Originally posted by Omega Vision
...is there a potential for corporations to grow into the niche left vacant by government in an anarcho-capitalist society?
That's supposed to be exactly what they do. The end result is supposedly a monopoly that basically becomes the government (which is what Anarach-Capitalist visionaries say it is not supposed to happen but economists/political philosophers say would happen anyway as a natural result). The ideal system would result in self-regulation (independent groups paid for by the organizations that regulate each other...think ESRB-type systems but applied to commerce in more ways than just entertainment (what would an independent SEC act like?)). I have arguments for and against AC and break-fixes for some of the problems inherent in AC. It would be much faster to just make a youtube vid...
You end up with Inverted Totalitarianism which is just a fancy way of saying fascism where Il Duce has slightly less power than the financial backers pulling his strings and not the other way around.
Apart from being more or less the credo of R.A.S.H., Anarcho Communism is basically just a form of Communism that advocates democracy rather than abhorring it and places strong value in personal freedom and no value in private ownership or currency-based economics. They believe in government by unions and syndicates basically. Also when the world becomes too unbearable for the poor and there's no hope, they historically have reacted with global assassination campaigns against world leaders, titans of industry, and the economic elite.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's supposed to be exactly what they do. The end result is supposedly a monopoly that basically becomes the government (which is what Anarach-Capitalist visionaries say it is not supposed to happen but economists/political philosophers say would happen anyway as a natural result). The ideal system would result in self-regulation (independent groups paid for by the organizations that regulate each other...think ESRB-type systems but applied to commerce in more ways than just entertainment (what would an independent SEC act like?)). I have arguments for and against AC and break-fixes for some of the problems inherent in AC. It would be much faster to just make a youtube vid...
Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think we'd just end up becoming the Ferengi Alliance.
Uhh....
Yeah...that is a great way to envision a working Anarcho-Capitalist system. Their system also has a solution that makes it not quite Anarcho-Capitalism: a central government that loosely regulates commerce (it comprises two entities: the Grand Nagas and his office and the Ferengi Commerce Authority. They also have a Health Commission and a Gaming Comission...).
Originally posted by dadudemon
Uhh....Yeah...that is a great way to envision a working Anarcho-Capitalist system. Their system also has a solution that makes it not quite Anarcho-Capitalism: a central government that loosely regulates commerce (it comprises two entities: the Grand Nagas and his office and the Ferengi Commerce Authority. They also have a Health Commission and a Gaming Comission...).
Yes, we should strive for a political system where charity is punished by being thrown off a tower while other people place bets on when you'll hit the ground.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Uhh....Yeah...that is a great way to envision a working Anarcho-Capitalist system. Their system also has a solution that makes it not quite Anarcho-Capitalism: a central government that loosely regulates commerce (it comprises two entities: the Grand Nagas and his office and the Ferengi Commerce Authority. They also have a Health Commission and a Gaming Comission...).
It's worth noting that their business regulation is actually somewhat counter-intuitive, as the FCA seems to be interested not in fair play, but in ensuring that Ferengi businessmen maintain cutthroat competition, marginalization of women, and worker exploitation.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
So what's the difference between anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-communism?
in anarcho-capitalism the means of production is essentially treated like private property and owned by individuals.
in anarcho-communism the means of production are controlled collectively by everyone.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
A question to DDD and/or ON, because you guys seem to be somewhat knowledgeable where AC is concerned: is there a potential for corporations to grow into the niche left vacant by government in an anarcho-capitalist society?
well, not really. A corporation is an institution created by the government. Individuals would fill those niches, because they are the ones who own the physical property and resources it takes to become an institution.
The idea is, individuals would see the need for certain state institutions and do it in a more organic, "bottom up" type of way, and others who want the same thing could volunteer their resources to the project. The system becomes nearly identical to taxation unless you want to have a system where only certain people have police or medical services because they pay into it by choice (which is entirely unstable, imho).
But, no, it wouldn't be a "corporation", per se, or, at least in the way they are currently understood. Corporate person-hood, for instance, would be impossible... god, I guess unless there were some voluntary court systems that recognized it and people chose to bring litigation against a "corporate person" rather than the individuals who ran the corporation, or vice versa. Actually, large businesses would almost certainly set up such courts...
