I am a libertarian socialist. I therefore want the destruction of the state and of capitalism. I propose this by progressive means, and am against violent means or militant action. Education, freedom of knowledge talk and discussion are the ways forward.

I am interested to hear where anarcho captialists(those affiliated with American Libertarian party) derive thier ideas from. And propose these two inter-related questions to you:

1. How is removing the state, whilst retaining capitalism, increasing personal liberty?

2. Why do libertarians attribute inequality and a lack of freedom to the state and not to capitalsim - or both?

<div><table width='50%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' style='border: 1px solid black' align='center'><tr><td class='maintitle'> Topic closed...</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Reason: Question to debate too vague or missing.<br /><br />Recommended action: If you started this topic, please contact the staff member who closed it by clicking the PM button below this post with a clear question to debate.<br /><br />Helpful links:<br />- Starting New Topics<br />- Survival Guide<br />- The Rules<br />- Staff Directory</td></tr><tr><td class='darkrow1'><div align='center'>Note: This is an automated response.</div></td></tr></table></div>

I'm not sure how one can be a libertarian socialist. As political systems, they are incompatible. Perhaps as social systems, it could work. Meaning, you could live within a voluntarily socialistic collective within a libertarian society.

Capitalism cannot be destroyed without destroying liberty, as all capitalism is is the voluntary exchange of goods and services - that is, free exchange. Anything else would be a reduction of liberty.

- Rick

Capitalism is not a volantary exchange of goods. In our society if you dont partake in capitalist society you will die. Because of Land Ownership, you cannot live off the land, since none of it is yours. Division of labor is therefore all you can partake in - in exchange for money to live. That contract, the foundation of capitalism, is not at all voluntary.

Take the global scale. In Africa people HAVE to work in gold mines for 1 pound per day - otherwise they will die. They have no choice, what voluntary exchange exists there?

Lack of (certain) options is not the same thing as lack of choice. Nobody is forced to work. If you don't want to work, you have the CHOICE to be homeless, or you have the CHOICE to go steal, or you have the CHOICE to go sell crack, etc. These are all choices, whether or not they are appealing. Nobody can force you to do anything. People are limited by nothing more than their own fear of certain consequences.

Please give evidence to support that. Individuals freedom will always be limited by the needs to make a living, unless you have a socialist state where no one is required to work. One big problem...who is going to go to work?

One man's rights are always restricted by the rights of another. If I want to own land then I must grant my neighbor the same right. The history of man since the invention of agriculture is that greater freedom exists under capitalistic systems.

To paraphrase Madison if men were angels there would be no need for government. Assuming men were hard working angels there would be no need for capitalism. Guess what? Men ain't angels.

These are not legimate options, since they involve a horrible life (homeless) or a morally wrong life (stealing selling crack etc).

I am not being forced by anybody(meaning someone in particular) as you put it. I am being forced by a society that is dominated by an idealogy that is so powerful your only choice is to conform.

It comes down to land ownership. In England for example it is owned by Lords, and these were formed from coercien and violence for years until the peasants were forced into line against our will. From a hypothetical viewpoint, does it not seem ridiculous that I cannot just live around the land I was born, and not under someone? Societies many years ago had this degree of community and chose to live the way they do, since the community had its best interests at heart.

My criticism is as much against modernity and urbanisation as it against against capitalism. But since it was capitalism that created the modern world it is that I attribute the blame more broadly.

There is no inherent need for capitalism, and your point of saying men need to be angels to live without it makes little sense. Men lived without it for many many years, working the land that was theirs in order to survive.

Ultimately, their freedom was only infringed upon by the nature of survival and the frialness of human life. They lived near water etc etc That is a natural and legitimate infringement on liberty, we cannot expect to change that.

If people are organised in groups, they owe allegiance to a authority that is built from the bottom up within the cofines of geograpahy and family ties - not an alien imposed way of life. That is why the state is immoral.

Sorry but there is a very direct need for capitalism. It allows you to free yourself from the slavery of spending your life serving Society.
You want to go live in the bushes, hey come to America. LOTS of room in Montana. Also Canada has lots of wide open uninhabited land. You can go be Jeremiah Johnson to your hearts content. Lots of people do this.

You are simply advocating a complete return to the state since the state is society in the end. Society does not allow for free will. Capitalism does. You make your own way in life. Are you given everything for free. No. Nothing free is worth having. I am no ones servant.

Human beings are always limited by their means to obtain and make use of available natural resources. The purpose of society is to protect those individuals and allow them to invest time utilizing those resources.

Anarchy is law of the jungle survival which isn't compatible with a free society. Libertarianism (which I consider to be the antithesis of Socialism) is a philosophy which attempts to balance the needs of the population to bind together for protection, while securing the individual rights to the product of their own industry. If an individual does not have the right to the product of their own effort, there is no freedom. It is the ability to use that freedom that affords us all the luxury of sitting at our computers right now instead of toiling the soil and searching for potable water.

Another thing I think we are missing is that capitalism is the natural state of man. Everyone is good at something, and no one is good at everything. That's why, from probably the discovery of fire, people have been doing what they do best, and trading the products of that effort for the products of the efforts of others doing what they do best. This happened with, or without, governments in place. Capitalism is the only economic system that can survive outside of government coercion.

The places mentioned as examples in opposition to capitalism are far from capitalist. In fact, I think the closest the world has ever been to capitalism was in the 100 years after Cobden got the Corn Laws repealed in England. And what did that bring? Only 100 years of peace and prosperity for the world.

- Rick

Perhaps the question that we should be asking ourselves is "How many of our 'morals' are instilled in us to make sure that we remain good little consumers?" It's not the fault of capitalism that people choose to consider only certain options, whether for moral reasons or otherwise. At most, what capitalism does is set up the situation. The actual chains are put on by the state.

Our actions are limitless. We need to realize that. Once we do, we need only weigh the cost of consequence. The WORST thing anyone can do is act like they are literally incapable of doing something due to it's moral/legal implications. The only one who limits you is you.

