Question for all small govt/minarchist ppl (3 Viewers)

[kime]

You obviously don't understand how economics works. Your statement is suggesting that the only thing keeping wages and conditions up now is the govt

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. Remove government intervention such as minimum wage and maximum working hours and workers will be paid very little, in poor conditions over long hours. A capitalist will do all he or she can to maximise profit, and decreasing qorking conditions is one of them.

when in fact it is actually the productivity of the economy and of firms themselves. The govt does not produce things, it steals them and regulates them. The govt cannot create something from nothing, and so any conditions that exist in the real world are what it is stuck with.

And who does all the production? Workers. I am arguing against unretrained capitalism, not government. Being an anarchist I am vehemently opposed to both.

Companies are made to pay more and more because they have to compete for our labour. Capitalism helps the poor much more than govts ever will, because it is what creates more and more competition for their labour, competing the price for their labour up. It may have been the case that in the past (and in 3rd world countries not embracing capitalism) that conditions and pay were/are poor, and the best solution to this is to actually let the market decide.

You have everything backwards. Companies do not have to 'compete' for labour, as people are forced to work under the capitalist system and will therefore accept any pay that is offered to them in order to sustain themselves. Neither capitalism nor the government helps the poor in any way. Can you please tell me some third world countries that do not embrace capitalism? If the market were allowed to decide I can assure you that working and pay conditions would be much worse than they are now.

For example, workplaces are inclined to be safe because if accidents happen, then their insurance premiums rise. Also, over time, as the economy gains strength, then employees can take their labour elsewhere. But this can only happen over time, a govt cannot 'enforce' these things efficiently. It will only distort markets, leaving more in poverty than before it intervened.

Why would employees take their labour elsewhere? It is markets themselves that leave people in more poverty than government intervention.

Take for example the welfare state in the USA, I've heard that poverty was actually dropping, but then when the welfare state was brought in, they stopped experiencing this decrease in poverty.

The USA is not a welfare state.

Not true, under capitalism it will always pay to create what the people want. It won't realistically be possible to actually buy EVERY single possible outlet and factor good for a given product. It will always pay for a new firm to spring up in place.

The situation I was describing was more hypothetical and I do see that it would be difficult to own every single outlet, but as a single firms wealth increases they will be able to buy much more and in affect will create their own state.

Not just that, but a lot of the work done in setting up networks and getting products will already have been done and demonstrated by your supposed 'monopoly firm', so this monopoly firm will just be losing money. The 2nd firm will just be able to use already existing connections, networks and methods and undercut the 1st one. In capitalism, you only stay up as long as your customers want your product.

Another problem: if you have a problem with monopolies, you should also have a problem with govts, it is also a monopoly. Not only that, it is a monopoly of the worst kind, a coercive one. Free market corporations are not coercive.

I have a big problem with government, as it protects capitalism, making it both harmful and unneccesary. The point I was trying to make about monopolies is that "anarcho"-capitalism does not remove the state but merely gives it another name: capital.

 

[volition]

kime: so what type are you? anarcho-individualist? anarcho-syndicalist?

Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. Remove government intervention such as minimum wage and maximum working hours and workers will be paid very little, in poor conditions over long hours. A capitalist will do all he or she can to maximise profit, and decreasing qorking conditions is one of them.

No, if that were true then why is that there are some jobs that pay more than others? Clearly its because there is more demand than supply for those services. Which suggests that firms are forced to pay certain wages to get people of a certain calibre.

And who does all the production? Workers. I am arguing against unretrained capitalism, not government. Being an anarchist I am vehemently opposed to both.

Lol, so is this the "anarcho-capitalism isn't a real form of anarchy" objection?

Companies do not have to 'compete' for labour, as people are forced to work under the capitalist system and will therefore accept any pay that is offered to them in order to sustain themselves.

The truth is, different jobs in different markets pay varying amounts. So its not like "Oh I'm forced to either work for this one company or not", its more like "If I don't get a good deal at this place, I'll go elsewhere".

The USA is not a welfare state.

Oh really? Well I'd argue that it is one, at least to some extent. Maybe not to the same extent that we have welfare states in europe, but there is still a huge expenditure and a fair bit of regulation in areas like health, education, social security.

Can you please tell me some third world countries that do not embrace capitalism?

This really shouldn't be coming as any sort of surprise to you. There are plenty of nations that are protectionist, and have high govt involvement. If you want to see a ranking of the 'freedom' of countries, check out: Index of Economic Freedom Note how the countries that are more free, are generally the ones that you'd want to live in.

The situation I was describing was more hypothetical and I do see that it would be difficult to own every single outlet, but as a single firms wealth increases they will be able to buy much more and in affect will create their own state.

The market is self-correcting, if it so happens that one business gets out of line, it will cop a financial punishment via loss of revenue.

I have a big problem with government, as it protects capitalism, making it both harmful and unneccesary. The point I was trying to make about monopolies is that "anarcho"-capitalism does not remove the state but merely gives it another name: capital.

Ok, with this "anarcho-capitalism isn't a real form of anarchy" thing: I think its important to realise the difference between different types of 'force' and obligations.