Originally posted by focus4chumps
is that even possible?
It pops up through Spain leading up to the world wars and the Spanish Civil War.
At one point, anarchists took over Barcelona and tried to institute a form of anarcho-communism. The unfortunate issue being, after eliminating money, everything else they tried to use to enforce equal rationing of food just became a new currency and people's behaviour in a marketplace didn't change because, specifically, paper money was no longer in use.
It is probably a more tenable position, on paper, than is anarcho-capitalism, because it does sort of have a power structure that is the only legitimate form of governance, but in terms of actually functioning, no. Its like anarcho-capitalism in the same way: certain institutions are required for society, and implementing them, whether you call it a state or not, creates a situation that is pragmatically no different from a state.
Originally posted by Oliver North
But, no, it wouldn't be a "corporation", per se, or, at least in the way they are currently understood. Corporate person-hood, for instance, would be impossible... god, I guess unless there were some voluntary court systems that recognized it and people chose to bring litigation against a "corporate person" rather than the individuals who ran the corporation, or vice versa. Actually, large businesses would almost certainly set up such courts...
I think when people say "corporation" they often just mean "large powerful business".
So while personhood in the sense that you can sue a company (since corporations aren't really what we mean) as a person and it can sue you as if it were a person would be gone I think other forms of personhood would still effectively exist. What matters is the rights you can exercise, not the rights you're told you have.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think when people say "corporation" they often just mean "large powerful business".
my bad, I suppose I'm not known for being needlessly pedantic 😛
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So while personhood in the sense that you can sue a company (since corporations aren't really what we mean) as a person and it can sue you as if it were a person would be gone I think other forms of personhood would still effectively exist. What matters is the rights you can exercise, not the rights you're told you have.
so, because AC accepts no legitimate power other than the will of the individual, there is no single judiciary body in the society that would give "rights" or various "personhoods". Different privately run judicial systems would exist, and people would voluntarily enter into contracts under the one they found most fitting. So, there could be numerous types of personhoods (familial, team, gang...) depending which legal authority you are currently operating under.
The rights you are able to exersize would be relevant to the contracts and systems you have voluntarily agreed to, and I suppose, the ability of the judiciary systems you agreed to in enforcing their contracts.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
still dont want to argue with you. i dont feel like getting banned.
??? 😬
Your post makes no sense. At no point should you be posting arguments at me in this context or thread. I vouched for your smarts (because you are very politically savvy) and stated you are busy in the real world. Why would you want to argue against that when both are true?
Originally posted by Oliver North
well, not really. A corporation is an institution created by the government. Individuals would fill those niches, because they are the ones who own the physical property and resources it takes to become an institution.
In theoretical anarcho-capitalism, a corporation still exists. The independent regulatory bodies that are supposed to arise in such a system will create those registrations for such corporations to exist. It is one of the overly-optimistic predictions of anarcho-capitalism.
Basically, the various money-making entities would pay a registration fee, or whatever, to those regulatory bodies. They would be required to adhere to whatever set of rules that regulatory body establishes and then they will be able to put a "conformance" label on their products and services. This is already done in the real world with independent bodies. If a product passes certain tests, it can get a UL label. In the AC system, if a corporation adheres to the policies in the independent regulatory body's set of rules, it can get the stamp/label similar to a UL stamp.
The point of AC is to eliminate the need for all of that government interference and let the market take care of itself with its own self-regulation. Again it is one of the overly-optimistic predictions of anarcho-capitalism. Clearly, there is room for massive corruption: you can just pay one of those regulatory groups to get your stamp of conformance, appear to be one of the corporations participating in that regulatory body, but play dishonestly. That's what I think is the ultimate out come, in the real world, in such a system.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In theoretical anarcho-capitalism, a corporation still exists. The independent regulatory bodies that are supposed to arise in such a system will create those registrations for such corporations to exist. It is one of the overly-optimistic predictions of anarcho-capitalism.
actually, its more like, many competing independent bodies which have different standards for what corporations might be defined as would exist, and various companies would apply to the ones that they found most beneficial to be subjected to the standards of.
not to just start beating a dead horse again, but these agencies, no matter how voluntary, in the best case scenario, will function with little meaningful difference from a government. If one sees anarchy as a philosophical position to attack various structures of authority in a society, as I do, this type of regulation becomes as problematic as the regulation of corporations that exists now (you mention corruption and the influence of money on political institutions in your post). In fact, to me this sounds insane. To eliminate the corruption and problems associated with having massive corporate bodies that are more powerful than many states around the globe one introduces more systems of authority among which the powerful can pick and choose membership of?