That is my problem with "the State" as it exists today. It tries to control our morals, our way of life, to the point where many of us stop realizing how much power each and every one of us holds. Not even as a member of society, but as an individual. Want some good evidence that this is happening? Find me one person who LIKES the IRS. Find me one member of society who LIKES meter maids or the fact that it is ILLEGAL to put money in somebody else's meter when their time is running out (and then they wonder why there aren't more good samaritans)? The list can go on.

So the state is what makes the laws that bind us. Not capitalism. A lot of negative things that people attribute to capitalism are more likely a result of capitalism and state being in bed together.

Two points both, IMO, wrong.

Society was never to protect us, it was formed in the grounds of basically theft. Throughout the medieval period in Europe everyone was plundered. The Kings in their armies pillaged everything they could find. There came a point when other nations became powerful and competition in general became fierce. Kings therefore needed a more reliable income. They therefore began a basic tax, which was essentially controlled theft. Instead of destroying everything and taking everything they left the infrastructure and took its products instead. This generated more income and made it more reliable. The state is therefore built upon control, and always has been. Look at the jail sentences(as an example). So many times murders, rapists etc get off with quite light sentences, whereas those who commit fraud, or print money etc get screwed over and out for many many years. Why? The state doesnt care about a few murders, its not going to affect the qider scope of things - but fraud etc undermines the state completly, as does tax evasion. Those practices pose far less danger to us as individuals, yet the state gives them longer sentences?

Furthermore why can collective agreement not give the same security as the state? and protect as you suggest? Yes you can refute by saying human begings are bad but answer this: Why are your fellow middle class neighbours not robbing your houses? Why is the suburb such a cup of tea, why is it not overhwhelmed by problems? Obviously its partly a matter of opinion, but the opressed (as in those who are poor) search for desperate ways out of thier situation. To put it simply, if you have enough to get by who have less likehood of robbing - since it is mainly an act of desperation. Improving eqaulity and opputuntiy would therefore remove a lot fo the so called need for state punishment and sentences etc.

How then, I ask you does the esatblishment of anarcho-captialism(American Libertariansim) prevent this inequality in society? How does it empower the poor, how does it prevent the gap from widening?

There will always be workers who are underpaid, as long as capitalism exists. Perhaps not in America but in China where Walmart pay their worker something like $0.23 a an hour. In the industiral period it was the workers of the england (for example) being opressed, since then we have been able to empower ourselves, so the opression has become globalised and taken abroad - to places where the people are defenceless.

I would therefore say that the causes of crime are due the inherrent inquality in capitalism not a innate badness of man. To say some people are just bad doesnt add up - check my sig I think its true! Look at various people - had malcolm X died in his youth people woulda though he was generally a bad man - but through educating himself he began to change. Removing dischantment, inequality and alientation are therefore crucial to reduce the number of criminals.

Your second point is a common misconception. Anarchism represents a highly organised society - it is not anarchy. I suggest you take a peak here -

[http://www.anarchosyndicalism.org/faq/

Corporations instill values more than the state does! They push the latest product, they trick young people into thinking if they dont buy designer clothes they wont have any friends. Advertsiing has such power it can replace fundamental beliefs of those who are young and easily influenced. Take Mobile Phones - most people hate them, but ebacuse they gained so much momentum and companies started giving employees phones you HAD to get one - otherwsie you run the risk of being a social outcast or unable to do your job correctly. Its a strong form of conformity - driven by advertsing - not the state.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here. Advertising didn't create the desire for cell phones - it merely revealed it. That is the whole point of capitalism. If there were some book we could look at to see what every person really needs and desires, Socialism - as a political system - would work. But there isn't. The only way to determine that is through the individual decisions of billions of individual people around the world - the price system.

A capitalist risks his own welfare because he believes he sees a need that is not being met by the market. He invests his time and energy producing a product and bringing it to market. Sometimes he taps into a market that that was previously unrealized - like personal computers and cell phones. Sometimes, he fails miserably - like the Segue or the Edsel.

The most an advertiser can hope for is to either tap into an unrealized market, or persuade someone to choose one brand over another. The desire for a cell phone is driven by the individual, while the drive for a Nokia cell phone is driven through a good presentation of its qualities. The decision still always rests with the individual.

- Rick

I guess we could continue that element of the debate for ever, but I would like to hear why libertaians think they are increasing freedom. How does it remove equality and how does it avoid incresing the gap between the rich and the poor?

In my eyes its selective freedom. Freedom for some - opression for others.

I'm not sure what you mean by "how does it remove equality?" Can you explain?

I don't think it can or should remove the gap between the rich and poor. As Mises pointed out, business becomes big by best serving the needs of the masses. Without that gap, what incentive does a person have to serve mankind by meeting its needs? If everyone is exactly equal, there will never be improvements. We got to where we are now because people were free to speculate and try to improve their lot by improving the lot of others. As Adam Smith said, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Furthermore, it is not the gap by which we should measure human welfare, but by the welfare of the lowest, and in capitalist countries, we have the richest poor people in the world. For instance, in America, our poor are fat and have Playstations and DVD players and personal computers. In Ethiopia, poor people have death and disease and flies on their eyes.

This is the truth about collectivism. Quoting Smith again, "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good."


- Rick

Capitalism without a mechanism of regulation is fascism. Without restraints, it is conceivable that one person, or one company, can control every aspect of an economy - a virtually complete monopoly, horizontal and vertical. It's nice to talk about "choice" but where is it, when the Common has been eradicated? A company which gains supreme monopoly is fascistic.



This is misleading. You are making a broad generalization without any support whatsoever. Does the United States have a high standard of living? Yes. Are there people in the US who go hungry, live in cardboard boxes, and wear rags? Why yes, there are.

They are free to live that way if they wish. If they choose to give up goods in order to obtain more leisure that is their right in a free society.