There are the types of obligations that are imposed on us by other people (like in the current system, where you are forced to pay taxes). Then there are other things, like the fact that we have to eat to survive. This is a different 'force' than the one where people steal your money off you. Do you get me?

 

[kime]

kime: so what type are you? anarcho-individualist? anarcho-syndicalist?

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'.

No, if that were true then why is that there are some jobs that pay more than others? Clearly its because there is more demand than supply for those services. Which suggests that firms are forced to pay certain wages to get people of a certain calibre.

I think you will find that the jobs that pay more than others require certain qualifications to acquire, such as university degrees. Not everyone has degrees, so yes, there is going to be more demand than supply, making the 'market value' of the labour higher. Take jobs that require no qualifications to acquire. These jobs are necessary for the function of society and many people wish to work them. 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.

Lol, so is this the "anarcho-capitalism isn't a real form of anarchy" objection?

Somewhat, yes, mainly because it isn't. But I am also arguing how it would not function and is only an ideal.

The truth is, different jobs in different markets pay varying amounts. So its not like "Oh I'm forced to either work for this one company or not", its more like "If I don't get a good deal at this place, I'll go elsewhere".

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.

Oh really? Well I'd argue that it is one, at least to some extent. Maybe not to the same extent that we have welfare states in europe, but there is still a huge expenditure and a fair bit of regulation in areas like health, education, social security.

Yes, the US government does supply some form of (inadequate) welfare to its people, but it is not a welfare state. Many people lack healthcare and the social security system does very little to help people. Having said this I do not really support a welfare state, but prefer it to a privately run state.

This really shouldn't be coming as any sort of surprise to you. There are plenty of nations that are protectionist, and have high govt involvement. If you want to see a ranking of the 'freedom' of countries, check out: Index of Economic Freedom Note how the countries that are more free, are generally the ones that you'd want to live in.

It is interesting what you define as 'freedom'. 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.

The market is self-correcting, if it so happens that one business gets out of line, it will cop a financial punishment via loss of revenue.

I fail to see how they will lose revenue if one company owns a multitude of firms.

Ok, with this "anarcho-capitalism isn't a real form of anarchy" thing: I think its important to realise the difference between different types of 'force' and obligations.

There are the types of obligations that are imposed on us by other people (like in the current system, where you are forced to pay taxes). Then there are other things, like the fact that we have to eat to survive. This is a different 'force' than the one where people steal your money off you. Do you get me?

No, I don't get you. I will try to explain my point by elaborating on the example you gave. People are forced to pay their taxes in a similar way they are forced to work (to set things straight I do not actually support the paying of taxes to government). What happens if someone doesn't pay their taxes? In extreme circumstances they go to gaol. So they are forced to pay their taxes with a threat. 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.

On the "anarcho-capitalism isn't a real form of anarchy" point, no it is not. There is nothing anarchis about capitalism. Anarchists have been opposed to the idea since the philosophy's beginning. A capitalist system can not be called anarchist, as a an extremely laissez-faire economic system is the direct opposite of an anarchic economical syetem. Maybe you can name your idea "stateless-capitalism" or something along those lines (although it is not stateless as capital becomes the 'new' state).

 

[flappinghippo]

What do you mean, 'social experiment'?

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?

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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by flaminghippo
Let's say nation-state Russia builds some nuclear weapons as a threat to steal shit from you; "Give us your fuckin cash or you and your neighbours go kaboom."

First of all: Remember we're comparing govts with anarchy here (not anarchy with 'perfection'), so what solution do you think govts would have to this?

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?

Yes, there is a potential freerider problem, but hey, people still tip waiters don't they?

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.

...Not many govts have even managed to successfuly defend their nation from invasion: (i'll paste from an article here)

Quote:
Finally, can anyone out there show me any examples of a government successfully defending its population from violence?...

Violence �* Invasion

In many cases invasions involve violence, but they are not the same thing. Therefore your article does not fit your supposed point.

This whole article is bullshit anyway. 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!

Well, while we're at it, let's get rid of people! That way, there'd be NO war and destruction.

These wars were fought because tyrants (person or persons) seized power and threatened other states. Sounds a little like Bush? That may be the case, but then again, how much violence has there been during the War on Terror? Anything on the scale of 170 millioin? Like I said earlier, the number of wars have been going down ever since capitalist democracies have been going up. It's a work-in-progress, but it still works.

Look, those 170 million people? That's the price humanity has paid to find out what forms of governments work and which don't, not that all governments don't work.

 

[volition]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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'.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[kime]

There are different schools of anarchism and I was just trying to find out which one you subscribe to.

Most schools are simply a means, so in that sense i would probably say I am a syndicalist.

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.

I would consider being a professional sportperson and actor to require qualifications; namely, being talented in the particular field they adhere to. Qualifications may not be hard to get for some one like you (whom I assume comes from a wealthy family and so has had many opportunities in life, but please correct me if I am wrong), but think of people born into poor families. I think you will agree that university is quite expensive, and it would be even mroe expensive under your proposed system, as the government would not offer HECS. It is much more difficult for people not born into wealth to acquire qualifications.

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.

This is exactly what I am saying. They are going to pay as little as possible so as to increase profits.

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.

Are you saying employing people are not 'worth it'? I won't get started on the misuse of resources udner capitalism, as this is not the topic for it.

