Hierarchy and anarcho-capitalism

Which is why you need everybody behind you, rather than just taking the easy way out and going off with a minority of people, who might work in places where the majority are opposed to your idea.

I didn't say that people should drop it, I was just pointing out that that is an option. The better way (IMO) would be to continue to argue for it, to come up with concrete plans on how the changeover could be made, give people something to vote for and make your case for it. Though it is the case that sometimes you just have to live with not getting your own way.

Honestly, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't twist my words, it doesn't make your argument look any stronger.

Just my two cents: the renewable energy argument is a really bad one. 1) If an anti-capitalist revolution occurs, I think it is fair to say sustainability and renewable resources are going to be an integral part of that revolution. 2) The reasons for renewable resources are twofold: reduce global warming and to limit the immediate affects on the surrounding environment. Under worker control, the workers are presumably going to reside around the places they work, and thus will logically seek to produce in the cleanest way possible. Perhaps a better line of argumentation would be the occurrence of some division within the day to day decision making of a plant. Well, since it is going to be direct democracy, chances are it is going to be a win-some lose-some type deal (overall compromise or just from one day's vote to the next) so in a situation where all have equal say in every decision, reaching some sort of acceptable middle ground is that much more achievable.

Anyway, some to the Libcom Wobs have been following your discussion, just thought you might want to see what we think: http://libcom.org/forums/iww-right-libertariananarcho-capitalistswhatever-17112007

The defining characteristics of the state are coercion, use of force, or threat of the use of force. In the event of a company town, it has not only private security, but other coercive measure (i.e. starvation) to force compliance. Incidentally, I don't buy the 'free markets would inherently guard against monopolies' argument for one fucking second. The measures by which compliance is ensured within company towns--pinkertons, company stores, company housing, even company money--are the proven outcome of unfettered markets, not the ridiculous, wholly unfounded ideas tossed around by these free-market types.

I think this is a bad example. If the survival of the planet is dependant on it, and everyone is aware of the consequences, it seems unlikely you would get a big vote against it. Perhaps I am being too dismissive, but this reminds me of the old strawman stuff I would come up against like "what if everyone voted to make rape okay" or something. Or course, it is late and I am a little drunk.

edited to fix tags

I agree with this, the example is clearly a loaded one based on the views of the poster that posed it and isn't really going to achieve anything other than drag the topic off on a tengent about that specific issue. Madashell already covered the only reasonable way you could deal with it, so if ethical can't accept that answer because of his own views then that's an issue for him.

Glad I'm not the only one who still checks libcom after a nite of drinking.

I rarely post sober. It tends to get in the way of being loud, obnoxious and self-righteous.

The other important aspect of this argument, esp in relation to market 'anarchists,' is the fact is that anarchism does not supposed some utopia where everyone agrees. Disagreement and argument are a strength of anarchism in that those are the exact factors that would lead to progress and development of society. The beauty of anarchism is that horizontal, federated direct democracy allows for ways of decisions to made and implemented be implemented, while the state relies on violence, and "Libertarians" rely on mythical (and coercive) "market forces."

Sure, and under "anarcho"-capitalism no one will be imprisoned for, say, not paying rent or some other crime? The whole system is based on private cops and prisons. It could be argued that the landlord/boss does not imprison you, only their agents. But under capitalism, the state is the agent of the landlord/capitalist class and imprisons you on its behalf.

So, really, what is the difference between the landlord's private cops arresting you and you ending up in a private jail and the landlord calling the public police and you ending up in a public jail?

Equally, the landlord can only evict you if there is another property owner willing to take you in. Remember, everything is private property in "anarcho"-capitalism. You cannot even get onto the road/pavement if you pay for it. So what happens if you cannot afford to pay? Can the landlord kill you?

And, of course, the landlord determines the rules on his property. The state determines the laws on its territory. As Rothbard himself admitted, the only difference is that private property is "just" (in theory, at least). If the inventor of "anarcho"-capitalism admits the likeness, well, that should really end it.

As I said, look at section F.1 of An Anarchist FAQ.

Yep. The only thing I can think of being more horrible than state-run prisons are privately run prisons - no regulations whatsoever and each competing to run most "cost effectively".

D2

2 madashell

If you prefer that people don't twist your words maybe you shouldn't do that to them.

"rather than just taking the easy way out and going off with a minority of people, who might work in places where the majority are opposed to your idea"

Being a minority is not an easy way out. It never was, and never will be. An easy way out is compromise, which basically means "If i can't get what i want, neither will you".

"The better way (IMO) would be to continue to argue for it"

The problem with arguing for it is that you will just continue doing that forever. The point of anarchy is direct rather than indirect decision making process. So if such an important issue splits your "community" then you probably were just lying to yourself all along, and you don't actually have the community, but rather some sort of loose association or a federation.

Unfortunately this isn't a far out argument, throughout the history there were a lot of times when a majority believes something which will eventually be a very negative thing. For example, look at libcom.org, the majority of people here see nothing wrong with using non-humans as food or test subjects. If there would be a "vote" then they would just reinforce this behaviour and continue with it, arguing that non-humans simply have no voice (just like women were only 5/8'th of a human, or africans about the same proportion).

In fact we don't need to only look at animal lib; i am participating in an anarchist forum in Russia, well, majority of people there seem to believe that feminism is a demand for "special rights"; they believe that women should not have equal pay for their labour "because they are weaker".