Nope. People formed societies to protect themselves. I DO agree with your assertion of taxation as controlled theft. However, As far as income-tax evasion sentencing versus 'other crime', I'm curious about your statistics...(Mine)


The State IS 'collective agreement'. How else would such an agreement be enforceable?

The rest is a flawed premise, IMO. What is the difference whether or not the 'gap' between rich and poor widens, as long as the standard of living for everyone is improved? If every poor person lived as I do, and every rich person lived like Bill Gates, that would be fantastic... even though my income is half of one percent of his. Regarding the last part...People are the product of their environments, but they do not steal only out of desparation...Otherwise, how do you explain Enron? Clearly, if no one were inclined to steal or commit crimes except the poor out of desparation, there would be no fear of monopolies or large corporate entities....which are, afterall, simply large conglomerations of individuals.

Fascism is a system of government where people still retain private property, but the government directs their actions, so I am not sure where your comparison comes from. Monopolies cannot exist long outside of government intervention, because if they raise their prices too, high, it draws competition. But even if there were a way to have a monopoly permanently, they still have to keep prices within a range that people are willing to pay. If they raise them too high, people ration their consumption, and the would-be monopolist loses money. So, the worry people have about monopolies is really much ado about nothing. If I may, can I direct you to an essay I wrote about it, called I Wanna Be the Top Hat?



But even those people have opportunities available to them that the poor in 3rd World countries don't even have the frame of reference to dream about. I mean, people in Ethiopia wish they had a cardboard box and some rags, while people here live on the street a block from a shelter that will feed them, clothe them, and train them for gainful employment. In the 3rd World, it isn't about training or having a shave - it's about having groundwater that is not poisoned.

- Rick

Sure in American most people are getting richer, but we live in a Globalised world. There are people that are dying everyday in the third world - labor has been exported into other countires. They are rarely paid enough and life becaomes dangerous to live. Compaines could help these people, but they would rather make money for themsleves. This is where the paradox of libertariansin occurs:
If society is needed to control man, who is supposedly bad, who controls the companies, since they are just a sum of people anyway? A Company does not have any inherent interest in the welfare of the people, how do you argue that they do not let this suffer? I do not rtust that source you supplied at all, I have seen people getting 25 years on the news before for Fraud etc, I will find some more.

ALso, we are getting words mixed up here. I agree with you that society protects us, but the state does not want to protect us - only itself. I want to make my belief clear.

There is a much wider poin to mention here. When I talk of the gap widening, i do not mean exclusively in the realm of accumilation of capital. I arue that because of capitalsim, social stratification forms, and robbs people of oppurtunity. You didnt mention the point about why middle class neighbourshoods arent robbing one another? Captilaism therefore doesnt merely present a inquality in wealth, but because wealth leads to se much else, its not just a matter of "i cant aford a playsattion" - it creates huge differences and rifts between people that leads to ghettos, alienation and poverty.

The increasing Rift represents a poltical, spirtual, social opression. It is always easy to say that an indivdual can get out of the ghetto, but humans are social animals. They have friends, and seek fellow human security. Its not easy to severe all your childhood ties.And its not easy to think clearly in situations of extreme poverty and violence. There are many temptations, and the feeling of alienation creates feelings of not wanting to be a part of mainstream white society. If you put a rich harvard kid into the Ghetto from the moment he was born (going abck in time) I doubt he would still go to harvard. Peoples lives take courses based on their own actions, but these are products of the environment they live in. I know if my parents werent as supportive and great as they were I would have never made it through the education system. Liberatariansism put so much emphasis on the posiblities of the individual, but ignores the context and inherent social nature of man. We need help from one another, not everything can be done of our own backs.Where ghetto kids dont have a father, and a mother who has to work 60 hours a week - how do they get guidance and help? Its a vicious circle, and one that will continue as long as education = wealth. How can it be fair and volunatry working 60 hours per week? They are uneducated, but almost all of us when we young failed to see the bigger picture - i came close to failure. But these people cant even get eqaul opputruntiy in schools. If education = wealth, how can free market captalism be fair given that not everyone has eqaul oppunrtuity in schools?

I cannot see libertarisnim tackling this problem?

I have to say that I agree totally here with Rick. The Libertarian philosophy is completely based on individuality, which meets nowhere with Socialism. Libertarians also follow the main fact that there still must be law, or there will be no protection. Many people feel threatened by protection, but in a free land, the People elect officials to make decisions that are in the concerns of protecting our society and system. Therefore, anarchy is out of the question. While a lot of people in the past have generalized Libertarians with anarchists, that idea is far from the truth. There must be law and order for any type of organization to last.

I really cannot understand why the Libertarian philosophy is not as popular as it should be in the United States. I (most certainly) would feel incompetent to ask the government for assistance.


Neil

Thanks! For some reason, I like you already.



I think Libertarians do share common ground with anarchists, probably more so than they do with the Statist Republican and Democratic parties. The main difference between libertarians and anarchists is that anarchists believe we can be protected from aggressors foreign and domestic by private security. Even some libertarians would agree with that, namely the Mises libertarians.

While I respect the Austrian School greatly, and believe no one has nailed the study and philosophy of economics more perfectly and completely, I think they and the anarchists are off base on that theory. With businesses competing for consumers of law enforcement, I think it would lend to a society where "law" was subjective and not applied equally.

Generally, though, libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect us from and prosecute us for all initiation of force, and nothing else.



I think the reason it is slow in picking up traction is because complete freedom is a scary thing, especially when you have been conditioned for the better part of a century that you cannot make it without the State.

Look at it this way - when you left home, it was exciting and exhilarating, but it was also scary. I have a unique perspective on this because my parents both died before I was even 26 years old. Up until that point, I always knew, whatever happened, Mom was always there. Now I do not have that assurance.

While freedom gives you the opportunity to do great, amazing things, it also leaves you open to great failures. What it does do, though, is make you stronger, more self-reliant, and better prepared to traverse the various plains, valleys, and hills in life, if only you can get past your fear.