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.

Who is actually doing the production? It certainly isn't the property owners. I would consider the disparities in wealth existant in a capitalist system to be a misuse of resources.

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).

The people who choose not to work would not own the land and will therefore be forced to work. My understanding of "anarcho"-capitalism is that everything is owned by someone.

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.

I am arguing against "anarcho"-capitalism and in doing so supporting "real" anarchism. To put it simply I am proposing that the factories go to the workers and the fields go to the peasants: no private ownership of capital, collectivisation of industry. Those who work should be entitiled to the fruits of their labour and not have them stolen by a capitalist.

It's not really capitalism when the govt regulates businesses, or imposes trade protections like tariffs or subsidies.

It may not be capitalism in its purest sense, but it is definately more capitalistic than any form of socialism.

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'.

But under "anarcho"-capitalism you are saying that businesses would grow exponentially. The capitalist who owns the most wealth will soon be able to accumulate more, thus buying out others. If they don't like it he or she can hire a superior police force or army to defend themselves than the others due to his or her buying power. It would be extremely difficult for a new firm to begin a profitable business amidst the other corporate giants. I am not necessarily that these firms would charge more than the 'going rate' but they would definately have more pwoer.

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?[/quote}

No I am not saying that. As I have already described I am arguing against "anarcho"-capitalism because not only is it unfair but it is idealistic and impossible. I am saying that capitalism needs unemployment to function efficiently, so people are forced to work or starve. The solution I am offering is anarchism, which I suggest you educate yourself on properly before suggesting the system you support is anything like it.

 

[circusmind]

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.

Give me some numbers on that.

Surely there are more conflicts at present being waged by non-state actors (terrorists, political groups, insurgencies, racial factions etc etc) than actual state vs. state wars.

 

[volition]

I would consider being a professional sportperson and actor to require qualifications; namely, being talented in the particular field they adhere to. Qualifications may not be hard to get for some one like you (whom I assume comes from a wealthy family and so has had many opportunities in life, but please correct me if I am wrong), but think of people born into poor families. I think you will agree that university is quite expensive, and it would be even mroe expensive under your proposed system, as the government would not offer HECS. It is much more difficult for people not born into wealth to acquire qualifications.

Actually, the reason why certain qualifications are expensive currently, and "more necessary" than they need to be, is partly because of the state corruption of economies. State funding for unis is coerced, which means there's little incentive to make education cheaper, the people will just pick up the tab anyway.

Are you saying employing people are not 'worth it'?

Above a certain point, for an individual business, yes, employing people would not be worth it.

Who is actually doing the production? It certainly isn't the property owners. I would consider the disparities in wealth existant in a capitalist system to be a misuse of resources.

Are you suggesting that all wealth should be equally owned? If it is not complete parity you are looking for, then what amount would you say is an 'acceptable' level of equality of incomes? Got any kind of measures, or criteria for saying that this given level is 'good' and anything less equal than this is 'bad' ?

I prefer not to care about relative poverty, and care more about absolute poverty, which is what capitalism reduces.

To put it simply I am proposing that the factories go to the workers and the fields go to the peasants: no private ownership of capital, collectivisation of industry. Those who work should be entitiled to the fruits of their labour and not have them stolen by a capitalist.

In what way would you say the fruits of their labour are stolen by a capitalist? Would you support somebody's right to decide for themself if they would like to work for a capitalist in exchange for money? Do you also support the right of the capitalist to employ workers?

It would be extremely difficult for a new firm to begin a profitable business amidst the other corporate giants.

There can be no "right" to run a mum and dad sized coffee shop. If starbucks is just that much more efficient and people want to buy coffee there instead, then what right do the "mum and dad coffee store" owners have to complain? They should either compete on price and service, or leave the industry if the business isn't sustainable. What I'm trying to say is, you don't have a "right" to be able to enter markets and run whatever store you wish, you have to be able to be competitive enough that people want to buy your products/services.

I am saying that capitalism needs unemployment to function efficiently, so people are forced to work or starve. The solution I am offering is anarchism, which I suggest you educate yourself on properly before suggesting the system you support is anything like it.

Well when anarcho-capitalists refer to anarchy, they generally mean the idea that "nobody lords it over other people" in the way that govts do.

Capitalism doesn't lord it over other people - the people do not impose the requirement that other people work for them - their money is their own to choose who they give it to.

You can't say that "I have to work or I starve" as though they're making you work, because you're kind of saying you have a right to their money even if you don't work, which clearly makes no sense. You have no right to other people's property, they must freely give it up to you. If they don't want to give it up to you, then you can't complain about that.

What you're talking about is more the 'force' of reality - you have to eat to live, you have to breath to live. You can't say 'the requirement of breathing is not compatible with anarchy because its a form of force against you'.

Give me some numbers on that.

Surely there are more conflicts at present being waged by non-state actors (terrorists, political groups, insurgencies, racial factions etc etc) than actual state vs. state wars.

There are no current numbers on that, because there aren't really any ancap societies. Although from what I've read, the ancap societies in the past were very peaceful, eg. the "wild west" was actually not as wild as it is in the movies that portray it. I doubt the Vikings or the Irish had any big criminal problems.

