills this condition. Next, we need to clear up your imprecise use of the term “entrepreneur� in your above comment, although regardless of which way you mean it, the point is either wrong or irrelevant.

  When you use the term “entrepreneur�, are you meaning every single entrepreneur who ever puts a shingle outside his shop? Or are you talking of the class of entrepreneur over the long run? If it is the former you mean, then of course you are correct, some entrepreneurs will fail, and profit and loss sheets can not do anything about this but to reveal the failure; but this is not a problem because that is not what Mises was disputing and it is unnecessary that they all succeed for Mises’s point to be correct. In fact, it is necessary that entrepreneurs unable to turn a profit fail and stop acting as entrepreneurs. This is a good thing that the market performs and socialists can’t replicate this process.

  On the other hand, if you mean the latter, that profit and loss does not guide the class of entrepreneur over the long run, to optimize resource allocation, then what you are saying is simply incorrect. In the long run, the profit and loss sheet will guide the successful entrepreneurs to optimally allocate scarce resources towards the maximum satisfaction of the consumer, and the unsuccessful ones will stop participating in the business of allocating resources altogether.

  Finally, it does not matter how “polycentric� your socialist economy is; it cannot calculate, certainly at least, if it does not do business with capitalistic economies from the outside that can. This is because it has no ownership, no prices and no market in the factors of production, and it has no entrepreneurs with the ability and the will to speculate for personal profit. Without all of these in play, there is only economic chaos, no calculation, and no way to optimally allocate scarce resources. When you understand my objection to your argument above, you will see that what I say here is also true.
  

  Published: June 6, 2006 8:22 PM

• Leon

  Bill Anderson,

  Jared Diamond is old hat. His critics are better than the real thing. "The Third Chimpanzee" is actually his best. But, what I am wondering is what your solution to this world of scarce resources is, if not freedom for the individual and the recognition of private property. Surely, you can come up with more of a solution than "hunting for personal use."

  Published: June 6, 2006 9:07 PM

• Leon

  Also, Joseph R. Strayer's On the Medieval Origins of the State is a very interesting book. Don't miss Martin Van Creveld's The Rise and Decline of the State as well.

  Published: June 6, 2006 9:13 PM

• Juan G.

  Reactionary,

  You say that anarcho-capitalists are really 'miniarchists'.

  Wrong.

  'Miniarchism' is the name for a cohercitive governemt that CLAIMS to enforce individual property rights. You can take a look at Frederic Bastiat's "La Loi" for a clear explanation of what miniarchism SHOULD be and/or achieve.

  However, in reality, minimal governments are an utter failure (cause they are contradictory). I think that the only entity that ever started as a minimal government is now the biggest and most dangerous govt. on earth.

  Around 1850 a guy named de Molinari noted that the problem with govt. was precisely its monopolistic nature (absolute control of a geographical area). Since de Molinari was one of the greatest political economists ever, he suggested that competition should also be the norm in the production of security.

  What we anarcho-libertarians advocate is simply that - no monopoly in any trade, including 'security'.

  So please don't call anarcho-libertarians 'miniarchists' because that shows you don't grasp our position.

  Wheter a voluntary society is possible or not is another issue. Now, YOU indeed are a miniarchist. You seem to believe that society can only exists if a minimal government enforces property rights. But that's clearly absurd. If the majority likes to rob rape and kill their neighbours then NO minimal state is going to stop them.

  Smaller governments existed in the West in 19th century BECAUSE people were more civilzed. Not the other way around. But miniarchists can't tell apart cause from effect. Miniarchists can't make head or tails wrt to government and civilization.
  
  

  Published: June 6, 2006 9:22 PM

• Stephan Jerde

  Robin,

  From your article: (though I've taken the liberty to bold the essential concept)

  Without private property in the means of production, according to Mises, there can be no market for the means of production. Without a market for a means of production, it will be impossible to attach monetary prices to the means of production. Without monetary prices, reflecting the relative scarcity of these inputs, socialist decision-makers will be unable rationally to calculate how best to allocate these inputs in a way that ensures economic efficiency. In other words they will be unable to compare the proceeds of any economic activity with the costs incurred to determine whether it was worthwhile or not – that is to say , whether or not it realises a “net income�.

  and

  Going back to our example of consumer good X, we can see that the ECA relies on the notion of accounting cost rather than opportunity cost, despite its copious lip service to the latter.

  It does nothing of the kind.
  
  
  I noticed in numerous places through your article, you are using the terms "price", "value" and "cost" imprecisely, and sometimes interchangeably. The terms each have specific meanings, and using them improperly is almost guaranteed to get you the wrong answer. It also explains why you have so misunderstood (or possibly misstated) Mises' argument.
  
  I admit at that point I kind of skimmed it. If I followed it, what you've done is essentially derive a labor theory of price for the special case of an equilibrium, perfect competition, perfect information and perfectly fluid capital. Might have its uses in some neoclassical modeling exercises, I suppose, but not particularly relevant to anything in the real world.
  
  You've also made the argument that willingness to pay is not an appropriate way of measuring demand, or effective demand, as you've termed it. I don't know of any realistic way of doing otherwise, though, do you? If you don't compare what I'm willing to forego in order to buy the DVD of Madagascar, how do you intend to find out? Just ask? Heck, if I don't have to give up anything for it, I'm likely to demand 10 of them, so I don't have to take particularly good care of it.

  Published: June 7, 2006 4:05 AM

• Reactionary

  "Smaller governments existed in the West in 19th century BECAUSE people were more civilzed."

  Then it would appear that corrupt government is the symptom, and not the illness.

  Published: June 7, 2006 8:54 AM

• Reactionary

  Juan,

  "Smaller governments existed in the West in 19th century BECAUSE people were more civilzed."

  Then it would appear that corrupt government is the symptom, and not the illness.

  Published: June 7, 2006 8:55 AM

• quasibill

  "Then it would appear that corrupt government is the symptom, and not the illness."

  Or, like most things in real life, it could be that the causal relationship is not uni-directional. The state corrupts civil society and coarsens it, which ends up creating ever more corrupt and coarse states. Rinse, repeat.

  Published: June 7, 2006 9:50 AM

• Reactionary

  quasibill,

  True.

  Published: June 7, 2006 10:02 AM

• Paul Edwards

  "Then it would appear that corrupt government is the symptom, and not the illness."

  I agree as well. The root problem is people's tendency towards fear, greed, envy and foolish gullibility. The state, which is necessarily coercive and corrupt, is the only criminal organization that is regularly defended, even by its victims, as necessary or beneficial. All other forms of corruption and crime connected with human action, on the other hand, get their deserved universal denunciation.

  Once people come to realize that state activity is just like any other criminal activity, and that it feeds off of human moral frailty, will it become treated like one.

  Published: June 7, 2006 10:54 AM

• Reactionary

  Paul,

  Parents are necessarily coercive with their children. Are they also necessarily corrupt? The state is a human institution, just like Wal-Mart, and mises.org. People can select rulers who rule or leaders who inspire.

  Published: June 7, 2006 11:14 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  "Parents are necessarily coercive with their children. Are they also necessarily corrupt?"

  I think the parent/child, state/subject analogy is extremely weak. The main reason is this: parents are responsible for and therefore justified in using force to protect their child. Such action is necessary and valid. It is not defensible to let your child get struck by a car because you are against the initiation of force.

  On the other hand, the state is not justified in aggressing against its subjects for any reason. The state is nobody’s parent, and its subjects are not children and do not require (usually) irresponsible strangers coercively leaching off of them and dictating how to run their lives.

  Part of the problem is that some people think they need a mommy to help them out, and since their real mom forced them to stand on their own two feet years ago, they now look elsewhere for the soft touch.

  Published: June 7, 2006 11:43 AM

• Keith Preston

  Has anyone seen this article that Rockwell carried on his site today?
  http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20060605/wl_csm/ostatelet

  I think the process being described in this article is the key to attacking modern Leviathan states. Van Creveld and other historians/theorists of the state tend to argue that the trends are moving away from the massive state machineries that evolved in the 20th century. The proliferation of secessionist movements would seem to be the most probable and most effective means of advancing this idea. Strategic alliances among these forces ("Unity of Separatists") might well hasten the process along.

  For some time, I have maintained that the principal obstacle to dismantling Leviathan is universalism. The absense of an overarching central authority automatically means a plurality of value systems. "Kind goes unto kind", so to speak. From the content of the debate on this thread it is clear enough that anti-state radicals maintain many important differences among themselves. Whether we be anarchists, minarchists, libertarians, conservatives, paleoconservatives, classical liberals, Christians, Objectivists or what have you, we all seem to object to our imperial overlords of the Leviathan state. The question is what are we going to do about it?

  Having thought quite a bit about this question over the past twenty years or so, it would seem to me that the partial solution is not so different from what the founders of the US originally did: Secede from the Empire!! In the last decade or so I've noticed more and more groups emerging that call for secession, or at least greater decentralism, of some sort. And I'm not talking about Republican politicians who carry copies of the Tenth Amendment in their back pocket and PAC money in their front pocket. I'm talking about authentic radicals like the Second Vermont Republic that was covered in "American Conservative", the Free State Project in New Hampshire, the Christian Exodus Project in South Carolina and a number of others. Our best bet is to try to grow these efforts, and build bridges among them and with other similar groups both here and in other countries.

  The only way to make something like this work is to attempt to work around differences of an ideological, cultural or economic nature ("agree to disagree"). For example, ideological libertarians can focus on New Hampshire, conservative Christians on S. Carolina, white nationalists on Idaho, black nationalists on wherever Minister Farrakhnan wants to have the black separatist state, left-anarchists or Luddites in Oregon or northern California or big cities.

  Why stop at the regional level? Why not decentralized local communities in New Hampshire for the different libertarian factions: minarchists vs. anarchists, pro vs. anti on the abortion question, Rothbardians vs geoists vs mutualists, gun nuts, homeschoolers and tax resisters vs druggies, hookers and porn merchants?

  Why not different communities in the Christian Republic for Baptists, Catholics, Calvinists, Reconstructionists, Pentecostals and Messianic Jews? Why not different communities in the Aryan Republic for Identity Christians, Odinists, Satanists, neo-pagans, Nazis, Kluxers, or white power anarchists?
  
  Why not different communities for black Muslims, black Christians, black Marxists or adherents of traditional African religions?

  Check out the interviews with these two guys!!:

  http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/revklan.html
  http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/revblack.html

  On the economics questions, here's recent post from Kevin Carson's blog:

  "But Larry Gambone, in "The Myth of Socialism as Statism," attempts to recover the lost original meaning of socialism that has been buried under all those anachronistic accretions. Consider these examles:

  *Thomas Spence – farm land and industry owned by join stock companies, all farmers and workers as voting shareholders.

  * St. Simon – a system of voluntary corporations

  * Ricardian Socialists – worker coops

  * Owen – industrial coops and cooperative intentional communities

  * Fourier – the Phlanistery – an intentional community

  * Cabet - industry owned by the municipality (“commune� in French, hence commune-ism)

  * Flora Tristan – worker coops

  * Proudhon – worker coops financed by Peoples Bank – a kind of credit union that issued money.

  * Greene – mutualist banking system allowing farmers and workers to own means of production.

  * Lasalle – worker coops financed by the state – for which he was excoriated by Marx as a “state socialist�

  * Marx – a “national system of cooperative production�

  * Tucker - mutualist banking system allowing farmers and workers to own means of production.

  * Dietzgen – cooperative production

  * Knights of Labor – worker coops

  * Parsons – workers ownership and control of production

  * Vanderveldt – socialist society as a ‘giant cooperative�

  * Socialist Labor Party – industry owned and run democratically thru the Socialist Industrial Unions

  * Socialist Party USA – until late 1920’s emphasized workers control of production.

  * CGT France, 1919 Program - mixed economy with large industry owned by stakeholder coops.

  * IWW – democratically run through the industrial unions.

  * Socialist Party of Canada, Socialist Party of Great Britain, 1904-05 program – common ownership, democratically run – both parties, to this very day, bitterly opposed to nationalization.

  * SDP – Erfurt Program 1892 – Minimum program includes a mixed economy of state, cooperative and municipal industries. While often considered a state socialist document, in reality it does not give predominance to state ownership.

  
  Marx is a mixed bag, certainly, but I always thought there was something suspiciously Proudhonian about somebody who could write The Civil War in France, or keep referring in the Communist Manifesto to the "associated producers." How petty bourgeois can you get? But in any case, even into the early twentieth century, a large section of the socialist movement viewed nationalization of the economy as simply a political umbrella under which the primary task of organizing the economy by the workers (through cooperatives, workers' factory committees, syndicates, and the like) would take place."

  Now I realize the "S" word is considered profanity for most of the people reading this. Might I suggest that a decentralized, pluralistic society is capable of accommodating economic arrangements similar to those described above right along with those someone like Professor Reisman might favor? Some of you would argue that such arrangements are destined to fail for economic reasons, but so what if they do? That's the problem of the people who organize or join such institutions!

  My guess is that some communities would come to be rather stable or prosperous (like Switzerland or Hong Kong). Others might become rather dysfunctional (like Afghanistan, Haiti or some of the African countries). As a Nietzschean-Stirnerite-Social Darwinian, my inclination is to simply say: "May the best team win!"

  Published: June 7, 2006 12:08 PM

• M E Hoffer

  my question is: If we are successful in decentralizing to the point where we have, for example, a village of anarcho-communists next to a hamlet of anarcho-capitalists... how would something like the nuisance effect of pollution by one, on the other, be resolved?

  Published: June 7, 2006 12:37 PM

• Bill Anderson

  
  Bill Anderson,
  
  
  
  Jared Diamond is old hat. His critics are better than the real thing. "The Third Chimpanzee" is actually his best. But, what I am wondering is what your solution to this world of scarce resources is, if not freedom for the individual and the recognition of private property. Surely, you can come up with more of a solution than "hunting for personal use."
  
  
  
  "Hunting for personal use" is not a solution, its just a viewpoint -- I think that factory farming and commercial hunting is coercive and ecologically destructive. The course of action I decide to take on that value, is that I don't buy any form of animal flesh from commercial markets.
  
  
  
  But I don't think that such consumer-based politics is ultimately going to end the specicist tyranny of human animals over non-human animals, just as I don't think that "the free market" is going to bring about economic liberation of producers.
  
  
  
  The reason I reject such individualist politics is simple: Rights cannot be given, they must be taken.
  
  
  
  I don't claim to have have solutions, just perspectives, facts, and potential courses of actions that individuals and groups can take. Ultimately, there is no single solution that will work for everybody, everywhere. That is why I neccessarily reject idealist solutions like "private property." When has true private property ever existed? IT HASN'T! Property is impossible!! (that was one of Proudhon's other claims about property) There will always be a commons no matter how hard they try to privatize it, and property will always involve complex SOCIAL relationships, I mean just take a look at modern American corporations, with their full legal rights as sovieriegn human beings... they are complete creatures of the state and of class rule! And corporations are legal expressions of private property interests. Historically private property has served as an ideology to rationalize state violence against oppressed classes and imperialized peoples, fighting back against their oppressors.
  
  
  
  Some people do put their necks on the line, and engage in direct action towards the goal of liberation. Like Paul Watson's Sea Shepard project which attempts to disrupt and interefere with commercial whaling operations, or
  Peter Young who is sitting in federal prison a few miles away from where I live because he liberated minks from several mink farms in the late 90s. In both those cases, private property interests are being interfered with in order to end coercion and aggression.
  
  
  
  Historically there were many Anarchist labor organizers (especially in the wake of World War I) who were imprisoned, executed, or deported for their work undermining capitalist private property interests. Joe Hill, Emma Goldman, Big Bill Haywood, the Haymarket Martyrs, to name the most famous ones. The Industrial Workers of the World (century-old radical labor union to which I belong) had its offices raided and torched during the Palmer Raids of 1919, its members harrassed and blacklisted, many of them jailed or deported, because they put their necks on the line for the economic liberation of the working-class (i.e. socialism)
  
  
  
  I don't know of any right-wing Libertarian thinker or activist who experienced nearly the degree of state repression which genuine Anarchists have faced throughout history. And when the state strikes back like that, you know you are doing something to undermine its power.
  
  
  
  Basically what it comes down to, is that you can be content with these individualistic politics you espouse, and the state will just keep chugging along. Unlike most so-called "Libertarians" you'll meet, the Rothbardian/Austrian Libertarians are actually principled in their philosophy and opposition to the state, and I respect you immensely for that.
  
  
  
  But if you are serious about liberation, then you must also be serious about mass organizing, about social revolution, and militant Anti-Authoritarianism. Rejecting the ideologies of capitalism (which more often that not, go hand-in-hand with nationalism, and thus the state) is only a first step. But philosophizing and theorizing, like what I see so much of above, isn't going to stop the state, it can only inform our course of action. Its going to take a lot of work to bring down this beast, and there are no simple or formulaic solutions.

  Published: June 7, 2006 12:38 PM

• Roger M

  In other threads, we discussed the anarcho-like structure of Somalia. This week, the Islamists seized the capital and are likely to take over the whole country. They have defeated the anarcho-tribal leaders, usually described as warlords in the press. This episode points out one of the major weaknesses of anarchism: The free-rider syndrom and the lack of unity toward a common enemy make them an easy target for criminals. That's why no anarchist societies exist today.

  Published: June 7, 2006 1:11 PM

• Kevin Carson

  Ulrich Hobelmann,

  From what I've seen, it's vulgar libertarians who want to obscure the whole issue of why people left the countryside and went to work in the factories. Most of the "libertarian" apologetics I've seen for the period are completely ahistorical. Consider their treatment (or non-treatment) of the enclosures, for one thing.

  The very claim that people voluntarily just up and went into the factories is one of the worst examples of the historical blinders involved in "libertarian" apologetics for the industrial revolution. In fact, the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century literature is absolutely crammed full of complaints by the owning classes that it was impossible to get people to work as much as the owners wanted so long as agricultural laborers had independent access to the means of production. The wage labor market was created on the back of massive land expropriations, and the state-sanctioned robbery of the laboring classes.

  Published: June 7, 2006 1:38 PM

• quincunx

  "The very claim that people voluntarily just up and went into the factories is one of the worst examples of the historical blinders involved in "libertarian" apologetics for the industrial revolution."

  Actually, for the most part people did move into the cities voluntarily. You might as well say that no voluntary action occurs because the state is involved in every aspect of life.

  The city was regulated just like the country side. Do I need to remind you of Sun taxes? Poor urban buildings as a result of massive taxation on important building materials? Shortages (from price controls) due to imperialistic activities?

  The state creates incentives & disincentives for virtually everything. Either voluntary action despite this exists or it doesn't.

  "In fact, the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century literature is absolutely crammed full of complaints by the owning classes that it was impossible to get people to work as much as the owners wanted so long as agricultural laborers had independent access to the means of production."

  Yes, scarcity of labor is a fact. Who cares about the complaints of the owning class? I'm sure for every complainer, there is an industrious type who only expands at voluntary market adjustment level. I think it's poor historical methodology to care about business complaints.

  "The wage labor market was created on the back of massive land expropriations, and the state-sanctioned robbery of the laboring classes."

  In both the urban and rural areas.
  ---

  "From what I've seen, it's vulgar libertarians who want to obscure the whole issue of why people left the countryside and went to work in the factories."

  You think you know the WHOLE issue? Don't make me laugh. Though you have credible facts, they still lack important scope. It's a little better than the butterfly effect, but you still don't consider countervailing forces.

  Published: June 7, 2006 2:17 PM

• quincunx

  Carson,

  You might as well say that people didn't really voluntarily switch to cell phones. It was the central bank after all that distorted the market in favor of long term projects. It was the cell phone business men that enticed stupid consumers to purchase them using cartelized media channels. It was all the taxes and regulations in place on land lines.

  You can make your type of case for just about all aspects of technological and social change.

  Of course such a critique fails in scope and also fails to ignore countervailing regulations (on cell phones, ex).

  Published: June 7, 2006 2:32 PM

• quasibill

  "Either voluntary action despite this exists or it doesn't."

  Actually, I think the question is whether the current situation is the result of truly voluntary action or not. And either it is, and everything on this site is BS, because things would be the same as they are currently regardless of the state, or it is not, and Carson's counterfactuals are just as valid as Hoppe's or Rockwell's.

  It's a blind spot many Austrians have - they forget that lifestyle choices, like many other things, are subjective. The fact is that there are many people who value certain lifestyles and other values over the pursuit of personal wealth. And in an anarchic landscape, these people would voluntarily choose to live in conditions that many of us would find unpleasant or distasteful. For example, they would be "poor" like the Amish. But it is tremendously ignorant to claim to know that any society not built around idyllic Randian capitalist principles would fail - the Amish, among others, demonstrate that technological progress is not necessary for a stable civil society.

  Published: June 7, 2006 2:52 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Reactionary,

  “You are [I am] laboring under a misunderstanding of the business of insurance.�

  I am willing to concede to you, at least for sake of argument that I do not know for a certainty that insurance companies specifically would provide security, police or court services in anarchy, or that they would be instrumental in connecting their customers up with such private agencies that do supply such services. It seems logical and likely to me they would, but I am not in the insurance business, so what do I know. However, how these services get provided in anarchy is of secondary importance.

  What is of primary importance is this: it is necessarily true that in a free market, private firms will provide ANY service that consumers demand enough to make provision of such a service profitable. People would necessarily demand security, police and court services. So it would necessarily be provided on a voluntary basis in a free market.

  Finally, any services at all provided by a coercive monopoly will necessarily be less efficient and substandard to similar services provided in a free market. This includes the provision of security, police and courts.
  

  Published: June 7, 2006 5:01 PM

• Ryan Fuller

  Reactionary, insurance providers do not provide security services because the government already provides them for "free." This happens much the same way that government roads crowd out private roads, government bonds crowd out private investment, and government schools crowd out private ones. An example of insurance providers linking their customers with services is HMOs.

  Published: June 7, 2006 5:36 PM

• Stephan Jerde

  Roger MI suspect this is far from settled. I think its much more likely that the Islamists have painted great big glow-in-the-dark targets on themselves. Unless the Islamists have overwhelming popular support, I'd rather not be in their shoes at the moment. Who knows how many rounds of ammo, tons of explosives, landmines, and RPG rounds are stashed away? They get to see what its like to be on the receiving end of the $100,000 for every $0.50 spend by the "insurgents".

  Published: June 7, 2006 5:52 PM

• quincunx

  "Actually, I think the question is whether the current situation is the result of truly voluntary action or not. And either it is, and everything on this site is BS, because things would be the same as they are currently regardless of the state, or it is not, and Carson's counterfactuals are just as valid as Hoppe's or Rockwell's."

  Again, I think scope is important. I think you would agree that people switched to cell phones voluntarily, very little having to do with the interventions I described.

  If we don't accept the view that some things are primarily voluntary, we must necessarily accept the view that all common people are pawns all the way all the time. Such a pessimistic view is counterproductive and destructive to viewing any sort of move in the direction of freedom. This is why Austrians view human progress occurring DESPITE the state, not because of it. The state certainly crushes our soul to a great extent, but it can not do so completely (there is a limit) because it would even undermine the parasitic class. We must see progress where it occurs, as hampered as it may be.

  Carson's counterfactuals involve the state - and neglect to take into account the counter-counterfactuals, that is always inherent in state operation. While the market, in some sense operates on this principle (investors give money to both future winners & losers [some competing directly] in anticipation that the winners will outmatch the losers), the point is that it is not a closed coercive system.

  "It's a blind spot many Austrians have - they forget that lifestyle choices, like many other things, are subjective."

  That's a strange comment. Considering that the Austrian view of subjective value is it's strongest appeal, and consistently used by Austrians. The Austro-Anarchist (ancaps) are the strongest proponents of subjective value. Which is why Austrianism, must eventually lead one to an anarchist position - as a consequence of applying its methodology.

  "The fact is that there are many people who value certain lifestyles and other values over the pursuit of personal wealth."

  Yes, and those individuals may pool their assets together and form a socialist commune if they wish. Or they can form decentralized house communes (like fraternities). No Austrian or ancap should have a problem with that.

  "But it is tremendously ignorant to claim to know that any society not built around idyllic Randian capitalist principles would fail - the Amish, among others, demonstrate that technological progress is not necessary for a stable civil society."

  It is certainly correct in asserting that if such a wish is desired by most, which many Austrian critics doubt (with good reason), there will be massive death by starvation in the process.

  The ancap does not propose any plan, unlike Bill Anderson (who somehow denounces statist socialism but then wishes to organize by a central plan, a decentralist anarchist movement).

  Therefore whatever lifestyle people choose is perfectly fine with an ancap, as long as it's voluntary.

  Published: June 7, 2006 6:53 PM

• Osred

  AUTARCHISM is the belief or practice of a community seeking to govern its own affairs. NATURAL AUTARCHISM is the situation where each community responds in a natural organic way to its social environment (other people or communities) without consideration for the big picture of what is happening to the HOLOS or Whole-Life of its world. Natural Autarchism is likely to fail where there are other communities in its world who are intelligently MONOCRATIC - i.e. seeking to enslave others. MORAL AUTARCHISM is the system in which each community largely governs itself but takes on a degree of responsibility for the overall welfare of the HOLOS or Whole-Life of the world in which it lives. Thus Moral Autarchists balance service of the Group AUTOS or Group Self with that of the Universal HOLOS. Moral Autarchists will keep a watch to see whether other communities in its world are 'playing fair' or else are scheming to manipulate themselves into power over others to the detriment of the HOLOS. Where an Immoral (Holophobic) community is discovered then the Moral (Holophilic) communities should combine against it to weaken its power.

  Published: June 7, 2006 9:18 PM

• quasibill

  "If we don't accept the view that some things are primarily voluntary, we must necessarily accept the view that all common people are pawns all the way all the time."

  No - I don't buy into your false dichotomy. People do act voluntarily within the confines presented to them. That does NOT equal truly voluntary, no matter how much you wish it were so in order to conform to your world-view.

  "Carson's counterfactuals involve the state - and neglect to take into account the counter-counterfactuals"

  Actually, I would say you are the one who fails to do that, not Carson, but I really don't want to get into defending Carson per se, as he is more than capable of doing that for himself and I don't agree with him on many subjects. The truth is, your "scope" argument does nothing to refute his fact - that a certain group of people did NOT voluntarily leave their agrarian, rural lifestyles to go to the factories. He points to facts that the elite industrialists used the state to get them to do it. Your "counter-counterfactuals" do nothing to refute those facts - at all.

  I'll agree that, over time, many of their descendants may have chosen to leave the agrarian lifestyle for the opportunities offered by the industrial revolution, but I agree with Carson that a significant number would have chosen to remain outside, ala the Amish. The point is - none of us knows what would have happened, as the state DID get involved, on behalf of elite industrialists. And it is difficult for neo-Randians with their culture of big business victimization to accept those facts, but it doesn't change the facts.

  "That's a strange comment. Considering that the Austrian view of subjective value is it's strongest appeal, and consistently used by Austrians."

  It was meant to be a bit of an abrupt statement to make some people realize that they don't consistently apply their own professed ideals - that they often are blind to the cultural reality that not everyone agrees with Rand's cultural values.

  "The Austro-Anarchist (ancaps) are the strongest proponents of subjective value. Which is why Austrianism, must eventually lead one to an anarchist position - as a consequence of applying its methodology."

  I agree totally. However, as is persistently pointed out in these comments, Austrian does not equal AnCap in practice. And these are the people my criticism is most aimed at - they believe in subjective value, except when its a value they think is objective. I disagree with much of what reactionary says here, but he is right when he states that rights are merely social constructs.

  "It is certainly correct in asserting that if such a wish is desired by most, which many Austrian critics doubt (with good reason), there will be massive death by starvation in the process."

  I agree, but once again you are shifting the parameters of discussion. Truly now, in the state influenced present, with the attendant population, such a shift would be disastrous if instituted abruptly. But it ignores the point that what currently is, isn't necessarily what would have been absent the state. Perhaps (highly likely, IMHO)if the state hadn't gotten involved, population would be lower, and those who desired to live a more simple lifestyle wouldn't feel the pressure to have their land produce so much. Or at the very least, they would be a stable "outside the mainstream" society like the Amish.

  I think many Austrians conflate socialism with state socialism. I see no reason to think that a truly voluntary commune (and no, that's not a contradiction in terms anymore than Hoppe's view of voluntary communities that discriminate against values he thinks are incompatible with AnCap) couldn't work in a stateless society. Granted, they won't be as "wealthy" in goods, but again, many people have other values.

  Published: June 8, 2006 7:07 AM

• quincunx

  "No - I don't buy into your false dichotomy. People do act voluntarily within the confines presented to them. That does NOT equal truly voluntary, no matter how much you wish it were so in order to conform to your world-view."

  You've brought in a new concept of "truly voluntary" in contrast to my "mostly" and "primarily". I don't see how this helps, it just muddies the waters.

  Think about the Austrian insight, that with regard to action the individual must always be acting in regard to the future - he may use the past as experience, but he must always act to improve or remove problems in view of the future.

  This is why the market does its best to conform and at the same time avoid government edicts. The government sets up a bad environment for voluntary action, but alas voluntary action must still take place, hampered as it may be.

  "Actually, I would say you are the one who fails to do that, not Carson, but I really don't want to get into defending Carson per se, as he is more than capable of doing that for himself and I don't agree with him on many subjects. The truth is, your "scope" argument does nothing to refute his fact - that a certain group of people did NOT voluntarily leave their agrarian, rural lifestyles to go to the factories."

  I do not deny his facts, ever. But you are wrong in claiming that scope is not important, and then telling me that a CERTAIN group did not voluntarily leave.

  There was also a CERTAIN group that left the city to go to the country. But anecdotal evidence does not prove a theory conclusively.

  "He points to facts that the elite industrialists used the state to get them to do it. Your "counter-counterfactuals" do nothing to refute those facts - at all."

  Really? not at all?
  So the regulations in the cities did not exist?
  Wow, I must be making that up then. Clearly by your logic the countryside was heavily regulated, but cities were massive free trade zone areas? Bullshit.

  Your focus is on 'some industrialists', while ignoring 'other industrialists'. Read Bastiat.

  Countryside landlords don't want to lose their feudal land rent just as much as city landlords want rent.

  The government is always creating incentives and disincentives for conflicting things.

  Funny how you ignore my cell phone analogy.

  "I'll agree that, over time, many of their descendants may have chosen to leave the agrarian lifestyle for the opportunities offered by the industrial revolution, but I agree with Carson that a significant number would have chosen to remain outside, ala the Amish. The point is - none of us knows what would have happened, as the state DID get involved, on behalf of elite industrialists. And it is difficult for neo-Randians with their culture of big business victimization to accept those facts, but it doesn't change the facts."

  None of us knows what would have happened, but yet you add high value to your speculative guess.

  Yet you denounce, my guess, that maybe, just maybe, if it weren't for city regulations we'd have MORE city dwellers. I frankly don't care, but I feel it's wrong to focus on one side, without paying attention to the other.

  No no, of course not, your speculative guess as to what would have happened is worth merit, mine is not.

  Why don't you just come out and say that cell phones were forced upon humanity non-voluntarily.

  "Perhaps (highly likely, IMHO)if the state hadn't gotten involved, population would be lower, and those who desired to live a more simple lifestyle wouldn't feel the pressure to have their land produce so much. Or at the very least, they would be a stable "outside the mainstream" society like the Amish."

  You are very right in this point. Socialism of the state variety subsidizes population growth. Somalia is still getting over it.

  I agree that there would be less people, but I thought that our focus was the rural/urban distribution level.

  "I think many Austrians conflate socialism with state socialism"

  Depends who they are talking to. One first has to gauge the knowledge of the person their debating. The anarchist-socialist similarly conflates capitalism to it's statist variety.

  "I see no reason to think that a truly voluntary commune (and no, that's not a contradiction in terms anymore than Hoppe's view of voluntary communities that discriminate against values he thinks are incompatible with AnCap) couldn't work in a stateless society. Granted, they won't be as "wealthy" in goods, but again, many people have other values."

  I agree 100%.