- Rick

i find that people tend to think I am an anarchist when i tell them i am a libertarian. That is not entirely true.

to reference history, Early america had a problem with independent fire departments. If a house caught on fire, and it wasn't under the paid protection of that fire company, they'd abandon the building. often though, in an effort to get their money, two fire companies would start fights with each other arguing over who gets to put out the fire and collect. In modern america where the fire department is state controlled and funded, that is not an issue.

as for income tax, I think we should pay for our own benefits, which means a state whose job is more of an Umpire than a player in the game of life (how crazy would football be if there weren't any referees?) and whose responsibility is the protection and enforcement of the people's rights. I'll pay the fire department money because in the event my house catches on fire i'll be glad they're there to save it. I'll pay the police because i know they are doing their best to keep me safe. I'll pay the military because i know when our way of life is threatened by an outside force, they will be there to protect it. And lastly, i'll pay the judicial system because they interpret and carry out the laws of my constitution.

why should i have to provide all of that for myself, when I can pay someone else to do it for me?

I have a question for you. Economically, where do you stand? because Marxist socialism is a state where the proletariat control production, and decide where resources are needed. The Founding fathers had a phrase for that; the tyranny of the majority.

The fathers of western philosophy, plato (pro-communism) and Aristotle (pro-democracy) both felt that the best existence in which man dwells is in the Polis, or state. When humans first evolved they existed as hunter-gatherers which consisted of small independent communities that lived together and everyone worked for everyone else's survival, because in such a small group of people, even the death of a single person might be a blow. But how slow was scientific achievement during these times? tens of thousands of years passed with virtually no increase in men's standard of living. It was only when people started organizing into larger cities and empires where trade developed, did prosperity happen. Over the course of human history, we have refined that, for while the old empires were horribly inefficient, people living in the Roman empire lived considerably better lives than the hunter-gatherers of old.

maybe one day when all of science has been discovered and there is no more need to improve the standard of living will anarchy be the best enviroment.

And how horrible would it be if they decided to try to take an active role in the game to influence the outcome?

- Rick

Let me propose another analogy:

How Horrible would it be if two teams or so became so powerful, no one could rival them, competition disapeared and the game slowly died?

That is what captialism in on course to do. Monopolosation. Thus their becomes more and more workers in our society, with the money being focused in less and less hands....

Its Already happening in WalMark and Microsoft, they occupy bacially the top ten rich list in the US between them.

If someone makes a music album and Walmart dont like the cover then ban it, and the group will lose somehting like 40 percent of their sales(will find actual stat). They are therefore forced into producing another version, suitable for Walmart, because they could afford to lose that many sales. Surely it isnt right for a compnay to have this much power?

How do libertararains suggest you fight monpolies, they seem like an inevitability to me?

that is irrelevant because the last place teams always get the first draft pick (how do you think the bengals picked up Peter Warrick?) it would never happen because of that and the fact that most player's playing career rarely lasts past their 35th birthday. Football is dynamic, The Tampa bay Bucs won the superbowl, but only a few years ago they were last in the leauge.

a more relevent topic would be; what if it was the league's responsibility to trade players FOR the teams, controlling which player went where? not only would you have a huge beaurocratic mess, but since no team is any better or worse than the other, competition is rather boring and sales would lag.

while we're on the subject of football, what makes more sense, each player doing his own thing, or a team of coaches coordinating the players to accomplish their common goal (winnin)

actually, under what you're proposing, there would be no leauge, somehow the stadiums would erect themselves and the players would just show up and play and the fans would just randomly wander into the stadium and notice the two teams playing.

How do we fight monopolies? simple, we let the market handle itself. When I go to Target or Circuit city, there are a large amount of computers with windows, but that doesn't count out the fine line of Apples (Apple as a company is actually rather successful) or the Linux and Unix operating systems which are easily accessible in the software department. That doesn't sound like a monopoly to me. Besides, why do the people buy windows? Because it's convenient. People who decry that Microsoft is a Monopoly while they have windows as their operating system of choice is breeching their own code of ethics. If you don't like it, don't buy it, you have choices. If the market (that being the populace) finds that they don't like microsoft, either for their dislike of windows or their dislike of microsoft's business strategy, then microsoft will fail. if the people using microsoft products while decrying them as a company makes about as much sense to hang out with people you don't like, badmouth them when they're not around, but still continue to hang out with them.

As for Wal-mart, why is it that the company who offers the freshest food, widest selection, and best prices bad for making good business? The only reason Wal-mart is successful is because mostly everyone else agrees with me. why should they be forced to go to a high charging butcher when Wal-mart offers better meat at lower prices? Not only that, while im grocery shopping i can take the kids to go school clothes shopping, then pick up something for the toolshed, then buy school supplies, a novel for myself, a few dvds, and some birthday toys all at the same place, not only am i saving money, but time as well. otherwise i would have to get each of those things at separate places for higher prices. So my options are going to several different stores, spending lots, including money for gas, spending all day doing it, when i could go to wal-mart, get everything i need, pay lower prices, and be done in two hours?

And if you want to say that smaller businesses can't compete with Wal-mart, i beg to differ. in the Next town over (Mt. Pleasant) not 5 miles from the Wal-mart and K-mart is a little butcher shop, who does good business. my family there never goes meat shopping at wal-mart because the butcher's meats are of superior quality. But when they need to multitask, they hit the wal-mart.

regardless of the ethics of wal-mart and microsoft, everyone's life has gotten more convenient because of them. Sure there are some that lose their jobs to the competition, but on a whole most people find their lives to be easier with those companies. How would the public respond if all of a sudden their standard of living dropped (for the first time in American history outside the great depression, which is more big government's fault than capitalism's fault) I doubt they'd take it very lightly.