Many of the conflicts you point out as being 'non-state actor conflicts' are actually caused by the existence of states. Look at gang drug wars for eg. if drugs weren't illegal, there wouldn't be any room in the 'market' for violent gangs, peaceful corporations would be much more efficient.

As for terrorists, political groups, insurgencies, racial factions - I think problems like this are caused because of forced associations that the state creates. If we had true freedom of association (as in, under anarcho-capitalism), this would reduce the fighting. Look at Iraq, and the way they're fighting over control of the govt. Would they really do that if they just had their own separate areas and kept to themselves? Which is why I think the best solution for Iraq is to just split into many different little areas, rather than trying to pretend that a forced govt association between the factions will work.

Look at how the US keeps troops in like a million bases (151 bases iirc) around the world, and invites attacks against itself in this way too. or maybe how it puts people in power (like saddam) or gives weapons to certain groups.

Last thing, some of these conflicts are motivated by religion (terrorism for eg), and I personally think that ridding ourselves of religion will make anarcho-capitalism easier to reach/sustain. Like I said above, religion and the state are very much the same thing, saying we need separation of church and state is like saying we need separation of snake and reptile. You only need to look back at history to see how much influence the church has had over the people, and look at how the church and the state have always been bedfellows. In the past, the kings were said to be 'divinely inspired' or some shit thing about "the divine right of kings". The church imposes tithes, the state imposes taxes. They both create concepts ('god', 'the common good') and then create allegiance to this concept by raising the moral stakes. (only a 'good' person sees god, 'good' people care about the common good) Presumably if you don't see any merit in believing in what goes against all logic and reason, and contrary to all evidence, then you're "bad/stupid" for not believing in God.

Both the state and the church need to get out of our lives.

 

[kime]

Actually, the reason why certain qualifications are expensive currently, and "more necessary" than they need to be, is partly because of the state corruption of economies. State funding for unis is coerced, which means there's little incentive to make education cheaper, the people will just pick up the tab anyway.

I do not understand what you are trying to say with this. I think you have taken it out of context from my original argument. I think we both agree that the state is coercive and unnecessary; you will find no objections from me there.

Above a certain point, for an individual business, yes, employing people would not be worth it.

If they don't have employees, how are the businesses going to create wealth?

Are you suggesting that all wealth should be equally owned? If it is not complete parity you are looking for, then what amount would you say is an 'acceptable' level of equality of incomes? Got any kind of measures, or criteria for saying that this given level is 'good' and anything less equal than this is 'bad' ?

I am not suggesting all wealth should be equally owned, nor am I suggesting equality of income. I am suggesting collectivised ownership of capital and equality of opportunity, two things that capitalism does not allow.

I prefer not to care about relative poverty, and care more about absolute poverty, which is what capitalism reduces.

Absolute poverty could just as easily be reduced under (real) anarchy, while at the same time reducing relative poverty.

In what way would you say the fruits of their labour are stolen by a capitalist?

The fruits of a worker's labour are stolen much in the same way you say the fruits of a capitalist's 'labour' is stolen by government. Here is a highly simplified example. A worker in a factory makes $50 worth of goods an hour, yet his employer only pays him $5, so he has in affect stolen $45 from him. You will then object by saying that the capitalist owns the property, but it is from the wealth he has stolen from his employees that he is able to pay for and maintain the property. Another example: say a company makes a 20% per annum profit; this is a 20c profit on every dollar invested. That is another 20c after everything has been paid for, including wages maintenance etc., so the capitalist's initial one dollar investment is safe and he has an extra 20c. Now, after five years this 20c profit becomes $1, which in this example is the cost of the business. The workers have generated enough wealth to buy the business of the employer, yet he does not surrender it to them, thus stealing the fruits of their labour

Would you support somebody's right to decide for themself if they would like to work for a capitalist in exchange for money? Do you also support the right of the capitalist to employ workers?

I highly doubt that if they had the decision not to, some one would sell themselves into slavery. I do not support the right of a capitalist to hire workers because coercion and tyranny is not a right.

There can be no "right" to run a mum and dad sized coffee shop. If starbucks is just that much more efficient and people want to buy coffee there instead, then what right do the "mum and dad coffee store" owners have to complain? They should either compete on price and service, or leave the industry if the business isn't sustainable. What I'm trying to say is, you don't have a "right" to be able to enter markets and run whatever store you wish, you have to be able to be competitive enough that people want to buy your products/services.

You are straying from what my initial argument was. You seem to be saying monopolies would not be created under "anarcho"-capitalism, yet in this example they clearly are.

Well when anarcho-capitalists refer to anarchy, they generally mean the idea that "nobody lords it over other people" in the way that govts do.

I consider a boss to "lord it over" his employees in the same way that governments do. Capitalism is not anarchy.

Capitalism doesn't lord it over other people - the people do not impose the requirement that other people work for them - their money is their own to choose who they give it to.

I believe that I have succinctly shown previously how capitalists do indeed coerce people into working for them.

You can't say that "I have to work or I starve" as though they're making you work, because you're kind of saying you have a right to their money even if you don't work, which clearly makes no sense. You have no right to other people's property, they must freely give it up to you. If they don't want to give it up to you, then you can't complain about that.