  Published: June 8, 2006 1:31 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Quasibill,

  “I think many Austrians conflate socialism with state socialism. I see no reason to think that a truly voluntary commune … couldn't work in a stateless society.�

  I think some libertarians (not to mention most non-libertarians) conflate the scientific conclusions of praxeology with mere Austrian opinion. It is more than simply subjective opinion that socialism must fail economically and cannot persist on a voluntary basis but instead implies the need of a coercive state; this conclusion is a fact derived from an understanding of human action.

  Secondly, it is more than opinion, but rather, it is the recognition of the essential inner contradiction of socialism that implies it is necessarily non-libertarian. Socialism, which denies individual property rights, is unjustifiable, and is therefore non-libertarian at its core. It is a contradiction to suppose that humans can voluntarily give up their right to self-ownership and the attendant right to property and pursue a libertarian socialistic life. Therefore, these inconsistent notions of voluntary socialist communes are a theoretical and also practical absurdity.

  Western socialists are and will be forever claiming, for instance, that Stalin’s socialism was not the voluntary socialism they are advocating. This is foolish. Socialism implies Stalin’s socialism or close facsimile. Human nature necessarily implies that there can be no such thing as purely voluntary socialism.

  Published: June 8, 2006 1:51 PM

• Bill Anderson

  The Austrian position is about as unscientific as they come. Aristotle also thought you could deduce the laws of the universe from sheer philosophy. And today we know, because we have this thing called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, that Aristotle was wrong about just about everything he thought regarding science.

  When you apply the scientific method to human societies, you are inevitably led to socialist conclussions -- i.e. that the state is an expression of the rule of one or several classes, over all the other classes. To abolish the state is to abolish classes, and vice versa.

  Bakunin's "God and the State" was an eloquent philosophical piece, against the idealist philosophies espoused by the bourgeoisie thinkers that preceded and inspired von Mises.

  Published: June 8, 2006 2:30 PM

• quasibill

  quincunz:

  "So the regulations in the cities did not exist?"

  No - the point is that their existence HAS NO BEARING on whether the enclosure acts and other related measures occurred. They did. At the behest of certain elites. Your facts in NO WAY refute that fact. I'll use praxeology and presume these elites used the state in this manner because it furthered their ends.

  And yes, there were other elites engaging in similar use of the state. I agree. It's a complicated subject, looking at the past, because you can't recreate it under different conditions. That's why I'm always wary of someone who claims (like you and Carson do) that they KNOW that things would have been a certain way under different conditions. Again - I'll presume those at the controls of the state acted because they believed it benefitted them to do so.

  "Your focus is on 'some industrialists', while ignoring 'other industrialists'"

  Funny, my criticism of your position is that you focus only on group of state parasites, but ignore the others.

  "Funny how you ignore my cell phone analogy."

  I "ignored" it because it was irrelevant given my argument. Yes, slaves chose to live under their masters. But that does not make it a truly voluntary decision, as I (and in this example, most decent people) would define voluntary. So it is with decisions people make in the context of the ever-present state. I do many things now, because they make economic sense under current conditions, that I would not do if the state weren't skewing the markets involved.

  "None of us knows what would have happened, but yet you add high value to your speculative guess."

  No, not if you actually read what I wrote. We don't know what would have happened - BUT we do know that a certain sizable group of people WERE forcibly moved against their will by state action. That fact cannot be denied. To state that they would have moved anyway is to me wishful thinking more than evidence based hypothesizing. The available evidence indicates that they were not willing to move for market prices - that's why the state was used. If you posit that, well, they would have eventually moved for market prices, you'll have to do more than just wish that that were the case.

  "Why don't you just come out and say that cell phones were forced upon humanity non-voluntarily."

  Wow. Have no idea where that came from - are coming to a fork in the yellow brick road?

  "Socialism of the state variety subsidizes population growth. Somalia is still getting over it."

  State socialism in Africa did more than that - it relocated and rooted people who were generally nomadic in their lifestyle and economy, in order to better "industrialize" and therefore tax them. That's also a significant cause of the problems there.

  "but I thought that our focus was the rural/urban distribution level."

  Perhaps here is the root of our argument. I was focused mainly on the issue of whether people voluntarily left rural lifestyles to go to work in early factories, not necessarily the related issue of residence. Residence decisions involve more factors than just work, although work tends to predominate.

  "The anarchist-socialist similarly conflates capitalism to it's statist variety."

  Agreed. Actually, this conflation is the perhaps the biggest roadblock all market anarchists face in convincing the vast majority of people (socialist, Republican, moderate, whatever) of the superiority of the market and voluntary cooperation.

  
  

  Published: June 8, 2006 2:47 PM

• Bill Anderson

  If you are interested in a scientific anarcho-communist perspective, read Peter Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution."

  Kropotkin was a naturalist and evolutionary biologist. Of his political works, he also wrote "Fields, Factories, and Workshops" and "The Conquest of Bread", both excellent works on political economy and libertarian socialism.

  Published: June 8, 2006 2:54 PM

• quasibill

  "It is more than simply subjective opinion that socialism must fail economically and cannot persist on a voluntary basis but instead implies the need of a coercive state; this conclusion is a fact derived from an understanding of human action."

  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. In fact there is absolutely no difference between a completely voluntary commune and Hoppe's vision of a family centered ancap town that discriminates strongly against certain opinions or lifestyles. If one is possible under praxeological reasoning, the other is too. And in fact, I'll return to the Amish as an example of a highly socialized economy that is in fact quite stable, and entirely voluntary.

  If a landowner offered communal living for all who entered, but required as 'rent' that the tenant provide his share of labor to support the commune, with a full right of exile for those who intentionally loaf and rull right of exit for those who wish to leave, I see nothing in the Austrian tradition that says that can't work. If people value the community and other benefits of such a society more than the technological gains and other benefits of an open market with defined private property, then they will continue to live there.

  Given the existence of subjective value, it seems to me to be a little contradictory to argue that in a truly free market, only one form of cooperation would occur. History refutes it, and the theory of niche marketing would seem to contradict it.

  "It is a contradiction to suppose that humans can voluntarily give up their right to self-ownership and the attendant right to property and pursue a libertarian socialistic life"

  Are you arguing that I can't, in a libertarian society, contract to sell my labor to another? Or the fruits of my labor? Or my right to walk naked?

  Why couldn't I contract to sell my right to the fruits of my labor to receive the fruits of a communal lifestyle? Again, the Amish, while not totally communal, are much more socialist than Hoppe's ideal ancap town. And they have persisted for many years. There are other examples through history of persistent communal living (in other words without clearly defined private property rights in scarce resources like water), a good resource is "Governing the Commons" - I still don't remember the author.

  "Socialism implies Stalin’s socialism or close facsimile."

  Proving my point that many Austrians conflate socialism with state socialism. Many communists will make a similar statement that libertarianism implies mercantilism or close facsimile, as that is what "capitalism" has wrought. The communists are just as wrong as you are, IMHO.

  Published: June 8, 2006 3:01 PM

• averros

  Bill Anderson --

  
  The Austrian position is about as unscientific as they come. Aristotle also thought you could deduce the laws of the universe from sheer philosophy.
  

  
  It would help if you actually READ some Mises and Rothbard. The Austrians do not engage in sheer philosophy, they start from several, clearly stated and very firmly established EMPIRICAL FACTS (such as "the axiom of action") a few just as clearly stated CRITERIA (such as equality of men or undesireability of aggression) which are used to separate acceptable social systems from unacceptable. The "in between" is bridged with logic.
  

  
  So, to really attach Austrian economics and libertarian theory of ethics you must show that either starting facts are bad (tough, what are you going, to challenge the fact that people act? or the fact that macro-scale physical objects cannot exist in two places at once?), that logic is faulty (also tough - although a mathematican in me wants to see formalized proofs), or that criteria are for some reason bad - and that immediately shows the true colors of whomever is doing criticizing, which is why very few people actually do challenge the criteria.
  

  
  The value of the Austrian and libertarian logical structure is in the fact that it provides a very rigid and irrefutable logical path between statements such as "I'm for helping poor by taxing wealthy" to "I want more rights than other people have".
  

  
  In other words, if you dispute the conclusions of the Austrian/libertarian logic, you must either explicitly denounce criteria (for example, you may state that you think that it is proper that there should be a class of God-appointed overseers over the rest of part-time slaves) - but I think you are too cowardly to do that, just like any "principled" statist, or come to deny some trivial facts of life (like that goods do not pop out of thin air just by the act of wishing it real hard) - which is what socialists end up believing into.
  

  
  Of course, being unable to disprove either facts or the logic and being unwilling to challenge the criteria, you engage in hand-waving and demagoguery, claiming that Austrian economics is somehow like Aristotelian philosophy. I make an assumption that you actually understand what you are talking about, of course.

  Published: June 8, 2006 3:20 PM

• Robin Cox

  Paul

  You say firstly

  "On the other hand, if you mean the latter, that profit and loss does not guide the class of entrepreneur over the long run, to optimize resource allocation, then what you are saying is simply incorrect. In the long run, the profit and loss sheet will guide the successful entrepreneurs to optimally allocate scarce resources towards the maximum satisfaction of the consumer, and the unsuccessful ones will stop participating in the business of allocating resources altogether."

  
  This is precisely the point that I was arguing is theoretically unsound in the article http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm . Consider what you say in your first sentence above. Here you are clearly referring to entrepeneurs as a whole but in your second sentence you differentiate between successful entrepeneurs and unsuccessful ones. It is only as far as the former are concerned that the profit and loss sheet will lead to optimal allocation of scrace resources (in your opinion). But of course you cannot have some entrepeneurs being successful without others being unsuccessful and therefore in your terms resulting in a sub-optimal allocation of scarce resources. This is the point i was getting at in my article. "In the long run" is irrelvant or as Keynes said in the long run we are all dead; there is no historic long run tendency towards the elimination of sub-optimal allocation in capitalism

  In any case, I fundamentally contest the very notion of "optimal allocation" in these terms. From what perspective? In fact capitalism is, despite its prodigious productivity (a point Marx recognised) a massively and increasingly wasteful mode of production. At least half - some estimates are much higher - the economic activities carried out in the formal sector of most capitalist states do not contribute in any meaningful sense to the betterment of human welfare; they are carried in response to systemic needs of capitalism qua capitalism as a system of commodity production. What useful role does a bank perform for example? Absolutely nothing, objectively speaking. Yet the banking and other aspects of the financial sector absorb huge and indeed growing quantities of labour and materials. In a non-market free access economy all this huge structural wastage would be dispensed with, it would simply not be needed. This is a point that anarcho-capitalist do not seems to have the slightest inkling of because they take it for granted that economic activities such as banking are vital useful and necessary. They are but ONLY to capitalism. The anarcho-capitalist cannot see this he or she cannot think outside of the black box of capitalism and its unquestioned assumption of "optimal allocation"

  Secondly you say

  "Finally, it does not matter how “polycentric� your socialist economy is; it cannot calculate, certainly at least, if it does not do business with capitalistic economies from the outside that can. This is because it has no ownership, no prices and no market in the factors of production, and it has no entrepreneurs with the ability and the will to speculate for personal profit. Without all of these in play, there is only economic chaos, no calculation, and no way to optimally allocate scarce resources. When you understand my objection to your argument above, you will see that what I say here is also true."

  
  I cannot believe you can write that and claim that you read my article. I specifically pointed out that there would indeed by calculation in socialism and that this would take the form of calculation in kind. CIK is an indispensable feature of any kind of system including capitalism. The difference is that in capitalism , alongside CIK you also have monetary calculation. Non market socialism completely eliminates the latter but retains the former.

  You have advanced absolutely no evidence whatseover to suggest that this would result in chaos or an inability to allocate resources efficiently (I have given detailed reasons why this would not be the case). Your claims seem to me to be based simply on kneejerk prejudice since you do not seem to me to engage with the actual arguments presented in the article in question. Who I wonder is it who is actually rejecting economic reasoning in this case?

  Robin

  Published: June 8, 2006 3:26 PM

• Bill Anderson

  The ancap does not propose any plan, unlike Bill Anderson (who somehow denounces statist socialism but then wishes to organize by a central plan, a decentralist anarchist movement).

  You clearly are not reading what I've said. Did you miss this?

  I don't claim to have have solutions, just perspectives, facts, and potential courses of actions that individuals and groups can take. Ultimately, there is no single solution that will work for everybody, everywhere.

  Thats what I wrote in my second post. If you'll notice after that, my very specific criticsm of "ancaps" is that they claim the "free-market" is the solution to everything! Thats a central plan if I've ever heard of one.

  The paradigm of "central planning vs free markets" is a false dichotomy. Even this "market economy" we live under, involves a high degree of central planning -- Its called WALL-STREET, or on a global scale, THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION!! (Even Stalin never had the audicity to centrally plan the entire world... he specifically argued against Leon Trotsky's internationalism, on the need to build "Socialism in one Country")

  Corporations (which are legal fictions chartered by the state) have a central-planning board, known as the corporate executive board, empowered (again, by the state) to excersise full authority over all private property of the fictional corporate person.

  We need to think of alternatives if we want to abolish the state. Markets involve coercion. You can argue that socialism does to, and I wouldn't neccessarily disagree. But ultimatley, it doesn't matter what ideology we profess, but what we do.

  With that in mind, I have to go to a picket line. We are picketing a janatorial services company, at the HQ of the state Democratic Party which hires them. Wish me luck.

  Published: June 8, 2006 4:26 PM

• steve

  "I think many Austrians conflate socialism with state socialism."

  quasibill,

  Correct me if I am wrong, but Mises definition of socialism was when the state owned the means of production. If this is wrong, what is yours?This definition eliminates monasteries, communes of all kinds or any other voluntary, sharing type communities, Amish included. You can subjectively call it socialism if you would like. But is it accurate? That would mean a capitalist who gives 10% of his property to a church would be engaging in socialism.

  In other words, voluntary socialism is a contradiction in terms.

  By the way, as you know, the Amish are examples of some of the fiercest, anti-state actors when it comes to the state attempting to impede on their beliefs. And they are another example of how the state is not required to insure that people are moral.

  Published: June 8, 2006 5:05 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Robin,

  It is strictly from the consumer’s perspective, not the central planner’s, in which we decide if resources are optimally allocated or not. When the consumer’s greatest desires are satisfied, resources are optimally allocated. The only way we can ensure this is through the actions of property owning, profit motivated entrepreneurs continuously striving to satisfy the consumer.

  Profits can only be obtained and calculated through the price differentials between factors of production and the resulting product’s selling price: this is calculation. Entrepreneurs keep speculating on how best to allocate resources to maximize profits. When they are profitable, they are succeeding at satisfying consumers and maximizing resource allocation. When they are not, they are eliminated from this economic function. Both outcomes are desirable from the consumer’s perspective.

  In the short term, some entrepreneurs will fail and go out of business, and others will make profits and continue to pursue their entrepreneurial endeavors. At any point in time, there are entrepreneurs succeeding and profiting and some others turning a loss and near quitting their entrepreneurial roles. By the way, it is not because some succeed that others fail, but rather, it is ultimately the consumer that decides who succeeds and who fails by buying and abstaining from buying their products.

  That is in the short term. Over the long term, the market continues to tend toward the direction of weeding out unsuccessful entrepreneurs and encouraging the successful ones to continue. The successful entrepreneur of today may not be a successful entrepreneur ten years from now. He may have lost his touch and gone out of business. Only if he remains good at allocating resources (remains profitable) does he stay, otherwise he goes. Who decides who is who? Ultimately it is the consumer who decides, but this decision is revealed in the profit and loss sheets.

  Incidentally, only Keynesians believe the long run is unimportant. The Austrians feel as if they are now living in and suffering from the consequences of foolish short term Keynesian thinking.

  Finally, Robin, I have read enough of your article and comments to be convinced that you still you do not understand Mises’s calculation argument at all. This is adequate for me to know also that it is impossible for you to refute his argument. One must begin a refutation with an understanding of the argument one is refuting.

  Published: June 8, 2006 6:39 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Bill,

  “…my very specific criticsm of "ancaps" is that they claim the "free-market" is the solution to everything! Thats a central plan if I've ever heard of one.�

  That’s a good one. Talk about turning the meaning of central planning on its ear. If the socialists had it their way, all words would be interchangeable with all other words, and communication would be a wonderful adventure in futility.
  

  Published: June 8, 2006 6:54 PM

• quincunx

  @Bill Anderson

  "You clearly are not reading what I've said. Did you miss this?"

  Excuse me if it is too difficult to understand your random contradictions. I'm glad you managed to find one sentence that proves me wrong.

  "Thats what I wrote in my second post. If you'll notice after that, my very specific criticsm of "ancaps" is that they claim the "free-market" is the solution to everything! Thats a central plan if I've ever heard of one."

  If you think the free market - that is people trading freely - is a central plan then you are an idiot. The free market is a precisely where there is no central plan, but many coordinated decentralized plans based on evaluations of people in that market. You take the typical idiotic position that the "free market" is some sort of blob that controls and conspires, and exists outside of actual acting people.

  "The paradigm of "central planning vs free markets" is a false dichotomy. Even this "market economy" we live under, involves a high degree of central planning "

  Duh. We don't have a free market. Thank you for your brilliant observation.

  "-- Its called WALL-STREET,"

  Yes, I'm sure you have a road somewhere around you as well. People build roads.

  The above might seem ridiculous, but WALL STREET is a loaded term. One can mean the physical trade exchange, the central banking institution, the culture, etc.

  "or on a global scale, THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION!!"

  A statist bureaucratic organization funded by looting the taxpayers of multiple nations. Where is the free market?

  "(Even Stalin never had the audicity to centrally plan the entire world... he specifically argued against Leon Trotsky's internationalism, on the need to build "Socialism in one Country")"

  Have you heard of World Socialism?

  "Corporations (which are legal fictions chartered by the state) have a central-planning board, known as the corporate executive board, empowered (again, by the state) to excersise full authority over all private property of the fictional corporate person."

  Correct. No ancap disputes this.

  "You can argue that socialism does to, and I wouldn't neccessarily disagree. But ultimatley, it doesn't matter what ideology we profess, but what we do."

  What? are you a Stirnerite? That's the impression I got before.

  "With that in mind, I have to go to a picket line. We are picketing a janatorial services company, at the HQ of the state Democratic Party which hires them. Wish me luck."

  I hope you are happy when they lose their contract. Assuming it was important for them.

  ---

  @quasibill

  "No - the point is that their existence HAS NO BEARING on whether the enclosure acts and other related measures occurred. They did. At the behest of certain elites. Your facts in NO WAY refute that fact. I'll use praxeology and presume these elites used the state in this manner because it furthered their ends."

  We are arguing in circles. I DO NOT dismiss the FACTS. You are essentially claiming that land enclosure acts are the PRIMARY reason of migration to cities. I say that it is NOT. I say it is indeed a mixed bag - as you say as well (finally).

  "And yes, there were other elites engaging in similar use of the state. I agree. It's a complicated subject, looking at the past, because you can't recreate it under different conditions. That's why I'm always wary of someone who claims (like you and Carson do) that they KNOW that things would have been a certain way under different conditions. "

  I never said such a thing. I only made a speculative judgment based on the trend that people tend to move into cities. This fact is observed in the actions people for thousands of years. Are you telling me that early capitalism of Northern Italy, Spain, Lowlands led to urban concentration as a result of government policy? No, I would think not.

  You can only say that it attributed, or accelerated this action. Which is true, I do not deny it. But my objection was to Carson's comment:

  "The very claim that people voluntarily just up and went into the factories is one of the worst examples of the historical blinders involved in "libertarian" apologetics for the industrial revolution."

  It seems a little extreme. It sounds a claim that he's got the 100% all-encompassing reason for why people moved to the cities. Even though it's absurd to think that the politically connected rural landlords would just sit by and watch this occur. After all they have a keen interest in keeping as much labor in the field as possible.

  "Funny, my criticism of your position is that you focus only on group of state parasites, but ignore the others."

  The industrialists were pulling different levers of the state and vice versa. I do not ignore this.

  "The available evidence indicates that they were not willing to move for market prices - that's why the state was used. If you posit that, well, they would have eventually moved for market prices, you'll have to do more than just wish that that were the case.
  "

  Even though eventually they probably would have. Unless you think the expansion of agricultural improvements would not have had a major effect on the market price difference.

  "Wow. Have no idea where that came from - are coming to a fork in the yellow brick road?"

  My bad - the cell phone analogy was for Carson, not you.

  I was merely trying to clarify to what extent government market hampering makes things 'not voluntary'.

  Do you think that people switched to cell phones voluntarily? Or non-voluntarily because of all the state interference I describe?

  If you think that question is loaded - it is, and that was precisely my point.

  "Perhaps here is the root of our argument. I was focused mainly on the issue of whether people voluntarily left rural lifestyles to go to work in early factories, not necessarily the related issue of residence."

  I was mainly focused on the EXTENT of in-voluntary force. To claim that it was a majority, plurality, or to even state that it's essentially libertarian propaganda (like Carson) is ridiculous.

  "Agreed. Actually, this conflation is the perhaps the biggest roadblock all market anarchists face in convincing the vast majority of people (socialist, Republican, moderate, whatever) of the superiority of the market and voluntary cooperation."

  Well, Socialism (note the capital S) has to some extent lost its appeal. Yet MOST opponents of free market anarchism lean more towards this ideology - that of third way, interventionist, crony capitalism. It is considered a good practice to address the loudest critics - even though it may 'disenfranchise' the more serious and critical scholar.

  Edwards:
  "It is a contradiction to suppose that humans can voluntarily give up their right to self-ownership and the attendant right to property and pursue a libertarian socialistic life"

  quasibill:
  "Are you arguing that I can't, in a libertarian society, contract to sell my labor to another? Or the fruits of my labor? Or my right to walk naked?"

  You sell your labour services - that is the PRIVILEGE of exercising your self-ownership to accomplish a specific task outlined in the work contract.

  You do not deny self-ownership when you get a job. Edwards does not deny this in his analysis.

  "Why couldn't I contract to sell my right to the fruits of my labor to receive the fruits of a communal lifestyle?"

  You could. In fact there is a well recognized institution known as a FAMILY that practices exactly that.

  "There are other examples through history of persistent communal living (in other words without clearly defined private property rights in scarce resources like water), a good resource is "Governing the Commons" - I still don't remember the author."

  I'm sure it works exactly like socialized pressure to ration. It can't really be any other way.
  

  Published: June 8, 2006 7:05 PM

• quincunx

  Robin:

  You must realize that the gift economy you describe is nothing more than TIME-DIFFERENTIATED exchange.

  You will only provide freely, if you can be somewhat assured that you can receive freely.

  Your stock control fails to take into account people's subjective evaluation of goods. How can I know to what extent I have satisfied people?
  I can only know the physical number of people that took the product, not their evaluation (what they would willingly give up to get it).

  How can I know if the amount of labor I produce (a mixture of positive utility & negative utility) is at least equal to the amount of labor I consume?

  What is to stop one from taking the labor of others, adding my own, and making something no one wants? The stock will just keep increasing. Who is going to stop me?

  You know what it's really funny about your crappy "refutation" of Mises?

  Mises employed value free analysis. Your analysis is not value-free, for you DESPISE a certain stock of good: Money! or more accurately a commodity good.

  You might as well say that two people can't barter, if one has a good that is universally barter-able.

  There are so many other things wrong with your analysis. It can be refuted pretty much line by line. This one sticks out like a sore thumb:

  "But if that is the case, how could you quantity the negative effects of this supposed misallocation in a hypothetical socialist economy and come to the conclusion that they were so severe as to make socialism infeasible?"

  You don't quantify it. Mises mentions nothing about quantifying the negative effects. Mises only tells us that humans seek to minimize disutility, but that it can not be quantified. This is a straw man, one of quite a few.

  ---

  The ancap, does not have a problem with TIME-DIFFERENTIATED exchange, but recognizes that people like to be sure of their activities, and therefore will insist that this time-differentiation is as low as possible. We get this from praxeology: humans prefer goods sooner than later. Individuals tend to desire an immediate qualitative feedback - something your stock analysis lacks.
  

  Published: June 8, 2006 7:57 PM

• quasibill

  "You do not deny self-ownership when you get a job. Edwards does not deny this in his analysis"

  I'd say that calling it a contradiction to say that you can voluntarily give up your right to self-ownership is exactly a refutation, unless he qualifies it. You can always volunteer to contract your labor and effort for charity, for example. In doing so, you "give up" your right to self-ownership for that period that is necessary to accomplish the contracted task.

  Taking it one step further, if, for example, you contract with your landlord that you will obey certain laws while you live on his land, even if they are anti-libertarian, even communist, you have, in fact, voluntarily surrendered your right to self-ownership so long as you remain on his property. You can re-assert it by leaving the property - but again, this is a crucial difference that many Austrians fail to perceive, between voluntary socialists and state socialist, much like communists and others on the left can't perceive the difference between state capitalism and free-market capitalism.

  "You could. In fact there is a well recognized institution known as a FAMILY that practices exactly that."

  Yes. And clans, and tribes, and corporations, and mutual aid societies. It is how one defines his FAMILY that becomes the important issue in a anarchic setting. Stating that socialism is impossible ignores the existence of family entirely.

  "I'm sure it works exactly like socialized pressure to ration. It can't really be any other way."

  Except it's not done through the threat of coercive violence - which is, of course, exactly how AnCaps propose to deal with existing commons problems like air - by using socialized (but not physically coercive) pressure to ration. And you're right, it really can't be any other way.

  Published: June 9, 2006 8:56 AM

• Paul Edwards

  quasibill,

  “…you have, in fact, voluntarily surrendered your right to self-ownership so long as you remain on his property. You can re-assert it by leaving the property -…�

  The way I see it, only a self-owner can re-assert anything. There can be no re-asserting of one’s self-ownership available to a non-self owner.

  The difference between a contract and the contradictory notion of voluntary socialism is that contract implies ownership in private property. Socialism implies no institution of private property. With no private property, there can be no contract. With no private property, and no contract, there is no liberty, and the concept of the “voluntary� evaporates. A person can possibly escape a socialist system, but such an action is not consistent with the nature and assumptions of socialism.

  Your contract with your landlord is only valid and enforceable if it is valid and rational within the framework of private property and reality. For instance, he cannot enforce on you the agreement that you will change the color of mars as rent payments. You cannot do this, and the contract was invalid before it was signed. Similarly, in a libertarian context, he could not enforce on you the agreement that you remain his slave perpetually, or that he has the right to kill you (if you dispute it) as payment in rent. Neither agreement is consistent with the premises of libertarianism. This is also the case of socialism. No agreements that don’t presuppose libertarian ethics are enforceable based on libertarian ethics; this implies they must be enforced via non-libertarian coercion.

  Published: June 9, 2006 10:08 AM

• Robin Cox

  Paul

  You say

  "It is strictly from the consumer’s perspective, not the central planner’s, in which we decide if resources are optimally allocated or not. When the consumer’s greatest desires are satisfied, resources are optimally allocated. The only way we can ensure this is through the actions of property owning, profit motivated entrepreneurs continuously striving to satisfy the consumer"

  
  As you know I reject central planning. It is a tool of state capitalist management. I am a communist or anarcho-communist so I dont quite see the point of your reference to the central planner. In communism/socialism/anarchism what is produced is ultimately decided by the consumer via a self regulating system of stock control but the difference between this and so called free market capitalism is that there is nothing mediating between one's desires and one's appropriation of goods. The consumers desires are only satisfied under capitalism to the extent that he or she has the wherewithal to pay for what is desired. It follows then that according to your own argument, resources cannot possibly be optimally allocated under capitalism to the extent that consumers desires do not correspond to their ability to pay. So once again you have shot yourself in your foot by your own misguided claims

  You say also

  "That is in the short term. Over the long term, the market continues to tend toward the direction of weeding out unsuccessful entrepreneurs and encouraging the successful ones to continue".

  Again you misunderstand what I am saying. It is futile maintaining as you do that in the long run capitalism tends to weed out unsuccessful entrepeneurs. There will never be a situation in the long run or in the short run when there will be not be unsuccessful entrepeneurs. It is in the nature of market competition that some succeed and others fail. Therefore once again BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT capitalist allocation is sub-optimal.

  It is sub-optimal for many other reasons not least the enormous structural waste associated with capitalism's socially useless activities but I note you do not have a word to say about that at all. Like most anarcho-capitalists I suspect you subconsciously realise that this fact alone blows an huge hole in the claim about the alleged efficiency of capitalist allocation

  Finally you say

  "Finally, Robin, I have read enough of your article and comments to be convinced that you still you do not understand Mises’s calculation argument at all. This is adequate for me to know also that it is impossible for you to refute his argument. One must begin a refutation with an understanding of the argument one is refuting."

  I see. This is what it comes to in the end. When you have no answer to your opponents arguments you resort to claiming your opponent does not "understand the Mises calculation argument at all" At all? I wrote several thousand words outlining in quite a lot of detail what that argument is about. You have produced not one shred of evidence to suggest anything I wrote was incorrect. It is possible that something I may have written might be mistaken but that is a long long way from proving that I do not understand the Mises calculation AT ALL, dont you think?

  Robin

  Published: June 9, 2006 2:32 PM

• PR

  It is futile maintaining as you do that in the long run capitalism tends to weed out unsuccessful entrepeneurs. There will never be a situation in the long run or in the short run when there will be not be unsuccessful entrepeneurs. It is in the nature of market competition that some succeed and others fail. Therefore once again BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT capitalist allocation is sub-optimal.

  This doesn't follow at all. The fact that there will always be some entrepreneurs who are better than others does not preclude the possibility that all entrepreneurs are improving with time. Today's business failures might very well have been successful had they been transported back 30 years.

  If your notion of "optimal" requires absolutely no waste at all, then no system can qualify. People will always make mistakes predicting the needs of others (or themselves for that matter). The key is that capitalism punishes those mistakes by leaving the person in control of fewer resources the next time around. Communism has no such feedback.

  Published: June 9, 2006 3:41 PM

• Yancey Ward

  Robin Cox,

  I have read some ridiculous arguments in my life, but yours is amongst the silliest.

  Published: June 9, 2006 3:50 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Robin,

  “As you know I reject central planning.�

  This doesn’t jive with your statement: “the economic activities carried out in the formal sector of most capitalist states do not contribute in any meaningful sense to the betterment of human welfare�.

  My take on your statement is that consumers are buying things that may not be for “the betterment of human welfare�. But on what criterion do you conclude this? It is only the consumers who can make such a value judgment and they can only express this judgment in the free market by buying and not buying what is freely offered for a price. Only a free market can provide for the expression of such values.

  “The consumers desires are only satisfied under capitalism to the extent that he or she has the wherewithal to pay for what is desired. It follows then that according to your own argument, resources cannot possibly be optimally allocated under capitalism to the extent that consumers desires do not correspond to their ability to pay. So once again you have shot yourself in your foot by your own misguided claims.�

  But Robin, where does the consumer’s ability to pay come from? It comes from his willingness and ability in his role as producer to produce what other consumers value. So it is naturally optimal that those who satisfy other consumer’s needs best are also those who can pay for, and are in the best position to weigh in on the question of what other producers should consider producing. To me this is the optimum condition.

  Again, it is and can only be markets, prices, profits and entrepreneurship that allows such things to occur, and again this is calculation.

  “Again you misunderstand what I am saying. It is futile maintaining as you do that in the long run capitalism tends to weed out unsuccessful entrepeneurs. There will never be a situation in the long run or in the short run when there will be not be unsuccessful entrepeneurs. It is in the nature of market competition that some succeed and others fail. Therefore once again BY YOUR OWN ARGUMENT capitalist allocation is sub-optimal.�

  I will acknowledge that I don’t understand what you are saying, but I claim this is because your argument is not coherent. It seems as if you are saying that as long as some entrepreneurs can fail in the market, that allocation of resources will be sub-optimal. I counter this by claiming that it is ESSENTIAL that entrepreneurs can fail and that they be allowed to fail if they do not turn a profit because this necessarily means that they are incapable of optimally allocating resources to satisfy the consumer. Some failure is absolutely necessary to ensure that those who are profitable, who succeed, who are most fit to allocate scarce resources, remain in this role to do so, and the others are eliminated from this role.