So it's not a "strawman argument", but rather a situation which happens everywhere, but we simply chose to believe that it is an exception from the rule rather than the rule itself.

er, are you saying women are a numerical minority, or that animals should get the vote?

I didn't, I've disagreed with you, but that's not the same thing. It's just that this:

Reeks of "I'm going home and I'm taking my ball with me" to me. It's an odd way of looking at compromise among equals, as well. Sometimes, both sides can gain something by making concessions to each other, rather than nobody getting anything or a minority going off on their own and achieving fuck all. Almost as if there's some kind of mutual relationship, where everybody involved aids each other.

Eh? No, the point of an anarchist society is that we'd no longer have to take direct action to get things done, that we'll have decision making processes which represent us adequately. Otherwise, what's the fucking point?

Mate, you're the one arguing for a split in this imaginary community of yours, over a vote being a bit contentious. This is exactly the problem with consensus decision making and other non-"majoritarian" (fuck off, just fuck fucking off) decision making structures, it either becomes a mechanism for endless splits, schisms and informal hierarchies or a de facto vote where the least belligerant have to pretend they agree with the most obnoxious to move things forward.

But the reality is (as others have pointed out), if it was such a pressing issue, you'd be unlikely to have 60% of the community or industry voting against it.

So fundamentally, you're opposed to democratic decision making in case you don't get your way and you think that women and Africans are comparable with animals?

Hmm. What are your feelings on the Jew?

No, i clearly did not say that. In fact i was arguing against the majoritarian vote system as the basis for the society.

Ok, now you are beginning to come up with real arguments. That is in fact true. I would have no problem with the group coming up with the consensus decision to accept the results of the majoritarian vote that will take place.

I know that it is an oversimplification, but it's just like you going to the cinema with your friends. You all agree to go to see the film together, but then you might compromise on exactly what you are going to watch. However, it would make to sense to have a vote right away and to drag people with you who don't want to watch anything at all. (I repeat, i know that i'm over-simplifying)

Ok, that's also where i disagree with you. For me anarchist revolution differs from all others that for us ends and means are the same. So the anarchist society is coming from and not simply after anarchist struggle. In other words since means are compatible with the ends, ends will also be compatible with the means. Otherwise there will have to be some sort of "non-hierarchical" bell which is rung to signify the end of the anarchist revolution, after which struggle is no longer needed, and people must structure their lives differently.

Not quite, since i've said that it would have to be the vote on the important issue, so it's not "a bit contentious" it's something that both sides feel strongly about.

And i see no problem with the small communities, current "nations" aren't communities at all. If they split up i will have no problem with that.

well not very well, imho. i mean, given as women aren't a numerical minority, a vote to oppress women seems a pretty unlikely example. and it's not just on libcom a majority of people think it's ok to eat animals. the argument's been done to death but consensus is a load of egocentric, inegalitarian balls.

No to the first question, and stop twisting my words to the second.

This is unrelated to the discussion, but non-the-less here's the answer.

The term "Jew" can mean either religion or nationality.

The latter is a fictitious construct based upon some characteristics which are unrelated to any political discussion (such as facial features, etc). So in this way i can only say that any individual must be equal (but not the same!) to any other individual.

However, if we talk about Jewish religion then it gets different. I fundamentally oppose to Jewish religion, as much as to any other organised or jealous religion. However, it must be up to any individual to chose whether or not to practice the spiritual aspect of that religion. To put in more simply i will support the Jews (spiritual) but oppose Jewish religion.

These things can be applied to any other "nationality" and religion.

Non-humans are also the majority... just thought i'd point it out.

so, you do think animals should get the vote?

Except that nobody is arguing for an issue to be raised and a vote to be held immediately, with no discussion. Obviously you try to reach a consensus, you try discussion and compromise and proposal and counter-proposal, but sometimes, people just fundamentally disagree with each other, and taking a vote and going with the majority is just the least worst option.

We'll know it's over when we're not being shot at any more. It's about that simple.

Really? You really don't see the problem with the 40% of the community who are opposed to destroying the planet fucking off and leaving the other 60% who want climate change for some reason (hardcore sun bathers?) to pollute all they like? Can you not even see the flaw in your own logic here?

Beyond that, factionalism and cross-community sectarianism are serious problems in the here and now, personally, I'd rather they didn't carry over to any kind of post-revolutionary society.

Oh, get a fucking sense of humour, you basket case

1: i would say only a tiny minority of posters here could abide using animals as test subjects, and they suck.
2: but eating them, yeah probably.
3: and if i was stranded in the andes, i'd eat humans too.

I'm kind of disappointed ethical hasn't honed in on any of my arguments and picked a fight with me, I guess my arguments are just that good

Newyawka, I'm gonna have to challenge you on this one. Agreed most would not support for purely cosmetic purposes--makeup and shampoo and what not, but not even for medical research??? Rats for cancer treatment or monkeys for a cure for AIDS? Really?

true, i was thinking of cosmetic stuff. yes i suppose a majority of posters would support using animals as medical test subjects.

poll?

In ethical anarchism, cow votes to eat you.

Ho ho. Why's that? Are cosmetics "sinful"?. You've got to admit, that's a value-laden perspective if ever there was one.

1: we're talking about the likelihood of the population of libcom, not about me
2: the violation of 'values' isn't 'sin'
3: but yes, those are my values. pure envy, everyone must be as ugly as i am.
4: are you lazy riser?