You are saying that private property and capitalists exist to benefit workers, when in fact it is the other ay around: if it were not for workers, capitalism could not function.

What you're talking about is more the 'force' of reality - you have to eat to live, you have to breath to live. You can't say 'the requirement of breathing is not compatible with anarchy because its a form of force against you'.

Breathing and eating are both requires for a living organism and are completely natural, whereas capitalism is not. Yes you have to eat to live, and under capitalism you have to work to eat. There is no other way around it.

On a similar point, who would actually own the air under an "anarcho"-capitalist system? I am sure they wouldn't coerce their customers into working in order to breathe, because they can just go without air, right?

I have briefly read through that ludicrous "anarcho"-capitalist FAQ, and have to say that most of it is utterly rediculous. Their arguments against socialism assums state socialism and do nat take into account anarchism. The examples of working "anarcho"-capitalist societies are all in times before the industrial revolution, therefore before capitalism was invented, therefore not capitalist. Are you able to provide a working example of "anarcho"-capitalism post industrial revolution?

 

[MaNiElla]

boring thread is boring.

Yeah...the replies are waaaay tldr

 

[circusmind]

I have briefly read through that ludicrous "anarcho"-capitalist FAQ, and have to say that most of it is utterly rediculous. Their arguments against socialism assums state socialism and do nat take into account anarchism.

If there's anything more laughable than the idea that a capitalist utopia can exist without a state, it's the idea that socialism can. Seriously dude, tell me just how the fuck a massive socialist state is going to "wither away".

 

[volition]

I do not understand what you are trying to say with this. I think you have taken it out of context from my original argument. I think we both agree that the state is coercive and unnecessary; you will find no objections from me there.

The point of me saying it was just to point out that under a govt, qualifications requirements are probably higher than they are in capitalism. At least, more unnecessary requirements under govts (thanks to the fact that politicians need votes to get in), than under real capitalism.

If they don't have employees, how are the businesses going to create wealth?

Well I'm just talking about for a given size firm, its possible to have employed enough people for that size. It may only need more in the future as it grows.

The fruits of a worker's labour are stolen much in the same way you say the fruits of a capitalist's 'labour' is stolen by government. Here is a highly simplified example. A worker in a factory makes $50 worth of goods an hour, yet his employer only pays him $5, so he has in affect stolen $45 from him. You will then object by saying that the capitalist owns the property, but it is from the wealth he has stolen from his employees that he is able to pay for and maintain the property. Another example: say a company makes a 20% per annum profit; this is a 20c profit on every dollar invested. That is another 20c after everything has been paid for, including wages maintenance etc., so the capitalist's initial one dollar investment is safe and he has an extra 20c. Now, after five years this 20c profit becomes $1, which in this example is the cost of the business. The workers have generated enough wealth to buy the business of the employer, yet he does not surrender it to them, thus stealing the fruits of their labour

I've seen this argument before, but I don't think it makes any sense. It suggests that selling something for more than what you paid for it is 'stealing'. It also denies the self-ownership of people, if that's how they want to do things, who are you to stop them? Unless you're somehow suggesting there is no such thing as property rights?

You are straying from what my initial argument was. You seem to be saying monopolies would not be created under "anarcho"-capitalism, yet in this example they clearly are.

It's important to distinguish between coercive businesses and businesses that people voluntarily choose. Microsoft could have 90% of the market share, but I have zero problem with that, because Bill Gates doesn't hold a gun to you and make you give him money! In that example, I didn't even say that Starbucks was a monopoly, I just said that it was bigger than the mum and dad coffee stores.

Breathing and eating are both requires for a living organism and are completely natural, whereas capitalism is not. Yes you have to eat to live, and under capitalism you have to work to eat. There is no other way around it.

Ok so in anarcho-syndicalism, what happens to workers who bludge in the collectivised ownership factories? Do the other workers have the right to kick him out? If they do, then obviously this constitutes 'force' to you too. If they don't, then you're probably going to suffer from an even bigger problem with less ways to give people incentives to work...

Anyway, capitalism is voluntarily agreed to! As long as you support the idea of self-ownership, you can't logically have any opposition to the idea that people should be able to buy/sell labour.

 

[dieburndie]

This is going off topic, but but when an anarchist (libertarian socialist) society is created the state is never seized and established, but rather competely destroyed, and therefore it doesn't have to whither away. I agree with you that the seizing of the state is the major problem with authoritarian communism and socialism; to use the words of Bakunin, "The dictatorship of the proletariat soon becomes the dictatorship over the proletariat." If you would like to discuss this further I would be more than happy to do so in a seperate thread.

I think the only form of anarchy that doesn't create intrinsic contradictions is anarcho-capitalism. I don't understand how anarchy could function without enforcing property rights. Anarcho-capitalism allows for conflicts between individuals to be solved through private dispute resolution institutions, how could such conflicts be resolved in anarcho-syndicalism without the possibility of private protection to replace the role of government? The end result could only be the abuse of what would be common property.

Indeed I am suggesting that there are no such thing as property rights. I am in no way denying the self-ownership if people, but in fact supporting it to the largest extent possible. Workers should be entitled to everything that they produce and not have to give any to the capitalist, as he has no legitimate claim to the goods. I find it ironic that capitalists think they are supporting self-ownership to the greatest extent, when in fact it is the opposite.