  Only socialist planners can avoid failure, in a narrow sense, because there is no free market to ensure they fail if they are incompetent. There is only coercion left to force the poor old consumer to put up with the trashy and non-existent goods and services that socialism provides.

  “It is sub-optimal for many other reasons not least the enormous structural waste associated with capitalism's socially useless activities but I note you do not have a word to say about that at all. Like most anarcho-capitalists I suspect you subconsciously realise that this fact alone blows an huge hole in the claim about the alleged efficiency of capitalist allocation.�

  LOL. Ok. Let’s talk about your issue with banking. On a free market, banks have a legitimate and crucial role to play which benefits everyone. First of all, it provides a service of a secure and efficient way to place one’s cash for quick and convenient access, and safe and secure storage for it while it waits being dispensed.

  Secondly, the bank connects savers with investors, by borrowing money from otherwise unsophisticated savers and lends these funds to entrepreneurs to invest in capital, land and labor to increase general labor productivity and living standards in the community. Without this service, economic progress would be slower because savings would perhaps not be so easily provided for productive investment.

  Again, your aversion to the free market fogs your assessment of essential economic functions such as banking.

  “This is what it comes to in the end. When you have no answer to your opponents arguments you resort to claiming your opponent does not "understand the Mises calculation argument at all" At all? I wrote several thousand words outlining in quite a lot of detail what that argument is about. You have produced not one shred of evidence to suggest anything I wrote was incorrect. It is possible that something I may have written might be mistaken but that is a long long way from proving that I do not understand the Mises calculation AT ALL, dont you think?�

  Well, I’m not quite yet willing to concede that I have no answers to your arguments, but I thought it only fair to tell you I don’t intend to read more of your article. I think we're even on that though, because I know you have not read, or at least grasped Mises’s calculation argument. I think a person can have a nuanced impression of Mises’s position and still yet understand it essentially. However, that’s not my perception of your situation, and although I have so far failed to convince you this is the case, you have also so far, failed to convince me I am mistaken.

  Published: June 9, 2006 3:56 PM

• Robin Cox

  To Yancey Ward

  "Post an intelligent and civil comment"

  Thank you

  Robin

  Published: June 9, 2006 4:37 PM

• Robin Cox

  Paul

  You say

  " “As you know I reject central planning.�
  This doesn’t jive with your statement: “the economic activities carried out in the formal sector of most capitalist states do not contribute in any meaningful sense to the betterment of human welfare�."

  No you have misunderstood what I mean here. I am talking about the structural waste associated with a capitalist economy. Its got nothing to do with the question of central planning.

  
  "My take on your statement is that consumers are buying things that may not be for “the betterment of human welfare�. "

  Your take on this is completely incorrect. I am talking about economic activities essential to the systemic needs of a market that do not in any meaningful sense make for the "betterment of human welfare". This question has got nothing to do with what consumers chose to buy on the so called free market...

  
  Next you say in response to my point that

  "The consumers desires are only satisfied under capitalism to the extent that he or she has the wherewithal to pay for what is desired. It follows then that according to your own argument, resources cannot possibly be optimally allocated under capitalism to the extent that consumers desires do not correspond to their ability to pay. So once again you have shot yourself in your foot by your own misguided claims.�

  the following...

  "But Robin, where does the consumer’s ability to pay come from? It comes from his willingness and ability in his role as producer to produce what other consumers value. So it is naturally optimal that those who satisfy other consumer’s needs best are also those who can pay for, and are in the best position to weigh in on the question of what other producers should consider producing. To me this is the optimum condition."

  Even if these assumptions were true it still does not address my point at all. Let me remind you what you said which was as follows

  "When the consumer’s greatest desires are satisfied, resources are optimally allocated. The only way we can ensure this is through the actions of property owning, profit motivated entrepreneurs continuously striving to satisfy the consumer"

  Now I pointed out the satisfaction of consumers desires is dependent on the ability to pay and if this ability to pay is insufficient then by definition the consumers' desires are NOT being satisfied to the full extent and that this must therefore mean according to YOUR OWN ARGUMENT that resources are not being optimally allocated

  
  You say

  
  "I will acknowledge that I don’t understand what you are saying, but I claim this is because your argument is not coherent. It seems as if you are saying that as long as some entrepreneurs can fail in the market, that allocation of resources will be sub-optimal. I counter this by claiming that it is ESSENTIAL that entrepreneurs can fail and that they be allowed to fail if they do not turn a profit because this necessarily means that they are incapable of optimally allocating resources to satisfy the consumer."

  Allocation as I explained before is sub-optimal in a market economy anyway but an additional reason for this is the fact that some entrepeneurs fail. Economic loss is an indication of and translates into, sub-optimal allocation as I am sure you will agree. However let me remind you again that it is YOUR claim not mine that profit and loss guides the "class of entrepeneur" over the long run, to optimize resource allocation" . When I denied this was the case you said I was "simply incorrect". My argument was that optimised resoruce allocation is never realised in the market for the simple reason that some entrepeneurs inevitably fail in the market. Are you still disputing this or retreating from your original position?

  You say

  "Again, your aversion to the free market fogs your assessment of essential economic functions such as banking"

  Your response illutrates precisely my point about the inability of anarcho-capitalist to think outside the black box. All you are explaining to me is that banking is essential to capitalism. I haven't disputed this. What you have yet to get to grips with is the argument that banking simply has no purpose in a non market system where production is directly for use. The resources and manpower currently tied in such non-productive activities will be released for socially useful production in a free economy - communism

  
  You say

  "I thought it only fair to tell you I don’t intend to read more of your article. I think we're even on that though, because I know you have not read, or at least grasped Mises’s calculation argument."

  Again I await your evidence to support this claim. I wrote several thousand words explaining what the ECA was about (in the first section of the article). Can you show me where I went wrong. Let me remind you that you were the one going on about anarcho-communists rejecting reason and so on. Now by your own admission you propose not to read any more of my article. Thats your prerogative but it does suggest to me that of us two it is not me who has the closed mind and rejects reason

  Robin

  
  
  

  Published: June 9, 2006 5:23 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Robin,

  “I am talking about the structural waste associated with a capitalist economy. Its got nothing to do with the question of central planning.�

  Explain to me how in a free market, you would observe structural waste. I presume you would point to the existence of freely provided banking services freely patronized by the consumer. I would observe this and say it is free individuals expressing their desires to do business in the way that they desire, and therefore it must be structurally as good as it gets until some entrepreneur discovers a more popular service that displaces banking, if that were possible. You would observe it and say it is wasteful capitalism. If you stop there with that observation, you might get away with avoiding the central planner title, and maybe you do stop there. I suspect, deep down, you do not stop with your observation and would like to prevent people from banking because you view it as wasteful.

  “I am talking about economic activities essential to the systemic needs of a market that do not in any meaningful sense make for the "betterment of human welfare". This question has got nothing to do with what consumers chose to buy on the so called free market…�

  In a free market, if people choose to save and invest their savings in capital, do you claim to know that their activities might not be contributing to the "betterment of human welfare"? If you would not, then cool; you’re a free market advocate and we’re good. If you would make such a claim though, would it lead you to argue that such voluntary behavior must be stopped? If yes, you are a central planner. If no, then good, but then your claim has no use or meaning to either of us because neither of us would want to act on it.

  “Now I pointed out the satisfaction of consumers desires is dependent on the ability to pay and if this ability to pay is insufficient then by definition the consumers' desires are NOT being satisfied to the full extent and that this must therefore mean according to YOUR OWN ARGUMENT that resources are not being optimally allocated�

  You are familiar with the term scarcity. It is a fact of life, and nothing overcomes it but work, production, savings and capital investment. Socialism ignores these facts and hamstrings people’s quest to break free from poverty by eliminating the only mechanism which promotes such things: a free market. Your distorted focus on the issue of how the non-producer can afford to consume, keeps you from realizing the only justifiable recourse to this is to allow him to choose to be productive or not, and get out of the way. There is nothing more optimal.

  “My argument was that optimised resoruce allocation is never realised in the market for the simple reason that some entrepeneurs inevitably fail in the market. Are you still disputing this or retreating from your original position?�

  I don’t think I can answer this any better than how you have quoted me. I am not claiming resources can never be misallocated in the free market, if that is what you are refuting. I am saying that it cannot be allocated any better than by this free market process of speculative entrepreneurial trial and error, driven by the profit motive, directed by the profit/loss sheets conveyed by prices, and determined by the consumer.

  “Again I await your evidence to support this claim. I wrote several thousand words explaining what the ECA was about (in the first section of the article). Can you show me where I went wrong. Let me remind you that you were the one going on about anarcho-communists rejecting reason and so on. Now by your own admission you propose not to read any more of my article. Thats your prerogative but it does suggest to me that of us two it is not me who has the closed mind and rejects reason�

  Yes. There have been reams of Keynes I have also not read, so you are in good company.
  

  Published: June 9, 2006 6:18 PM

• Peter

  What you have yet to get to grips with is the argument that banking simply has no purpose in a non market system

  I don't think anybody disputes that. What use is banking in a "system" where most people are dead or dying, and the living live barefoot in mud huts and spend 20 hours a day trying to feed themselves? No, of course banking has no purpose in such a "system".

  Published: June 9, 2006 7:42 PM

• Fred Mann

  Robin,
  In all of your posts, you appear to be using the word "optimal" as if it means "perfect". It does not. It just means "best" or "best possible". When dealing with humans, perfection is not possible.
  I think your rejection of banking is very telling. As we both know, money has evolved independently in various cultures/locations countless times throughout history. Why is that, Robin?
  Banks are simply tools that enhance the ability of money to do its job. Therefore, banking is "socially useful", to use your term.
  

  Published: June 9, 2006 8:38 PM

• Robin Cox

  Paul

  "Explain to me how in a free market, you would observe structural waste."

  Its not just the so called free market; its ALL variants of capitalism including for example ex-soviet state capitalism

  "I presume you would point to the existence of freely provided banking services freely patronized by the consumer. I would observe this and say it is free individuals expressing their desires to do business in the way that they desire, and therefore it must be structurally as good as it gets until some entrepreneur discovers a more popular service that displaces banking, if that were possible."

  
  It is irrelevant whether banking services are voluntarily taken up or not. Banking and a whle host of other economic activities are necessary to the functioning of modern capitalism but in themselves are socially unproductive do not contribute anything to human welfare. Anarcho-capitalists cannot see this because they are habitually incapable of thinking outside the black box of market relationships. It is only when you step outside the parameters of a market mindset that you get to see what is palpably the case: that a huge amount of economic effort carried on in capitalism today is socially wasteful and necessary only to keep the system ticking over

  "If you stop there with that observation, you might get away with avoiding the central planner title, and maybe you do stop there. I suspect, deep down, you do not stop with your observation and would like to prevent people from banking because you view it as wasteful."

  This is absurd. I am not trying to stop you from banking. At the moment I have to use a bank myself for Pete's sake becuase I live in a capitalist society! As an anarcho-communist I want a different kind of society altogether in which inter alia banking and so many other money-related, socially useless activities would not be needed. Its not a question of "banning" them. A truly free society cannot be imposed on people by force; they have got to want it and understand it before it can come into being. But once a communist/anarchist society comes into being the rationale for banking and other money related activities disappears. Its as simple as that.

  "You are familiar with the term scarcity. It is a fact of life, and nothing overcomes it but work, production, savings and capital investment. Socialism ignores these facts and hamstrings people’s quest to break free from poverty by eliminating the only mechanism which promotes such things: a free market."

  
  How on earth can you make such a claim? Ah yes, I know - by "socialism" I suspect you mean the state owning and controlling the means of production. If that what you call socialism then fine - I am vigorously opposed to your "socialism" (actually state capitalism but thats another issue). You simply have not addressed what I mean - and what was historically meant - by socialism at all - what people Morris, Kropotkin, Marx and many others meant by socialism before the Great Distortion effected by Lenin and his cronies who equated socialism with the activities of the state

  "I don’t think I can answer this any better than how you have quoted me. I am not claiming resources can never be misallocated in the free market, if that is what you are refuting. I am saying that it cannot be allocated any better than by this free market process of speculative entrepreneurial trial and error, driven by the profit motive, directed by the profit/loss sheets conveyed by prices, and determined by the consumer."

  But since you haven't got an inkling how a non-market polycentric economy would actually work- indeed, you have said you see no need to read the rest of my article which goes into precisely this question - then how on earth can you dogmatically make this claim about the free market. What are you comparing the so called free market with anyway?

  Actually there never has been such a thing in existence only various approximations of the model . One of the closest approximations was 19th century Britain. That didnt prevent the Great Depression of the 1880s or the UK being overtaken at the turn of the century by Germany - with its much greater degree of state interventionism - in terms of industrial output. There is no necessary causal correlation between so called free markets and relative prosperity. In fact one could just as plausibly argue the causality works in the opposite way. Economically powerful states have an interest in advocating free market policies where economically weak states do not; their free market policies are a consequences rather than a cause of their relatively strong economic position within global capitalism

  Robin

  Published: June 10, 2006 4:59 PM

• quincunx

  Robin,

  either you missed my reply addressed to you, or your are avoiding it. I'll assume the former, please respond to it.

  "It is irrelevant whether banking services are voluntarily taken up or not."

  Comments like these is precisely why 'socialist economics' fails. It is not value free. You have a distaste for voluntary institutions.

  The bank is simply a middle man that distributes saved resources to those who need it can make make the best use of it.

  "Banking and a whle host of other economic activities are necessary to the functioning of modern capitalism but in themselves are socially unproductive do not contribute anything to human welfare."

  People must be idiots then, for patronizing it without having a gun to their head. The free actions of individuals could not possibly be productive to human welfare, and therefore must be brainwashed by socialists to have a mindless distaste for it.

  "Anarcho-capitalists cannot see this because they are habitually incapable of thinking outside the black box of market relationships."

  Your gift economy is in the same black box. In fact you can't escape the black box - since it is just the product of what happends when people aren't brainwashed and held guns to their head.

  " It is only when you step outside the parameters of a market mindset that you get to see what is palpably the case: that a huge amount of economic effort carried on in capitalism today is socially wasteful and necessary only to keep the system ticking over"

  Yes, this is what the world socialists claim. They have built up an impressive database of jobs & functions that are 'socially wasteful'. What criteria did they use? Their own value judgment of course. The socialist does not employ value-free judgments to understand how the economy works, as the Austrians do. And so it amount to: brainwashing people into refraining from doing what they would do for mutual betterment.

  "This is absurd. I am not trying to stop you from banking."

  The only way to stop people from banking is either through serious brainwashing or putting a gun to the head.

  "At the moment I have to use a bank myself for Pete's sake becuase I live in a capitalist society!"

  And why is this?

  My great grandparents never used a bank, and they got along just fine with gold/cash money in a safe. They invested in things directly from their savings, and collected payment and interest in gold/cash, without checks.

  "But once a communist/anarchist society comes into being the rationale for banking and other money related activities disappears. Its as simple as that."

  Except for the people that are not willing to be commie anarchists.

  And except for the people who will barter with universally barterable commodity goods (MONEY).

  "But since you haven't got an inkling how a non-market polycentric economy would actually work"

  It won't work like that in practice. You will have to kill every non-ansoc so they can't remember what it was like to have trade exchange.

  "That didnt prevent the Great Depression of the 1880s or the UK being overtaken at the turn of the century by Germany - with its much greater degree of state interventionism in terms of industrial output"

  WTF? Overtaken? I don't recall Germany having a global reaching empire. You must be employing some non-value free judgment in determining 'overtaken'. Yes Germans certainly were wealthier in the schnitzel area. It also had more people, but on a per capita basis it was about 60% as wealthy as the UK - according to the Oxford Historical Atlas.

  You can also make the claim that China has taken over the US in terms of industrial output with it's 1+ billion people. But to claim that they are therefore more prosperous is absurd.

  "There is no necessary causal correlation between so called free markets and relative prosperity."

  So now you are telling me that all the tremendous amount of statistics (theory aside) are just wrong?

  "Economically powerful states have an interest in advocating free market policies where economically weak states do not"

  This is idiotic. Powerful states? You mean the ones with a lot of state predation (but smaller in relative terms? Gee, how did they get powerful? They must have taken it from their citizens. It was only the fact that the predation SLOWLY came in, that allowed a lot of capital formation to take place.

  Think about it, would the US become a super power, if it decided to create some sort of absolute religious despotism after 1776?

  "their free market policies are a consequences rather than a cause of their relatively strong economic position within global capitalism"

  This is a retarded way of looking at history. The 'free market' is NOT a policy - it is a lack of one. It is the lack of parasitical activity.

  The citizens prefer a free market, those connected to that state do not. The two CLASSES stand in opposition.

  Published: June 10, 2006 6:51 PM

• Peter

  Banking and a whle host of other economic activities are necessary to the functioning of modern capitalism but in themselves are socially unproductive do not contribute anything to human welfare

  Isn't that rather like saying that, say, computers are "socially useful", but that producing printed circuit boards and microprocessors is unnecessary waste?! If the former depends on the latter, then the latter is obviously not a waste; duh!

  Published: June 10, 2006 7:03 PM

• Fred Mann

  Robin,
  In case you missed my question, I'll ask it again:

  As we both know, money has evolved independently in various cultures/locations, countless times throughout history. Why is that?

  By the way, I read your ENTIRE paper ...

  Published: June 10, 2006 11:38 PM

• Robin Cox

  "It is irrelevant whether banking services are voluntarily taken up or not."
  PAUL:Comments like these is precisely why 'socialist economics' fails. It is not value free. You have a distaste for voluntary institutions.

  
  There is no such thing as value-free economics and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Your values are different to mine but they are no less values. Do I have a distaste for voluntary institutions? How do you figure that out? Socialism/communism is a voluntary society par excellence. I have a distate for wage slavery yes but not volunteer labour - the basis of communism/socialism

  "Banking and a whle host of other economic activities are necessary to the functioning of modern capitalism but in themselves are socially unproductive do not contribute anything to human welfare."
  PAUL: People must be idiots then, for patronizing it without having a gun to their head. The free actions of individuals could not possibly be productive to human welfare, and therefore must be brainwashed by socialists to have a mindless distaste for it.

  
  This is a very naive not to say wrongheaded way of thinking. We live in a capitalist society and unless you have the means to live a wholly subsistence lifestyle and isolated from the world, we have the buy the things we need in order to live. The cash nexus is unavoidable while we live in such a society. No one has suggested for one momement that people are idiots for using banks and this is a frankly idiotic argument to use

  "Anarcho-capitalists cannot see this because they are habitually incapable of thinking outside the black box of market relationships."
  PAUL: Your gift economy is in the same black box. In fact you can't escape the black box - since it is just the product of what happends when people aren't brainwashed and held guns to their head.

  
  I think you have completely lost the plot here. To restate what I said, the black box is the particular mindset that cannot see beyond a capitalist paradigm and projects into other social systems, past and future, the characteristics and systemic requirements of capitalism itself. By the way, why do you keep harping on about holding a gun to people's head. I certainly dont advocate coercion in any way shape or form. Coercion is the province of the capitalist state and those who would wish to run this rotten system. Real communism can only be introduced voluntarily and democratically

  
  " It is only when you step outside the parameters of a market mindset that you get to see what is palpably the case: that a huge amount of economic effort carried on in capitalism today is socially wasteful and necessary only to keep the system ticking over"
  PAUL: Yes, this is what the world socialists claim. They have built up an impressive database of jobs & functions that are 'socially wasteful'. What criteria did they use? Their own value judgment of course. The socialist does not employ value-free judgments to understand how the economy works, as the Austrians do. And so it amount to: brainwashing people into refraining from doing what they would do for mutual betterment.

  
  Those who claim to be value-free are naive fools. You cannot escape the issue of value in human affairs; it permates everything. The criterion that socialists use to consider whether some activity is socially useful is whether it would be needed in a economy based directly on production for use rather than for sale on a market. By this criterion a huge chunk of economic activity in capitalism is indeeed socially useless or wasteful

  "This is absurd. I am not trying to stop you from banking."
  PAUL:The only way to stop people from banking is either through serious brainwashing or putting a gun to the head.

  You dont really know what you are talking abiout here. I repeat nobody is trying to "stop people from banking". (odd that I should say and without thinking you go on to say "the only way to stop people from banking..) What I was talking about was people (voluntarily) creating a new kind of society in which banking and other kinds of money-related activities would cease to be necessary. This is a completely different proposition

  "At the moment I have to use a bank myself for Pete's sake becuase I live in a capitalist society!"
  PAUL: And why is this?

  
  Because at the moment I live in a capitalist society. Why else?

  "But once a communist/anarchist society comes into being the rationale for banking and other money related activities disappears. Its as simple as that."
  PAUL: Except for the people that are not willing to be commie anarchists.

  
  Well, lets put is this way . When the vast majority opt for a real communist society with free access to goods anfd services, any small recalcitrant minority who seriously want to continue with money, wage labour and so on are welcome to try. My guess is that they would soon see the folly of their ways and join in the free society that had developed around them. How can you possibly compete against a system of free access to goods and services

  "But since you haven't got an inkling how a non-market polycentric economy would actually work"
  PAUL: It won't work like that in practice. You will have to kill every non-ansoc so they can't remember what it was like to have trade exchange.

  
  At this point it appears you have completely given up engaging in a serious argument. Smear tactics wont work, friend, and the hollowness of your argument is becoming increasingly apparent...

  
  "That didnt prevent the Great Depression of the 1880s or the UK being overtaken at the turn of the century by Germany - with its much greater degree of state interventionism in terms of industrial output"
  PAUL: WTF? Overtaken? I don't recall Germany having a global reaching empire. You must be employing some non-value free judgment in determining 'overtaken'. Yes Germans certainly were wealthier in the schnitzel area. It also had more people, but on a per capita basis it was about 60% as wealthy as the UK - according to the Oxford Historical Atlas.

  I didnt say Germany's wealth per capita was greater than Britains. I said quite specifically industrial output. I think you also need to clarify what time frame you are using. I was talking aboyut the turn of the last century. What were you talking about?

  
  "There is no necessary causal correlation between so called free markets and relative prosperity."
  PAUL: So now you are telling me that all the tremendous amount of statistics (theory aside) are just wrong?

  Thats not what i am saying either. Correlation does not in itself indicate causality as any statistician will tell you. What I am talking about is how you interpret the data

  "Economically powerful states have an interest in advocating free market policies where economically weak states do not"
  PAUL: This is idiotic. Powerful states? You mean the ones with a lot of state predation (but smaller in relative terms? Gee, how did they get powerful? They must have taken it from their citizens. It was only the fact that the predation SLOWLY came in, that allowed a lot of capital formation to take place.

  I dont know what you are on about here. I am talking about ECONOMICALLY powerful states. OK lets clarify it and keep it simple for your benefit - rich countries and poor countries. Ok?

  
  PAUL: Think about it, would the US become a super power, if it decided to create some sort of absolute religious despotism after 1776?

  State capitalist china is a despotic political regime and may possibly oust the US as the global superpower in a few decades time

  
  "their free market policies are a consequences rather than a cause of their relatively strong economic position within global capitalism"
  PAUL: This is a retarded way of looking at history. The 'free market' is NOT a policy - it is a lack of one. It is the lack of parasitical activity.

  The so called free market like the more statist variants of capitalism is most certainly parasitic based as it is upon the economic exploitation of the working class - the wage and salary earning class. But that aside, your contention that the free market is not a policy is plainly wrong. Free markets (so called - its all relative) historically relied upon the institutional support of the capitalist state for all sorts of reasons and it is the capitalist state that has played a decisive role in deciding upon the relative mix of private and state sectors. In this sense, it certainly is a "policy" to opt for a more free market approach

  
  Robin

  Published: June 11, 2006 3:57 PM

• Robin Cox

  ROBIN: Banking and a whle host of other economic activities are necessary to the functioning of modern capitalism but in themselves are socially unproductive do not contribute anything to human welfare

  PETER"Isn't that rather like saying that, say, computers are "socially useful", but that producing printed circuit boards and microprocessors is unnecessary waste?! If the former depends on the latter, then the latter is obviously not a waste; duh!"

  robin: No its not at all like saying that so your analogy is completely false

  Published: June 11, 2006 4:02 PM

• Paul Edwards

  "How can you possibly compete against a system of free access to goods and services..."

  Socialism is a system of free access to goods and services? Provided freely and voluntarily, of course, by producers of these goods and services. Magical. :)

  PS:

  Your previous post should address quincunx rather than me.

  Published: June 11, 2006 5:04 PM

• Robin Cox

  Fred

  "As we both know, money has evolved independently in various cultures/locations, countless times throughout history. Why is that?"

  As far as we know money in the form of coinage made its appearance among the Lydians in 7th century BC and up until relatively recently - in the last 200-300 years or so - did not play a particularly significant role in the lives of ordinary folk. Its emergence is associated with the development of a state (an image of whose head - the king - appeared on the coin) and class divisions which preceded the invention of coinage - although in some class based civilisations like the Incas there never was any coinage. Fundamentally speaking, money emerged as a form of social control which expressed itself in a variety of ways - taxes, tribute and so on - but also as a more convenient means to expedite trade compared with barter.

  
  I think it is important not to confuse money transactions with the reciprocity of gift exchanges. Marcel Mauss author of The Gift - a seminal work in anthropology - made the point that in so called primitive societies purely economic and self interested transactions typified by money-based buying and selling simply did not occur. Total prestations are multi-dimensional in his view mediated by objects that might look as though they are performing the role of money but are actually the foci of cultural transactions - gifts

  Published: June 11, 2006 5:38 PM

• Robin Cox

  Paul

  "Your previous post should address quincunx rather than me"

  Sorry, my mistake

  
  Robin
  

  Published: June 11, 2006 5:43 PM

• M E Hoffer

  this: "until relatively recently - in the last 200-300 years or so - did not play a particularly significant role in the lives of ordinary folk."--is fundamentally false.

  Try this, as an example of the contra:

  www.clevelandfed.org/Research/com2004/0201.pdf

  Robin,

  You make some good, at least interesting, points, but you'd be better served by not overreaching.

  Published: June 11, 2006 5:52 PM

• Bill Anderson

  
  "As we both know, money has evolved independently in various cultures/locations, countless times throughout history. Why is that?"

  
  Nice try, but STATES and even EMPIRES have also evolved independently in various cultures/locations countless times throughout history. And nearly all have employed usury and monetary systems as means of controlling labor in the interests of a ruling class. This means nothing.

  
  If you think the free market - that is people trading freely - is a central plan then you are an idiot. The free market is a precisely where there is no central plan, but many coordinated decentralized plans based on evaluations of people in that market. You take the typical idiotic position that the "free market" is some sort of blob that controls and conspires, and exists outside of actual acting people.

  
  The market does not conspire. Those who wield the most power within the market conspire to ensure the dominance of the market, and thus their own dominance.

  
  "Ancaps" assume that the market is inherintly good, and that given a choice, people will always choose the market over other forms of social & economic organization. Unforutately, we have never seen a market system in all of human history which did not also involve a state, so there is no way to test what happens when the market is left to succeed or fail on its own merits, because (as I said above) those who weild the most power in the market conspire to ensure its dominance.

  
  When those forces are overthrown during revolutions & major social upheveals, so people are free (at least temporarily, until a state is re-imposed) to make their own decisions, they almost always choose alternatives, based upon social organization of labor (in a word, socialism) The Paris Commune. The Ukraine during the brief period after the Tsarist forces had been defeated and the Bolsheviks had not yet established government authorities, the Anarcho-Communist Makhnovist movement succeeded in setting up voluntary and autonomous worker collectives and popular community councils throughout the peasant countryside. Parts of Spain, during the 1936 revolution, before Franco's forces overtook the nation, there were massive collectivization projects which were entirely voluntary, and which also drastically improved productivity. This is just to name a few examples.

  
  "The paradigm of "central planning vs free markets" is a false dichotomy. Even this "market economy" we live under, involves a high degree of central planning "

  
  Duh. We don't have a free market. Thank you for your brilliant observation.

  
  I don't think that a TRUE free-market is even possible. It has never existed, and probably never will, simply because humans are social creatures who instinctively practice solidarity, mutual aid, and sympathy with other members of our species. Thus many forms of property use and ownership involve complex social relationships. For this reason Anarcho-Communists make a clear distiction between POSSESSIONS (individual property) and CAPITAL (private property, usually expressed through corporate bodies)

  
  "-- Its called WALL-STREET,"

  
  Yes, I'm sure you have a road somewhere around you as well. People build roads.

  
  The above might seem ridiculous, but WALL STREET is a loaded term. One can mean the physical trade exchange, the central banking institution, the culture, etc.

  
  All of the above. Capitalism is a totality. Every aspect of our society is bent and shaped to ensure the dominance of capital and our dependence upon it.

  
  "or on a global scale, THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION!!"

  
  A statist bureaucratic organization funded by looting the taxpayers of multiple nations. Where is the free market?

  
  The WTO indisputably opens up certain markets, in the interests of certain corporations and people, at the expense of others. The question is: for WHOM does a market exist, and why?

  
  "(Even Stalin never had the audicity to centrally plan the entire world... he specifically argued against Leon Trotsky's internationalism, on the need to build "Socialism in one Country")"

  
  Have you heard of World Socialism?

  
  Its called international socialism, meaning a movement of class-conciouss workers which transcends national borders. Nationalism is the religion of the state, after all. I am an internationalist, because I believe in the liberation of all humanity. I am not free if my neighbor is oppressed, even if they live on the other side of the globe. A dictator is a "free-man", yet the freedom of that dictator is dependent upon the oppression of those around him. The liberty of each is dependent upon the liberty of all, and an injury to one is an injury to all!!

  
  "Corporations (which are legal fictions chartered by the state) have a central-planning board, known as the corporate executive board, empowered (again, by the state) to excersise full authority over all private property of the fictional corporate person."

  
  Correct. No ancap disputes this.

  
  Yet you call yourself an advocate of capitalism? Corporations are CAPITAL in its most explicit form -- the means by which the state controls labor!!

  
  "You can argue that socialism does to, and I wouldn't neccessarily disagree. But ultimatley, it doesn't matter what ideology we profess, but what we do."

  
  What? are you a Stirnerite? That's the impression I got before.

  
  No, Stirner was an idealist wasn't he? I am a materialist.

  
  "With that in mind, I have to go to a picket line. We are picketing a janatorial services company, at the HQ of the state Democratic Party which hires them. Wish me luck."

  
  I hope you are happy when they lose their contract. Assuming it was important for them.

  
  Many of the workers are helping to organize the campaign. Assuming the company values their public image and customer base, they will stop intimidating and coercing workers who are raising greivances and saftey issues with management.

  
  Power concedes nothing without a demand. Know who said that?

  Published: June 12, 2006 12:20 AM

• quincunx

  "There is no such thing as value-free economics and you are kidding yourself if you think otherwise."

  So praxeology is biased?

  Maybe you need to write a lengthy and incoherent piece misunderstanding Mises yet again.

  Maybe you should call it: The "Praxeology is not biased" myth

  "Your values are different to mine but they are no less values."

  The whole quest of economics was to understand what can be deduced from the fact that we act.

  What your saying is that economics is a relative concept, that can be shifted to suit ones' preference.

  It is as if you believe that the subjective theory of value determines the VALUE of economics it self.

  You might as well claim that the physical sciences are all opinions, after all the world is flat!

  "Do I have a distaste for voluntary institutions? How do you figure that out?"

  Hmm, you would prevent a person from TRADING a good or service voluntarily using a universally barter-able good (commodity money). Anything other than putting a good on some sort of a stock pile (gifts only), is deemed exploitative.

  Again, you never responded to my request to answer my previous questions - you need to go back farther and read/reply.

  "Socialism/communism is a voluntary society par excellence. I have a distate for wage slavery yes but not volunteer labour - the basis of communism/socialism"

  Can you please use the term ansoc or ancommie or just something with anarchy, just so that new readers will not fall back in their chair from laughter?

  If two people ENGAGE in a voluntary exchange, one offering a GOLD metal disc, and the other his building skills (The latter after former is DONE), would you call this voluntary or not?