Just for future reference, in America there are 13 million people living below the poverty line, out of roughly 300 million people. Thats 4% that live in poverty, yet the vast majority of these people own cars, multi-room housing, color television, and make enough money to feed their children. Compare that to the early 1900's where middle class Americans usually lived in single room or few room housing, only the rich had horses (even fewer had cars) and each child had to work so that they could raise enough money to feed every mouth. While we're on the subject of poverty, which of these do you think accepts foodstamps, small time mom n pop stores, or big time time Grociers like Wal-mart and Piggly Wiggly? (yes, I live in the south, we have a grocery mart named Piggly Wiggly, leave us alone )

First, I would say what you suggest is similar to 'if no one owned anything, there would be no stealing', 'if every person was required to have sex with everyone else, at any time, there would be no more rape', or essentially...'if everyone was dead, there would be no illness'. All true statements.

In a free society, there will be economic inequility. Some people will be better off than others, receive better educations, ect. Those disparities are not limited to economic factors. Some parents are more caring than others, which will ultimately effect the outcome of their children. Some children take their vitamins and eat right, and will be healthier than those who eat only candy.



In this I differ from classical Libertarians. I believe in very basic anti-monopoly laws. In theory, the market should regulate itself and no corporate entity would become too powerful in a totally free market. That isn't the case when one business can afford to take a loss for a very very long time to undercut all of the market share, and then price gouge once they become the only one left around. Such laws, within reason, encourage competition and thus competitive progress.

Corporations are fictitious persons created to limit liabilities to individuals. If it weren't necessarily to limit the liabilities of business owners, monopoly laws would not be necessarily. With one state-endowed courtesy necessitates the state-regulated policy.

First of all, I do not understand your rant about Football, given that what I said is known as a analogy as wasn't referring explictely to the nature of football - I thought that was blindingly obvious :rallyes:

Second, the bulk of your relevant reply. Lets take what you said about Windows. You seem to be overlooking very crucial things, not least the the nature of business. You claim that we don't HAVE to have Microsoft, but we do. If you want to play games Linux will not work, and the fact that every company using Microsoft Word you, as an individual, as need it because that and Star Office(the Linux Version) is not compatible. Companies with so much power can sign up exclusive contracts and prevent anyone from not only getting their foot in the door, but erecting a electric fence around the door! With so much money, you can but protection, you can but the market as it were. Thus many people are forced to have windows they are not choosing it at all. Compaq, HP, IBM, Intel and Microsoft are cooperatively protecting each other. They have even formed this website - My Webpage

The follow on effect of this cumulative power is expressed well here:

TCPA stands for Trusted Computing Platform Alliance. For the technology we will speak from TCP (The trusted computing platform). This plans that every computer will have a TPM (Trusted Platform Module), also known as Fritz-Chip, built-in. At later development stages, these functions will be directly included into CPUs, graphic cards, harddisks, soundcards, bios and so on. This will secure that the computer is in a TCPA-conform state and that he checks that it's always in this state. This means: On the first level comes the hardware, on the second comes TCPA and then comes the user. The complete communication works with a 2048 bit strong encryption, so it's also secure enough to make it impossible to decrypt this in realtime for a longer time. This secures that the TCPA can prevent any unwanted software and hardware. The long term result will be that it will be impossible to use hardware and software that's not approved by the TCPA. Presumably there will be high costs to get this certification and that these would be too much for little and mid-range companies. Therefore open-source and freeware would be condemned to die, because without such a certification the software will simply not work. In the long term only the big companies would survive and could control the market as they would like.
Some could think that it should be possible to get around this security. But probably they would be proved they're wrong. Until now there're no such hardware-implemented security systems and actual security systems have to work offline. This would be changed with TCP. The rights and licenses would be central managed by the TCPA (USA?). And as soon a violation is noticed, they will get notified. Read the chapter "The bills" to get an overview about the possible resulting consequences. Taken from the informative website found here : My Webpage

As to your reference to WalMart, yes they do a good service - Tesco does over here in England, they are getting bigger and expanding their product range. However, where do you see this ending. The amount of money they have means there is nothing to stop them basically buying out everyone and everything and every retail store in America. If the service and quality is SOOOO Good as you suggest would this not be welcomed?

The classic argument you libertarians use is that Capitalism encourages progress and innovation. What motivation for innovation is there if their are huge monopolies? They are inpervious to competition, all they need to do is keep the doors of the shop open and they are safe. What motivation is there for change there?

Your point of people below the poverty line is ridiculous, firstly your stats are unsubstantiated. Secondly, I think you are living in a dream world. What good is a color TV and a playstation if your kids have to grow up in a bad neighborhood and get a crap education? They will do the same and the cycle continues. The predominance of material items that libertarians give as signals of prosperity and happiness are lidicrously short sighted. You are assuming inconsequential material posessions are a sign of happiness and prosperity, when in fact all they do are cover up the real problems.

The deeper important currents get ignored, smothered with material posessions.

How is society free, as you suggest, if the entire basis for prosperity rises out af an unequal education system?

The people who go to poor schools do not have the freedom you do, they do not have acess to the best books, or the best facilties - that is not freedom?

They are limited by their education, imposed on them by the nature of the two tier system that has developed in America and is strting to dvelop here to.

I know freedom can be conceptualised in many ways, but calling somehting a "free society" where poor people have a poor education, which in turn leads to poor healthcare, poor jobs and poor oppurtunity - in what way are they free to chose whatever they want?