Its like, if we can boil things down to "the problem is the people/individuals don't have the power", how possibly could adding more structures of authority, which the people/individuals don't have control over, into the system be a benefit?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel like Mairuzu may not just be banned for 3 days...Bummer
Sucks for him. 131
Anywho, seeing as I'm being swarmed with responses I'll try to make a general one because as usual these debates dive into semantics games and veer off-coarse. Oh and I'm probably going to be perma blocked by some arbitrary rule enforced by a person with special privledges. The moral question should be quite simple since what I argue is based on the morality of this predicament we are in. Such as extortion hiding behind the word taxation as well as coercion hiding behind the word "law".
Man, nor groups of men, cannot rightfully rule over another man or men unvoluntarily, no matter how many others accept it. You as an individual who clearly owns your body, your mind, and your words - own yourself.
I am not bound to a collective just because they say I am or should be. Sure they can force me to give up my money with due to their acceptance toward the illusion of authority that the government has, to where they funnel their money and the group hires thugs that must be obeyed or else... but this is no different to any other mob and it doesn't make it right.
There is no magical process that one man or men can grant a "congress" or any other body of individuals the right to lay and collect taxes (steal) from people not even born yet, especially not for 200+ years (me). I did not agree to such a "contract" yet through the illusion of their "authority" which is in the minds of the masses who think they have the right to do this allows them to get away with it that much easier.
One man cannot grant to another man a right neither of them have.
There is a false idea that we are voluntarily being ruled by our governments due to the simple fact that I was born in this piece of dirt. (you can view the Q&A again)
This "collective" does not own this land with their maps drawn on lines by politicians, viewed by people who are born into it whom easily accept it as reality. My property does not belong to a collective or this "greater good" because whos greater good is it? Not mine and I have the right to decide that for myself. If you believe taxation is just and not flat out extortion is to say I'm willingly funding the atrocities my governments create. Unless you believe they commit none, then you're useless to debate anyways.
Again. the idea of that anarchism im proposing (without a ruler) is based on a moral standard. All these arguments against it are akin to not knowing the outcome of abolishing slavery, therefore you have question after question after question to which we continue to bicker about the WHAT IFs and BUT THIS WILL HAPPENs. Its all irrelevant. As long as you know what is wrong, and supporting it is wrong. Human owership hasn't changed, its only advanced.
Tax cows arguing with tax cows.
Without the slaves there will be choas!
I am not arguing about the path to it, just like I wouldnt argue about the path to abolish all slavery. I'm saying slavery is wrong. I'm not arguing about what would happen after (which is nothing but speculation). I'm not arguing that OTHER PEOPLE WILL JUST ENSLAVE THE SLAVES AGAIN (aka other groups will take over!) its all ridiculous of course.
Similar to slavery, people need to see the reality and morality behind what they view as normal in their every day life.
Originally posted by Lord LucienAs for Anarcho-communism and capitalism, you can have your communist fail of an economy in a stateless society, people are free to do so as long as no one is forcing them, which would be wrong of course.
So what's the difference between anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-communism?
But the funny thing is that these an-coms wont tolerate an-caps in "their" society. The idea is to have competing entities based on voluntarism.
Originally posted by dadudemon
In theoretical anarcho-capitalism, a corporation still exists.
A "corporation" is a government created entity. Unless you are mistaking it for a big business.
Corporations gain power due to government regulations on anyone trying to open up a business. It stifles competition. As well as patents, government backed "intellectual property"
The free market, in an an-cap society would have tons of people competing.