  If people DECIDE to keep these GOLD discs in a central location, in exchange for a certificate that guarantees (using auditing, and risk-insurance [interest]) its presence, would you call this voluntary or not?

  And if people DECIDE to loan this GOLD, under the guarantee of risk-assessment (interest rate), is this voluntary or not?

  If you say yes to all of the above - then you are just a confused ancap. If not - then you are stuck in a difficult position.

  You either have to stop these decisions from being made voluntary or non-voluntarily.

  Voluntarily would involve just telling people that these decisions are stupid, non-valuable, and exploitative. Of course people will despise you for the first, laugh at you for the second, and not care the slightest for the third.

  Involuntarily would involve a heavy handed authoritarian socialism, which you claim to be against, or at least in principle. In practice you would be no different.

  "We live in a capitalist society and unless you have the means to live a wholly subsistence lifestyle and isolated from the world, we have the buy the things we need in order to live."

  The example of great grandparents was to illustrate the absence of use of a BANK, yet still having assets & money. Please tell me why you REALLY need to use a bank. I get the feeling you are going to give the usual "well hell, it's kinda convenient" response. I say, that you should practice what you preach - how else are you going to survive in the NON-TRADING post-apocolyptic (And I mean it - you will need nuclear radiation to mutate humans that out of whack). You might respond with "oh well, if money still exists, then I can't get it all, and since I can't get it all, I won't bother with any inconvenience".

  
  "The cash nexus is unavoidable while we live in such a society."

  The so called "cash-nexus" is unavoidable. Period.

  I hope to illustrate how your "stock control" works on the micro level. Beside the fact that the stock control is a pathetic misunderstanding of Mises's arguments grounded on praxeology, praxeology is part and parcel of your stock control. And you can't get rid of it, other than by ignorance.

  The free goods and services that are produced (miraculously, for some reason, I grant you that) must be placed on this stock control.

  This stock control is a "shop" of some sort, but in reality it is nothing more than a designated public dump.

  BTW, your use of the word "order" and "re-order" is indicative of the kind of contradictions that your paper is riddled with. There is NO ordering in ansoc society, other than a 'please' request. You are not entitled to receive anything after you request an order. As Rothbard correctly noted: ideal communism is asking permission of everybody to do anything trivial (in practice limited to the tolerance of people at being annoyed at your request - hardly a socially beneficial act).

  This public dump is a simple place (of any given structure: wharehouse, assembly line, or just on the ground under a tent) where some people voluntarily drop things off, and other voluntarily pick them up. So far so good.

  But what is really happening here?
  What is going on, on the micro level?

  One person puts his stuff on a patch of ground, marked "up for grabs", another comes by, picks it up, maybe puts something else down himself. The original person walks back later to see if his great thing was picked up (satisfaction rating [value appraisal] in your stock control model), it was, and he likes what he sees in place. He takes it back to "his" place.

  Wait a minute, let's see what happens if the act quicker. Person A drops off x, Person B takes x, places y. Person A, finds y, take it.

  Wait a sec! Why should we bother dumping it off on some stock, why not just meet up and trade x for y. After all, why engage in this silly practice?

  "Isn't that better?", an intelligent person might say. Isn't reducing unnecessary work even the beacon call of commies?

  The ancap sees this as a necessarily better situation. Your stock model is some sort of anonymous and time-latent exchange. But people will know some people better than others, and will insist upon direct time-minimizing exchange, rather than anonymously redistributing goods.

  BTW, the argument that it won't be anonymous,but rather fully documented and recorded & shared is exactly the kind of thing that scares the shit out of some disliked minority in any society.
  (Aggression against privacy - which some commies do not recognize)

  These minorities may consist of, as strange as it may: men who like pink things or people who wear pointy hats on their penis, or even *shock* people who eventually want to be anarcho-capitalists, but must TAKE goods so that they can try to convert the commies to rational ideas or move to friendlier climate.

  "No one has suggested for one momement that people are idiots for using banks and this is a frankly idiotic argument to use"

  Some people certainly must be if they truly believe it to be as exploitative and repulsive and yet continue to use it - even though it is possible not to. Note this insight: people may say one thing - but their actions shows their real preference.

  I do some things in an inconvenient way because I have a high ethical standard. Perhaps this whole ansoc things is just academic for you.

  "I think you have completely lost the plot here. To restate what I said, the black box is the particular mindset that cannot see beyond a capitalist paradigm and projects into other social systems, past and future, the characteristics and systemic requirements of capitalism itself."

  Well what about the ansoc black box?

  Are you telling me there aren't socialist cranks whipping out particularly narrow investigations into arcane anecdotes trying to prove that certain institutions that OBVIOUSLY by every stretch of the imagination came into existence outside of the state (like all really socially beneficial inventions), were really systematic requirements for a system that we just happen to detest in the recent past?

  "By the way, why do you keep harping on about holding a gun to people's head."

  Because it's a more effective way to demand goods from the suckers that produce voluntarily, with no expectation of renumeration.

  Guns will most certainly be the first thing not to be voluntarily given as gifts in an ansoc order.

  "Those who claim to be value-free are naive fools."

  Humans act. There! I was value free.

  "You cannot escape the issue of value in human affairs; it permates everything."

  Not when it comes to objective truth. There is no human preference for gravity.

  What you are looking for is proof that economics is just a figment of our imagination, yet exploitative at its very purpose.

  "The criterion that socialists use to consider whether some activity is socially useful is whether it would be needed in a economy based directly on production for use rather than for sale on a market."

  Individuals decide what is useful to individuals. They select who the deal with, and how. That is what makes society. That is why people ACT capitalistically, always and everywhere. The whole possession/property thing is false dichotomy. It is purely absurd to say that you can 'own' the cloths on your back because there will be a social norm as to what people can own - but unfortunately THERE WILL NOT be a social norm that says property can owned. Somehow the cloths are OK for people to own, but land, and any other things that 'intellectual commies' reject, can not be.

  So, if in the future a social norm of property ownership ever developed, it will be denied by the socialist intellectual precisely the way they deny the historic record (focusing on some anecdotes and special cases) of property formation NOT sanctioned by a state, i.e. the majority.

  Do you really think the first farmers when forming property thought: "hey let's have state first, and then it can tell us what property we can have" ? Or first they were invaded, and then the exploiters decided that farming would be a good idea to try out?

  "By this criterion a huge chunk of economic activity in capitalism is indeeed socially useless or wasteful"

  I think it's socially wasteful to deny exchange.
  Let's create a complex interrelated society by severing direct links of value appraisal. Good idea.

  "Well, lets put is this way . When the vast majority opt for a real communist society with free access to goods and services, any small recalcitrant minority who seriously want to continue with money, wage labour and so on are welcome to try."

  This is the ansoc trap of actually letting this occur voluntarily. Certainly appropriating land by capitalists in their own area must strike the cord of the more rough-and-ready envious commies as being theft from the 'free world',(actually, you can't have theft, until there is property) while his actions are really the theft, and therefore this whole voluntary allowance of ancap seems insincere.

  "My guess is that they would soon see the folly of their ways and join in the free society that had developed around them. How can you possibly compete against a system of free access to goods and services"

  To put it simply (I doubt your intellectual perversion will comprehend): The goods are NOT free to their producers.

  The producers, unless REALLY hardcore (something that will disappear with age), will move to where their production is more appreciated. That will be where their contribution will yield them the most of other people's contribution.

  There will be a group from ancap societies that do indeed migrate to the ansoc areas but it will not be those that understand their folly - but those precisely that realize that they can take advantage of the ansoc folly. You will get non-producing consumers.

  It is true that people are willing to work for the sake of loving to do something - but they will always strive for minimal pain and maximum gain. This is a praxeological concept and is pretty much common sense to any thinking and acting person.

  There can not be lasting ansoc societies because all but the most hardcore of the producers will migrate to where they get the most for the most Those who stay behind, and new comers will tend to be those who want the most for the least. To say otherwise it to think that capitalists, today, prefer to buy high and sell low. Or that 'heat' travels from cold to hot.

  The fantasy of free goods for everybody is just that.

  " At this point it appears you have completely given up engaging in a serious argument. Smear tactics wont work, friend, and the hollowness of your argument is becoming increasingly, apparent..."

  I just get the feeling that in practice, the commies will realize their most productive people are leaving, and the least productive ex-ancaps (in really, these will be primarily criminals expelled from society) are moving in and taking all the free loot we were supposed to be getting exclusively.

  At which point, the guns will come out. The ex-ancap-resident with it in his hand, and the commie desperately requesting that someone voluntarily gives it to him for nothing, so that he can himself protect his privilege of getting something for nothing.

  The criminal will just make the old-commie his workhorse and the cycle will begin a new. The criminal and the commie are not that different. The only difference is who got to be the free loader first.

  Once you enshrine the moral virtue of both giving and taking without immediate recompense, you will inevitably invite expelled outsiders and envious insiders to milk the system to their advantage.

  "I didnt say Germany's wealth per capita was greater than Britains. I said quite specifically industrial output."

  That is exactly my point. Wtf is the point in looking at absolute measures of output between two nations?

  Surely no one in their right mind would dispute that a state reppressed society of 100 million would have far greater industrial output than a minarchy (least nation) of 10,000.

  That is not comparing ideas, but simply comparing size.

  "Thats not what i am saying either. Correlation does not in itself indicate causality as any statistician will tell you. What I am talking about is how you interpret the data"

  I said theory aside. It's not like there is only one study to this effect.

  Statistics in economics can not prove conclusively by themselves, but they can certainly illustrate the proper theory.

  Would you honestly be surprised if statistics showed a strong positive correlation with the fact that people prefer more to less, sooner than later?

  Even though it is pretty straight forward and obvious?

  Creating a refuting argument and seeking a reply, in an attempt at refuting it, proves it.

  "OK lets clarify it and keep it simple for your benefit - rich countries and poor countries. Ok?"

  You mean like little old powerful Luxembourg and dirt-poor Zimbabwe?

  "State capitalist china is a despotic political regime and may possibly oust the US as the global superpower in a few decades time"

  Yes, their all-confiscating 5% capital gains tax is really oppressing their capital accumulation.
  China, in some economic areas, is freer than the US.

  "The so called free market like the more statist variants of capitalism is most certainly parasitic based as it is upon the economic exploitation of the working class - the wage and salary earning class."

  How can the working class be exploited in a free market if they always have the option of homesteading land (which today the STATE, not the market keeps off-limits)?

  How can a working person be exploited if every company he ever worked for went bankrupt and created a loss for the capitalist?

  Please avoid "losses" some more. The commie is quick to dismiss this common event.

  The commie will always see a working class - as opposed to just accepting the fact that most of the members of this class have no interest in bearing risks associated with being one's own boss. Rather than seeing division of labor - they see perpetual profit-making by all capitalists all the time (an impossibility).

  It's like thinking that trading a certain good now for a POSSIBILITY of a better good in the future is exploitation.

  The commie society will certainly have to make lotteries a sin. Right? So much for freedom.

  "Free markets (so called - its all relative) historically relied upon the institutional support of the capitalist state for all sorts of reasons and it is the capitalist state that has played a decisive role in deciding upon the relative mix of private and state sectors."

  And ansoc? Did it not, historically, involve intellectual arguments for "voluntarism" while simply taking more from the producers?

  Hmm. The fact that states existed does not prove that free markets NEED them. Thinking this also implies that giving stuff away voluntarily also needs it, since historically, giving things away (charity) has existed along with the state.

  "In this sense, it certainly is a "policy" to opt for a more free market approach""

  So, free markets need a "policy", to exist?

  Surely then ansoc needs a "policy" too.
  So I guess, we are back at the whole taking over the state thing, right?

  The "more free market" "policy" could never make China into an ancap society. All statist policies fail.

  All anarchist movements must work bottom-up to build society.

  "robin: No its not at all like saying that so your analogy is completely false"

  Ha ha ha. Really? banking hasn't done anything for anyone? Prosperity just sort occurs then.

  Even the worst commie can admit that something good was achieved. It certainly increases your welfare, otherwise, why would you be using it? You don't REALLY need it, people can survive without it. Or at least that is your claim as well.

  "did not play a particularly significant role in the lives of ordinary folk. Its emergence is associated with the development of a state (an image of whose head - the king - appeared on the coin)"

  Yes, let's ignore all the privately minted coins in circulation without kings' heads. Life is so much easier when evidence to the contrary is ignored.

  You might as well tell me the state created airplanes (the example being national flags on them, or that it was created in a state) is a good representation of aviation history.

  "I think it is important not to confuse money transactions with the reciprocity of gift exchanges."

  Time is the only difference.

  "made the point that in so called primitive societies purely economic and self interested transactions typified by money-based buying and selling simply did not occur."

  Right, barter never existed.

  I guess quid pro quo favors (service trade) did not exist either.

  Aggressively preventing non-favored persons from acquiring some goods did not exist as well.

  This anthropological genius seems to ignore his professional peers. He must be a socialist crank.

  "Total prestations are multi-dimensional in his view mediated by objects that might look as though they are performing the role of money but are actually the foci of cultural transactions - gifts"

  Maybe there is some explanation for why these cultures didn't last - aside from invasion.

  I just wish it was possible to answer this mysterious question, that no one ever dared to ponder.

  Oh well, someday, the ansoc might get it, yet they will still claim that ansoc society will be wealthier and better off.

  Published: June 12, 2006 5:19 AM

• quincunx

  "Nice try, but STATES and even EMPIRES have also evolved independently in various cultures/locations countless times throughout history. And nearly all have employed usury and monetary systems as means of controlling labor in the interests of a ruling class. This means nothing."

  So if a parasitic group of people use the invention of productive ones it is meaningless?

  We should attack the invention and not the misuses of it? Sounds like a popular statist rationale for imposing regulation on freely acting individuals.

  I would not propound this too far, since you are debasing your own anarchist position.
  
  "The market does not conspire. Those who wield the most power within the market conspire to ensure the dominance of the market, and thus their own dominance."

  A brilliant stinging of words.

  This mysterious power arises from satisfying willing customers, and goes away when you stop doing so.

  Markets are a pathetic way to actually dominate. Why go through all the trouble of satisfying people when you can just loot them?

  The so called dominant market people are self-interested greedy people (as you would think), and so it does not make sense for them to conspire with others, other than to cheat on their agreement for it leaves the market wide open for a new innovative player.

  ""Ancaps" assume that the market is inherintly good, and that given a choice, people will always choose the market over other forms of social & economic organization. "

  You don't understand the Anarcho-Capitalist position at all.

  Let me change your sentence to make it right:

  Ancaps believes that the market is inherently efficient at mitigating conflict, and that given a choice, MOST people will choose the market over other forms of social & economic organization, because most people don't want conflict.

  "Unforutately, we have never seen a market system in all of human history which did not also involve a state, so there is no way to test what happens when the market is left to succeed or fail on its own merits, because (as I said above) those who weild the most power in the market conspire to ensure its dominance."

  They want THEIR dominance not some system that MINIMIZES it. The fact that we have not seen an ancap society does not bode well for the ansoc one.

  "I don't think that a TRUE free-market is even possible. It has never existed, and probably never will, simply because humans are social creatures who instinctively practice solidarity, mutual aid, and sympathy with other members of our species. "

  Your problem is seeing all three things as mutually exclusive from the premise.

  The free market is mutual aid, and it is sympathetic to other members, otherwise there would be nothing to trade.

  Which I suppose is a commie wet dream.

  The idea that you are in a better position to help someone else better than yourself is at the root of your confusion.

  "For this reason Anarcho-Communists make a clear distiction between POSSESSIONS (individual property) and CAPITAL (private property, usually expressed through corporate bodies)"

  It is a false dichotomy. The second being totally wrong. Private property is usually expressed though individuals. The total wealth of common men has always exceeded that of all the corporations put together. It is precisely why most corporations are mostly funded by the savings of these common men.
  
  It is also not that "clear" and commies disagree as to what is just a possession and what is capital.

  Is my car a possession? Or a piece of capital that I use to get around, and collect more pieces of possession and capital? Can I loan my car?

  How about my computer? It is both a possession, and capital equipment when I work.

  Read "The Plain" by Bastiat to see how absurd this dichotomy is when applied to a basic object.

  "The WTO indisputably opens up certain markets, in the interests of certain corporations and people, at the expense of others. The question is: for WHOM does a market exist, and why?"

  This is looking at one side of what happens. The market is closed by force off for some, and opened for the politically-connected others, in the WTO process. There is nothing free market about this. It is the use of political means, not economic ones.

  "All of the above. Capitalism is a totality. Every aspect of our society is bent and shaped to ensure the dominance of capital and our dependence upon it."

  OK. Surely the first method of removing this domination is to shut off ones' computer and throw it out completely. I recommend you take this first step to end the domination.

  "The liberty of each is dependent upon the liberty of all, and an injury to one is an injury to all!!"

  WOW! This is the most impressive piece of ass-backwards collectivist speak I have seen.

  The first is illogical, nay, you can not have liberty for each dependant on liberty for all. The cart does not pull the horse,

  The second is illogical. You missed the second step of proof by induction.

  "Yet you call yourself an advocate of capitalism? Corporations are CAPITAL in its most explicit form -- the means by which the state controls labor!!"

  The fact that the state charters corporations does not prove that large scale organizations can not be voluntarily created by groups of individuals.

  Your sentense doesn't even make sense. Yes, I am a capitalist and therefore have no problem with capital. I don't see it as exploiting labor, but rather making labor more productive and mutually beneficial to it's own cause.

  The state mostly controls labor though taxation. There is no other way the state can control anything.

  Published: June 12, 2006 6:55 AM

• Fred Mann

  Great posts, quincunx!! I especially liked your responses because now, I have much less typing to do ...

  Unfortunately, you forgot one thing. When anarcho-communism finally takes hold, the entire human race will be TRANSFORMED!! All of praxeology will be moot. Cats and mice will live together in harmony.

  By the way, I thought this was a real gem (really):
  "Markets are a pathetic way to actually dominate. Why go through all the trouble of satisfying people when you can just loot them?"

  
  

  Published: June 13, 2006 1:10 AM

• quincunx

  "Unfortunately, you forgot one thing. When anarcho-communism finally takes hold, the entire human race will be TRANSFORMED!!"

  Great point. This transformation will take place once the nuclear radiation sets in. Which makes their distate of nuclear power antithetical to their ONLY method of success.

  "By the way, I thought this was a real gem."

  Thanks. I just hope it sinks it. It would certainly put this Praxeological insight on their list of things to misrepresent Mises on. Since they 'clearly' nailed the coffin on the calculation debate, they can now strike the root of it. They will demolish it by showing that values are not ordinal, but utterly random and fractal in nature, because...things are random and fractal in physical nature or some other such nonsense.

  Published: June 13, 2006 2:30 AM

• Peter

  made the point that in so called primitive societies purely economic and self interested transactions typified by money-based buying and selling simply did not occur.

  And it doesn't occur to you to ponder the relationship between these transactions not occurring and the fact that the societies in which they (supposedly) don't occur are, with good reason, called "primitive"?

  Published: June 13, 2006 3:12 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Quincunx,

  Great arguments. I just find it astonishing that anyone can believe a gift economy will not founder in exactly the way you described. It is like finding someone who thinks up is down.

  Published: June 13, 2006 9:54 AM

• Bill Anderson

  Line Test

  Test

  Test Test

  Test

  (Just checking to see if the line-break tag is needed)

  Published: June 13, 2006 1:08 PM

• Bill Anderson

  "Nice try, but STATES and even EMPIRES have also evolved independently in various cultures/locations countless times throughout history. And nearly all have employed usury and monetary systems as means of controlling labor in the interests of a ruling class. This means nothing."

  So if a parasitic group of people use the invention of productive ones it is meaningless?

  By "this means nothing", I was referring to the claim that monetary systems evolved independently in various cultures/locations countless times throughout history. Interestingly enough, nearly all such monetary systems also evolved in conjunction with a hierarchical, class-based, state-ruled societies.

  Regardless, I believe it is possible to build a monetary system that is not reliant upon state authority, by ending the practice of usury. Proudhon attempted to do exactly that, with "The People's Bank", but was imprisoned shortly thereafter.

  We should attack the invention and not the misuses of it? Sounds like a popular statist rationale for imposing regulation on freely acting individuals. I would not propound this too far, since you are debasing your own anarchist position.

  I am the Anarchist here, not you. And Anarchism is a revolutionary ideology, which by definition excludes capitalism, because rule by capital is still a form of political rule, no matter how "laissez-faire" capital claims to be.

  "The market does not conspire. Those who wield the most power within the market conspire to ensure the dominance of the market, and thus their own dominance."

  A brilliant stinging of words. This mysterious power arises from satisfying willing customers, and goes away when you stop doing so. Markets are a pathetic way to actually dominate. Why go through all the trouble of satisfying people when you can just loot them?

  Firstly, They do "just loot them." Its called imperialism.

  Secondly, in societies where the people have wised up and don't tolerate that anymore (i.e. liberal democracy) the ruling-class simply force the people to play on their terms by instituting (gasp!) a monetary system and wage-labor, in a market-system!!

  The so called dominant market people are self-interested greedy people (as you would think),

  All states are self-interested and greedy. The worst enemy of any state is the people it governs. After all, if people are truly self-interested, then it only follows to reason that those in positions of power and authority will go to great measures (inevitably greater than those without authority, because of the power they hold) to ensure the preservation of their own position of power and authority.

  and so it does not make sense for them to conspire with others, other than to cheat on their agreement for it leaves the market wide open for a new innovative player.

  That's why they write a constitution, and form a body-politic, executive branch, court system, to estbalish a Republic, so they can balance the interests of the various propertied classes. The very purpose of the constitution was "to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority" (in the words of James Madison) and to ensure that "the country is governed by those who own it." (John Jay, first Supreme Court cheif Justice)

  ""Ancaps" assume that the market is inherintly good, and that given a choice, people will always choose the market over other forms of social & economic organization."

  You don't understand the Anarcho-Capitalist position at all.

  I understand it very well. I have debated many, many, "Anarcho-capitalists" in the past.

  Let me change your sentence to make it right: Ancaps believes that the market is inherently efficient at mitigating conflict, and that given a choice, MOST people will choose the market over other forms of social & economic organization, because most people don't want conflict.

  Which must explain the enormous explosions of crime resulting from the neo-liberal "free-market" policies of Reagan and Thatcher.

  Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly committed to the "free market" and "individual responsibility." It was entirely predictable that the social disruption, atomisation of individuals, and increased poverty caused by freeing capitalism from social controls would rip society apart and increase criminal activity. Also unsurprisingly (from an anarchist viewpoint), under these pro-market governments we also saw a reduction in civil liberties, increased state centralisation, and the destruction of local government. As Malatesta put it, the classical liberalism which these governments represented could have had no other effect, for "the government's powers of repression must perforce increase as free competition results in more discord and inequality." [Anarchy, p. 46]

  Hence the paradox of governments committed to "individual rights," the "free market" and "getting the state off our backs" increasing state power and reducing rights while holding office during a crime explosion is no paradox at all. "The conjuncture of the rhetoric of individual freedom and a vast increase in state power," argues Carole Pateman, "is not unexpected at a time when the influence of contract doctrine is extending into the last, most intimate nooks and crannies of social life. Taken to a conclusion, contract undermines the conditions of its own existence. Hobbes showed long ago that contract -- all the way down -- requires absolutism and the sword to keep war at bay." [The Sexual Contract, p. 232]

  Capitalism, and the contract theory on which it is built, will inevitably rip apart society. Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. Such a vision cannot help but institutionalise anti-social acts. As Kropotkin argued "it is not love and not even sympathy upon which Society is based in mankind. It is the conscience -- be it only at the stage of an instinct -- of human solidarity. It is the unconscious recognition of the force that is borrowed by each man [and woman] from the practice of mutual aid; of the close dependency of every one's happiness upon the happiness of all; and of the sense of justice, or equity, which brings the individual to consider the rights of every other individual as equal to his [or her] own." [Mutual Aid, p. 16]

  The social atomisation required and created by capitalism destroys the basic bonds of society - namely human solidarity - and hierarchy crushes the individuality required to understand that we share a common humanity with others and so understand why we must be ethical and respect others rights.
  

  "I don't think that a TRUE free-market is even possible. It has never existed, and probably never will, simply because humans are social creatures who instinctively practice solidarity, mutual aid, and sympathy with other members of our species."

  Your problem is seeing all three things as mutually exclusive from the premise. The free market is mutual aid, and it is sympathetic to other members, otherwise there would be nothing to trade. Which I suppose is a commie wet dream. The idea that you are in a better position to help someone else better than yourself is at the root of your confusion.

  I don't understand what you are saying here. The market is a division of labor WITHOUT mutual aid. There is no sympathy or solidarity inherent in the marketplace, only prices and commodities. More often than not, the market system serves to crush and undermine these basic human instincts of solidarity and mutual aid.

  "For this reason Anarcho-Communists make a clear distiction between POSSESSIONS (individual property) and CAPITAL (private property, usually expressed through corporate bodies)"

  It is a false dichotomy. The second being totally wrong. Private property is usually expressed though individuals.

  You are equating human beings with inanimate objects. That is exactly what's wrong with private property -- it puts the rights of property before the rights of human beings. Thus, CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, or the legal fiction that private property should have the legal rights and status of a flesh-and-blood natural person.

  The total wealth of common men has always exceeded that of all the corporations put together. It is precisely why most corporations are mostly funded by the savings of these common men.

  This is utterly false. 51 of the largest 100 economies of the world today are corporations.

  It is also not that "clear" and commies disagree as to what is just a possession and what is capital. Is my car a possession? Or a piece of capital that I use to get around, and collect more pieces of possession and capital? Can I loan my car? How about my computer? It is both a possession, and capital equipment when I work. Read "The Plain" by Bastiat to see how absurd this dichotomy is when applied to a basic object.

  Read "What is Property?" By Proudhon. He shows how absurd is the dichotomy between "Proprieter" and "Robber." And unlike Bastiat, Proudhon actually was an Anarchist. In fact he was the first to use the term Anarchism as a positive description of a free society.

  Regardless, the distinction between capital and possession is simple. Property whose sole purpose is to create more property for the owner of the property, without the addition of the owner's labor, but instead through the employment of usury, wage-labor, or landlordism, is capital. Property which is used by the owner for his or her personal ends (as all property is, regardless) but which does NOT purport to be the mother of new forms of property for the same owner (without the addition of the owner's sole labor) is possession.

  When the owner of property usurs or otherwise employs his/her property for the creation of new property, that is capital. I will admit, the distinction is indeed sometimes blurry, just as the distinction between state and society is oftentimes blurry.

  However, it is impossible for an individual (or corporate body) to sustain profitable capital in the absence of a state. Accumulation of capital requires coercion to maintain, lest the forces of free co-operation (or competition, as the case may be) socialize it into oblivion. For this reason, no hard and fast line is needed to distinguish possession from capital. If we succeed in abolishing the state, capital will be non-existent, because there will be no reason any self-interested person (or corporate body) would want to give up their own possessions to all of society.

  "The WTO indisputably opens up certain markets, in the interests of certain corporations and people, at the expense of others. The question is: for WHOM does a market exist, and why?"

  This is looking at one side of what happens. The market is closed by force off for some, and opened for the politically-connected others, in the WTO process. There is nothing free market about this. It is the use of political means, not economic ones.

  Capitalism has always been instituted through political means, not economic ones. What's your point?

  "All of the above. Capitalism is a totality. Every aspect of our society is bent and shaped to ensure the dominance of capital and our dependence upon it."

  OK. Surely the first method of removing this domination is to shut off ones' computer and throw it out completely. I recommend you take this first step to end the domination.

  It is. I'm heading to the EarthFirst! rendezvous later this summer. If you are interested in coming, just let me know. I also would also recommend getting involved in your nearest IWW local. I'm also heading out to my plot at an organic community garden as soon as I'm done writing this post.

  "The liberty of each is dependent upon the liberty of all, and an injury to one is an injury to all!!"

  WOW! This is the most impressive piece of ass-backwards collectivist speak I have seen.

  It is your short-sighted individualism which is ass-backwards. You could care less how many poor farmers in Mexico are forced off the land which their people have lived on for centuries. Or how many Iraqis are killed during the imperialist occupation of their land (to ensure its integration into the global market-system, I might add)

  All you seem to care about is your own pocketbook. How do you expect any of your struggles to succeed if you are not willing to support the liberation struggles of others? Again, the utter lack of an activist outlook is the Achilles heal of "anarcho-capitalism." How do you intend to achieve an "anarcho-capitalist" society, if not through organized COLLECTIVE resistance against the tyranny of the state?

  You are living in a dream world if you think the state is just going to give up power voluntarily upon realizing the error of its ways. Its going to take a revolution, and not just any kind of revolution (the word is used in car commercials for crying out loud) but a SOCIAL revolution.

  The first is illogical, nay, you can not have liberty for each dependant on liberty for all. The cart does not pull the horse,

  THE HORSE SHOULD BE SET FREE. If you need a cart to be pulled, PULL IT YOURSELF, and stop enslaving others to do it for you.

  The second is illogical. You missed the second step of proof by induction.

  Even the most powerful tyrants oppress themselves through their continual lust for power. There is no way I can be free when others are oppressed. Sorry if this "collectivist speak" annoys you, but I work for the liberation of humanity (and all the other animal species which humans oppress through domestication, for that matter) whereas you only believe in the liberation of your pocketbook.

  "Yet you call yourself an advocate of capitalism? Corporations are CAPITAL in its most explicit form -- the means by which the state controls labor!!"

  The fact that the state charters corporations does not prove that large scale organizations can not be voluntarily created by groups of individuals. Your sentense doesn't even make sense. Yes, I am a capitalist and therefore have no problem with capital. I don't see it as exploiting labor, but rather making labor more productive and mutually beneficial to it's own cause.

  "It is not Capital that transforms raw materials, nor Capital that produces goods. If living activity did not transform the materials, these would remain untransformed, inert, dead matter. If men were not disposed to continue selling their living activity, the impotence of Capital would be revealed; Capital would cease to exist; its last remaining potency would be the power to remind people of a bypassed form of everyday life characterized by daily universal prostitution."
  -- Fredy Perlman, "The Reproduction of Daily Life"

  The state mostly controls labor though taxation. There is no other way the state can control anything.

  Never mind the police, the national guard, the money supply, the court system, the National Labor Relation Board, the Taft-Hartly Act, corporate charters, no-strike and back-to-work orders, and yes, even the bureaucracies of the conservative business unions that collaborate with management to maintain "labor peace."

  If you really believe that taxation is the only way the state can control anything, then you should pick up the latest edition of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Review (formerly known as the "Libertarian Labor Review")

  Published: June 13, 2006 1:25 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Bill Anderson quoted;

  "Crime, the most obvious symptom of social crisis, took 30 years to double in Britain (from 1 million incidents in 1950 to 2.2 million in 1979). However, between 1979 and 1992 the crime rate more than doubled, exceeding the 5 million mark in 1992. These 13 years were marked by a government firmly committed to the "free market" and "individual responsibility.""

  This is ridiculous. Relative to the havoc that socialism and organized labor were wreaking on Britain, the Thatcher regime SEEMED to be committed to the "free market" and "individual responsibility".

  However in absolute terms, socialised medicine, welfare, civil servitude, etc remained exactly the same drain on productivity they ever were, while the socialists continued to avance the regulatory state and confiscate guns, and the Tories continued probing imperially around the world, with the US backing them up.

  So the premise that Thatcherism caused crime rates to rise in Britain is absurd, particularly so when you realize that crime rates CONTINUED rising under Labor. So everything else in that citation based on that premise is wrong.

  Bill, I want to understand your position. But if you lean on false premises, you shouldn't expect people to accept the conclusions that flow from them.

  Published: June 13, 2006 2:06 PM

• RalphBorsodi

  Bill-

  keep up the good work you are making Kevin Carson's free market, anti-capitalism (mutualism) look like a logical compromise between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism.