To put it simply, the rich have all the choices, the poor have very few - The Rich have freedom the poor do not

But under what you are proposing anarcho-socialism, there wouldn't even be any education service. education wouldn't be public since that requires some form of higher institution (which you despise) and wouldn't be private, because that would allow people to take unfair advantages of their position (according to you)

unless people magically come together and teach the children for the hell of it.

and under your utopia, are you saying that poverty would vanish? That every single person would be as equal as everyone else? For some reason that stinks of Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron" Unless heavily mandated by a huge government, i don't see that happening. In case you haven't read it, everyone was equal. they were smart as the dumbest person, poor as the poorest person, and their material possessions were the same as everyone else. it was the 2060s
but their standard of living was that of the 1960s. In fact the male protagonist was smarter than normal so he had a device in his ear that interupted his train of thought every now and then so he couldnt take an "unfair" advantage of his brain.
is that what you want? Let those with privilage suffer because someone doesn't have what they have.

it took me a second, but now i understand why you're not getting my football analogy. Because people who play football are the fastest, strongest, and best at playing football in the nation. But what you're saying is that since they have an advantage over other people, they're evil and need to be disbanded, after all, the only reason they play sports well is because they were born talented at it, and they had parents who had the capacity to allow them to get trained and sent to college and then to the pros. Since they had it better than I did they shouldn't be allowed to play and i should be allowed to play in the pros because i didn't have it as easy as they did.

If what you are saying is true, then we'd all have to return to bein hunter-gatherers, because that is the only instance in history where there was no large organization, and there was no drive for personal gain besides what was necessary for survival. And for almost 100,000 years there was almost ZERO scientific and cultural gain. I already said this. Progress did not start untill organization on a large scale. True the privilaged and wealthy lived better than the poor, but on the otherhand, large armies protected them from wandering raiders, organized bazaars that allow people to experience a wider range of goods, and organized farming which led to more food therefore allowing a wider range of jobs that don't require a person to focus his life on surviving (such as artisans or religous figures)

and what was the reason for all of this development? personal gain! farmers didn't look for ways to increase their agricultural output because they thought to themselves "gee, if i did that more people could be fed!" they did it so they could get more money for themselves.

why don't you explain to us where you're coming from before you come here telling us how capitalism is evil because some people remain poor (even though their quality of life is dramatically improving)

I can't add much to Citadelman's excellent post. Only that it is a bit hard to argue the entire basis for prosperity rises out of an unequal education, in a world where some of the most affluent (examples Bill Gates and Michael Dell) are college dropouts, and a mother living on public assistance can write a book and surpass the Queen of England in net worth (as Rowlings did) in a very short time. It is simply one important factor of many.

Thats quite what has happended and can happen in the future. Let me highlight...



A instiutution is not necessarily something the anarchist despises. Quite the opposite actually. An anarchist does not believe in Anarchy - that is a common misconception. Anarchism represents a highly organised, mutual society, as I have already highlighted. Now the case in hand.. The school would have to be formed in solidatarity, autotomy and under a voluntary agreement seperate from the state. This has happend, and there is an interesting example of such a school that can be read about here. Anarchist School In Spain



This is exceptionally ignorant. When did I say anyone with natural talent was Evil? And at what point did I say they did not derserve to be there? They have achieved and that is commendable. Whatsmore some of them had nothing, like Edgerrin James. All I would like to see is a day where everyone has equal oppurtuntiy, and I bet Edgerrin james would have liked for his path to have been easier. I do not see that as radcial or unreasonable.




You are tearing apart your own argument here. You say that without a large organisation there can be no personal gain, but libertarians object to such a large organisation as the state. Could you explain this, I am a little confused? Are you suggesting the large organisation - the motor for change - should be a large financial corporation. I dont think that fits into the libertarian viewpoint, since - and pigpen has already said this - monopoly's are bad. Since according to you philosophy, competition is crucial to progress.




Your incinuation here is that human's are naturally greedy or self interested. It is based on rational choice theory. Where people only act for personal gain. History has told that alhtough humans do look after themselves with great care, there are always examples of co-operation and selflessness. Why do people open doors for you, why does Mike give me info about starting a website? Sure helping is satisfying, but it is nihilistically cynical to believe this is the only reason. Humans love seeing progress, I personally belive the greatest, most satifying achivements are being part of a team. I find it harder, it involves many sacrifices, but putting personal differences aside and coming togther for a cause is a positive thing for everybody. if we did not belive in doing good things for everybody, why do rich people vote for welfare, why are millionaires socialists? The most selfish people are those with no money - the opressed - and with good reason, their everyday life is a struggle, looking after themselves it of upmost priority.
I would make one other point about this aspect of your argument. if humans do everything in slef interest and do not care about anyone else or anything, how do you stop an unaccountable power of a corporation? That will only act in the interest of making money - it has no inherent interest in the people, in the same way as the state doesnt. All corporations will want it to keep the people who buy the products happy, in other words - those with money to spend on consumer goods. The poor will be totally disregarded because they represent no market to exploit.




This is one of the worst arguments you can actually use in favor of Captalism. The quaility of life of the slaves improved dramatically from the 18th to the 19th century, did that mean thier way of life was still acceptable? It doesnt. You cant justify somehting just because it makes someones life better. Look at Stalin - he dramatically improved the state of the country and improved the wider living standards as a whole, but did that make that acceptable? No of course not. It proves that there are things a great deal more important than economics and standards of living - especially when libertarians call an improvement in the standard of living owning a playstation or other consumer goods. It is a nice way to live, in the ghetto with a playstation? It doesnt help the wider situation, not does it make it a better way to live. You cant justify a system by it ends, look at Hitler - he improved the way of life for the German people, he carried out a social revolution, its that an argument for Facism?

Here is my response to Ms Pigpens post that I just ediited:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not all succes comes from the education system like you say, since no formal education is required to be an enterpreneur. However, this is an exceptionally small perecentage of the population - not many people have the insight do achieve such things. Moreover Rowlings clearly posseses some intelligence.

My point would therefore be that education increase intelligence and brain capacity which are intergral to success.Sure you dont NEED an education to get this capacity, but no one would claim that Bill Gates is stupid.

Furthermore, a childs intelligence is devleoped greatly in the early periods of their life. It is fostered by the carer reading to them, interacting with them and devloping all the traits that make us into rational individuals. If somone doesnt have this oppurtunity they simply wont develop a great deal of intelligence. School is the only thing that can help to rectify this.

