kime said:
I do not understand what you mean by 'types' of anarchism. I support a political philosophy that aims to bring about liberty and equality, which is commonly called 'anarchism'.
There are
different schools of anarchism and I was just trying to find out which one you subscribe to.
kime said:
I think you will find that the jobs that pay more than others require certain qualifications to acquire, such as university degrees.
Not always, some jobs just require experience. And then there are those other jobs like sportsmen, actors and so on. You don't have to have a qualification to earn a lot of money. Not that qualifications are that hard to get anyway.
kime said:
This is to the capitalist's advantage because they can then offer poorer pay and conditions because if the employee refuses to work they will plunge into absolute poverty.
Might be a good idea to point out that if a capitalist paid too much above the going rate, he'd be making an irrational business decision. The fact that we have 'going rates' and so on, are kind of necessary for businesses to be able to carry out economic calculation. If they wasted too much money on things that aren't 'worth it', then resources are being misused. It means we could have made more for less, but we didn't. Which is why businesses face financial penalties for making irrational investment decisions.
I know it may seem like they're being "selfish" but this profit incentive is actually what drives them to be able to produce more for less, benefiting society overall in the end anyway. If they didnt' do it, they would be misusing resources.
kime said:
Yes, but people are still forced to work in order to survive. Coercion exists no matter what. People have a choice who their employer is, but they don't have a choice to have no employer. Under "anarcho"-capitalism employess will not be able to find a good deal anywhere, because the workers' interests are significantly different to their employers' interests, and it is the employers who have the power.
People are still forced to work in order to live? Well I suppose there's nothing stopping you from going off and living in the wild (as long as you own the land).
I don't really understand how it could work any other way though, are you saying that nobody should have to work for a living? They should just all live off the kindness of others? Or those who work should be made to pay those who don't work? I just don't see what you're arguing for.
kime said:
The way I see it is that it is the freedom of few to profit off of the sibmission of many; i.e. it is not freedom at all, but an authoritarian social relation that benefits very few. These 'protectionist' nations still run under a capitalist economy. That is, the economy is based on privately owned property, whether owned by individuals or governments.
It's not really capitalism when the govt regulates businesses, or imposes trade protections like tariffs or subsidies.
Although this is not to say there are not capitalist elements in them (eg. stock markets, profit motive).
kime said:
I fail to see how they will lose revenue if one company owns a multitude of firms.
Well if one company owned 'too many' firms - compared to how much those firms are producing, it actually would be losing money. Don't forget it actually costs a lot of money to buy a business, often you have to pay a 'control premium' - a part over and above the recognised value of the business, to be able to have control of it.
But yes, I see what you mean that one company owns a multitude of firms is not necessarily going to make them lose money, but that is because this simple fact is not enough to really be considered "stepping out of line". It is only when these firms start to try and use their power to make people pay more than the usual going rate, that new competitors are increasingly given incentives to come in and compete away these 'monopoly gains'.
kime said:
What happens if someone doesn't work? They earn no money, and therefore are unable to pay for rent, food etc. and will eventually die. It is through the threat of death (which, I believe, to be worse than the threat of prison), or at least a significantly restricted life, that people are forced to work. I fail to see how it is a different force.
See above about how I'm not clear on what you're actually arguing for. Are you arguing that other people should just be made to pay these people who can't get jobs?
flappinghippo said:
Is there only the Viking example to go by as a relevant precedent? Is this anarcho-capitalism working on a wide or narrow scale, national or local?
Ancap faq - part 17 has a list.
As far as I can tell, it was for all of Iceland from 930 to 1262.
flappinghippo said:
Would this work only if all governments were dissolved? Or will it work just as well getting my suburb somehow to function under anarcho-capitalism? ie. What scale do you imagine this would have to be implemented to function the way you envisage?
I don't really think it would have to be done globally. I don't think it matters what scale you implement it on, I'm arguing that anarchism > govts in general.
My overall reason for it though, is because govts are immoral, they have one rule for people who work for them, and another for us ordinary joes. This is illogical and immoral.
flappinghippo said:
They figure shit out as it comes. Leaders in a democratic government choose a course of action. Reagan increased spending on defense during the Cold War, despite freaking out by virtually everyone, to undermine the USSR (forcing it to divert huge amounts of resources), and this worked.
The Stateless Society "solution" is laughable.
You say DROs are going to band together to discuss options to fight off potential foreign invasions. What's going to decide a course of action? What resolves difference of opinion?
You tip waiters because bullshit. How can you compare social behaviours in tipping with war funding?
There is nothing concrete you can point to, so you increasingly become more and more abstract, making ever ridiculous connections. They might make sense to you, but this is just pissing me off. Make a compelling fucking argument.
So your preferred solution is: steal money off people to create/support a military-govt connection.
As for the solution being laughable, I think thats partly because your scenario is also pretty laughable. Seriously, if we did implement anarcho-capitalism, there
wouldn't be the nation called "Australia" in the first place! You'd have a bunch of different towns/cities/areas all with different rules and no 'head' of the place.
Saying that Russia would just suddenly decide to threaten what was ONCE a govt unified country, Australia, with a nuclear warhead... and expect all the random communities to come together to come up with the funds is pretty ridiculous.
It'd be like just going to the amazon or some random jungle and sending messengers out to the different tribes to say "yeah pay me or i'll just bomb the entire jungle". Its really a pretty stupid idea, and not profitable.
Seriously, I think if Russia really wanted to bomb us, you'd be fucked whether you had govts OR anarcho-capitalism. So it doesn't really matter.
And no, there is no way for DROs to force each other to do something, they must consent to whatever solution they decide on. And with the freeriding thing, like I said, they have to just internalise the externality out of their desire for survival.
flappinghippo said:
This article says governments have caused wars, therefore ALL governments cause wars. We should just get rid of governments! They cause so much war and destruction!
The point is that war is
more likely when you have govts. Govts can outsource the violence of stealing from people(tax) to pay for wars abroad, people who actually have to pay for war themselves never do it.