  Published: June 13, 2006 3:26 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  I have one question for Kevin, Bill, Ralph, et al;

  How are you going to keep people from accumulating capital? Since any 'thing' can be 'capital' if employed as a higher-order good, just exactly how do you propose to prevent some people from accumulating 'capital'? I haven't seen an explanation of this (of course, I haven't read Bill's entire posts either, so maybe I missed it).

  Published: June 13, 2006 3:51 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Bill,

  “You could care less how many poor farmers in Mexico are forced off the land which their people have lived on for centuries.�

  At last, I found a sentence from your posts that may reveal a patch of common ground between us. When you talk of this land which Mexican families and their heirs presumably have used for generations, I get the feeling you accept that these farmers have an exclusive right to control and use this scarce resource any way they see fit based on the fact that they homesteaded it. This would further suggest that you agree no that outside authority, social apparatus or latecomer has a justified overriding claim on this land or a right to dictate by decree how this land should be utilized. This is great! This would imply they own the land, that they could work it or not, and sell it or not, according their voluntary decision.

  We A-Cs refer to this as the institution of private property, and it is the basis of contracts, liberty, conflict avoidance and statelessness. It is the logical basis of the A-C philosophy. With the institution of private property, combined with private courts, and private security, we can promote justice and eliminate the state. It allows private property owning individuals to be able to voluntarily contract between themselves. It does not involve coercion or a state.

  Published: June 13, 2006 4:43 PM

• Robin Cox

  "Your values are different to mine but they are no less values."
  QUINCUNX: The whole quest of economics was to understand what can be deduced from the fact that we act.

  Which is a function of the values we hold since our actions entail choices...

  
  "Do I have a distaste for voluntary institutions? How do you figure that out?"
  QUINCUNX: Hmm, you would prevent a person from TRADING a good or service voluntarily using a universally barter-able good (commodity money).

  I repeat, if & when a anarcho-communst society were to come into being, there is nothing to stop a reculcitrant minority setting up a trading system if that is what they wanted. My guess is that it would collapse in pretty quick order being rendered completely unsustainable by the surrounding free access economy. You dont need to prevent people from trading in a free society; it would cease of its own accord

  
  "Socialism/communism is a voluntary society par excellence. I have a distate for wage slavery yes but not volunteer labour - the basis of communism/socialism"
  QUINCUNX: If two people ENGAGE in a voluntary exchange, one offering a GOLD metal disc, and the other his building skills (The latter after former is DONE), would you call this voluntary or not?

  At one level yes but in a more fundamental sense, definitely no. The supposed voluntariness of trade obscures the fact that we live in a society in which a small class of economic parasites (the capitalist) monopolise the means of production (capital) and the vast majority are therefore economically obliged to sell their labour to the former for a wage or salary. This underlying compulsion find expression in the hierarchical authoritarian set up that is the capitalism ffirm (not that so called anarcho-caps have much to say about that). The problem with naive an-caps like yourself is that you cant see the wood for the trees. You focus superficially on one aspect, ignoring the wider context. This is related to the fallacy of methodological individualism. As wage slaves we can chose which master to for work but collectively as a class we cannot escape our wage enslavement and all that that entails

  QUINCUNX: You either have to stop these decisions from being made voluntary or non-voluntarily.Voluntarily would involve just telling people that these decisions are stupid, non-valuable, and exploitative. Of course people will despise you for the first, laugh at you for the second, and not care the slightest for the third.

  
  You dont pay much attention do you? If already said socialism communism can only be introduced when a significant majority want and understand it. The people who despise, laugh at and not care for what the majority has to say or think will be a minority anyway - onviosuly . Im not going to lose much sleep over that

  QUINCUNX:Involuntarily would involve a heavy handed authoritarian socialism, which you claim to be against, or at least in principle. In practice you would be no different.

  
  No evidence is presented in support of this assertion so it can be duly ignored

  "We live in a capitalist society and unless you have the means to live a wholly subsistence lifestyle and isolated from the world, we have the buy the things we need in order to live."

  QUINCUNXThe example of great grandparents was to illustrate the absence of use of a BANK, yet still having assets & money. Please tell me why you REALLY need to use a bank. I get the feeling you are going to give the usual "well hell, it's kinda convenient" response.

  
  Again, I repeat, I use a bank today becuase I live in a capitalist society. I dont particularly relish having to use it and being clobbered by the hefty bank charges which I can ill afford to pay for. But If you need to use money then yes it is "kinda convenient" to go to a hole in the wall & extract the stuff. So what? It is only convenient in the context of a society in which you need money. It is not convenenient per se. On the contrary! Banking BTW is only one small aspect of a myriad of economic aspects that are socially unproductive in themselves but essentially to the functioning of capitalism, Pay departments are another. Do I go to my pay department and say " dont pay me as I disagree with the principle of payment". By the pathetic logic that you seem to be employing that is precisely what you seem to be suggesting i should be doing.

  "The cash nexus is unavoidable while we live in such a society."
  QUINCUNXThe so called "cash-nexus" is unavoidable. Period.

  No evidence is presend to support this assertion so I will duly ignore it

  
  QUINCUNX: I hope to illustrate how your "stock control" works on the micro level. Beside the fact that the stock control is a pathetic misunderstanding of Mises's arguments grounded on praxeology, praxeology is part and parcel of your stock control. And you can't get rid of it, other than by ignorance.

  
  Could you try to make yourself a little clearer. The above is just incoherent ranting. You dont seem to evince understanding of the point I made about stock control of how it connects with the ECA

  QUINCUNX: The free goods and services that are produced (miraculously, for some reason, I grant you that) must be placed on this stock control.
  This stock control is a "shop" of some sort, but in reality it is nothing more than a designated public dump.

  
  Duh. Stock control is not a shop or a public dump; it is a process of monitoring levels of stock and responding accordingly

  
  QUINCUNX: BTW, your use of the word "order" and "re-order" is indicative of the kind of contradictions that your paper is riddled with. There is NO ordering in ansoc society, other than a 'please' request. You are not entitled to receive anything after you request an order. As Rothbard correctly noted: ideal communism is asking permission of everybody to do anything trivial (in practice limited to the tolerance of people at being annoyed at your request - hardly a socially beneficial act).

  
  This is pathetic. Any reasonable person reading the article would know instantly that ordering stock is making a request for said stock. Any supermarket today transmits orders for fresh stock from its suppliers. Whats the problem?

  QUINCUNXThis public dump is a simple place (of any given structure: wharehouse, assembly line, or just on the ground under a tent) where some people voluntarily drop things off, and other voluntarily pick them up. So far so good.
  But what is really happening here?
  What is going on, on the micro level?
  One person puts his stuff on a patch of ground, marked "up for grabs", another comes by, picks it up, maybe puts something else down himself. The original person walks back later to see if his great thing was picked up (satisfaction rating [value appraisal] in your stock control model), it was, and he likes what he sees in place. He takes it back to "his" place.
  Wait a minute, let's see what happens if the act quicker. Person A drops off x, Person B takes x, places y. Person A, finds y, take it.
  Wait a sec! Why should we bother dumping it off on some stock, why not just meet up and trade x for y. After all, why engage in this silly practice?

  
  Or should one say why engage in this silly exchange?! Your whole notion of a communist society is riddled with all sorts of silly misconceptions. I am quite amenable to the idea of gift exchange in a communist society but that is not at all the same as trading where B's access to x is contingent upon producing y for As benefit.. More to the point, not very many products are produced on an individual level; the vast majority of what is produced is produced by joint action if many people. How would your suggestion work in that case?

  QUINCUNX: The ancap sees this as a necessarily better situation. Your stock model is some sort of anonymous and time-latent exchange.

  Get rid of stock control and calculation in kind and a famine will assuredly be the result. This is what you are unwittingly advocating

  QUINCUNX: BTW, the argument that it won't be anonymous,but rather fully documented and recorded & shared is exactly the kind of thing that scares the shit out of some disliked minority in any society.
  (Aggression against privacy - which some commies do not recognize)

  This is absurd. How is information about the stock & flow of goods through the communist economy a threat? You are just ranting thoughtlessly again. And you contradict yourself - having said "Your stock model is some sort of anonymous and time-latent exchange"

  QUINCUNX: These minorities may consist of, as strange as it may: men who like pink things or people who wear pointy hats on their penis, or even *shock* people who eventually want to be anarcho-capitalists, but must TAKE goods so that they can try to convert the commies to rational ideas or move to friendlier climate.

  Youve been on the magic mushrooms again?

  "No one has suggested for one momement that people are idiots for using banks and this is a frankly idiotic argument to use"
  QUINCUNXSome people certainly must be if they truly believe it to be as exploitative and repulsive and yet continue to use it - even though it is possible not to. Note this insight: people may say one thing - but their actions shows their real preference.

  Look, it is capitalism I want to get rid not simply banks. It is not possible for me to escape capitalism at this point in time becuase at the present time this is the system we have. Even if I lved a hermits existence on a desert island I still couldnt escape entirely the effects of a global capitalist economy. If I was free to show my real preference I would most certainly cut my ties with the cash economy as far as possible. But I cant becuase I am not free to to show my real preferences. Amongs other thgings Ive got a mortgage to pay and a bank loan. This is the case with most other workers as well. Saying it is "possible not to" suggests to me that you dont really have your feet on the ground at all. It is an airey fairey assertion with little connection with reality

  
  "I think you have completely lost the plot here. To restate what I said, the black box is the particular mindset that cannot see beyond a capitalist paradigm and projects into other social systems, past and future, the characteristics and systemic requirements of capitalism itself."
  QUINCUNXWell what about the ansoc black box?
  Are you telling me there aren't socialist cranks whipping out particularly narrow investigations into arcane anecdotes trying to prove that certain institutions that OBVIOUSLY by every stretch of the imagination came into existence outside of the state (like all really socially beneficial inventions), were really systematic requirements for a system that we just happen to detest in the recent past?

  
  If you could make yourself a little clearer I might be able to provide some kind of answer to this rambling nonsense. I havent a clue what you are on about

  
  "By the way, why do you keep harping on about holding a gun to people's head."
  QUINCUNXBecause it's a more effective way to demand goods from the suckers that produce voluntarily, with no expectation of renumeration.

  
  Duh. Then it wont be" voluntary labour" any more will it? And why expect remuneration when you have free access? You just havent a clue about communism have you? Not a clue. And it is significant that you should show your contempt for the principle of voluntary labour. Given that most work even under capitalism is unpaid - the grey economy (which includes the household sector. mutual aid, charitable work etc) - I would suggest to you that were it not for such "suckers" performing all this unpaid work, you would probably not be around to discuss this issue at all

  
  "Those who claim to be value-free are naive fools."
  QUINCUNX: Humans act. There! I was value free.

  But what actions do they take? This is a matter of choice. There our actions are not value free

  
  "You cannot escape the issue of value in human affairs; it permates everything."
  QUINCUNX: Not when it comes to objective truth. There is no human preference for gravity.

  
  I dont recall suggesting that human affairs were on a par with natural facts. Human affairs are not like "objective truth"; they are value-laden . There is something incredibly arrogant about the assumption you are making here. You are privy to the "objective truth" and no one else. You remind me of some religious fundamentalist

  
  "The criterion that socialists use to consider whether some activity is socially useful is whether it would be needed in a economy based directly on production for use rather than for sale on a market."
  QUINCUNXIndividuals decide what is useful to individuals. They select who the deal with, and how. That is what makes society. That is why people ACT capitalistically, always and everywhere.

  Oh so me advocating an anarcho-communist is an example of me acting "capitalistically". Hunter gatherer societies are really capitalist societies. And even what you call socialist societies are really capitalist societies (well at least you are right on that last one - they are state capitalist societies). But how on earth do you deduce from the premiss that because individuals "decide what is useful to individuals"this means they act "capitalistically" - always and everywhere. Its all very well carrying on with the this stream of consciousness stuff but I do think we need a bit of a reality check now and then

  QUINCUNX: The whole possession/property thing is false dichotomy. It is purely absurd to say that you can 'own' the cloths on your back because there will be a social norm as to what people can own - but unfortunately THERE WILL NOT be a social norm that says property can owned. Somehow the cloths are OK for people to own, but land, and any other things that 'intellectual commies' reject, can not be.

  Communists do make a dictinction between possessions - like the cloths on your back - and means of propduction. People will still have possession in a communst society but the means iof production will be commonly owned. I see no problem with this at all

  "My guess is that they would soon see the folly of their ways and join in the free society that had developed around them. How can you possibly compete against a system of free access to goods and services"
  QUINCUNX To put it simply (I doubt your intellectual perversion will comprehend): The goods are NOT free to their producers.

  
  By free access I mean not contingent upon any payment (money or barter). I think you are getting slightly confused here - possibly thinking that I am suggesting there is no opportunity cost involved when this is not what I am saying

  
  QUINCUNX There will be a group from ancap societies that do indeed migrate to the ansoc areas but it will not be those that understand their folly - but those precisely that realize that they can take advantage of the ansoc folly. You will get non-producing consumers.
  It is true that people are willing to work for the sake of loving to do something - but they will always strive for minimal pain and maximum gain. This is a praxeological concept and is pretty much common sense to any thinking and acting person.There can not be lasting ansoc societies because all but the most hardcore of the producers will migrate to where they get the most for the most Those who stay behind, and new comers will tend to be those who want the most for the least. To say otherwise it to think that capitalists, today, prefer to buy high and sell low. Or that 'heat' travels from cold to hot.

  
  Ah yes the old bogey of the "lazy person argument". Of course if it held any water you would NOT have people doing the voluntary work for which you display such contrempt. But apart from that how do people gain the social esteem of their fellows in anarchocommunist society .Clearly it cannot be through their conspicuous consumtion of wealth which free access redners meaningless; it can only be through their contribution to society

  
  QUINCUNXOnce you enshrine the moral virtue of both giving and taking without immediate recompense, you will inevitably invite expelled outsiders and envious insiders to milk the system to their advantage.

  
  This demonstrates your incoherence. "Giving and taking without immiedate recompense" . Think about it logically for once. If you" take" how does the question of "recompense" arise. You are not making any sense

  
  "I didnt say Germany's wealth per capita was greater than Britains. I said quite specifically industrial output."
  QUINCUNX That is exactly my point. Wtf is the point in looking at absolute measures of output between two nations?
  Surely no one in their right mind would dispute that a state reppressed society of 100 million would have far greater industrial output than a minarchy (least nation) of 10,000. This not comparing ideas, but simply comparing size.

  
  What are you saying here. That Germany's population at the turn of the last century was 100 million and the UK,s a mere 10,000? Since I dont believe even you would come with such a daft idea, I imagine what you are tryimng to say in your clumsy fashion is that you have to take population size into account and that more accuarate indicator would be per capita output. I agreee. But it is on the basis of per capita industrial output that i made this point.

  
  "State capitalist china is a despotic political regime and may possibly oust the US as the global superpower in a few decades time"
  QUINCUNX: Yes, their all-confiscating 5% capital gains tax is really oppressing their capital accumulation.
  China, in some economic areas, is freer than the US.

  So what? Yopu made the point that US could never have become a super-power if it had been a religious despotism . I merely pointed out that China was a political despotism and this is not likely to prevent it from becoming ghe next global superpower

  "The so called free market like the more statist variants of capitalism is most certainly parasitic based as it is upon the economic exploitation of the working class - the wage and salary earning class."
  QUINCUNX: How can the working class be exploited in a free market if they always have the option of homesteading land (which today the STATE, not the market keeps off-limits)?

  
  Get real! So you are a worker and you buy your homestead what next then? How do you pay for the mortgage? How do you earen a living bearing in mind this is ca paitalist society we are talking about. Seem to me you ae living in a fantasy world

  "Free markets (so called - its all relative) historically relied upon the institutional support of the capitalist state for all sorts of reasons and it is the capitalist state that has played a decisive role in deciding upon the relative mix of private and state sectors."
  QUINCUNXAnd ansoc? Did it not, historically, involve intellectual arguments for "voluntarism" while simply taking more from the producers?

  Can you give a specific example where this allegedly happened?

  
  QUINCUNX. The fact that states existed does not prove that free markets NEED them. Thinking this also implies that giving stuff away voluntarily also needs it, since historically, giving things away (charity) has existed along with the state.

  
  I agree that just saying the state existed does not prove that so called free markets needed them. To prove that we need to look at the insititutional and functional prerequisites of a market economy and these certainly include the need for a state to shore up property rights upon which the "free" market is dependent and to arbitrate between competing property claims amongst other things. A free society based upon voluntarism and common ownership of the means of production, on the other hand, does not have this prerequisite

  
  "robin: No its not at all like saying that so your analogy is completely false"
  QUINCUNX:Ha ha ha. Really? banking hasn't done anything for anyone? Prosperity just sort occurs then.Even the worst commie can admit that something good was achieved. It certainly increases your welfare, otherwise, why would you be using it? You don't REALLY need it, people can survive without it. Or at least that is your claim as well.

  
  No prospeirt doesnt "just sort of occur then." Prosperity is the result of the applcation of human labour to nature-given resoruces. Banks dont actually produce anything any more than pay departments or insurance companies do. There is not much you can do with a wodge of dollar notes in ppure physical termns. You cant eat thre stuff. Its not very good building material although it might serve a purpose as insulation or wallpaper. Actual prosperity comes from material processes. These are mediated in capitalism by the cash nexus but in no way are they dependent upon the latter. In capitalism money merely provides a kind of permission for the bearer of such money to initiate the material processes that lead to prosperity. It is a completely festishised view of the world that actually belioeves that banking itself "certainly increases your welfare". It doesnt . Any more than the local state planning department " increases your welfare" by giving you permission to build your own house on land you have bought

  "did not play a particularly significant role in the lives of ordinary folk. Its emergence is associated with the development of a state (an image of whose head - the king - appeared on the coin)"
  QUINCUNX: Yes, let's ignore all the privately minted coins in circulation without kings' heads. Life is so much easier when evidence to the contrary is ignored.

  I did not suggest all minted coins necessary had the head of the monarch on it. I only gave the example to illustrate the link between coinage and the state
  .

  "I think it is important not to confuse money transactions with the reciprocity of gift exchanges."
  QUINCUNX ;Time is the only difference.

  
  Then you have no idea of what a gift exchange is about if that is what you think. There is a world of difference and your comment only betrays yout ignorance of anthropology.

  "made the point that in so called primitive societies purely economic and self interested transactions typified by money-based buying and selling simply did not occur."

  QUINCUNX :Right, barter never existed. I guess quid pro quo favors (service trade) did not exist either.
  Aggressively preventing non-favored persons from acquiring some goods did not exist as well. This anthropological genius seems to ignore his professional peers. He must be a socialist crank.

  The professional peers of Marcel Mauss - then and now - generally accorded , and accord, with the idea that in so-called primitive societies the "economy" did not exist in isolation but was embedded in the larger matrix of society as a whole. What might be thought of as economic is more than likely to have religious, culrual, moral and political meanings as welll which cannot be disentangled from the former - unlike in modern capitalism. This is the point I was getting at and if you think this is wrong then perhaps you might care to take on the anthropological establishment

  Published: June 13, 2006 7:20 PM

• quincunx

  " Interestingly enough, nearly all such monetary systems also evolved in conjunction with a hierarchical, class-based, state-ruled societies."

  Again, so DID charity & gift exchange, technology, and pretty much everything else. I suppose we should discard everything, including language. Wkjdf ewriuj eojsf oiwwer?

  "Regardless, I believe it is possible to build a monetary system that is not reliant upon state authority, by ending the practice of usury."

  Come again?

  First, this sets you apart from the Robin Cox style commies, that see money (or direct exchange of commodities) as an inherent evil. You commies need to write some sort of manifesto that sets things straight. It should not be a problem since all anarchists share the same "class consciousness".

  Second, The only method in doing so is precisely in tune with state practice: the printing press.

  Hyperinflation is your only means of removing 'usuary' (aside from authoritarian means). But then, why even bother using the hyperinflated good? You certainly can't force people into using this 'non-usurious' money, and so they will avoid it like the plague.

  "I am the Anarchist here, not you. And Anarchism is a revolutionary ideology, which by definition excludes capitalism, because rule by capital is still a form of political rule, no matter how "laissez-faire" capital claims to be."

  There is nothing revolutionary about creating a retrograding society based on irrationality.

  Yes, the socialist Anarchist position of Proudhon is technically described 11 years earlier than the Anarcho-Capitalism position of Molinari. So in that sense you can appropriate the label to yourself. Or can you? Will you deny me the right to use it? How uncommie of you.

  "Firstly, They do "just loot them." Its called imperialism."

  The tool for imperialism is always the state, never the market. The state robs one part of the market, and goes out and creates business for another.

  "Secondly, in societies where the people have wised up and don't tolerate that anymore (i.e. liberal democracy) the ruling-class simply force the people to play on their terms by instituting (gasp!) a monetary system and wage-labor, in a market-system!!"

  The state does not institute markets, it hampers them.

  Primitive tribes never evolved into a division of labor market system from the imposition of the state. Markets come first, and then there is enough wealth to have parasitical members. And then you get a government.

  "All states are self-interested and greedy. The worst enemy of any state is the people it governs...That's why they write a constitution..."

  Please read carefully. I am not talking about the state.

  "I understand it very well. I have debated many, many, "Anarcho-capitalists" in the past."

  "Which must explain the enormous explosions of crime resulting from the neo-liberal "free-market" policies of Reagan and Thatcher."

  You say the first, and then you totally disprove it by stating the second.

  Do you think it would be good debating on my part to say that anarcho-communism won't work because of what Stalin or Mao did? I Think not.

  You have no other basis of argument, other than trying to pigeonhole the ancaps into statists, so that you can easily knock them down. You are putting up straw men and red herrings at every wake.

  Don't fall for catchy titles like neo-liberal "free market" policies, that amount to no more than a mixed bag of re-regulation: statism +/- a few things here and there. I'll tell you exactly what was probably the biggest factor of the increase in crime: Britain's own version of the War on Drugs. Look into it. There are other explanations, and they all center around the actions of the state. The "free market" ism of Thatcher & Reagan is a big puff of smoke, that did no such thing. The result was more state power and higher debts in both cases. Nor could it be anything else.

  From your quote:

  "Capitalism is based upon a vision of humanity as isolated individuals with no connection other than that of money and contract. "

  The money and contract is the voluntary means by which people cooperate. The contract is the summary of the conversation. This idiot is just obscuring what words mean, and the actions behind them. Typical tactic.

  "The market is a division of labor WITHOUT mutual aid."

  This absurdity leads one to the conclusion that capitalism rests upon hermits.

  Have you ever been outside?
  Have you ever bought anything?
  Have you ever worked?
  Have you ever traded anything?

  There is no division of labor without mutual aid.
  How could it be otherwise?

  You will not divide up any task, that is important to you, unless someone else can supply it to you.

  "There is no sympathy or solidarity inherent in the marketplace, only prices and commodities. "

  A price is nothing more then an expression of FREELY acting individuals, with their own sense of sympathy and solidarity.

  "You are equating human beings with inanimate
  objects."

  I don't where you are getting this from.

  "That is exactly what's wrong with private property -- it puts the rights of property before the rights of human beings."

  How many times do you need to be told that the right of self ownership comes first, and then property ownership.

  You are a filthy liar if you still claim to understand Anarcho-Capitalism while making such ridiculous statements.

  "Thus, CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, or the legal fiction that private property should have the legal rights and status of a flesh-and-blood natural person."

  Hello? The corporate personhood is a state creation. It is a state law, in the US specifically, appearing in the late 19th century.

  The Ancap rejects the default status of limited liability created by the sate. Stop bringing this up, we do not disagree on this.

  "This is utterly false. 51 of the largest 100 economies of the world today are corporations."

  This just shows the degree to which ansocs lack the ability to comprehend logical statements.

  Now tell me how this fact disproves what I said.

  "Regardless, the distinction between capital and possession is simple. Property whose sole purpose is to create more property for the owner of the property, without the addition of the owner's labor, but instead through the employment of usury, wage-labor, or landlordism, is capital. Property which is used by the owner for his or her personal ends (as all property is, regardless) but which does NOT purport to be the mother of new forms of property for the same owner (without the addition of the owner's sole labor) is possession."

  This mother of new forms of property is exactly what permits people to raise their living standard.
  Eliminating the ability to increase living standards is not something humans like, which is precisely why no society like this lasts.

  What this says is that I can build a factory, use it for myself and that is a perfectly fine possession. But, should I invite someone to work inside for a payment that both of us find mutually beneficial then it becomes capital. So this willing individual must now build his own factory. The problem is that he's not very good at building a factory - but he can do something useful inside it.

  I also have to build all the little details of the factory myself from scratch, since there is no resources to borrow. No one is willing to lend me resources without risk-assessment (usuary). Why is this the case? Because people who have given away resources without it, have found that they get less resources back.

  There is absolutely no possibility of growth in this system. This society will deplete every natural resource it has. This is exactly what primitive societies did (contra crank anthropologists), they abused the land and moved on.

  You really hate people that much, that you want to eliminate the division of labor?

  "Accumulation of capital requires coercion to maintain, lest the forces of free co-operation (or competition, as the case may be) socialize it into oblivion"

  This coercion to maintain capital comes from the individuals desire not to be robbed. In not wanting to be robbed, the capitalist will make a contract with someone to help him protect his property.

  The capitalist and his means of protection from aggression forms the basis of voluntary government. That is one where you decide which one to belong to, how much to pay, when to switch, and if you even need one at all.

  " If we succeed in abolishing the state, capital will be non-existent, because there will be no reason any self-interested person (or corporate body) would want to give up their own possessions to all of society."

  I think you made a mistake against your own argument.

  I will simply rephrase is to show what would actually happen:

  If we succeed in abolishing the state, capital will be more abundant, because there will be no reason any self-interested person (or corporate body) would want to give up their own possessions to those that did nothing to create it.

  "Capitalism has always been instituted through political means, not economic ones. What's your point?"

  The fact that you're wrong is my point.

  "It is your short-sighted individualism which is ass-backwards."

  Are you two years old?
  Are you typing, or is society making you type?

  "You could care less how many poor farmers in Mexico are forced off the land which their people have lived on for centuries."

  You can't make this comment unless you acknowledge their private property is being expropriated by a third party.

  "Or how many Iraqis are killed during the imperialist occupation of their land (to ensure its integration into the global market-system, I might add"

  Brilliant comment. I wonder if the UN sanctions had anything to do with disintergrating Iraq from the global market to begin with.

  The global market is the default nature of things. National governments, and intra-national governments simply want to bend and kick the market to suit the mercantalist plans of special interest (themselves and their sponsors).

  "All you seem to care about is your own pocketbook. "

  Yes, I need the means to survive to be able to do anything. I am not living parasitically off anybody, and have dependants.

  "How do you expect any of your struggles to succeed if you are not willing to support the liberation struggles of others?"

  I do support the liberation struggles of others, by spreading the correct ideas.

  " Again, the utter lack of an activist outlook is the Achilles heal of "anarcho-capitalism.""

  Merely huffing and puffing does not solve anything. Simply doing "something" does not help.

  "You are living in a dream world if you think the state is just going to give up power voluntarily upon realizing the error of its ways."

  You must not be reading carefully when I have already point this out several times. Pay attention.

  "Its going to take a revolution, and not just any kind of revolution (the word is used in car commercials for crying out loud) but a SOCIAL revolution."

  The car commercial is intended for slightly less intelligent versions of you. The ones that have been weened by overschooling to be irresponsible and deprived of rational thinking.

  What kind of revolution are you talking about?

  The violent kind where nothing happens but the change in rulers?

  The ancaps are aware that no such revolution will accomplish anything. The ancap means of accomplishing their goals is a mixture of civil disobedience, seccession, education of philosophy & economics and a general delegitimation of the state.

  The revolution must be grounded in thought. The ansoc one fails to do so because their attack is on thought itself.

  "THE HORSE SHOULD BE SET FREE. If you need a cart to be pulled, PULL IT YOURSELF, and stop enslaving others to do it for you."

  Thank you for deconstructing the popular metaphor and missing the point entirely, fine YOU pull the cart, the CART does not pull you.

  "There is no way I can be free when others are oppressed. "

  It does not follow though, it's just emotional sentiment. Can you eat, when not everyone else is eating?

  "Sorry if this "collectivist speak" annoys you, but I work for the liberation of humanity whereas you only believe in the liberation of your pocketbook."

  Except that my pocketbook is meaningless unless I a free person can negotiate freely with free people. The purchasing power of my pocketbook is dependant on other people's freedom, and other people's purchasing power is dependant on my freedom.

  Working to liberate humanity, for my own benefit, just happens to coincide with the benefit of others. I don't have to engage in collectivist pedagogy to get this point across.

  "(and all the other animal species which humans oppress through domestication, for that matter) "

  I don't see why you gotta take it out on the poor defenseless plants.

  "It is not Capital that transforms raw materials, nor Capital that produces goods. If living activity did not transform the materials, these would remain untransformed, inert, dead matter."

  The Capital itself is a result of living activity, and this living activity uses the capital to transfrom the raw materials better & faster into goods & more Capital.

  Capital is not some mysterious form outside of humanity, but is it's greatest benefactor.

  Poor socialist writers need to take a human concept, dehumanize, put it on a pedastool, and then knock it down with incoherent self-contradicting verbiage.

  " If men were not disposed to continue selling their living activity, the impotence of Capital would be revealed;"

  I guess that's the crux, huh?

  Men are disposed to continuing the improvement of their living activity.

  Only denial can resolve this.

  "Never mind the police, the national guard, the money supply, the court system, the National Labor Relation Board, the Taft-Hartly Act, corporate charters, no-strike and back-to-work orders, and yes, even the bureaucracies of the conservative business unions that collaborate with management to maintain "labor peace.""

  And these are funded by.....I hope you'll get this.............t........a.......x.......e......s.

  The state uses the TAXES to create force to extract more TAXES, ad infinitum until 'pop!'

  It is when the 'pop!' occurs that people are most receptive to new ideas.

  Published: June 13, 2006 8:27 PM

• quincunx

  "Which is a function of the values we hold since our actions entail choices..."

  That is not what Economics is. You are talking about ethics. Economics does not deal with ethics. It's simply analyzes how we go about pursuing our ethical goals.

  Gravity & Economics exists despite our preferences.

  ---

  Robin, I will respond with more later, I just finished writing a long post to Bill.

  Published: June 13, 2006 8:36 PM

• Keith Preston

  "Ralph Borsodi" says:

  "...you are making Kevin Carson's free market, anti-capitalism (mutualism) look like a logical compromise between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism."

  This idea is why I find Kevin's work in economics so interesting. Not only does he address the role of state intervention in the corporatist economy (and the historical role of the state in the development of the same) more thoroughly than most ancaps, but he also seems to me to provide a happy middle ground between the two extremes that are currently being debated in this thread.

  Over the years, I've been involved with anti-statist radicalism of all different kinds. In fact, I'm probably one of the few people to have belonged to the IWW, IWA, Libertarian Party and the ACLU all at the same time. I've also been involved or at least associated with everything from right-wing militias to drug user and prostitutes rights groups. I've gone to meetings of leftist-anarchists carrying a copy of "American Conservative".

  On the economics questions, it wasn't until I discovered Carson's work that I found someone who could answer the economic questions I had. Debating the issue with different kinds of libertarians, it always seemed to me that the an-caps often advocated something approach industrialized feudalism (see Hans Hoppe) and didn't pay enough attention to the role of economic power in the advancement of political power. Money is power and vice versa. At the same time, it alwayed seemed that the anarcho-commies and syndicalists frequently advocated something approaching regular old capital "C" Commieism or, at best, a type of decentralized bureaucratic collectivism (see the Spanish Revolution) or "anarcho-social democracy" (see Noam Chomksy).
  I've always thought both sides to this argument maintained valid criticisms of one another (the same battle is being played out again on this thread).