So I would argue those who have achieved owe thier brainpower to early childhood development. Bill Gates was given this chance when he was a child - his dad is a huge lawyer - someone who is thus capable of inparting significant knowledge.

A lot of people dont have this luxury, school is all they have.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of it's victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. ~C.S. Lewis.

it seems to me that you are implying that anyone with a natural advantage is doing something morally wrong. It also implys that you think one day people will work for something other than personal gain.

Let's take Brave New World for example. Everyone in society had enough to eat, and a nice place to stay. a few hours of menial work was all that society required of them. there was no crime, no poverty, no disease, no war. Almost sounds like a little slice of heaven doesn't it? well, if you've read Brave New World, you would certainly know that is not the case. It's a rather nightmarish anti-utopia instead. But social inequality was eliminated, and that is as you say, the main evil of capitalism.

You think that people will one day go against their instincts and nature envoked by millions of years of evolution? i can't see that happening. Squirrels only horde as much as they can. too bad the life of an average squirrel is the exact same it was 10,000 years ago (minus human intervention) the drive for personal gain is the sole reason for human development. read a history book if you don't believe me.

Firstly I have read many history books, as it is my degree, (focusing solely on it, not like in America where you Major ) and I have studied the rise of Capitalism for the past 8 centuries(not that I am 8 centuries old )

There isnt actually any 'proof' that captialism was the only reason for our progression, because we have never seen a system that is not capitalist. Feudalism couldnt do what capitlaism did because it didnt have enough people, to sustain suich growth. Moreover, it was the achivements of feudalism its improvemtns in Agrigculture that began to sew the seeds for the possiblity of captalism. It made some contribution: In the sixth century the water mill was invented, by the seventh and eighth so had the heavy plough and the three-field system respectively. These were huge progressions. And the two systems were not worlds apart.

To quote Marx :



Moreover, things like protestant reformation also contributed a lot to progress. To quote Weber:



Wallerstein, a deeply respected historian also said:



Do you really think people wouldnt have sailed the seas? We know their primarily motivation was to plunder the innocent people around the world, but have you never heard of human curiosity. I suggest you look at the post I started about what position the members here would like to have in history and someone said they wanted to be an early explorer. I cant imagine he is saying that because he would find it satisfying to kill and steal! It would have been a wonderful experince - in the same way spae exploration is. Thus as the discovery of new land developed, trade began, and from that point on competition of every form - not just capitalist - was to be the motor for progress. Though not the only motor. People compete in sports because of the enjoyment gained from it, as we do in disscussing issues here. We dont just do it for personal gain, in a monetary form. Humans are not that one dimensional.

As to your Lewis quote, It always humours me when someone throws in a quote - its usually a sign that they havent thought about the topic in hand. They just hope that someone elses thoughts will do it for them But let me now be a hypocrite and give you a pertinent quote from the great Thomas Paine:



Why is belief in social equality a pointless utopia? Where slaves believing in Emancipation niave utopians? Slave societies existed for centuries, but they never gave up. History has presented us we numeours imposing barriers - all of which, through persistence and tenacity, we have managed to break down. Why can we cannot continue this trend.

I never said capitalism is the reason for growth and expansion, I said that trade, free market, and large scale organization are the reasons. in order to progress scientifically, the amount of time dedicated to survival must be set to a minimum. after all, who has time for science when there are mouths to feed? This trend has continued throughout human history, up to this day. China was never economically strong, until it adopted a free market system and opened trade with the world. Now all of a sudden China is the fasted growing economy in the world. And call it a hunch, but i somehow doubt they are doing it for the bettermint of their citizens. China already attempted socialism, and it led to the starvation of 80 million people. that was during Mao Zedong's reign. Now under a more capitalist society not only is china getting richer, but quality of life amount chinese peasants is improving as well.

Personal gain was always the motive behind this. a person didn't buy an exotic good from a merchant to help support the merchant, they did it because they wanted that exotic item for themselves. A free Market didn't arise because the farmers felt it was their duty to provide for those who refused to farm, they did it because there was people who wanted to do something else besides farm, and they had enough money to buy enough excess food to feed themselves. the more excess food, the more people wanted to do something besides fight nature for survival. Organization protects the progress which these folks made, and gives people a focal gathering point.

The point im trying to make is this. Personal gain has always been the primary driving factor for human civilization. Capitalism is a system that champions personal gain. Your's is a system that says somehow people will come together and continue to progress as a civilization despite the abolishment of all three things I mentioned. That would require a complete rewire of our way of thinking, almost to the point of evolution. Because all throughout history Organization, trade, and free market are the reasons for the civilized world. societies that did not develop these things, such as the American Indians or the African tribes, remained in a psuedo-primitive state.



I can't imagine a big hairy viking saying "ya know, i think im going to go exploring the Ocean for the bettermint of human society" and besides, isn't satiating curiosity an example of personal gain? personal gain doesn't necessarily (though it often does) involve monetary acclumation.



Gee thats funny, i count three quotes in your sig, slick. If what this guy says can help those interpret what im trying to say, then im not using it as a crutch. Under that manner of believe, because most if not all of your ideas stem from Karl Marx you obviously have not thought this topic out, you are only copying his ideas.

and for the record, i am a business administration major, with a specialization in economics. I am very strongly considering a history minor, since i find it complements economics rather nicely

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree since this topic (the rise of capitalism) is far to broad to discuss in written form like this between us.. Moreover, I think we should cease to debate fundamental human attitudes, as that too is far too broad and highlighy contestable.

What we thread was started for was not to impose my ideaolgy onto you. All I wanted to do was question and debate libertarianism. What has happened is that many of you have attcked to defend which is wrong, since any political belief has the capacity to criticise another. Had ot not been for the close, but yet so far, proximinety our ourviews I doubt I would ever had to have burden such criticism.

In other words, I was asking you how libertarianism is a free society - given that their are inherent inequalities in our present society - that infrigne on the freedom of the poor -that would continue, without any state aid. At this time no one has actually said how? They have just diverted attention onto me.

