AC: The Economics of Revolutions

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Rothbard land is not lawless.

How do you punish the breaking of laws without a proto-state? Or do you always just leave it up to the aggrieved parties to settle the matter by whatever means they deem necessary?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you try reading a book?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is one for you.

Locke: Two Treatises of Government

[/ QUOTE ]

Locke's first assumption is that without government, society becomes every man for himself.

Isn't that contradictory to the essence of society? Doesn't establishing a false premise as the foundation of your entire treatise render your entire meaningless?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was rather obtuse to say the least. The essence of society? What are you talking about?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
So if a bunch of people in Rothbardland don't respect my intellectual property rights, they'll just steal it and use it anyway -- and I won't be able to prevent it because I'm outnumbered -- and that's somehow moral?

[/ QUOTE ]
1) The alphabet wasn't "yours" to begin with.
2) The alphabet is not a scarce resource, therefore it can't be owned.
3) It's been discussed before, but IP would be much different, if not totally nonexistent under AC.

[ QUOTE ]
I'll be giving my goons a cut of the profits, so I'm not too worried about convincing my mercenaries.

[/ QUOTE ]
Profits assumes that people are buying, which in the case of the alphabet is about as unlikely as it gets. Hope your goons take Monopoly Money...

[nietzreznor]

[ 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


[/ QUOTE ]

NT,

Thanks for the clarification.