If workers are entitled to what they produce, wouldn't that form their property? How could you ensure they reaped the benefits of their production without any means of allowing for the concept of property? The capitalist provides the capital for production, the use of their capital by workers results in production. The workers wouldnt be able to produce anything without the capitalist, so the logical outcome is the capitalist having a legitamite claim over a proportion of the output.
How is it possible that allowing for anything that has the capacity to be owned to become property supports self ownership to the least extent? It would be quite useful for you to elaborate here.

Factories are collectivised and are operated for the needs of people, not profit. People are working for themselves, not a capitalist, so I highly doubt any workers would bludge

Why not? If there is no such thing as property there is no way to differentiate between the production of each worker. As production would be divided equally, the reward would not vary based on a given worker's contribution. Here lies an incentive for the worker, or unworker should such a system materialise, to not work.

If a consensus is made between all workers that someone is not doing enough work, something can be arranged. The difference is in capitalism is one person (the boss) makes the decisions, whereas in anarchy everyone does.

How? These people don't have any authority over the unworker in this situation. What can be arranged? What is the something?

It is not voluntarily agreed to. If it were up to me i wouldn't sell my labout eight hours a day five days a week to a capitalist (alas, working hours would be much longer under "anarcho"-capitalism), but I have to in order to earn enough money to pay for food and rent. If the choice was mine I would work in collectivised industry where all income that is produced is divided equally amongst those who produce it. Unfortunatley the current system is designed in such a way that it is extraordinarily difficult to establish a productive collective.

Note that you choose to live where you live and to eat what you eat. 40 hours a week work is not required for basic subsistence and shelter. You choose to work for that period of time for evil Mr capitalist because you desire a certain standard of living. This is in every sense a choice, and In absolutely no way is it an example of force. It seems unlikely that a production collective without any performance based incentive would yield anywhere near the income provided by a capitalist business. Promotion, the prospect of more money and power, is the only effective way to provide the motivation that drives production.

 

[dieburndie]

Jesus what the motherfuck? Post order makes no sense. *explodes* I guess all the communism in this thread has eliminated the concept of order...

 

[The_highwayman]

boring thread is boring.

 

[kime]

If there's anything more laughable than the idea that a capitalist utopia can exist without a state, it's the idea that socialism can. Seriously dude, tell me just how the fuck a massive socialist state is going to "wither away".

This is going off topic, but but when an anarchist (libertarian socialist) society is created the state is never seized and established, but rather competely destroyed, and therefore it doesn't have to whither away. I agree with you that the seizing of the state is the major problem with authoritarian communism and socialism; to use the words of Bakunin, "The dictatorship of the proletariat soon becomes the dictatorship over the proletariat." If you would like to discuss this further I would be more than happy to do so in a seperate thread.

The point of me saying it was just to point out that under a govt, qualifications requirements are probably higher than they are in capitalism. At least, more unnecessary requirements under govts (thanks to the fact that politicians need votes to get in), than under real capitalism.

I agree with you that qualification requirements would be higher under a state society.

I've seen this argument before, but I don't think it makes any sense. It suggests that selling something for more than what you paid for it is 'stealing'. It also denies the self-ownership of people, if that's how they want to do things, who are you to stop them? Unless you're somehow suggesting there is no such thing as property rights?

Indeed I am suggesting that there are no such thing as property rights. I am in no way denying the self-ownership if people, but in fact supporting it to the largest extent possible. Workers should be entitled to everything that they produce and not have to give any to the capitalist, as he has no legitimate claim to the goods. I find it ironic that capitalists think they are supporting self-ownership to the greatest extent, when in fact it is the opposite.

Ok so in anarcho-syndicalism, what happens to workers who bludge in the collectivised ownership factories? Do the other workers have the right to kick him out? If they do, then obviously this constitutes 'force' to you too. If they don't, then you're probably going to suffer from an even bigger problem with less ways to give people incentives to work...

Factories are collectivised and are operated for the needs of people, not profit. People are working for themselves, not a capitalist, so I highly doubt any workers would bludge. If a consensus is made between all workers that someone is not doing enough work, something can be arranged. The difference is in capitalism is one person (the boss) makes the decisions, whereas in anarchy everyone does.

Anyway, capitalism is voluntarily agreed to! As long as you support the idea of self-ownership, you can't logically have any opposition to the idea that people should be able to buy/sell labour.

It is not voluntarily agreed to. If it were up to me i wouldn't sell my labout eight hours a day five days a week to a capitalist (alas, working hours would be much longer under "anarcho"-capitalism), but I have to in order to earn enough money to pay for food and rent. If the choice was mine I would work in collectivised industry where all income that is produced is divided equally amongst those who produce it. Unfortunatley the current system is designed in such a way that it is extraordinarily difficult to establish a productive collective.

 

[volition]

Ok, a lot of these come from the disagreement on whether property rights exist:

Workers should be entitled to everything that they produce and not have to give any to the capitalist, as he has no legitimate claim to the goods. I find it ironic that capitalists think they are supporting self-ownership to the greatest extent, when in fact it is the opposite.

This is completely illogical, workers cannot have the right to use other people's property to make things, and then demand the full 'increased value' of the good produced.