You cannot answer a criticism about your own idealogy by criticising someone elses. I do not mind if you reject my ideas, all I want to hear is a reasoning as to why you belive in yours - that is why this thread was made. If you want to criticise or ask questions about Anarcho-syndicalism start another thread, otherwsie we will get lost in the bottomloss pit.

By the way, my comment on your quote was supposed to be sardonic not offensive Also, You shouldnt have told me you study business either, because its not not surpising why you think they way you do....

That was a joke too

I agree with that, but that is almost word for word an arguement of Noam Chomsky.

Sorry for jumping in here, but this topic has always been a favorite of mine. Libertarians believe that they are the true descendants of Classical Liberalism, and I don't believe this is true.

The following is from a few Chomsky seminars discussing this topic. I find his view to be extremely accurate.

Classical Liberalism dates back Aristotle, were he stressed that a system should be put in place for the benefit of "the Common Good of All". He believed that the state is a community of equals, and it's aim should be for the best life possible for all of them. That the government must not only be democratic and participatory, but also a welfare state, which would provide "lasting prosperity to the poor by distribution of public revenues".

The point is that an essential feature of any decent society, is a relative equality of outcome-not neccessarily oppurtunity. Without this, talk about a democratic state is a joke.

This concept of "the Common Good of All" surfaces throughout history. More importantly at the core of Classical Liberalism and Enlightened thinking.

Adam Smith and other Classical Liberals were advocates of free-markets. What is more important is the reasoning behind it. He believed that free markets would lead to perfect equality, which is an essential feature in a decent society.

Adam Smith's praise of the division of labor is well known, but less known is his condemnation of the division of labor for its inhuman effects which, as he said, "will turn working people into objects as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be" and therefore must be prevented in any improved or civilized society by government action to overcome the devastating market forces.

Some Classical Liberals took that even further, and condemned wage slavery itself. I'm sure you've heard the slogan, "When the laborer works under external control, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is".

From Wilhelm von Humboldt ‘s "Limits of State Action":



Writing in the early 1790's, Humboldt was not aware of the forms that industrial capitalism would take. He stresses the importance of limiting state power, but he is not overly concerned with the danger of private power. The reason that he believes in and speaks of the essential equality of condition of private citizens.

If I may quote Rudolph Rocker:



The important point is, Classical Liberal critiques are applicable to a far more broader range of coercive institutions other then the state. They are also applicable to Industrial Capitalism.

Hugo brought up the point of "The Tyranny of the Majority". Madison said this, "democracy would undermine the responsibility of government to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority,"

Well aristotle believed that even the best, most properly functioning democracy would be flawed as long as equality had not been reached. The reason that the poor majority would seek the interest of the needy and not the common good of all. The only way to safe guard that, would be a small gap between rich and poor(Or none at all).

The problem is there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Once man interacts with others his freedoms are limited by the freedoms of others. Your idol, Noam Chomsky, encourages government healthcare, government education and government pension plans. You are correct that poverty does limit choices. You are wrong when you assert equality somehow increases choices. Six men stranded in a life boat without food and water are of pretty equal standing. Yes, poverty limits choices. Capitalism reduces poverty. Anyone who believes that man can exist without government, rather they be on the far left or the far right, are fools.

Our education system would be much better if those who normally are so opposed to monopolies would allow competition in education.

Why do you never provide any eveidence or argument to your points? I think you need to explain why we are "Fools".

I think you are just being a little shortsighted. Do you not think some of the Slaves used to tell their friends about one day being emancipated, I bet they were accused of being fools too. Yet their dream was realised.

So I ask you, Why can we not live without Government?

Chomsky does advocate all those things. He feels that health care and education are basic human rights, and everyone should have access to these, regardless of ones income.

We often hear our leaders speak of democracy, and freedom. Well democracy requires a dissolution of power: State and Private.

Your analogy is somewhat strange.

"Six men stranded in a life boat without food and water are of pretty equal standing."

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Perhaps a more accurate analogy would be:

"Six men stranded in a life boat, one with food and water enough for the five others, and the rest without."

Or even better:

"Six men stranded on an island, one with 6lbs. of ham, and 6 gallons of water. Five of the men worked for the sixth man[who had the tools], in producing the food and water. He in turn gave the each man 1/5 of a pound of food, and 1/5 of a gallon of water."

Now by your idea of Laissez Faire Capitalism, the workers could not join together to form a union. No outside force could take some of his product, to distribute to others.

But a Libertarian Socialist, would insist that all 6 men, use the tools, and all have equal share of the product.


There isn't competition? Am I alone, in knowing of private schools? I had a few friends growing up, that went to private schools. They cost about as much as my monthly mortgage...

Just look at Health Care costs, who can afford it? There is competition, but very minimal.

Capitalism was fine, Pre-Industrial Revolution. But the times have changed, and so has Classical Liberal thought...

It's more important to look at the essense of Classical Liberal thought, and enlightened thinking. Look at the arguements that those great minds gave, and compare them to modern industrial capitalism.


That's pretty pessimistic. As humans we claim to be so intelligent, and compassionate.

Yet we have to be governed, are we not capable of governing ourselves. Would that not be Liberty?

The genius of capitalism is that it requires people to associate with each other. Like when I need my car fixed, I go to a mechanic to get it fixed. I pay the mechanic, we had a peaceful and mutually beneficial exchange and go about our business. We both have used our talents to find a nice nook in society to enjoy life the way we see fit.
Imagine a socialist system where the government provides everyone with a car... and when it breaks down they haul it away, fix it and deliver it back to you fixed.... without any interaction from you. What will this do in the long run? It will first lead to ignorance as to what effort and cash it takes to fix a car. (Since it would all be collected via taxes) Eventually, people take cars for granted... and they also start taking the people who fix cars for granted. This is a somewhat silly example, but I think we're starting to see that in socialist programs today.

Socialism isn't the olny alternative to Capitalis