AC: The Economics of Revolutions

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about the crystal ball that tells you exactly what anarcho-capitalist society will be like post-revolution, despite the fact that nearly every revolutionary in history has been very surprised by what happened when they actually pulled it off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody plans exactly what is going to happen in anarchocapitalism, hence a decentralized economy.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason why people should NOT be stating with absolute certainty what society will be like under this system, and implying that others are cretins for believing otherwise.

NT

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
All the more reason why people should NOT be stating with absolute certainty what society will be like under this system

[/ QUOTE ]
Is someone doing that? It's been stated many times by ACers that they don't exactly know what would come about under AC, but they can offer guesses as to what might.

[bisonbison]

I can tell you've been reading your Rothbard.

Dude, I haven't read a word. I just smoked a little more pot.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm an anarchist. Unlike some people around here.


[/ QUOTE ]

NT,

I'm curious as to what kind of anarchist you are (seriously).

I'm also curious as to why Boro's anarcho-capitalism does not count as anarchism.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All the more reason why people should NOT be stating with absolute certainty what society will be like under this system

[/ QUOTE ]
Is someone doing that? It's been stated many times by ACers that they don't exactly know what would come about under AC, but they can offer guesses as to what might.

[/ QUOTE ]

More or less anytime I've pointed out problems I think you'll face in AC society (and many times others do it as well) I get a very dismissive response that said problem will not happen for one or more of the following reasons:

1. The state will no longer be present to facilitate it

2. People will boycott the company if they do that

3. Competition will eliminate that

4. People will realize that's -EV and avoid it

...and then someone tells me I don't know what I'm talking about. Typically these answers don't really address the point of the argument and once this is pointed out there is an AC dogpile of people nitpicking tangential points, making excuses or just being rude.

When someone points out (like bison) situations where serious problems could arise, he is typically met with silence, or nonsubstantive responses.

NT

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm an anarchist. Unlike some people around here.


[/ QUOTE ]

NT,

I'm curious as to what kind of anarchist you are (seriously).

I'm also curious as to why Boro's anarcho-capitalism does not count as anarchism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have almost as much beef with the nuts and berries crowd as I do with the anarcho-capitalists. But at least the nuts and berries idiots are talking about doing something that's already been done, so we know under certain circumstances it's possible.

The problem with 'anarcho-capitalism' (and we've been through this before) is that the point of anarchism is to be free of all coercion wherever possible. That includes the coercion of the market, or of the manager. The AC argument is that the market doesn't 'coerce' you, you can always opt out. Well, when your choices are an exploitative relationship or death by starvation, you don't have many options.

The other excuse is that coercive market practices are typically propped up by the state, and therefore will cease to exist under an AC society. But capitalists have a propensity for monopoly and coercion with or without the state's assistance. Nobody has made a convincing argument as to how an anarcho-capitalist society would evolve from our current state of affairs in which corporations (many of which already have financial and security resources to rival those of small nations) will not create, or make real efforts to create, a 'monopoly on the legitimate use of force' (which is Max Weber's definition of a state in the first place).

The astonishing faith of anarcho-capitalists in the ability of the market to sort itself out is not supported by history. For instance, in the middle and late 19th century, before the labor movement and state regulation were brought to bear on capitalist interests, there was both explosive growth, and also great instability and fits of stagnation and depression. There is no denying that capital produces great wealth and innovation at times. There is also no denying that it is extremely inefficient when it comes to creating stability, long-term environmental and resource management, and consistent quality of life.

I take a very pragmatic view of anarchism. It is something, like democracy, that only exists when and where it is being practiced. Participatory forms of government and organization lend themselves less and less in their pure forms to 'institutions,' and rely on a community of practitioners. It's possible that anarchism cannot exist on any great scale, and quite likely that other interests will seek to stamp it out wherever it sprouts up. This is a fact I have accepted.

NT

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Even jr. high educated, inner city gangs know this truth, and avoid "gang war" at all costs.

No, they have few direct confrontations in force, but they have small skirmishes all the time at the fringes, and those skirmishes may be dangerous to bystanders.

[/ QUOTE ]

And why do they have these skirmishes? Because the state has excluded them from peaceful dispute resolution processes.

[bisonbison]

And why do they have these skirmishes? Because the state has excluded them from peaceful dispute resolution processes.

Hahahahaha.

Which gives me a chance to post another hypothetical.

A woman 28 year old woman with a 10 year old kid kills someone. She's obviously incarcerated. She has no money, and no family. The kid's gonna be on the street.

Do we rely on the existence of charities to take care of any possible unpleasantness?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]


Great business plan!


You're thinking very narrowly about this. Your imagination for what people do to each other in order to turn a buck is quaint.

You only need to corner the supply locally in order to profit from such cornering. In a lawless society, there is no barrier to making physical threats against rivals in order to reduce supply in the market.

And it doesn't help to drop prices if thieves of your goods can sell them well below your cost. A thief breaks into your room at a hotel while you're out and steals a necklace. How much does he have to sell that necklace for to turn a profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

monopolies cannot form under free market conditions. people in free market conditions have every intention to try form a monopoly, but doing so can almost never be achieved. One can, with great effort, possibly achieve a de facto monopoly, but they could only do so by strictly servicing the consumers. this all means that their power will be forever contingent on their low prices and good product/service.

Also, if you think we need police to control the people, then, who do you think controls the police?

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
And why do they have these skirmishes? Because the state has excluded them from peaceful dispute resolution processes.

Hahahahaha.

Which gives me a chance to post another hypothetical.

A woman 28 year old woman with a 10 year old kid kills someone. She's obviously incarcerated. She has no money, and no family. The kid's gonna be on the street.

Do we rely on the existence of charities to take care of any possible unpleasantness?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I would certainly contribute to a charity that took care of local orphaned children. Wouldn't you?

Will