  I had read some stuff by Henry George, Benjamin Tucker, Borsodi and some other middle of the roaders but it wasn't until I came across some of Kevin's stuff that I found someone whom I though really put things into a solid theoretical and historical framework. Kevin's way seems to me to be a happy middle ground between the dangers posed by the two extremes. He recognizes the need for markets, prices and property in order to prevent stagnation and bureaucracy but he also recognizes that centralization of control over economic resources leads to political centralization as well. This was one of the things that eventually did in the Icelandic Commonwealth that libertarians and an-caps often site as a model. I think Kevin's alternative theory of property rights is a reasonable means of addressing this problem. If I recall correctly, it was also this issue that eventually turned Robert Nozick away from orthodox Randian-Rothbardian libertarianism.

  I also think Kevin's approach to economics is the one that is the most strategically viable. Most rightists want nothing to do with left-anarchists whom they regard as crypto-commies. Most leftists want nothing to do with ancaps whom they regard as plutocratic apologists. Carson's middle of the road approach might well be able to draw the interest of non-sectarians from the Left, Right and Center alike (which is what we need).

  Even more interesting is the way Kevin is able to reconcile the co-existence of different approaches to economic organization and the definition of property rights. About fifteen years ago, someone asked me the question of what we would do in an anarchic state if a group of anarcho-syndicalist workers attempted to seize a factory owned by anarcho-capitalist employers? As a Stirnerite, my inclination was to say that the workers' militia and the Private Defense Agency should simply have it out with whomever is left at the end becoming the rightful recipient of the "means of production". I suspect Kevin's approach of "local custom rules" is probably a more constructive one.

  If a libertarian movement were to ever grow large enough to actually overthrow a modern state, it would have to include all of the sub-tendencies to be found within libertarianism, which are rather numberous. Economic arrangements modeled on Whole Foods, the Mondragon cooperatives, the Kibbutzes of Israel, the Spanish CNT, the IWW, and Galt's Gulch would have to some degree coexist within a pluralistic mixed economy, with the most severe differences between settled through geographical segregation (the same is probably true of the cultural and social differences to be found among anti-statists). I don't see this as impractical at all. The present state-dominated systems contain a mixture of state-capitalist and state-socialist institutions, with considerable variations across national or geographical boundaries. I don't know why a world of small-scale political units and non-state economic arrangements couldn't operate in the same way.

  Another thing we need to consider is the Iron Law of Oligarchy. The few always lead the many. This is particularly true the larger the human organization in question. An an-cap system would have to address the question of how to prevent the PDA's or whatever from becoming private fiefdoms or feudatories. An an-com system would have to figure out what safeguards were needed to prevent a whole new class of apparatchiks from emerging. Even if the mutualist approach resulted in a greater hinderance to capital formualtion in some sectors (perhaps accompanied by a certain degree of retardation in those sectors), would not this be offset by the freeing up of the smaller sectors of the economy? If not, wouldn't the value of preventing the rise of a new Leviathan cancel out any possible economic costs?

  Published: June 13, 2006 10:03 PM

• quincunx

  "Debating the issue with different kinds of libertarians, it always seemed to me that the an-caps often advocated something approach industrialized feudalism (see Hans Hoppe) and didn't pay enough attention to the role of economic power in the advancement of political power"

  I don't how you got industrialized feudalism feudalism from Hoppe, and did not get the idea of different types of economic bodies from him. He addresses the later.

  "I've always thought both sides to this argument maintained valid criticisms of one another (the same battle is being played out again on this thread)."

  I don't. It seems that most arguments from the ansocs are grounded in irrationalism. Their criticism of the state is often accurate, though.

  "He recognizes the need for markets, prices and property in order to prevent stagnation and bureaucracy but he also recognizes that centralization of control over economic resources leads to political centralization as well."

  Centralization can not form in any way other than force. If every house on my block is represented by a different agency, I fail to see how this degenerates into a single coercive force. An external state of bandits is the only thing to fear.

  "About fifteen years ago, someone asked me the question of what we would do in an anarchic state if a group of anarcho-syndicalist workers attempted to seize a factory owned by anarcho-capitalist employers? As a Stirnerite, my inclination was to say that the workers' militia and the Private Defense Agency should simply have it out with whomever is left at the end becoming the rightful recipient of the "means of production". I suspect Kevin's approach of "local custom rules" is probably a more constructive one."

  Where is the problem here? Why assume that their is no custom rules to begin with. The anarcho-syndicalist have more to lose than the ancap, since the ancaps' investment is diversified.

  In fact that is the only difference between the two.

  "An an-cap system would have to address the question of how to prevent the PDA's or whatever from becoming private fiefdoms or feudatories."

  The ancap acknowledges the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which is why they insists on a system of rotation. The profit/loss test is a good means of determining which oligarchs will serve the consumers best.

  The method of preventing abusive PDAs is this: CASH FLOW.

  No bandit organization can aggress against all their customers at once - especially when they are geographically diffuse. In the same manner that no ISP can install all the fat pipes at once. The moment that the bandits try to aggress is the moment when:

  1) Non-aggressed customers stop paying them
  2) No supplier will give them the means to possibly effect their own business.
  3) Other agencies spring into action, acknowledging the first 2 principles.

  Very quickly they will have no money, no supply, and a whole bunch of organizations standing in their way.

  Because the pay off is so little, and the risk so damn high, it is likely that it will not occur.

  "An an-com system would have to figure out what safeguards were needed to prevent a whole new class of apparatchiks from emerging."

  Wishing it away sounds like their only means of defense.

  "This was one of the things that eventually did in the Icelandic Commonwealth that libertarians and an-caps often site as a model."

  I try not to use it because it wasn't exactly ancap. The judges were not arrived at by the profit and loss test, nor peer review. I don't recall much more beyond that, but that was it's biggest problem. Iceland & Ireland certainly lasted a lot longer than most other societies, as imperfect as they were.

  I think the biggest problem is that freedom must constantly be vigorously fought for.

  Published: June 13, 2006 11:06 PM

• Keith Preston

  "I don't how you got industrialized feudalism feudalism from Hoppe..."

  If I recall correctly, Hoppe specifically refers to feudal society as "stateless" in DTGTF.

  "...and did not get the idea of different types of economic bodies from him. He addresses the later."

  What are you referring to? Do you mean his use of a quasi-syndicalist model for privatization in Eastern Europe?

  "It seems that most arguments from the ansocs are grounded in irrationalism."

  In some cases, yes. Ansocs are a pretty diverse lot. Probably at least as diverse as "orthodox" libertarians.

  
  "Centralization can not form in any way other than force. If every house on my block is represented by a different agency, I fail to see how this degenerates into a single coercive force. An external state of bandits is the only thing to fear."

  Control over resources increases one's ability to exert force. What about the private armies maintained by drug lords in Latin America? What about the warlords of Somalia or Afghanistan? What is to prevent the more ruthless PDA's from eliminating or absorbing their competitors and forming a new state of their own? What if powerful employers simply use their private armies to say to their employees: "To hell with wages. We are now converting to chattel slavery." I realize I'm focusing on worst case scenarios here but I don't think these possibilities can be dismissed lightly.

  "The ancap acknowledges the Iron Law of Oligarchy, which is why they insists on a system of rotation. The profit/loss test is a good means of determining which oligarchs will serve the consumers best.

  The method of preventing abusive PDAs is this: CASH FLOW.

  No bandit organization can aggress against all their customers at once - especially when they are geographically diffuse. In the same manner that no ISP can install all the fat pipes at once. The moment that the bandits try to aggress is the moment when:

  1) Non-aggressed customers stop paying them
  2) No supplier will give them the means to possibly effect their own business.
  3) Other agencies spring into action, acknowledging the first 2 principles.

  Very quickly they will have no money, no supply, and a whole bunch of organizations standing in their way."

  Interesting ideas. I hope it works.

  "Because the pay off is so little, and the risk so damn high, it is likely that it will not occur."

  Well, how did conventional states get started in the first place? My point is that you have the same problem of controlling power regardless of what kind of institutional structures you prefer. How do you prevent limited government from becoming unlimited government? How do you prevent anarcho-capitalism from becoming anarcho-mafiaism? You have the same problem with both approaches.

  "I think the biggest problem is that freedom must constantly be vigorously fought for."

  I hear you.

  Published: June 14, 2006 8:33 AM

• quasibill

  "No bandit organization can aggress against all their customers at once - especially when they are geographically diffuse."

  While I agree with the theory, I think this is where truly anarchic law provision comes short in reality. This would be true in a society where everyone is familiar with the basics of Austrian economics and shares cultural values. But the reality is that neither of these are true over large geographic areas, and would likely become LESS true under anarchic or de-centralized conditions.

  People are going to disagree over some very fundamental issues, such as (for example) the ability to sunbathe in the nude in your front yard. In AnCap theory, next door neighbors with polar opposite views on the subject could subscribe to different legal systems, with the dispute resolution system ending up with one set of laws not being enforced. And that's a relatively minor conflict.

  People won't like that - so they'll tend to move to areas that share common cultural values so that these problems don't occur. Hoppe suggests as much in most of his work. And he believes that it would be necessary to discriminate viciously against certain non-Austrian viewpoints in these communities. To me, that doesn't describe a realistic vision for anything but the far future. Too many people currently believe in state socialism, communism, internationalism, pax Americana, and minarchy for a widespread geographic system based on competing legal agencies to persist for long.

  Again, I agree that in theory, this is the best of all possible goals, but I don't see it working in the near future, if ever. People have too many conflicting values over basic issues. Geographic cultural concentration seems unavoidable.

  The reality seems to me that as long as neighboring communities a) respect self-ownership (and since slavery is pretty much universally condemned nowadays, that's not too much of a stretch) and b) recognize "diffr'nt strokes for diffr'nt folks", a de-centralized society of small city-states with a large variety of legal systems and rights (some of which won't include Lockeian private property rights, and instead will have other systems of property based upon self-ownership principles) will be the likely outcome, and one that could be fairly stable at the edge of my lifetime.

  Published: June 14, 2006 9:14 AM

• Keith Preston

  Quasibill:

  "People have too many conflicting values over basic issues. Geographic cultural concentration seems unavoidable.

  The reality seems to me that as long as neighboring communities a) respect self-ownership (and since slavery is pretty much universally condemned nowadays, that's not too much of a stretch) and b) recognize "diffr'nt strokes for diffr'nt folks", a de-centralized society of small city-states with a large variety of legal systems and rights (some of which won't include Lockeian private property rights, and instead will have other systems of property based upon self-ownership principles) will be the likely outcome, and one that could be fairly stable at the edge of my lifetime."

  That's what we need to be focusing on.
  

  Published: June 14, 2006 12:24 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Keith,

  “About fifteen years ago, someone asked me the question of what we would do in an anarchic state if a group of anarcho-syndicalist workers attempted to seize a factory owned by anarcho-capitalist employers? As a Stirnerite, my inclination was to say that the workers' militia and the Private Defense Agency should simply have it out with whomever is left at the end becoming the rightful recipient of the "means of production". I suspect Kevin's approach of "local custom rules" is probably a more constructive one.�

  Did anyone first ask you if you thought the workers would be justified in attempting to seize this factory? If they did not ask, may I ask what your position is today? Will you say that what is justified is dependent strictly on "local custom rules" which might not be in accordance with libertarian ethics? Or in other words, is the alleged “constructive� approach necessarily the justified approach? I would argue that because the factory is already owned by someone else that therefore it would be unethical for latecomers, including the workers, to arbitrarily and aggressively confiscate it by force.

  Furthermore, the A-C philosophy is based on a focus on ethics: property, contract and the libertarian principle of non-aggression. The A-C argument is that people in general, also inherently seek justice and conflict avoidance, if given this option and are educated enough to recognize this option. Therefore, free market court services, insurance and protection agencies unencumbered by the influence of and hamstringing by the criminal state, will be built on these principles because these firms will want to attract the most customers, minimize costs due to conflict, and maximize profits. Because of this, in an A-C society, it would be very unlikely for a rogue branch of criminally inclined employees to muster the force needed to overcome justice provided and enforced by a free and unhampered A-C market.

  Only in a society corrupted by the state could such criminal acts of expropriation ever be highly conceivable.

  Published: June 14, 2006 12:56 PM

• Roger M

  Paul--"Only in a society corrupted by the state could such criminal acts of expropriation ever be highly conceivable."

  In this respect, AC's seem very much like Marxists. Marxists believe that the nature of mankind is benign, even good, and that exploitation via private property makes man commit evil that he otherwise wouldn't do. AC's seem to believe that the very presence of a state cause mankind to commit evil acts that they normally wouldn't commit were they in a condition of freedom. Am I correct in that assessment?

  Published: June 14, 2006 1:42 PM

• Vince Daliessio

  Roger M asks;

  "AC's seem to believe that the very presence of a state cause mankind to commit evil acts that they normally wouldn't commit were they in a condition of freedom. Am I correct in that assessment?"

  Well, no. The state is both the creature of the elites and the creator of their power, which they then weild in an evil fashion. Since the elite individuals themselves are mortal, while government presumed eternal, the growth of government provides resources and oppoertunities for subsequent generations of elites to co-opt ever-growing slices of the property and liberty of others.

  Published: June 14, 2006 1:49 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  But without the "legitimacy" granted the state and its use of coercion (granted by most citizens, mind you), such aggression could never have grown into such enormous proportions as it did, could it?

  Published: June 14, 2006 2:00 PM

• quincunx

  "Control over resources increases one's ability to exert force. What about the private armies maintained by drug lords in Latin America?"

  Mafias are the creation of the state. There is no drive by shootings between Budweiser and Coors, only b/w drug dealer A and B.

  "What about the warlords of Somalia or Afghanistan?"

  It is indeed true that ancap will not work in some places. Irrational religious fundementalism has always been a threat to freedom, and until abandoned will not create the preconditions that all branches of anarchists envision.

  "What is to prevent the more ruthless PDA's from eliminating or absorbing their competitors and forming a new state of their own?"

  Well the first thing is that there is no counterfeit fractional reserve money to leverage credit to merge companies.

  Most mergers today utilize cheap credit, which allows less fiscally responsible companies to buy off other smaller sound firms.

  Think about it this way: do you know any good examples of organizations in history that managed to monopolize any significant piece of property or business without the aid of government (though regulation, nationalization, subsidies, etc.)?

  "What if powerful employers simply use their private armies to say to their employees: "To hell with wages. We are now converting to chattel slavery."

  I think you are under the impression that both their types of employees (office, field) are some sort of pawns that can be willed by a small oligarchy. And that this attack can take place all at once.

  Any attempt to do this will have both types of employees looking for other firms to join.

  Slavery is not productive. So, I fail to see how one can be competitive in a market with slaves. Especially office workers.

  "I realize I'm focusing on worst case scenarios here but I don't think these possibilities can be dismissed lightly."

  Sure, bad stuff happens all the time, humans have free will. So what? The question is which scenario is more resistant to abuse?

  "How do you prevent anarcho-capitalism from becoming anarcho-mafiaism?"

  Mafia's do not make their profits directly from random violence. They are always involved in black market trade.

  Removing trade restrictions destroys mafias.

  "While I agree with the theory, I think this is where truly anarchic law provision comes short in reality. This would be true in a society where everyone is familiar with the basics of Austrian economics and shares cultural values."

  Reality is slightly obscured by massive involuntary servitude and indoctrination in the public schools.

  "But the reality is that neither of these are true over large geographic areas, and would likely become LESS true under anarchic or de-centralized conditions."

  Somehow a lot of other common values get spread out in a decentralized fashion.

  The only real value that anarchism needs is: tolerance of others' preferred behavior. It does not have to be enthusiasm, just not coercive.

  "In AnCap theory, next door neighbors with polar opposite views on the subject could subscribe to different legal systems, with the dispute resolution system ending up with one set of laws not being enforced. And that's a relatively minor conflict."

  I'm sure something can be worked out. Maybe nude sun-bathing days? sunbathing only in the back yard?

  A lot of "front yards" are the result of zoning regulation. Maybe front yards are not really desirable - we don't know.

  "That's what we need to be focusing on."

  I think it is irrelevent. Only the ansocs believe that the whole world must be transformed by irrationalism. As Bill states: "Injury to one is injury to all".

  "In some cases, yes. Ansocs are a pretty diverse lot. Probably at least as diverse as "orthodox" libertarians."

  The only consistant sect of ansocs are the primitivists who are at least honest about their desire to wipe out most of the human race. Of course it's impractical to do so voluntarily, so they are dishonest about their methodology.

  You can't compare ansoc to libertarianism. Libertarianism is indeed a mixed back - and in Europe is equivalent to ansoc (lib socialism).

  "People have too many conflicting values over basic issues. Geographic cultural concentration seems unavoidable."

  OK, so let's possit that there will be small communities and possibly ministates. The ancap does not care about them. Period.

  "In this respect, AC's seem very much like Marxists. Marxists believe that the nature of mankind is benign, even good, and that exploitation via private property makes man commit evil that he otherwise wouldn't do."

  Yes, both have a theory of exploitation. The marxists: capitalist vs worker, ancap: parasite vs. producer.

  "AC's seem to believe that the very presence of a state cause mankind to commit evil acts that they normally wouldn't commit were they in a condition of freedom. Am I correct in that assessment?"

  Only in degree. ACs does not see ALL humans as inherently good.

  And yes, the state, by itself evil, must obviously beget more evil. It is a plague upon mankind.

  Published: June 14, 2006 3:07 PM

• Keith Preston

  "Did anyone first ask you if you thought the workers would be justified in attempting to seize this factory?"

  Not that I recall. I suppose the "justice" of it all would depend on which theory of justice you subscribe to. I don't know that the gods are on the side of the workers or the bosses, either one.

  "If they did not ask, may I ask what your position is today?"

  My take on the situation? It would depend on to what the degree the employer's position of ownership was derived from state intervention. If it could be demonstrated by reasonable standards that the employers derived the bulk of their income from statist collusion (all other factors being equal), I would (probably)side with the workers. If not, I would (probably) side with the employers.

  "Will you say that what is justified is dependent strictly on "local custom rules" which might not be in accordance with libertarian ethics?"

  Well, "local custom rules" is a practical means of avoiding an excess of bloodshed among people with diametrically opposed views. This reminds me of the letters I get from time to time from anarchist kids asking me what they should do if one of the anarchist city-states makes a law against smoking weed or listening to punk music. I'll tell them that as I see it they have three choices: 1) emigrate 2) use whatever available political or economic means to change the law 3) form a Punk-Rock and Weedheads militia and take the city fathers to the outskirts of town and dump them in the reservoir.

  As to which would be most "libertarian", I'm not sure.

  "Or in other words, is the alleged “constructive� approach necessarily the justified approach?"

  Well, it's the same situation as the other issues that libertarians disagree on like abortion, immigration or the right of kids to run away from home. Who is the more "unethical" from a libertarian perspective? The illegal immigrant or the Border Patrol agent? The abortionist or the abortion clinic bomber? The runaway or the truant officer? You could bring twenty libertarians into a room and get all kinds of opinions on these matters. It's the same way with the economic questions. That's one of the reasons why I reject abstract theories of justice. One size fits all doesn't work.

  "I would argue that because the factory is already owned by someone else that therefore it would be unethical for latecomers, including the workers, to arbitrarily and aggressively confiscate it by force."

  But did "someone else" achieve their position of ownership by means that were "ethical"? Maybe so or maybe not. If Halliburton were seized by a group of anarcho-syndicalist employees, I for one wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I might have more sympathy for Joe's Hardware Store.

  My point is that I think your approach is too oversimplified.
  

  Published: June 14, 2006 3:15 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Roger,

  “…AC's seem to believe that the very presence of a state cause mankind to commit evil acts that they normally wouldn't commit were they in a condition of freedom. Am I correct in that assessment?�

  Well… With some modifications it would be pretty close. Let me try:

  …the very presence of a state further tempts and encourages men to commit evil acts that they normally wouldn’t and couldn't commit, and further, to view some evil acts as not evil, that they otherwise would view as evil, because firstly they could not commit them, and secondly, they could see no way to attempt to justify them, were they in a condition of freedom.

  The belief that the state and its activities are justified is the belief that some criminal behavior can be justified. That men can be persuaded that such a lie is true, and that they can act on such false beliefs, is further testament to man’s moral and mental weakness, gullibility and corruptibility.

  Knowing, as we do, man’s many manifest moral frailties, it behooves us to promote the system that least encourages these tendencies. Anarchy is that system.

  Published: June 14, 2006 3:22 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Keith,

  “I suppose the "justice" of it all would depend on which theory of justice you subscribe to.�

  Some would argue that there are many theories of justice and that it is debatable and even unknowable if one has more claim to being valid than the next. My feeling is, if this is the case, debating ethics is a waste of time, and the justice of the person with the biggest guns and army is as good as any. As for me, I believe there is only one correct theory of justice, and that is the one based on the libertarian ethic. I claim it is the only ethic than can be justified by logic via argumentation as laid out by Hoppe.

  “It would depend on to what the degree the employer's position of ownership was derived from state intervention. If it could be demonstrated by reasonable standards that the employers derived the bulk of their income from statist collusion (all other factors being equal), I would (probably)side with the workers.�

  Fair enough. But then, assuming that we could show that the workers up until then had also benefited from this collusion, would you side next with me and my private army if I subsequently confiscated the factory, on the basis that these employees had also benefited from government collusion, whereas I had not at all?

  But, (pulling myself back to my original point), presuming no state collusion, and a reasonable claim to ownership, if you say you side with this factory owner, are you saying the employees are acting aggressively and in an unjustifiable manner in confiscating the factory (as I would)?

  If an “anarchist city-state makes a law against smoking weed�? There seems to be a contradiction in this question. Is it anarchy, or is it a state. If it’s anarchy, then is such a “law� likely? It would most likely have to be a community formed specifically for the purpose of forming a covenantal agreement against doing drugs. It wouldn’t be an arbitrary decree like states make.

  “…it's the same situation as the other issues that libertarians disagree on like abortion, immigration or the right of kids to run away from home. Who is the more "unethical" from a libertarian perspective?�

  I’m not convinced that because there is presently disagreement on these issues, that there is not a definitive justice that can be arrived at eventually after they have been debated rigorously enough over time. But assuming no such conclusion is arrived at, then you have a point, these difficult issues will have to be resolved by the popular choice of the market. However, there are other issues that are less contentious and murky such as theft and assault and these are the issues that come into play in the question of the confiscation of the factory. In this case, do you consider the issue still blurry? Or is it a definite crime.

  “My point is that I think your approach is too oversimplified.�

  You may be right. I do like it simple. However, my counter claim against your approach is that it tends to add layers of complexity with the distinct result of avoiding concrete conclusions entirely. Sometimes, it is useful to fully analyze the more simple scenario to see if any principles can be derived, before getting lost under piles of factors that baffle and confuse us. I think we can come to some conclusions in principle about things, while recognizing there can be extenuating circumstances that also require consideration.
  

  Published: June 14, 2006 4:10 PM

• Fred Mann

  “…it's the same situation as the other issues that libertarians disagree on like abortion, immigration or the right of kids to run away from home. Who is the more "unethical" from a libertarian perspective?�

  This is a red herring. The only thing we should be concerned with is figuring out the BEST system (or lack thereof). We can not/should not be trying to achieve perfection/utopia, and we can not criticize ancaps for not having a solution to potentially unsolvable problems.
  Whether we are talking about a statist society or an ancap society, controversies will always exist!

  For example, abortion is either murder, or it isn't. How does the state solve this controversy? It simply picks a side and enforces it. Of course, unlike the ancaps, it does not ever pick sides based on a systematic ethical/praxeological approach to justice. It picks the most politically popular side, or the side that benefits the government financially and/or gives it more power.
  Anarcho-capitalism TENDS to always provide the most-agreeable, most-just, and most-beneficial laws. It will also tend toward standardization in the legal system, if it is beneficial (just like paper companies manufacture 8 1/2 x 11 paper WITHOUT being told to do so by the state). But it is not perfect and never will be. It is just vastly superior to the state. And that's all that really matters.

  Published: June 14, 2006 5:19 PM

• Keith Preston

  "Some would argue that there are many theories of justice and that it is debatable and even unknowable if one has more claim to being valid than the next."

  That's pretty much my perspective.

  "My feeling is, if this is the case, debating ethics is a waste of time, and the justice of the person with the biggest guns and army is as good as any."

  Well, that seems to be the way the real world actually works.

  "As for me, I believe there is only one correct theory of justice, and that is the one based on the libertarian ethic. I claim it is the only ethic than can be justified by logic via argumentation as laid out by Hoppe."

  I am instinctually inclined to regard a statement like that as an attempt to define libertarianism as an almost religious idea. Like when the fundamentalists say "there is no (pick one) truth, justice, law, morality save that revealed in the holy word of (pick one) Jehovah, Allah, Krishna.)" That was a problem I always had with Rothbard. He seemed to me to regard his version of libertarianism to be somehow divinely decreed by God or the cosmos or something. As for Hoppe's views on the subject, here's a piece where the authors attempt to rebut Hoppe on the question:

  http://www.anti-state.com/murphy/murphy19.html

  I'm not necessarily taking their side but it makes for an interesting read.

  "But then, assuming that we could show that the workers up until then had also benefited from this collusion, would you side next with me and my private army if I subsequently confiscated the factory, on the basis that these employees had also benefited from government collusion, whereas I had not at all?"

  LOL, that's good point! Yeah, I suppose you could make the case that if both the bosses and the workers were the net beneficiaries of state intervention (like the labor-management-state cartels you find in some corporatist systems), then the factory becomes unclaimed property open to homesteading with you and your army being the homesteaders.

  "But, (pulling myself back to my original point), presuming no state collusion, and a reasonable claim to ownership, if you say you side with this factory owner, are you saying the employees are acting aggressively and in an unjustifiable manner in confiscating the factory (as I would)?"

  Maybe so. Actually, I probably wouldn't worry about it one way or the other unless I was directly personally involved or affected in some way. Let's say a group of workers and employers in South Dakota go to war with one another. What do I care? I live in Virginia. To me, it wouldn't be any more significant than the lastest showdown between the Bloods and the Crips in South Central L.A.

  "If an “anarchist city-state makes a law against smoking weed�? There seems to be a contradiction in this question. Is it anarchy, or is it a state. If it’s anarchy, then is such a “law� likely? It would most likely have to be a community formed specifically for the purpose of forming a covenantal agreement against doing drugs. It wouldn’t be an arbitrary decree like states make."

  I think your point is technically correct. I'm looking at it from the practical end. As "Quincunx" says above:

  "People have too many conflicting values over basic issues. Geographic cultural concentration seems unavoidable."

  "OK, so let's possit that there will be small communities and possibly ministates. The ancap does not care about them. Period."

  "I’m not convinced that because there is presently disagreement on these issues, that there is not a definitive justice that can be arrived at eventually after they have been debated rigorously enough over time. "

  Well, once again, I am skeptical of the view that moral beliefs are the equivalent of scientific facts or theories. The former are largely a matter of intuiton, emotion and subjective cultural patterns. Debates over immigration policy and gene research are not the same thing.

  "However, there are other issues that are less contentious and murky such as theft and assault and these are the issues that come into play in the question of the confiscation of the factory. In this case, do you consider the issue still blurry? Or is it a definite crime."

  Even theft and assault contain a certain amount of gray area. Take a look at some of the intricacies involved with self-defense law. Then there's the lifeboat situations some libertarians like to argue over. What crime are you referring to? The factory seizure? Here's a quote from another thread on this site:

  "The caveat, Prof. Reiland, is business working through the free market. When the same entrepreneurial talents that, in a laissez-faire environment, would seek out opportunities for improving the well being of customers and shareholders is perverted into seeking out political favors and regulatory privileges, the result is NOT Whole Foods Market, it becomes Archer Daniels Midland, Chase Manhattan Bank, or ExxonMobil and from there...Haliburton or the Carlyle Group!"

  As far as I'm concerned, the workers at "Archer Daniels Midland, Chase Manhattan Bank, or ExxonMobil and from there...Haliburton or the Carlyle Group" can "do what they wilt" to their overlords.

  "You may be right. I do like it simple. However, my counter claim against your approach is that it tends to add layers of complexity with the distinct result of avoiding concrete conclusions entirely. Sometimes, it is useful to fully analyze the more simple scenario to see if any principles can be derived, before getting lost under piles of factors that baffle and confuse us. I think we can come to some conclusions in principle about things, while recognizing there can be extenuating circumstances that also require consideration."

  Well, one of my major criticisms of most types of political radicalism is that it very frequently tends toward the otherworldly or else it involves a lot of abstract theory that most people could quite frankly care less about. I'm more interested in the here and now when it comes to libertarianism. For example, on the question of government itself, one of the most interesting ideas I've encountered was Norman Mailer's proposal to decentralize NYC into a collection of independent bouroughs and to make NYC the 51st state during his run for mayor there. There are similar ideas being floated around in a lot of other circles. On foreign policy, we have the decades (really centuries) long experience of the Swiss and the Swedes who have maintained both their neutrality and their sovereignty even when caught in the midst of two total wars. On libertarian social policy, we have the Dutch experience of partial decriminalization of drug use, prostitution, gambling, suicide and other "victimless crimes". On the "right to bear arms", we also have the Swiss experience. On the matter of keeping political units minimal and small-scale, we have the example of microstates like Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Hong Kong, etc.

  When it comes to criminal justice, one of the best approaches I've yet to see is that outlined by J. Roger Lee in an essay in one of Tibor Machan's libertarian anthologies. On business models, the most interesting real world examples I've seen are the Mondragon cooperatives of Spain which have existed for decades on a type of half-capitalist/half-syndicalist basis. I also recall an article in "Liberty" years ago about a Brazillian company that required its employees to take 30 days paid vacation annually, everyone dressed as they pleased, managers would subject to periodic recall from workers and the company had experienced rather significant growth rates (I wish I could recall more about it)
  
  One of the most serious issues in my view is the question of how different races, religions, cultures, etc. with diametrically opposed views can co-exist without winding up like Yugoslavia. I think the obvious solutions are individual sovereignty, voluntary association, pluralism and peaceful co-existence where possible, otherwise decentralism, localism, secessionism, separatism and mutual self-segregation. (I suppose this principle would apply to economic as well as religious, cultural or ethnic conflict).

  One thing I reject is universalism. I'm not out to save the world or make everyone fit my own vision of how things ought to be. For example, on controversial social issues, there might be (in a libertarian/anarchic/whatever state) autonomous communities for racists and "multiculturalists", secularists and religionists, druggies and anti-druggies, pro-lifers and pro-choicers, gun nuts and anti-gunners, gay militants and "homophobes", vegetarians and carnivores.

  The species is to diverse for everyone to be on the same page about everything. That's why Utopias always fail.

  
  

  
  

  Published: June 14, 2006 6:35 PM

• Keith Preston

  Here's the full-text of an essay by Victor Anduril that takes an approach to anarchist theory that is pretty much the same as my own:

  Part I: No Rule
  “This - is now my way: where is yours? Thus I answered those who asked me ‘the way’. For the way - does not exist!�

  - Friedrich Nietzsche

  A narchy comes from the Greek an archos, meaning “no rule� or “without rule�. As simple as this sounds, it is in fact for some a very complex subject of many facets, and tightly interwoven within a web of beliefs - a worldview. But for most, the concept of Anarchy is only too simple, first because they do not truly understand the meaning of “rule�, mistakenly assuming that “rule� is synonymous with other concepts from which it is quite distinct; and second, because “without� is at best a vague description for so complex a creature such as Man.

  Rule is defined in the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary as “a prescribed guide for conduct or action.� This definition, carefully considered, should dispel the misconceptions about the true meaning of anarchism, but for most, it does not. Anarchy is not synonymous with chaos. In fact, since the time that Anarchy was first used in a positive manner by Proudhon [1], the concept has always had at its core the idea that man can naturally find a state of social equilibrium (order) without a governing body. Chaos means disorder, and no one would intelligently promote a life of disorder.

  Rule denotes a static guideline created by man and enforced within a community. And “no rule� therefore denotes the lack of this - and nothing more. The idea of “no rule� doesn’t denote any unnatural living situation such as “no order�, “no beliefs�, or “no guiding principles�. Anarchy doesn’t even, per se, denote a community with “no moral standards�, for if an entire community naturally shared moral standards, these standards would apply without a “rule� or need to “enforce� it. Anarchism depends on the natural order of things rather than an invented order, and can’t legitimately be extended beyond that. Thus at the very heart of Anarchic idealism is a great respect for man’s inner compulsions and drives, and not the nihilist idea that such could in some “perfect� state simply cease to exist. The highest essence of Anarchic philosophy is that the more natural a man lives, the more natural will be the outer expressions of his inner life.