Let's say the product makes a loss, would the worker then have to pay for the loss of every unit produced? No, because the entrepreneur is the one who takes on that risk! That's the whole point of not just making stuff yourself, when you go work for somebody, they're taking on the risk.

In fact, under anarcho-capitalism, people are free to form these collectivised ownership factories or whatever, so long as they own the factory.

I am in no way denying the self-ownership if people, but in fact supporting it to the largest extent possible.

Let me give you an analogy:
Let's say we're talking about legalising pornography. There are some people who say that pornography is degrading to women. But, disallowing women from being able to make the decision for themselves, is taking away their own right to decide. This is worse, do you agree?

Ok I know you don't agree with the notion of private property, but just for now, let's say it exists. IF private property exists, people are allowed to buy/sell their labour?

 

[kime]

Ok, a lot of these come from the disagreement on whether property rights exist:
This is completely illogical, workers cannot have the right to use other people's property to make things, and then demand the full 'increased value' of the good produced.

I think I showed in one of my previous analogies that workers have rights to the property, as they have produced enough wealth to equal its value. The capitalist has done no production. His machines are not going to do anything if someone is not working them.

Let's say the product makes a loss, would the worker then have to pay for the loss of every unit produced? No, because the entrepreneur is the one who takes on that risk! That's the whole point of not just making stuff yourself, when you go work for somebody, they're taking on the risk.

Under anarchy markets would not exist like they do in capitalism. People would not think in terms of losses and profits. I think this whole thing about risk is flawed. In modern economics I don't think risk and uncertainty actually play any role in generating profits. I'll quote An Anarchist FAQ (this FAQ is much better than that capitalist one and will probably be able to answer quite a few of your questions. I suggest you have a brief read of it):

"Firstly, the returns on property income are utterly independent on the amount of risk involved. Secondly, all human acts involve risk of some kind and so why should property owners gain exclusively from it? Thirdly, risk as such is not rewarded, only successful risks are and what constitutes success is dependent on production, i.e. exploiting labour. Fourthly, most "risk" related non-labour income today plays no part in aiding production and, indeed, is simply not that risky due to state intervention. Fifthly, risk in this context is not independent of owning capital and, consequently, the arguments against "waiting" and innovation apply equally to this rationale. In other words, "risk" is simply yet another excuse to reward the rich for being wealthy."

In fact, under anarcho-capitalism, people are free to form these collectivised ownership factories or whatever, so long as they own the factory.

Yes, and the problem under capitalism is all the factories are already owned, so it is extremely difficult for someone to acquire one.

Let me give you an analogy:
Let's say we're talking about legalising pornography. There are some people who say that pornography is degrading to women. But, disallowing women from being able to make the decision for themselves, is taking away their own right to decide. This is worse, do you agree?

Ok I know you don't agree with the notion of private property, but just for now, let's say it exists. IF private property exists, people are allowed to buy/sell their labour?

You obviously don't think like me and I obviously don't think like you, so this is going to be difficult to explain. Yes, I agree that pornography should be completely legal, but why should a woman have to sell her body and be paid a fraction of the wealth it generates when she can get some one she knows to film her and then they can share in the income it generates equally?

I do not see labour as a commodity in the way you do. Would you let some one sell themselves into slavery for the rest of their lives? What difference does it make if it is for eight hours a day?

I think the only form of anarchy that doesn't create intrinsic contradictions is anarcho-capitalism. I don't understand how anarchy could function without enforcing property rights. Anarcho-capitalism allows for conflicts between individuals to be solved through private dispute resolution institutions, how could such conflicts be resolved in anarcho-syndicalism without the possibility of private protection to replace the role of government? The end result could only be the abuse of what would be common property.

First and foremost, capitalism is not a form of anarchy (I am not going through all these argumants again) so I would prefer you didn't call it that. What conflicts do you speak of? Here you are saying that private institutions would simply "replace the role of government," and not get rid of it. What makes you think property would be abused? And property would not be "common property" in the sense it exists in capitalism.

If workers are entitled to what they produce, wouldn't that form their property? How could you ensure they reaped the benefits of their production without any means of allowing for the concept of property? The capitalist provides the capital for production, the use of their capital by workers results in production. The workers wouldnt be able to produce anything without the capitalist, so the logical outcome is the capitalist having a legitamite claim over a proportion of the output.
How is it possible that allowing for anything that has the capacity to be owned to become property supports self ownership to the least extent? It would be quite useful for you to elaborate here.

Here is where I should differentiate between property and possession. When I say property I mean property that produces wealth, also know as means of production, capital etc. You have the whole thing backwards. It not the workers would not be able to produce without the capitalist, it is the capitalist would not be able to exist without the workers--you say it as if the capitalist is doing the workers a favour!

When a worker sell her labour to a capitalist, she does not own herself for the amount of time she sells herself for. She must do exactly what she is told to do, restricting her freedom substantially.

Why not? If there is no such thing as property there is no way to differentiate between the production of each worker. As production would be divided equally, the reward would not vary based on a given worker's contribution. Here lies an incentive for the worker, or unworker should such a system materialise, to not work.

