there is no society without unequal dynamics due to the tragic view of life. Some countries are resource poor and some are rich. commerce tends to equalize this on the grand scale to the point that 100s of millions today have luxuries like ac and indoor plumbing few kings had access to.
on the contary, the austrians adovocated for multipl…
there is no society without unequal dynamics due to the tragic view of life. Some countries are resource poor and some are rich. commerce tends to equalize this on the grand scale to the point that 100s of millions today have luxuries like ac and indoor plumbing few kings had access to.
on the contary, the austrians adovocated for multiple competing currencies and were against money without backing and artificial high inflation. Floating exchange rates and consumer choice would tend to favor good money.
yes the whole anarchocapitalism exposed by david friedman is that voluntary private agencies much like how insurance is done could be subscribed to enforce property rights. in some cases low crime or in an area might make them unecessary but just like insurance you could choose to buy when and how much you needed.
you either have lawlessness or communism either way someone is not free to keep the fruit of thier own labor. Marx thought the the worker doesnt keep 100% doesnt make sense because the worker produces in one dimension but consumes in many. If the worker is paid 100% instead of 10% then the hand made clothing costs 10xs as much and he has no savings do to specialization.
The whole genius of a market economy is its voluntarism and uncentralisation yet its order.
But fixing the money, not protecting monopolies, and removing coercive violence and downsizing government so that negative rights not positive are emphasized would be an immese recovery of both wealth and personal liberty.
Aaron, is there anything specifically in the article on Capitalism that you think is inacurate or disagree with?
I think we may be approaching this subject in fundamentally different ways. I just don’t share your ‘tragic’ view that such inequality of hierarchy and power is inevitable or necessary, or that it can’t be avoided or its power removed.
Hierarchy has been resisted and mitigated in the past by more cooperative societies, some of which lasted longer than our current one, such as the Indus Valley civilisation in which the common people had indoor plumbing long before capitalism.
However, if you believe in hierarchy of wealth or power then I don’t think that you are an anarchist, because anarchy literally means anti-hierarchy (no one over anyone else). If you believe in capitalism I don’t see how you are an anarchist either, because capitalism literally means a few private individuals having capital which generates wealth & resources, which others have to pay to access. That is a fundamentally hierarchal (anti-anarchist) power relationship.
You might feel that you could place confidence in private insurance agencies, but I would be willing to to bet they will end up protecting those who pay them more, and ultimately give little to no protection to those who can’t afford to pay them. This is because money warps true value and enforces those who have it having power over those who have less, by means of paywalls or paid force.
I’m not a Marxist so I won’t defend Marx’s views, but anarcho-communism (which existed before him) is a system without money, so you can’t apply the same concepts of prices or wages calculated as they are under capitalism. There are no consumer prices, nor wage labour, nor economic / commodity markets at all within anarcho-communism, nor have such concepts existed for most of human history. I would encourage you to study more about traditional Anarchism so you can have a better understanding of it.
I don’t believe you can have negative rights without positive ones (or vice versa) - you cannot allow what you cannot enable & you cannot enable what you do not allow. A right without a way to exercise it is just a hope unlikely to be realised.
These are bigger subjects than this kind of forum allows room for, so I’d encourage you to pick a specific question / claim to write an article on, sharing the link so I can give a proper response. I’ll look forward to reading it.
there is no society without unequal dynamics due to the tragic view of life. Some countries are resource poor and some are rich. commerce tends to equalize this on the grand scale to the point that 100s of millions today have luxuries like ac and indoor plumbing few kings had access to.
on the contary, the austrians adovocated for multiple competing currencies and were against money without backing and artificial high inflation. Floating exchange rates and consumer choice would tend to favor good money.
yes the whole anarchocapitalism exposed by david friedman is that voluntary private agencies much like how insurance is done could be subscribed to enforce property rights. in some cases low crime or in an area might make them unecessary but just like insurance you could choose to buy when and how much you needed.
you either have lawlessness or communism either way someone is not free to keep the fruit of thier own labor. Marx thought the the worker doesnt keep 100% doesnt make sense because the worker produces in one dimension but consumes in many. If the worker is paid 100% instead of 10% then the hand made clothing costs 10xs as much and he has no savings do to specialization.
The whole genius of a market economy is its voluntarism and uncentralisation yet its order.
But fixing the money, not protecting monopolies, and removing coercive violence and downsizing government so that negative rights not positive are emphasized would be an immese recovery of both wealth and personal liberty.
Aaron, is there anything specifically in the article on Capitalism that you think is inacurate or disagree with?
I think we may be approaching this subject in fundamentally different ways. I just don’t share your ‘tragic’ view that such inequality of hierarchy and power is inevitable or necessary, or that it can’t be avoided or its power removed.
Hierarchy has been resisted and mitigated in the past by more cooperative societies, some of which lasted longer than our current one, such as the Indus Valley civilisation in which the common people had indoor plumbing long before capitalism.
However, if you believe in hierarchy of wealth or power then I don’t think that you are an anarchist, because anarchy literally means anti-hierarchy (no one over anyone else). If you believe in capitalism I don’t see how you are an anarchist either, because capitalism literally means a few private individuals having capital which generates wealth & resources, which others have to pay to access. That is a fundamentally hierarchal (anti-anarchist) power relationship.
You might feel that you could place confidence in private insurance agencies, but I would be willing to to bet they will end up protecting those who pay them more, and ultimately give little to no protection to those who can’t afford to pay them. This is because money warps true value and enforces those who have it having power over those who have less, by means of paywalls or paid force.
I’m not a Marxist so I won’t defend Marx’s views, but anarcho-communism (which existed before him) is a system without money, so you can’t apply the same concepts of prices or wages calculated as they are under capitalism. There are no consumer prices, nor wage labour, nor economic / commodity markets at all within anarcho-communism, nor have such concepts existed for most of human history. I would encourage you to study more about traditional Anarchism so you can have a better understanding of it.
I don’t believe you can have negative rights without positive ones (or vice versa) - you cannot allow what you cannot enable & you cannot enable what you do not allow. A right without a way to exercise it is just a hope unlikely to be realised.
These are bigger subjects than this kind of forum allows room for, so I’d encourage you to pick a specific question / claim to write an article on, sharing the link so I can give a proper response. I’ll look forward to reading it.
that sounds wise i will definitely read up and further find out how to go about it. thanks for your detailed replies