  When one considers the deep and expansive aspect of this principle, upon which the concept of anarchism was conceived (though the specific term was not used) by William Godwin in 1793 [2], and without which it means nothing, one can easily come to see the reason for the nineteenth-century split in the movement caused by Bakunin and Marx. Both began with Anarchic ideals - that man can achieve a natural social state without the a priori regulation of government. But such a lofty ideal reveals a great faith in Man and Nature and a rudimentary understanding of Life, a faith which Bakunin truly possessed and Marx truly lacked.

  Bakunin’s brand of anarchism came to be called Collectivism. He and his followers agreed with Marx that there was a need for workers’ associations, like the Medieval guilds which were so popular and powerful across Europe. They also agreed upon the need for violent revolutionary action. But Bakunin protested what he considered Marx’s universalist totalitarianism, in favour of a loose confederation of associated states. Proudhon, too, always declared himself opposed to Marx’s communistic ideas, as did Georges Sorel in his Reflections On Violence (1914). The Russian Anarchist Peter Kropotkin always disliked Marxists, and for this the Marxists (Social Democrats) excluded all Anarchists from the London Congress of the Socialist International in 1896. Describing Das Kapital in 1903, Kropotkin declared “its scientific significance - zero.� Kropotkin was booked for a ten-week lecturing tour of the U.S. in 1890, but when he spoke out in England against the totalitarian nature of Marxism, the American organisers of the tour, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman, operating out of a hall in the Jewish quarter of New York City, abruptly cancelled the tour. “Your concrete actions are completely unworthy of the ideas you pretend to hold,� he wrote to Vladimir Ilyich (a.k.a. Vladimir Lenin) in 1921. Subsequently, Kropotkin was denounced by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin, who claimed that his opposition to their totalitarian state was support for the “bourgeoisie�. Adopting Bakunin’s concept of Collectivism, Kropotkin declared that “the state will be destroyed and a new life will begin in thousands of centres, on the principle of an energetic initiative of the individual, of groups, and of free agreement . . .� [3]. When Proudhon accepted the label ‘Anarchist’ in 1840, he adopted only the essential principal that Man lives most naturally in the absence of imposed central rule. Feeling an affinity with the Traditionalists and Socialists, such as Saint-Simon and Fourier, Proudhon expressed his rejection of the equality-destroying nature of Capitalism and the independence-destroying nature of Marxism. Thus Proudhon founded his Anarchic ideal on the principle of Mutualism [4]. This was the reason Marx, ever the totalitarian, altered his praise of Proudhon’s “scientific socialism� to an attack in Poverty of Philosophy (1847).

  Not coincidentally, after the First International disbanded in 1872, it was in the countries where Bakunin’s theories were adopted, such as Spain and Italy, that the Anarchist movement attained its greatest strength. Meanwhile, the areas adopting Marx’s theories generated the most totalitarian and repressive states in modern history. Thus Bakunin’s anarchism took final shape as the antithesis of Marx’s communism.

  Contrary to the basic principle of anarchism, Marx envisaged a society with lots of imposed rule - his dream only entailed the transfer of ruling power from one class to another. Marx’s proposed ideal state was to be just as doctrinal as any other, but the working class was to rule. This is obviously far and away from anarchism, and demonstrates that there in fact was no genuine split in the Anarchist movement at all; Marx and his followers simply abandoned anarchism for the ideal of the totalitarian rule of the proletariat.

  Ironically, if we were to accurately evaluate the Anarchist movement existing today, we would find perhaps 1% that are genuine Bakuninist Anarchists, and the other 99% as so-called “Marxist Anarchists� - which means, essentially, that they are not genuine Anarchists at all.

  This is an incontrovertible fact, and is betrayed in nearly every Anarchist publication, by nearly every Anarchist organisation, and by virtually all Anarchist proponents. The diatribes against national borders are Marxist, not Anarchist, for there is no a priori reason why a single nation could not become an Anarchic state. Proudhon too spoke of associations and federations of associations, but never of a global association. The diatribes against fascism are Marxist, not Anarchist, for there is no a priori reason that others can not have the state of their choice, be it fascist, communist, democratic, aristocratic, monarchic, or otherwise. To judge a concept that has no bearing on our movement and our state is to introduce “a prescribed guide for conduct or action� into the formula. All judgement of those outside our own sphere of activity is necessarily based upon rules we prescribe, and thus we cease to be Anarchists as soon as we begin to pass judgement on matters not pertaining to ourselves. We must, pragmatically, continuously evaluate and judge (decide) matters, ideas, concepts, principles, and so on, within our ranks, but that is the limit of true anarchism. Thus, whether any of us like it or not, all a priori proclamations against fascism, racism, religion, sexism, war, peace, hate, love, or any other idea - outside of our own realm - immediately betrays the proclaimer (moral reformer or missionary?) as something other than an Anarchist. In view of this, it doesn’t take much reading of Anarchist literature, especially in the U.S., to support the estimation that perhaps 1% of those presently proclaiming to be Anarchists are truly such. Proudhon recognised that no blueprint for the organisation of society can be absolute and definitive truth, for oppositions of diverse sorts are latent in human nature, and their emergence is part of the evolutionary ascension of Life [5]. Bakunin, of course, was Proudhonian in the essentials.

  Part II: Anarchy is Relative
  “Society seeks order in Anarchy�

  - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

  Anarchy has no absolute value or quantity - no metaphysical property - but is a relative term used to classify a specific state at a specific level. Order is inherent in our perception of all systems, from a system of organs in an animal to the super-organism of a pack or herd of animals. Yet depending on the level of perception, the same ordered system can appear to operate under strict rules or as a mere conglomerate of autonomous entities. It can even appear chaotic.

  Standing at Time Square in Manhattan gives one a view of the street-level Anarchy of New York City. But to a person flying overhead at the same moment, the entire city presents a systemic picture, with people and traffic flowing and ebbing in rhythmic patterns. At the time of writing, several wars rage around the planet. At a local level, each area of struggle presents a state of Anarchy or chaos, yet the cosmonaut aboard the Russian Mir is looking down upon a vision of a great systemic Earth, harmoniously turning in its state of eternal flux as if a single living being. And indeed, the Gaia hypothesis suggests that at that level of perception, science can consider the planet as a living system.

  The point is, that because many have never realistically envisioned the founding of an Anarchic state, they have never come to realise how relative the term “Anarchy� is, and thus they misrepresent anarchism. If the U.S. Government were dissolved tomorrow, state governments would assume full individual control within their respective borders. To a resident of Maine or California, the rule of law would be the same. But to a European or Asian, America would be in a state of Anarchy. If some states then abolished their governments, each state, or at least the larger ones, would present a relative state of Anarchy. Meanwhile, within cities or counties everything would remain essentially unchanged.

  This is an immensely important fact, for it is at the heart of realistic anarchism. The idea that Anarchy must be a global phenomenon is a Marxist lie propagated in order to accomplish exactly what it has for over 120 years - to dupe Anarchists into serving a Marxist agenda rather than their own [6]. If we go back to the examples above, we see that if the Federal Government were abolished, any state would then be free, if its populace so chose, to abolish its Government also, and thereby create an Anarchic state within a land of state democracies. The only thing that prevents this now is the rule of the Federal Government. And in like manner, any nation on earth could tomorrow abolish its laws and governments and create a de facto Anarchic state. Such autonomy is why the United Nations is presently increasing its rule over all nations, to ensure local rule globally just as the American Government ensures local rule nationally. The total lack of understanding about this fact is the bane which has created an Anarchist movement which is thoroughly universalist, and thus, Marxist.

  This insight proves the other claim I made in Part I - that an Anarchist cannot judge concepts outside his own sphere of activity. For accepting the examples above, it becomes incontrovertible that New York could be a totally Anarchic state with all rule abolished and all power totally in the hands of individuals and united groups of individuals - while New Jersey is a fascist state, and Connecticut is a communist state, and Rhode Island is a democratic state, and Delaware has a monarch. Those choosing fascism could go to New Jersey, and those choosing anarchism could go to New York, and so on. Perhaps the Nation of Islam would have a state, and Christian fundamentalists one also. The issue is, as soon as we say “this or that is wrong in your state�, we have imposed rule and forsaken anarchism. An Anarchic state could, like all sovereigns, wage war on other states for various reasons, but to simply pass judgement is impotent rule-imposing. Thus the Anarchist and Nobel Prize-winning novelist Albert Camus proclaimed that “absolute freedom is the right of the strongest to dominate� and that “absolute justice is achieved by the suppression of all contradiction: it therefore destroys freedom.� [7]

  Anarchy is a relative term in all senses, and must be understood and applied relatively, or it assumes the universalist aspect of Marxism, and serves an agenda alien to its own.

  Part III: Authority Versus Rule
  “We must engage with passion in the immediate strife.�

  - Herbert Read

  In the first section I stated that the biggest problem with modern anarchism is that the word "rule" is improperly understood. What Anarchists must overcome first and foremost is the fallacious idea that rule is synonymous with the true meaning of authority. Rule is a “prescribed guide�, meaning it is assigned by man. Authority is a natural principle, with its root in the idea of power - it is not “prescribed� by man, nor is it merely a “guide�. Authority, in its true sense, denotes Natural Law, over which no man has say nor sway.

  Gravity is not a rule, but it is unavoidably authoritative. We didn’t “prescribe� the “rule� that we must breathe to live, but our need for oxygen is unavoidably authoritative. If the free-spirited Anarchist jumps off a rooftop or falls in a river, he will obey the authority of gravity or metabolism - Natural Law - whether he approves of them or not.

  The misrepresentation of authority as a form of law has had the greatest negative effect on Anarchic philosophy, for the unavoidable principle of authority - cause and effect - is woven throughout nature, and subsequently throughout man’s world. This disregard for the principle of authority has been one of the factors causing Anarchists to be veritable Marxists - if one doesn’t recognise and deal with natural authority, one must then rely on Marx’s class rule for survival.

  When a lion catches a gazelle, it exercises the natural authority of a predator over its prey, and no amount of rationalising can overcome the fact - or the consequences, in nature, that might is right. The only reason this principle is not fully active, for the animal Homo sapiens sapiens, is because he has disjoined himself from nature with the imposition of Rule. Anarchists, therefore, as those seeking to abolish this rule, and re-institute the authority of Natural Law, should be the most aware of the implications. As Francis Bacon said: “Nature cannot be commanded except by being obeyed.�

  The childish and rationalist ideas to be read in most Anarchist publications are no less than an attempt to moralise nature, “the lion shouldn’t kill because it isn’t right; it is an infringement of the gazelle’s liberty�. From a child this is a cute rationalisation, from a self-proclaimed revolutionary, it is quite pathetic.

  Anarchists that are pragmatic and sincere, therefore, need to be less concerned about whether it is “right� or “wrong� to oppress others, rape women, steal from the elderly, discriminate against a person because of their sexuality and the like, and more concerned over whether their highest ideal (supposedly), become a reality, would be their glory or their demise [8].

  The utopian ideals of Marxism have been attractive to weak Anarchists unwilling to face the real implications of having to ensure their own survival and well-being. The Marxist ideal paints the “either/or� fantasy, either there will be rules to protect those incapable of protecting themselves, or the entire globe will become one big Anarchic community with no one taking advantage of another. Such thinking is for Marxist cowards, not Bakuninist Anarchists.

  A “global community� will never become a reality, and it would never last if by some miracle it did. The truth is, there will always be the “other�, some body which does not accept our views and is therefore a potential enemy. Laws are not over war, war is over laws. Without the limitations of either laws or authority, the “other� will take what you have, rape your women, steal your children for slaves, and so on. That is Anarchy without the natural authority which alone maintains order. Therefore, Anarchists need to get to grips with the dynamics of Natural Law - in fact with all modern science - and only then will the positive aspects of Natural Law enable them to create the Anarchic state they dream of. As was said by the nineteenth-century American Anarchist Benjamin Tucker, editor of Liberty: “The ways of science, however devious and difficult to tread, lead to solid ground at last. Communism belongs to the Age of Faith, Anarchistic Socialism to the Age of Science.�

  It is because of the Marxist utopian pipe-dreams which have been continuously injected into Anarchist thought that such a noble ideal as anarchism has not been taken seriously, since World War Two, as a viable alternative. True anarchism, purged of all alien Marxist concepts, requires a realistic recognition and acceptance of science [9] - including Natural Law - which alone gives it the perspective of the powerful Cornerstone of Anarchic philosophy - the social nature of man.

  Part IV: Man as Social Animal
  “There will be a qualitative transformation, a new living, life-giving revelation, a new heaven and a new earth, a young and mighty world in which all our present dissonances will be resolved into a harmonious whole.�

  - Mikhail Bakunin

  Natural Law is a law of mutual struggle, of “tooth and claw�, but it is also the law of mutual aid. This key aspect of genuine anarchism was beautifully explored in Peter Kropotkin’s book, Mutual Aid: A Factor In Evolution (1902), but this work has been as overlooked by Anarchists as it has by so-called “Social Darwinists�. Mutual Aid is a treatise on evolution which proceeds from biology into anthropology and thence to the sociological realm of human relationships.

  Kropotkin has been accused of too much moralising in his anarchism, and understandably so, but the simple fact at issue is that Natural Law impels a man to struggle with and for his in-group. Man is where he is on the evolutionary scale due to the intelligence and social skills he possesses, which far fiercer animals lack. This is the key to anarchism, and its only hope for the future.

  Mutual Aid has been as little understood in the Anarchist movement as has Mutual Struggle. For it was only by ignoring the incredible impact Natural Law would have on man if his rule were abolished, that Anarchists were able to ignore the true elements of the only balancing factor to that impact. Instead, Anarchist literature relied largely on childishly naive moralism. It is “wrong� to enslave others, it is “wrong� to be sexist, it is “wrong� to be racist, declared Anarchists, rather than the only realistic and viable statement a true Anarchist can make: united we stand against such and such. Without Rule, Mutual Aid, not morality or wishful thinking, is the only force capable of creating balance. All concepts of “rights� are rationalisations of man, and the concepts of “inalienable rights� are ignorant rationalisations. Man has but one “right� - the single right Nature bequeaths to all - the right to struggle.

  If a Marxist-style global community were formed tomorrow, where would Anarchists put all the groups they revile? Whereas the majority of Anarchists have adopted the Marxist universalist ideal, and therefore can envision a global Anarchy or no Anarchy - rather than a pragmatic Bakuninist vision of a state - it is only logical to conclude that these so-called “no-rulers� would imprison all those who harbour beliefs they dislike, which entails, interestingly, most of the world. This is a serious issue, because Marxist anarchism is anti-racist, anti-fascist, anti-nazi, anti-sexist, and a dozen other “anti’s�, but simultaneously refuses to acknowledge the possible existence of other states within which these concepts are accepted. Since these people, reviled as they obviously are by the modern Anarchist movement, which dedicates approximately 50% of its print space to them, cannot be expected to participate in Mutual Aid and cannot be, due to their number, imprisoned - they must be executed based on their beliefs. There is not, it seems, much “no rule� philosophy in such ideas.

  Though many resist the natural fact, man as a social animal, despite his mutual aid, nevertheless must deal with authority within an Anarchic community. The more “fit� naturally, one way or another, exercise some degree of authority over the less “fit�; and fitness denotes all elements of life: physical, mental, emotional, creative, etc. The only way to prevent this ahead of time and universally would be the establishment of rules - the forced equality of totalitarian Marxism. This concept - so deplored by irrational Anarchists - isn’t one of just muscular strength, but of all manner of natural endowment. The better-looking individual gets to choose mates from a larger selection, perhaps even multiple mates, while an ugly person has none - and this comes naturally, for all healthy persons are attracted to some conception of beauty. This denotes natural authority. Smarter people will tend to be more successful in all manner of business - even socialist business - or personal bargaining, job hunting, and any other form of exchange or organisation. And when two men wish to dance the same dance with the same woman, and neither will concede, a physical confrontation is naturally possible. The stronger or faster or better trained or more courageous man will win such a confrontation. This denotes natural authority.

  Kropotkin was accused of taking a “high moral� tone because unlike Bakunin he was not a fighter, and thus he rationalised that in a mutually formed community, all such conflicts would go away. But most persons learn quickly that it is impossible for two roommates to live in perfect harmony at all times, never mind an entire community. And any group with a rich enough character and will to actually fight for and build a new society will be too close to Nature to live like a bunch of dainties.

  In days of old, when communities were far more Anarchic than they are today, rather than imposing rules, societies faced the natural fact of quarrels between even good people in two ways: first, there was a code of honour, which wasn’t a Rule, but an inner guide for right conduct based on Natural Laws. Though Kropotkin never proposed a Code of Honour in his Mutual Aid, it is cognate with his recognition that the very fact that living in a society tends to develop, in however rudimentary form, that “collective sense of justice growing to become a habit.� By recognising Natural Law, men with a Code of Honour accepted that stronger men could exercise authority over weaker men, and thus it became dishonourable for a stronger man to impose himself on a weaker one, and dishonourable for a weaker man to take advantage of this by denying the potential authoritativeness the stronger man could exercise. Even the old courting concepts were based on the Code of Honour, so that relations between men and men, men and women, and women and women, in the realm of matchmaking, could be equananimous, giving all a fair place in the order of things. The Code of Honour did, as any ideal that comes naturally in the social animal, permit great social stability and order without Rule.

  The second manner of handling disputes arises naturally out of the first. No Code of Honour can maintain order without a method of settling serious transgressions. That method was duelling. A Code of Honour appeals to man’s inner world, his consciousness, be it his conscience, intellect, emotions, or what have you. But in order to maintain the Code, the possible consequences for serious transgressions had to be of a most serious nature - the possibility of death. But again, this was not a judgement or sentence, but rather the punishment naturally inflicted by the person transgressed, or if it be a woman, child, or invalid, by that person’s representative. This was the basis of common law, which was a system between the Code of Honour and the Rule we have now. As with the Code of Honour, Kropotkin did not overtly propose duelling in Mutual Aid, but the concept is nevertheless compatible with comments he made in his articles and speeches: “We assert the social duty of each to defend, by force if need be, his dignity as a free human being, and the like dignity in others, from every form of insult or oppression.� [10] And again: “I maintain that violence belongs to all parties, and they all have recourse to it when they lose confidence in other means and are brought to despair.� [11]

  Even duelling had its own Code of Honour, rather than rules. If a person lacked the inner compulsion to abide by the Code of Honour, based on the respect of the community, then he could be challenged to a duel. To cause such an incident, then fail to answer for one’s actions by meeting a challenge, was the most dishonourable conduct possible, and a person thereafter became anathema.

  Perhaps it need be said that the Code of Honour never took on a moral tone or in any way resembled arbitrary rules or law. A man could not be challenged to a duel simply because he was gay or Black or of a specific religion. To interfere in such a manner with personal affairs was itself considered dishonourable. But if a man insulted your wife, you could seek redress. If a woman publicly accused another of theft, and had no justification for doing so, the accused could seek redress (of course, in those days men duelled for the women). This entire concept, needing no Rules or officers or courts, but just the general inner-feeling (in a close-knit community) of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you�, naturally kept most persons very civil and sociable, and maintained a high degree of social order for most of human history [12].

  Anarchists who disapprove of such traditions as “barbaric� or “primitive� simply disapprove of nature, and would rather fantasise about utopias than work towards a viable and practicable Anarchic philosophy. Moreover, taken in historical perspective, anarchism is “barbaric� and “primitive�, which is what many admire in it. The bottom line is, if there were no rule, and a man’s wife or sister were raped, or his child or neighbour’s child were molested, it would be natural for him to hunt down the perpetrator and kill him. All other transgressions of mutual aid and the Code of Honour, as a threat to Natural Order, must likewise be dealt with in some proportionately appropriate manner.

  Part V: Anarchy Proper
  “I came to my truth by diverse paths and in diverse ways: it was not upon a single ladder that I climbed to the height where my eyes survey my distances.�

  - Friedrich Nietzsche

  Not only is it non-Anarchic to judge the beliefs or practices of others outside one’s own sphere of activity, but because Anarchic idealism is necessarily pluralistic [13], all ideologies outside one’s own system must be seen as right - for those choosing it. The faith in man’s true nature which is inherent in Anarchic philosophy dictates that we try to see all the ways in which nature unfolds as an expression of the life-process. We need not approve or support them, but as mere mortals it is pure arrogance to suppose that we can adequately evaluate every idea that expresses itself in the psyche of man.

  There is a common tendency today to confuse atomism with pluralism, and it needs to be known that atomism is not what is suggested herein. Pluralism implies that upon a fundamental principle of mutual respect, diverse ideas can exist in some proximity to each other and not interfere with one other. This is the basic principle upon which the United States was founded, which at its genesis was quite Anarchic in a relative way, with thirteen very lightly ruled colonies choosing what amount of federal rule they would approve. In a pluralist society, John can live his way on A street and Jane can live her way on B street, and through mutual respect for freedom - even if they hate each other’s beliefs - neither will interfere with the other.

  Atomism is a more recently developed concept. Atomism dictates that we must see all ideas as “equal�, and that it is “wrong� for us to feel that we have chosen our beliefs because they are best. Thus the issue becomes not a matter of mere respect, but of personal beliefs. It is not enough in atomism that we respect another’s different ways, we are required to acknowledge that their ways are just as good as our own. Atomism is the outgrowth of Government’s increasing interference in personal matters.

  In an atomist society, Jane is not only expected to respect John’s beliefs by not interfering with his practices on A street, but John is now permitted to bring his practices on to B street, and stand in front of Jane’s house, publicly reviling her beliefs. And if all the residents of B street disapprove of John’s beliefs, he is, in an atomist society like our own, permitted to move from A street to B street with no aim other than forcing his beliefs in the midst of B street beliefs, and extorting from the B street residents the confession that his beliefs are as good as their own. Thus John has violated any sense of honour, any sense of mutual respect implicit in pluralism, and any concept of mutual aid - and the law is 100% on his side.

  Pluralism, which is an inherent principle of anarchism, ensures a person’s or group of person’s ability to live their way in their sphere of activity, even if it be incompatible with some spheres of activity around them. Atomism greatly and unnaturally extends this, using rule to enforce a person’s “right� to bring his beliefs into spheres of activity where they are unwanted, thereby upsetting the life-rhythms of others because one individual disagrees with them. This is the basic concept of modern Americanism, full of all the “rights� and “lawsuits� that rule can impose on people. Unfortunately, this is also the ideal of far too many Anarchists.

  If in Bakuninville the residents listen to The Sex Pistols, follow the Wiccan religion, and live as socialists, while in Hitlerville the residents listen to Slayer, follow Viking religion, and live as fascists - both groups enjoy their own beliefs and doctrines in their own sphere of activity, and no rule is imposed by one on the other. Thus pluralism is in effect and from a transcendent perspective, anarchism exists. It doesn’t matter if a king rules in Hitlerville, for the concept of “no rule� is relative to the persons in that sphere of activity only. For Anarchists in Bakuninville to protest or even openly judge the actions within Hitlerville is to introduce the concept of atomism, which requires a “prescribed guide for conduct or action� - rule - and thus dissolves the “big picture� existence of anarchism. The bottom line is, then, that it is a prerequisite to Anarchic thought that one recognise the “no rule� principle as a relative term applicable only to one’s own life-system. As soon as one even idealises beyond that, rule is imposed and Anarchy is negated for himself and others.

  As long as Anarchists keep serving a Marxist agenda rather than a genuine Anarchic agenda, an Anarchic society will remain a fantasy. As all Marxist states dissolve one by one of their own inequity, this fact couldn’t be more plain. Marxism isn’t pluralist, it is atomist. Marx didn’t merely idealise on a utopian socialist society for his progeny, he conceived taking over the world, imposing Marxist ideas even on those workers who did not choose them - via rule - and exacting vengeance upon the West, which he personally hated with a maniac’s intensity. Bringing a heterogeneous world under a homogeneous rule is not Anarchic idealism, and vengeance has nothing to do with power, which is all a truly revolutionary ideal seeks. It is the atomist perception of Marxism which poisons the naturally pluralist ideal of the Anarchist movement. This ideal was promoted by Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, and most poetically by Kropotkin, who said: “The practical solution will not be found, will not be made clear, until the change will have already begun. It will be the product of the revolution itself, of the people in action, or else it will be nothing, the brains of a few individuals being absolutely incapable of finding solutions which can only spring from the life of the people.� [14]

  Another huge (and often quite convenient) misconception within the modern Anarchist movement has been the childish idea that Anarchy simply means “anything goes�. Such is a reduction of anarchism to the lowest possible level. Everyone simply doing “as they please� with no regard for each other or the community is chaos, not “no rule�, is contrary to the genuine idealism of anarchism, and is contrary to life itself. Kropotkin appropriately declared that such individualists are not Anarchists but “are driven into the liberal individualism of the classical economists.� Bakunin specifically promoted a confederation of associations because he knew that no social order could long endure within an “anything goes� community. This adolescent attitude seems to be one brought to the Anarchist movement by the lowest dregs of society, so pathetic and lazy and anti-social that only where “anything goes�, they feel, will their worthless existence be tolerated.

  In Bakunin’s vision, opposed to Marx’s single community, the more associations (states), the more freedom of expression. This would also best accommodate further development, and further evolution, for doing “as you please� amidst people who dislike what pleases you is antithetical to the goodwill and mutual aid of a community. There is no doubt that many decent Anarchists are nevertheless simply rebellious adolescents (at whatever age), who think that shocking people or causing disruption in the rhythms of a community are acts of “anarchism�. But these are merely the juvenile pranks of an immature and insecure mind, more interested in the anti-social behaviour of an arsehole than the philosophical idealism of anarchism, which is fundamentally predicated upon the social tendency of individuals.

  Again, it is the nihilism of Marxist theory - never accepted by the true greats of anarchism - that creates these pseudo-Anarchic, pseudo-revolutionary attitudes within the movement. Marx’s nihilism did away with the need for social behaviour, because it dismissed any higher expressions of Man. Marx rationalised away the truest essence of human beings - or humans being - including cultural aspects such as art, science, music, religion, and all other expressions of man’s inner world; life was relegated to the same automaton status it receives under Capitalism: finance and industrial technology. We would, as “workers of the world�, work to live and live to work. Bakunin, repudiating this inorganic nihilism, recognised that a confederation of states could create anarchism conducive to the full plethora of man’s higher aspirations, which are, after all, the true essence of life and living. While most Anarchist literature was silent on the place of cultural expression within the Anarchic state, that expression was not dismissed as irrelevant. Kropotkin was particularly close to this aspect of man, and said: “Man is not a being whose exclusive purpose in life is eating, drinking, and providing a shelter for himself. As soon as his material wants are satisfied, other needs, which, generally speaking, may be described as of an artistic character, will thrust themselves forward.� [15]

  Kropotkin regularly played the piano - how well is a matter of debate. "The Poetry of Nature", a lecture he gave in London in 1892, blended his Anarchist ideas with the ideas from the Ancient Greek poets, and also with Byron, Shelley, Goethe, and Whitman. Kropotkin also wrote scientific articles (usually on geology or sociology) for the Geographical Journal from 1893-1905, spoke before the British Association (a learned society) in 1893 and 1897, and lectured to the Geographical Society in 1903 and 1904. Among his friends was the poet W.B. Yates, the novelist Oscar Wilde, the occultist Annie Besant, the painters G.F. Watts and Walter Crane, the writers Cunninghame Graham and George Bernard Shaw, the philologist Stassov, the cultural researcher Sir James Knowles, the famous field naturalist H.W. Bates, the editor of Nature magazine, J.S. Keltie, and the poet Ernest Rhys. Far from being anti-cultural, as the large share of self-proclaimed modern Anarchists seem to be, Proudhon too perceived Anarchism as including cultural elements, and specifically thought that the human mind progresses through stages of religion, philosophy, and science [16]. One of the cultural elements that Proudhon envisioned as existing within a future Anarchic state was, contrary to popular belief, the ownership of property.

  When Proudhon claimed that “property is theft�, he was not suggesting that a person who owns and works land, or any other means of sustenance, and lives by the fruit of his labours, is a thief. This is the simplistic conception of Marxists and Anarchists who learn their principles via hearsay. Proudhon was referring only to the abuse of land ownership, such as the holding of land in order to drive up its value, or the possession of more potentially productive land than one can utilise. This is an issue later expanded upon by the American socialist Henry George.

  Proudhon believed that human dignity is based upon farmers and artisans possessing the land they work on or the tools which they use, and upon their receiving sustenance directly from the fruit of their labours. He was therefore as opposed to any system of state ownership as he was to a system of Capitalist ownership. “I am not advocating either Communism or state ownership�, Proudhon declared openly [17]. Thus he came to the eventual conclusion that non-abused property ownership is the only power which can act as a counterweight to a government [18], revealing that his idea that “property is theft� was proclaimed in a purely relative manner.

  Anarchists interested in the cultural element of true anarchism should also read the verse of Anarchist poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, and Education Through Art by the Anarchist Sir Herbert Read (1943).

  It is simply a misconception of massive consequences that so many Anarchists consider themselves, and anarchism, a leftist ideology. In truth, genuine anarchism, from its genesis to World War Two, was neither “left� nor “right�, but what might be considered a Third Way, or Third Position.

  The concept of the Third Way has been slow in developing within the Anarchist movement, which has remained, despite its roots and inherent principles, almost wholly entrenched in a leftist mindset. This is likely due to a fundamental misconception of the essential character of Third Way ideology, caused by many factors; two of these are the distorted vision of so many Anarchic publishers, and the misconception that a Third Way is merely a “third choice�, and thus anarchism automatically qualifies no matter what its tenets.

  Progress and the evolution of ideas is a rhythmic process of wholeness, in which ideas progress dialectically, through struggle and contradiction. The dialectical method of philosophy was originated in the West by Hegel, who had the greatest influence on Bakunin [19]. The process starts with an initial worldview, the thesis; this proves to be incomplete, and thus generates its opposite, the antithesis. This in turn also proves incomplete, and enlightened individuals then take up the opposites into a higher synthesis. In political thought, this “synthesis� is the Third Way. Understanding of the above process should dispel any illusion that the third way is merely an alternative “choice�. The third way is seen in fact to be any ideal which evolves out of the dialectical process of opposing concepts.

  The major philosophical forces at work in the second half of the Nineteenth Century were set in two separate camps. Conservative nationalism (thesis) was being challenged by Liberal (universalist) socialism (antithesis). These struggles caused severe alterations in man’s view of society, and culminated in several revolutions.

  In response to this thesis-antithesis situation, which presented two incomplete worldviews, Bakunin took up elements of both sides of the dichotomy into a higher synthesis, which was the foundation for his collectivist anarchism. This higher synthesis fully recognised the social nature of man, as did the Marxists, but it also recognised that some boundaries are natural and necessary in order to promote some of the numinous things in life, and thus to destroy them would be to impose a universalist rule. Hence Bakunin’s Collectivism embraced a pluralist Anarchy wherein different people choose their associations - based on language, culture, religion, location, mutual interests, etc. - and then respect the chosen associations of all others. This confederation theory is opposite Marxist ideals, which for Anarchists promotes the unsupportable paradox that one can impose “no rule� on others.

  Bakunin’s Collectivism offered an anarchism that gave communities both collective socialism and individual association in forms consistent and compatible with each other, conducive to the growth of individuals and chosen collectives, and thus conducive to the further evolution of society and mankind.

  This was possible because these ideas were stripped of their leftist and rightist trappings, thereby allowing the essential elements and goals of each to be combined into a third perspective which transcended the subjective views of entrenched agendas. Bakunin’s Collectivism, then, can rightly be termed Third Way political thought.