What is the incentive to work under capitalism? The threat if starvation. What is the incentive to work under anarchy? The joy of mutual aid. I know which conditions I would rather work under, not to mention more productively too.

How? These people don't have any authority over the unworker in this situation. What can be arranged? What is the something?

No, you are right in saying they don't have any authority. The thing that is arranged is decided completely by the people arranging it, so it would be foolish of me to try to give an example. I am just saying that it is much more fair if everyone has a say in the decision making process rather than one dictator making all the decisions.

Note that you choose to live where you live and to eat what you eat. 40 hours a week work is not required for basic subsistence and shelter. You choose to work for that period of time for evil Mr capitalist because you desire a certain standard of living. This is in every sense a choice, and In absolutely no way is it an example of force. It seems unlikely that a production collective without any performance based incentive would yield anywhere near the income provided by a capitalist business. Promotion, the prospect of more money and power, is the only effective way to provide the motivation that drives production.

Oh, that's right! I choose to eat and take shelter, because I could simply go without them if I didn't work. How stupid I have been!

40 hours may not be required, but some work definately is. I am still being forced to work to some extent.

Collectives do not have to continuously expand like businesses do in a capitalist market, which is based on creating new 'needs' and then products to suit those need. Essentially, an anarchy would be run on the principle " from each according to his or her ability, to each according to his or her need." I would much rather help other people and improve their quality of life, while they improve mine, than have money and power.

 

[jimmayyy]

You don't give up all power to them. You write a constitution which strictly limits the bounds of government jurisdiction and power.

Governments may be dangerous, but at least they are fairly civil and accountable in the West. The warlords/feudal corporations/whatever which would fill the void left by the state would not be so friendly.

^^^^^

 

[volition]

^^^^^

The entire point of this thread is to show how there is no way to keep govts small, once you've given them this power. Voting obviously hasn't done anything for the past few hundred years. Not that I support voting or anything, but the voting by the intellectuals of the past has never accomplished keeping govts small, and look where we are now, with govt expenditure hihger than its ever been (excluding maybe war years).

I think I showed in one of my previous analogies that workers have rights to the property, as they have produced enough wealth to equal its value. The capitalist has done no production. His machines are not going to do anything if someone is not working them.

Hang on, didn't you say you didn't agree with private property? How can you have a right to something, without holding private property rights over it? If a person can't own anything other than their own body, then who does own stuff? Does everyone own stuff equally? It certainly couldn't really be the case that nobody owned anything...

"Firstly, the returns on property income are utterly independent on the amount of risk involved. Secondly, all human acts involve risk of some kind and so why should property owners gain exclusively from it? Thirdly, risk as such is not rewarded, only successful risks are and what constitutes success is dependent on production, i.e. exploiting labour. Fourthly, most "risk" related non-labour income today plays no part in aiding production and, indeed, is simply not that risky due to state intervention. Fifthly, risk in this context is not independent of owning capital and, consequently, the arguments against "waiting" and innovation apply equally to this rationale. In other words, "risk" is simply yet another excuse to reward the rich for being wealthy."

1. They aren't independent in the sense that some ventures may never have been undertaken in the first place if it weren't for that risk-return consideration
2. Yes, I accept that all human acts involve risk of some kind, and we're best off letting each person judging these risks for him/herself. Likewise, I support their right to self-ownership to sell their labour for whatever price someone will give them. I really don't see how you can oppose this, if both people are willing, what's the hold up?
3. I don't see what this has to do with risk being irrelevant to the consideration, because people only undertake risks if they see a gain/point to it in the first place.
4. I wouldn't say that this is true, this is like saying that inventors don't play a role in the production process. They've invested their time and money into an idea, and there's a 'risk' that people won't like what they come up with yeah?
5. "risk in this context is not independent of owning capital" - I don't see what this means... can you rephrase it please? Are you saying that owning capital and risk are perfectly correlated?

Yes, and the problem under capitalism is all the factories are already owned, so it is extremely difficult for someone to acquire one.

So what? It's not their problem that you don't have something that they own... Nor do you have a claim to it, if no private property exists. And yeah, I suppose they don't have a 'claim to it' either, so exactly how does stuff work without private property anyway?

I do not see labour as a commodity in the way you do. Would you let some one sell themselves into slavery for the rest of their lives? What difference does it make if it is for eight hours a day?

It's an interesting question, the one about being able to sell yourself into slavery. I've seen it before, and on first glance at it, it doesn't look like there is anything illogical with the idea.

I have seen objections to this that run something like: From Rothbard's the Ethics of Liberty

The distinction between a man’s alienable labor service and his inalienable will may be further explained: a man can alienate his labor service, but he cannot sell the capitalized future value of that service. In short, he cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced—for this would mean that his future will over his own person was being surrendered in advance. In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else’s benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of 'voluntary slavery' is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.

So "free exit" is really the criteria that makes "voluntary slavery" nonsensical. So its ok to sell your labour time, but you can't really sell your 'inalienable human will' if you get what I mean.

But really, it doesn't matter, because it would never happen in a free society, I can't imagine why anyone would WANT to do that.

The main argument I have against yours is: If both people are willing, what's the hold up?

Although, there's probably not much point debating with you seeing as we're both anarchists. I'm more interested in showing people why govts are immoral, and you don't need to be shown that