  Rather than observing the incompleteness and failures of the worldviews which anarchism was supposed to replace, and taking the best of each to create a revolutionary synthesis, as did Bakunin in his time, our Anarchist movement has until now existed in the parody of living within the Marxist ideals which Bakunin openly opposed. It will require the minds and hearts of sincere and determined Anarchists to break the movement out of this paradox, and permit a dialectical process of growth and transmutation to take place. This would bring forth the third position anarchism which we inherited, and transform the movement from a mere genre into a revolutionary cause.

  Part VI: Pacifism - Violence - Peace
  “The passion for destruction is also a creative passion.�

  - Mikhail Bakunin

  Most Anarchists speak and write with the same Orwellian doublespeak as do the present leaders of the world. “Peace� to them means a lack of strife when things are going as they wish; and the violence necessary, when things are going as others wish, to bring back this state, is also action to bring “peace�. “Violence� means any transgression of their well-being; and actions taken by others to prevent the same transgressions against themselves is also “violence�. Thus the police are “violent� when they kick an Anarchist’s arse because he tore down someone’s fur poster; but the police are “peacekeepers� when they kick the poster owner’s arse because he attacked the Anarchist tearing down his poster.

  “Pacifism� and “violence� are catchwords which have been rendered almost meaningless due to decades of misuse. A proclaimed “pacifist� is almost always just as violent as a normal person, but he relies on others to enact his violence. If, for example, in a pub you slap a true pacifist in the face, he will go to the other side of the pub. If you follow him there and slap him again, he will go to a different pub. His ideal is that he will not let your violence perpetuate more violence by his reaction to your actions. That is a Jesus, Ghandi, or Martin Luther King, Jr.

  But if you slap most self-proclaimed “pacifists�, who are in reality just violent cowards using the concept of pacifism as an excuse for their cowardice, they will run straight to the pub bouncers or the police. These men will then want you to leave, and if you refuse, they will kick your arse. Thus, the person slapped isn’t a pacifist, but a coward who kicked your arse by proxy.

  The point is that this is the doublespeak of our modern world, and must be totally purged from the Anarchist movement. True revolutionaries - among themselves at least - say what they mean and mean what they say. In truth there is no qualitative difference between society’s ideas of peaceful or violent. In almost all cases, these are mere catchwords serving an agenda and therefore such descriptions have no true place within Anarchic philosophy. Ultimately, the concept of violence is not antithetical to the concept of peace, but rather a necessary element of it. The only valid definition of peace is: the absence of opposition.

  In six thousand years of history the absence of opposition has yet to be maintained for any extended period of time due to morality, religion, a political ideal, or even man’s social nature. The fact of the matter is that man’s social nature, like Anarchy, is relative, and therefore he naturally forms sustainable groups which, as super-organisms, themselves exist within the natural process of mutual struggle [20].

  Hence peace, as the absence of opposition, can only genuinely result from violence or the potential for violence. In any community, the toughest men usually fight the least, because they have already displayed their potential for violence, and so it is seldom tested. The only true mutual respect between organisms engaged in the dynamics of mutual struggle, whether individual man or nation, comes from the mutual desire to avoid mutually destructive confrontation. That is true peace.

  This understanding is important for Anarchists, because it applies to the struggle to create a new society, and thereafter to the realpolitik which alone can maintain it. To be worthy of calling himself Homo sapien - man, the wise - an Anarchist must have full knowledge of his ideals, he must have a deep faith in their virtue, and he must have the will, determination, and courage to make them a reality. True Peace is a product of violence, and true Life is a product of Death.

  Part VII: Revolution
  “The insurrectionary deed, destined to affirm socialist principles by acts, is the most efficacious means of propaganda.�

  - Errico Malatesta

  All organisms, be they carnivore or herbivore, feed upon other organisms. Life and death are intimately - mystically - connected, and one must always give way to the other. In the successful revolutionary, the death instinct is as strong as the life instinct.

  Ideas, taking on a life of their own, also feed upon other ideas. In the proportion that other ideas die, so will the revolutionary’s idea inversely grow. There is a struggle for survival in the kingdom of ideas, just as in the human, animal, and plant kingdom - but far more fierce.

  No idea is willing to surrender its life, to sacrifice its own existence in order to facilitate the fulfilment of the life of another idea - such is unnatural and against the most basic instinct of living things. Many ideas live for generations as veritable super-organisms, with the lives of human beings passing through their bodies like the cells of the skin. There is a mystical quality to great ideas, something that transcends life, and this understanding can only be gained existentially. This mystical insight is the final and most profound Power an idea bestows upon the revolutionary, and through this cognition alone may an activist become a true Man of Destiny.

  In this world of ours, it is abundantly manifest that anarchism must kill if it is to live. And it must kill a lot if it is to grow. And it must kill far and wide, with a primal bloodlust, if it is to take its appropriate station among the ideas of the world. Anarchy is, then, a purely revolutionary concept, with no legitimate place within the present order of things. We are living on borrowed time. Whereas the ballot is of no recourse to anarchism, its glorious future stands behind the mightier bullet. The hill is steep, and the gate is narrow.

  Anarchists must therefore cease all the amateurish moralising - fighting against all the concepts this society and Marxism have programmed them to oppose - and stand against those in power. Anarchists need but one state from which to fly the banner of the Noble Cause, and therefore any entity, no matter what its beliefs or doctrines, is a potential ally if it opposes those in power. “My enemy’s enemy can be my greatest ally� is a realpolitik axiom that has come last to Anarchists.

  The entire globe is presently dominated by the most powerful rule-imposer in world history. This degenerate regime will utilise every means at its disposal to maintain its totalitarian “One World Order�. That means not only conventional forces of unimaginable strength, but also blockaded or destroyed food or water supplies, chemical agents, biological serums, and finally - but assuredly - nuclear holocaust. There are hundreds of groups struggling for a piece of autonomy apart from this one-world regime, and plenty of room on the planet for each to have its share. Among all these groups - so diverse and even ideologically opposed - lies the one promise for the future, and that is their mutual desire to destroy those in power. As Friedrich Nietzsche said: “The state wants to be absolutely the most important beast on earth; and it is believed to be so too!� [21]

  How can Anarchists oppose this Beast when they already oppose every “ism� on the planet? When Marxists tried to persuade the anarcho-socialist Jack London to join their crusade against natural borders, he rejected their propaganda as irrelevant to the Cause. When the feminist Emma Goldman tried to gain Kropotkin’s support for “sexual equality�, he rejected her propaganda as irrelevant to the Cause. It was in fact the father of Italian fascism, Benito Mussolini, who translated Kropotkin’s books into Italian in 1904, and Kropotkin once wrote of Mussolini - who did not operate in Kropotkin’s sphere of activity - “I am delighted by his boldness.� When the Russian Anarchist revolutionaries took the position of hostility towards all non-Anarchist groups and ideologies, Kropotkin declared this attitude as impractical, and contended: “We cannot be against it. Our business is not to fight with them, but to bring into existing revolutionary ferment our own ideas, to widen the demands which are made.�

  And the International Anarchist Congress at Amsterdam in 1907, called on all revolutionaries to oppose the ruling regime in unison:

  The Anarchists, the integral emancipation of humanity and the absolute liberty of the individual, are naturally the declared enemies of all armed force in the hands of the state - army, navy, or police.

  They urge all comrades, according to circumstances and individual temperament, to revolt and refuse to serve (either individually or collectively), to passively and actively disobey, and to join in a military strike for the destruction of all the instruments of domination.

  They express the hope that the people of all countries affected will reply to a declaration of war by insurrection.

  As third way Anarchists, it is our special duty to serve as a link between all these scattered elements of insurrectional potential with a single cause - to destroy those in power. The true Anarchist can therefore have but one true battle cry: Revolutionaries of the world - unite!

  “Nothing, nothing but war, war without mercy, will lead to any solution.�
  - Peter Kropotkin, Les Temps Nouveaux
  

  Notes:
  What Is Property?, 1840. [Back]
  Political Justice; “Godwin sums up, as no one else does, the sum and substance of anarchism, and thus embodies a whole tradition.� - Sir Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition. [Back]
  Mutual Aid, 1902. [Back]
  System of Economic Contradictions or the Philosophy of Poverty, 1846. [Back]
  Ibid. [Back]
  “Socialism - in its highest and not its street-corner sense - is like any other Faustian ideal, exclusive�, said the great philosopher Oswald Spengler. Anarchism is the purest form of socialism, for it is natural, not imposed, socialism. [Back]
  The Rebel, 1953. [Back]
  See The Ego and His Own by Max Stirner, 1845. [Back]
  That Marxism is antithetical to science and Natural Law was proven in the anti-scientific biological teachings of “michurinism� under Lysenko, protected by Stalin. [Back]
  Freedom, 1886. [Back]
  Speech At the Commune Celebration, 1893. [Back]
  When Alexander Hamilton caused Aaron Burr to lose the presidential election of 1804, Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel. The two went to New Jersey, where duelling was still legal, and Burr killed Hamilton. Not long afterwards, the replacement of the colonial Code of Honour with Rule adopted almost word-for-word from the British legal system was complete. [Back]
  Pluralism was best explored in the philosophical pragmatism of William James. [Back]
  Revolutionary Government in Le Revolte, 1881. [Back]
  The Conquest of Bread, 1892. [Back]
  On the Creation of Order in Humanity, 1843. [Back]
  Theory of Property, 1863. [Back]
  Ibid. [Back]
  In his early years, Bakunin was a member of the genre known as the Young Hegelians. [Back]
  See The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler, (1918; 1920; 2 vols.). [Back]
  Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 1885. [Back]
  

  Published: June 14, 2006 6:40 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Keith,

  “Well, that seems to be the way the real world actually works.�

  It is indeed the way the world works much of the time. I know some statists who justify their position based on this observation, but are you telling me that some anarchists do this as well?

  “I am instinctually inclined to regard a statement like that as an attempt to define libertarianism as an almost religious idea.�

  Your use of the term instinct is appropriate in this case. My contention is that a thorough investigation of the basis of my position would demonstrate that your instinct fails and that it must give way to the logic of praxeological reasoning.

  “As for Hoppe's views on the subject, here's a piece where the authors attempt to rebut Hoppe on the question:�

  It was great, I loved it. But here is Kinsella’s reply to Murphy and Callahan in support of Hoppe's thesis:

  http://www.anti-state.com/kinsella/kinsella1.html

  which I found more convincing, and I do take this side.

  “Maybe so. Actually, I probably wouldn't worry about it one way or the other unless I was directly personally involved or affected in some way. Let's say a group of workers and employers in South Dakota go to war with one another. What do I care? I live in Virginia. To me, it wouldn't be any more significant than the lastest showdown between the Bloods and the Crips in South Central L.A.�

  Let’s say you are involved as an outsider, because you happen to be involved in the private court or defense industry dealing with this incident (presuming you see these as provided privately in your anarchy). Would you see it as neither party having a more valid claim to the plant than the other?

  “Even theft and assault contain a certain amount of gray area. Take a look at some of the intricacies involved with self-defense law. Then there's the lifeboat situations some libertarians like to argue over. What crime are you referring to? The factory seizure?�

  Yes, the crime I am referring to is the factory seizure, which, given the assumption that the owners legitimately own it, doesn’t strike me as residing in an ethical gray zone. Does it to you?

  “one of my major criticisms of most types of political radicalism is that it very frequently tends toward the otherworldly or else it involves a lot of abstract theory that most people could quite frankly care less about.�

  I think correct theory is extremely important, even if most people find it abstract and are therefore not interested in understanding it in depth. At least those who are willing to debate these concepts on a frequent basis, like us for instance I would think, should be interested in establishing correct theory.

  “When it comes to criminal justice, one of the best approaches I've yet to see is that outlined by J. Roger Lee in an essay in one of Tibor Machan's libertarian anthologies.�

  But on what basis do you consider it to be the best? Is it based on a praxeological analysis of the means of avoiding human conflict, or is it your instinct and intuition that suggests it is best to you. Furthermore, are you willing to concede that your idea of “best� is as arbitrary and disputable as the next persons? In this case, you are saying it appeals best to your personal taste. Which is fine, but it’s not very convincing to someone who’s looking for an argument of why it is best.

  Published: June 14, 2006 7:52 PM

• RogerM

  Paul--"…the very presence of a state further tempts and encourages men to commit evil acts that they normally wouldn’t and couldn't commit,..."

  So the state is the forbidden fruit that gives the knowledge of good and evil, but mostly evil?

  I believe humans have a free will and choose to be good or evil based on what they value. Of course, the Christian perspective is that all mankind shares an inherited tendency toward evil that must be fought. One of those evils is the desire for power over other people. We can use the state as a means toward that end, but it's not necessary. We can also use money, crime and armies. As a result, if all states suddenly disappeared, there would be no improvement in mankind's condition. Men who succomb to the evil within would find other ways to assert power over their fellow man.

  The system is not the problem; mankind is problem.

  Published: June 14, 2006 10:03 PM

• Keith Preston

  "It is indeed the way the world works much of the time. I know some statists who justify their position based on this observation, but are you telling me that some anarchists do this as well?"

  There are those who have power and those who don't. In all things (particularly politics), there are winners and losers. This is true even for anarchists. A nation or civilization led by anarchists could survive only to the degree that the anarchists had the power to successfully ward off or at least curb the influence of other groups (Communists, Fascists, Nationalists, Theocrats). It's as simple as that.

  "My contention is that a thorough investigation of the basis of my position would demonstrate that your instinct fails and that it must give way to the logic of praxeological reasoning."

  Well, I've read most of the major works of Rothbard, Hoppe, Mises, etc. I'm fairly well-versed in the anarcho-capitalist body of thought. But like any other ideology, it has its cracks.

  "Let’s say you are involved as an outsider, because you happen to be involved in the private court or defense industry dealing with this incident (presuming you see these as provided privately in your anarchy). Would you see it as neither party having a more valid claim to the plant than the other?"

  Here are some comments from Bill Orton that address this question pretty much the same way I would be inclined to:

  ""Liberty (and initiation of force) is defined in terms of property rights...."51

  ....(almost) nobody claims to initiate force. When people accuse others of different political persuasions of initiating force, they are using their own property overlay, their own standard of property. Judged from his own property overlay, he is not initiating force at all. E.g., if you favor sticky property, then squatting is a no-no. If you favor possession property, squatting is just fine. The conception of "force" is different, due to the differing system of property.52"

  "Yes, there are some anarcho-socialists who would attack people who use sticky property, and there are some anarcho-capitalists who would attack people who use usufruct property. If you don't believe this last, look back at comments related to aboriginal peoples--you see claims that it's okay to loot their hunting grounds because... they don't have deeds, they don't recognize private ownership of land, etc. But ownership is objective--it doesn't matter if they recognize it. They've either separated it from the [unowned] commons, mixed their labor and personality with it..., or they haven't.53

  Saying "all market anarchists" are tolerant of usufruct arrangements is grossly mistaken. People on this very board have "justified" US grabs of Indian land on the basis of arguments like: they didn't recognize sticky property, they didn't officially claim it, so they have no property rights." Other rabid quasi-Randroids deem usufruct "collectivist" arrangements as downright evil, and to be obliterated. Make no mistake, there do exist many intolerant market anarchists.54"

  "If ancapistan turned anti-capitalist, I probably wouldn't notice. I believe that without a State capitalism and socialism are harmonious and non-conflicting. Sure, you may call it a syndical or mutual, while I call it a firm with restricted transfer of ownership. You may call it a commune while I call it a household. Whatever.

  Of course, hypothesizing that everyone will have the same economic ideology after separation of Econ and State is like saying that everyone will become atheist after separation of Church and State. No, just as there are various religions and denominations and cults with disestablishment, similarly there will be all sorts of economic arrangements with statelessness. There will be more, not fewer, economic experiments, just as the number of religious cults proliferated. Thus, the answer to your question will most likely turn out to be: Move to the next block, or a mile down the road, or simply change the people you deal with.

  But the main answer would be: Who cares? The commies look just like capitalists to me. Who cares about the economic school of the guy who grows your potatoes or bakes your bread?55

  I've come to the conclusion that both socialists and capitalists would benefit from a stateless society. Even if there is predominance of one form or the other, I think it would be easy and mellow to start a minority enclave. Certainly a damn sight easier than going up against a State! But I seriously doubt that any particular property form will dominate. There'll be every kind of property arrangement that you can imagine, and many more you can't. When religion was disestablished, when it went anarchist, did everyone become an atheist? Did the Catholic Church, or any other church or religion dominate?56"

  "Now, for the dispute at hand [between syndicalist workers and a dispossessed capitalist], the property theories of the disputants are different, so "who is the aggressor" is at issue. By the usufruct theory, the returning capitalist is the aggressor; by the sticky theory the syndicalist workers are the aggressors. There can be no internal theoretical resolution.

  To avoid violence, some kind of moderation or arbitration is almost certainly necessary. The disputants could agree upon a wise arbiter, one without bias for or against either type of property system, to settle the issue. E.g. Wolf De Voon, who has made it clear that he thinks property amounts more or less to what the neighbors will allow. He would probably judge based on local custom and expectations of the parties involved. E.g. If the factory were located in an area where sticky property dominates, where the capitalist had reasonable expectation of sticky ownership, where the local people expect the same, and the syndicalist workers came in from a 'foreign' culture expecting to pull a fast one, then he'd probably judge in favor of the capitalist. OTOH If the factory were located in an area where usufruct dominates, and virtually all the locals expect and act in accordance with usufruct, and the capitalist, representing the 'foreign' culture, was trying to pull a property coup, then he would probably rule in favor of the syndicalist workers.

  Neither property system can be proved to be correct. Proof requires agreement on a set of axioms. Capitalists and syndicalists don't agree on the axioms concerning property, so proof is impossible. So it's force or arbitration, and we all know which is better in the long run.57"

  
  "I think correct theory is extremely important, even if most people find it abstract and are therefore not interested in understanding it in depth. At least those who are willing to debate these concepts on a frequent basis, like us for instance I would think, should be interested in establishing correct theory"

  To a certain point, I very much agree. But I'm also in favor of maintaining a happy medium between sectarianism and opportunism.

  "But on what basis do you consider it to be the best? Is it based on a praxeological analysis of the means of avoiding human conflict, or is it your instinct and intuition that suggests it is best to you."

  Well, some of both. My approach to criminal justice would be to find a delicate balance between the need to protect society at large from crime, the claims of crime victims for compensation, the need to keep the power of police/legal/penal institutions under control, a competent process for determining "guilt" and humane treatment of the accused or those to be penalized.

  "Furthermore, are you willing to concede that your idea of “best� is as arbitrary and disputable as the next persons?"

  Of course. One could take the position that controlling crime is the only value and advocate capital punishment for virtually all crimes. Or one could argue for humane treatment of the criminal as the highest value. Once again, I think it comes down to individual temperaments, value judgements, self-interests, etc.

  "In this case, you are saying it appeals best to your personal taste. Which is fine, but it’s not very convincing to someone who’s looking for an argument of why it is best."

  I'll often try to argue with others by appealing to their own subjective biases. Take the issue of drug decriminalization. To those obsessed with "law and order" or "morals" I'll emphasize the role of prohibition in generating violent crime and official corruption.To "humanitarians", I'll come at it from a more "freedom of choice" perspective.

  
  

  Published: June 14, 2006 10:10 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Roger,

  "So the state is the forbidden fruit that gives the knowledge of good and evil, but mostly evil?"

  I don't see the state as an entity that gives knowledge of good and evil. I see it as the opposite; a mechanism men use against others and themselves to confuse and mislead them, and themselves into thinking that evil is good, and good is evil. It is the nature of the state to deceive: so for instance, a man who might otherwise believe that "thou shalt not steal" is an absolute truth, will allow himself to believe the lie that taxation not theft, but rather is just fine. When men do not recognize such a simple thing as theft when they see it, we are in trouble. And it is the state that stands to gain from such confusion.

  "I believe humans have a free will and choose to be good or evil based on what they value."

  Yes, and they will choose also based on what they have been taught to value. This is why one must raise their children with values and teach them these things. If one teaches their children that theft can be honorable and acceptable under the right situation, the children are screwed. And the parents will be held accountable.

  "Of course, the Christian perspective is that all mankind shares an inherited tendency toward evil that must be fought. One of those evils is the desire for power over other people."

  I agree wholeheartedly.

  "We can use the state as a means toward that end, but it's not necessary."

  It is the essential nature of the state to steal and otherwise aggress. It must necessarily be this way. Therefore, your statement can never be correct.

  "We can also use

  "money, {yes, money is neutral useful for good or bad}

  "crime {no, crime is necessarily evil and unjustified}

  "and armies. " {yes, a voluntary defensive army can be justified}

  "As a result, if all states suddenly disappeared, there would be no improvement in mankind's condition."

  Men would be the same as before. But there would be fewer men trying to justify theft and coercion through the state, and the overtly criminal among us would be more clearly recognizable for what they truly were.

  "Men who succumb to the evil within would find other ways to assert power over their fellow man."

  But their victims would recognize very clearly and immediately the unjustifiable aggression of these would-be power seekers. With no veneer of legitimacy that the state provides these criminals, their game would be up more certainly and quickly.

  "The system is not the problem; mankind is problem."

  I do not think that when debating a Marxist or Stalinist commie, you would go out of your way to make this same point. But if you believe that men exclusively and not their corrupt systems are the sole problem, then is there really anything regarding political and economic systems that warrants your time and attention?

  Published: June 14, 2006 11:10 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Keith,

  "When people accuse others of different political persuasions of initiating force, they are using their own property overlay, their own standard of property. Judged from his own property overlay, he is not initiating force at all."

  Is there any aspect of ethics that you do not view as a matter of opinion? Can murder be justified by one who has the appropriate "property overlay". With such a flexible perspective, perhaps the existence of a Stalinist state could be considered a decent and close second place to anarchy, or perhaps preferable to it, depending on one's thoughts on property.

  Published: June 15, 2006 1:07 AM

• quasibill

  "Somehow a lot of other common values get spread out in a decentralized fashion."

  Far fewer than most assume, as the U.S. government is learning in Iraq.

  "The only real value that anarchism needs is: tolerance of others' preferred behavior. It does not have to be enthusiasm, just not coercive"

  I agree. Note that it does NOT require a belief in a Lockeian private property legal system, despite some people's best efforts to demonstrate it. Also note that I prefer the Lockeian system. I just realize that not everyone else will, and that as long as their societies are voluntary, they won't starve themselves out of existence.

  "I'm sure something can be worked out. Maybe nude sun-bathing days? sunbathing only in the back yard?"

  I think that's a bit naive. Take, for example, a nudist next door to a fundamentalist Southern Baptist. Neither one is likely to have much flexibility in their absolute positions.

  No, it is far more likely that people will congregate into enclaves where they can live in the culture they prefer.

  And the relevance of this is that large, geographically diverse legal system providers won't be very effective (they won't get many customers in such niche markets). And where there is a large preponderance of, say, the fundamentalists, it is unlikely that they will refrain for long from exercising force to make their enclave uniform. A large insurer would probably just compensate the evicted nudist (assuming they survive), but wouldn't waste a lot of money fighting a vicious battle against a foe that has more local support for a few customers.

  Again, I agree with you that this doesn't sink AnCap theory, but it does sink the concept that mini-states can't arise from an AnCap background because of large geographic areas covered by competing legal providers. They can, and most likely will, especially in any transition period. I happen to think that they will be inevitable, as people congregate around cultural preferences and, due to transaction costs, come to prefer a single local legal provider.

  Published: June 15, 2006 8:28 AM

• quasibill

  Paul,

  I'll respond because it appears Keith is arguing from the same place I am, in general.

  No, murder would generally not be justified just by someone's subjective property overlay. It is essentially the same in current U.S. law - justification has both subjective and objective elements. For example, very few people will argue against the principle of self-ownership. And in fact, it seems to me that anarchy does require acknowledgement of this principle. So that's an objective polestar that will guide decisions.

  Furthermore, as Keith noted, the decision regarding competing overlays wouldn't be based on subjectivity per se, but on the local standards and customs. If you're the only person in the area who believes in Carson's property overlay, you're going to lose, despite the fact that in Carsonastan you'd have won. You have notice that when you leave Carsonastan and enter Hoppeville, you should "do as the Romans do." If you don't like the rules in Hoppeville, or Carsonastan, don't go there.

  This is extremely similar to the original system of the colonies. Jurisdiction was a huge issue back then, and each state had very different sets of rules, despite the fact that the cultures were quite uniform, in a relative sense.

  Published: June 15, 2006 8:55 AM

• Roger M

  Paul--"I do not think that when debating a Marxist or Stalinist commie, you would go out of your way to make this same point."

  Actually, I do. I believe fundamental assumptions are the most important part of any discussion, although identifying them can be tedious. However, if we don't, we end up talking past each other. I believe socialists think capitalists are nuts, in part, because they believe man is born good and turns bad only because the oppression by the wealthy.

  "But if you believe that men exclusively and not their corrupt systems are the sole problem, then is there really anything regarding political and economic systems that warrants your time and attention?"

  Yes! That's the whole point, isn't it? How does one minimize the damage of those who choose to do evil? The fathers of the US, essentially believed that this was the most important issue they were dealing with. They decided to divide state power among as many people and institutions as possible in order to limit the damage that evil people in government could do.

  Now if you remove government completely, that only removes one tool that evil people have at their disposal. Others include religion and philosophy and sheer power. Evil people have used all of these and more to justify their evil throughout history. In fact, if you visit a prison, you'll find very few guilty people there. Criminals can find ways to justify anything they do!

  I think if you eliminate the state, you have removed some tools that can be used for evil, but others will pop up that the state had suppressed. Primarily, these will be organized crime and religious groups like Al Qaeda.
  

  Published: June 15, 2006 9:32 AM

• Keith Preston

  "Is there any aspect of ethics that you do not view as a matter of opinion?"

  Probably not. I'm pretty solidly in the "ethical subjectivism" camp along with Machiavelli, Hobbes, De Sade, Nietzsche, Stirner, Crowley, Russell, Sartre and Foucault. As Richard Rorty once said: "I've often wondered what exactly was the knockdown reply to Hitler?"

  "Can murder be justified by one who has the appropriate "property overlay?"

  Most people generally oppose murder because their own interest in not being murdered is stronger than their desire to murder. Even on this, there's more gray area than what is often recognized. Take the abortion question. You're probably aware of Rothbard's views on the subject, which many people, particularly cultural or religious conservatives, find repulsive.

  In my view, the idea that fetal life is equivalent to, say, a five year old as pro-lifers claim is stretching things a bit and not supported by the available scientific evidence. But many people feel very strongly the other way. When a member of a group like the Army of God assassinates an abortion doctor, in his mind he is not a murderer but a defender of "innocent" children? The fact that what he does is formally illegal means no more to him than Nazi laws protecting the operators of the gas chambers? Is the antiabortion terrorist "wrong"? It all depends on your definition of life, law, religion and many other things. You could make a similar argument about eco-terrorists or "animal rights" terrorists as well.

  I've had some interesting and vigorous debates with people from both the left and right over these kinds of questions. Years ago, I debated a left-liberal, Michael Moore/Phil Donahue type over issues of crime victims' self-defense rights. I was asked about a scenario where a burglar comes into someone's home and steals a TV and in running off with the TV and the homeowner shoots and kills the burglar. Is the homeowner justified? Subjectively speaking, my answer was yes as I would generally value the right of the individual to defend their home from invaders more than I would value the life of the burglar. But that's a subjective viewpoint. Needless to say, the liberal was shocked and horrified by my response.To the liberal, generosity to the burglar was more important than the right of defense against home invaders.

  I've had similar debates with conservative, "law and order" cop-lover types. I'll make the argument that if some kid shoots a cop to evade arrest or capture for possession of marijuana or crack cocaine, I don't really see any problem with that nor do I have any sympathy for narcotics police who are killed or injured when conducting their drug raids. My take on it is that I don't personally care if someone else uses drugs or sells drugs. If the coppers want to interfere with that, they can do it at their own risk. You can imagine the reactions I'll get to that one from some camps.

  I'll say the same about the war in Iraq. I theoretically oppose the war on anti-imperialist groups. But I don't personally care if Iraq is ruled by US occupation forces, Shiite fundamentalists, the Baath Party or whomever. Politically, I tend to disagree with all of the contending parties. As for the issue of "supporting the troops", the troops are mercenaries acting on behalf of a regime that I despise. So why should I "support the troops"? I tend to agree more with Jeremy Sapienza's take on that one:
  http://anti-state.com/blog/2005/10/25/a-grim-milestone-159000-us-troops-remain-alive-in-iraq/

  "With such a flexible perspective, perhaps the existence of a Stalinist state could be considered a decent and close second place to anarchy, or perhaps preferable to it, depending on one's thoughts on property."

  I've actually heard some people make that argument. Check this out:
  http://www.israelshamir.com/English/bygone.htm

  Incidentally, the author of the above piece is not a fool or deranged. He is very thoughtful, perceptive and independently-minded. He just sees things differently.

  The reason that I am an anarchist/libertarian/individualist/whatever I am is that once you reject this perspective the only other choices are some kind of egalitarian-humanist-universalist collectivism (like Socialism, Communism, or Progressive Liberalism) or some kind of elitist-chauvinist-particularist collectivism (like nationalism, racialism or theocracy). As one who is instinctively inclined to distrust or dislike most other people, and to regard them as unqualified to manage my own affairs for me, I find the alternative positions personally unattractive. But that's just my own bias based on personal observations and self-interest. Is my perspective "right or wrong" for everyone else? I suspect not.

  Published: June 15, 2006 9:38 AM

• Vince Daliessio

  Quasibill sez;

  ""I'm sure something can be worked out. Maybe nude sun-bathing days? sunbathing only in the back yard?"

  I think that's a bit naive. Take, for example, a nudist next door to a fundamentalist Southern Baptist. Neither one is likely to have much flexibility in their absolute positions.

  No, it is far more likely that people will congregate into enclaves where they can live in the culture they prefer."

  Uh, pardon me, but wouldn't a stockade fence be an easier solution, one that could be negotiated between the fundamentalist and the nudist? Seems to me it's much less coercive and more community-spirited.

  Published: June 15, 2006 10:32 AM

• quasibill

  "Uh, pardon me, but wouldn't a stockade fence be an easier solution, one that could be negotiated between the fundamentalist and the nudist? Seems to me it's much less coercive and more community-spirited."

  Yes. But that only solves the problem in some respects (and again, this is merely one example of the type of issue I'm talking about). The fundamentalist may still object to being able to see the nudist from the street that he travels while going to the store, or to church, etc. Then you have the issue of paying the nudist to erect the stockade fence (and maintain it) on his property to block the view from the street. But what if the nudist likes his front yard un-fenced? You're going to have to spend *alot* of money to do this. In the end, it will be cheaper, and a lot more attractive to boot, for people to congregate in communities where they share values. They will have tremendous "community spirit" in such communities. This is already happening in large scale and small scale manner in the U.S. There have been recent stories (IIRC, wasn't the Domino's owner involved in one?) about covenant condominiums that involve restrictions on abortion. Furthermore, look at young folk, who generally move from more culturally conservative rural areas to more culturally liberal urban areas (PA, where I live, is in danger of becoming a state with a majority retired population by 2020, by most demographers' predictions - they're not only leaving the rural areas, they're leaving the cities, too).

  Culture is a much stronger value in many people than most AnCaps give credit (although I think Hoppe has, he just appears to think everyone will prefer his culture absent a state). And the expenses involved in mingling people who truly value certain opposed cultural values highly are very high. Since living in homogenous communities will lower these costs, it is to be expected that people will, in fact, concentrate according to cultural preferences, especially in an anarchic world, where they would be forced to pay for the enforcement of their values, instead of being able to force those who disagree with them, or even just don't agree with them, to help subsidize the cost of enforcing their values.

  Published: June 15, 2006 10:49 AM

• Reactionary

  ""Uh, pardon me, but wouldn't a stockade fence be an easier solution,..."

  The tyranny of rights: when the pervert next door exercises his right to masturbate on his front lawn, you're the one who has to wall himself off.

  The connection between government and people's refusal to govern themselves is lost on anarchists.

  Published: June 15, 2006 11:21 AM

• quasibill

  "The connection between government and people's refusal to govern themselves is lost on anarchists."

  No, it's only lost on those who have o