Comments for Libertarian Anarchy http://libertariananarchy.com Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work! Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:36:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on The Gods and Clods Fallacy by Nick http://libertariananarchy.com/2011/09/the-gods-and-clods-fallacy/comment-page-1/#comment-4983 Nick Sat, 04 Feb 2012 17:36:46 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=553#comment-4983 The scenario you construct is completely divorced from reality. Who is the employer? Is the employer divorced entirely from preference and bias? Is there a pure and obvious mathematical rubric to guarantee that all "management" or "brain toil" jobs are being done to the same level of quality? Would work great in a petri dish. So would communism. We don't live in a petri dish. So we have some messy in between designed to accommodate the weaknesses inherent in human nature. The scenario you construct is completely divorced from reality. Who is the employer? Is the employer divorced entirely from preference and bias? Is there a pure and obvious mathematical rubric to guarantee that all "management" or "brain toil" jobs are being done to the same level of quality?

Would work great in a petri dish. So would communism. We don't live in a petri dish. So we have some messy in between designed to accommodate the weaknesses inherent in human nature.

]]> Comment on Government Against the Poor by Jon http://libertariananarchy.com/2008/11/government-against-the-poor/comment-page-1/#comment-4975 Jon Thu, 02 Feb 2012 22:40:54 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=77#comment-4975 Since recording time of man you had poor people. Time of Christ he stated, you will always have the poor among you, or at that time slaves! It will never change until God's time if you beleave in a higher power. As one person stated it's not just Government it's the super rich that controll or influence Government. You see it today with most the rebublicain party members. Look no futher than thier front runner Romney! His statement about the poor says it all! The articale doesn't mention the disabled, seniors, veterians and disabled veterians of wars all that payed into social security! Look around the world and more than 50% below poverty and are working slave wages! NAFTA is a big part of why good American jobs are gone and now we see the effects of it. Fact, soon you will be super rich or the working poor for them! Since recording time of man you had poor people. Time of Christ he stated, you will always have the poor among you, or at that time slaves! It will never change until God's time if you beleave in a higher power. As one person stated it's not just Government it's the super rich that controll or influence Government. You see it today with most the rebublicain party members. Look no futher than thier front runner Romney! His statement about the poor says it all! The articale doesn't mention the disabled, seniors, veterians and disabled veterians of wars all that payed into social security! Look around the world and more than 50% below poverty and are working slave wages! NAFTA is a big part of why good American jobs are gone and now we see the effects of it. Fact, soon you will be super rich or the working poor for them!

]]> Comment on Anti-intellectual Intellectualism by adam http://libertariananarchy.com/2008/12/anti-intellectual-intellectualism/comment-page-1/#comment-4966 adam Wed, 18 Jan 2012 17:26:39 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=115#comment-4966 @maja read more hoppe and others on the privatization of security... the argument is there. you already agree that the state is immoral, so if you take the logical steps, you may see that they are not necessary for those tasks. @maja
read more hoppe and others on the privatization of security… the argument is there. you already agree that the state is immoral, so if you take the logical steps, you may see that they are not necessary for those tasks.

]]> Comment on Capitalism: Moral, Practical, Necessary by Question/Critique http://libertariananarchy.com/2011/11/capitalism-moral-practical-necessary/comment-page-1/#comment-4964 Question/Critique Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:22:48 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=588#comment-4964 Second – you’ve made a distinction here between “free market capitalism” and what you’ve called here “state capitalism.” You’re also claiming that the former is the more efficient system, and will ultimately produce greater wealth, if not equality, for all, whereas the latter produces “undesirable and unintended consequences.” But this is not the case historically. In fact, the opposite is true – the period 1945 to the mid-1970s is often called the “Golden Age” by historians, since income inequalities were at their lowest in the United States, Canada and most of the Western European countries, and growth rates averaged between 4 and 5 percent. This period, though, was not characterized by anything close to a “free market,” since states imposed restrictions on cross-border capital flows, and also established numerous social welfare programs that did not operate according to free market logic. By contrast, the period since the late-1970s, and especially since the 1980s, has been characterized by the dismantling of the capital controls and social programs established during the early postwar period. In short, since the late-1970s, the market has been more “free” than ever. But income inequality in the United States, Canada and Western Europe has also been greater than ever during this period. And growth, moreover, has been slower in this period, usually hovering around 2 percent. So in light of this historical evidence, I’m wondering: how would you justify your claim that free market capitalism, “far from impoverishing the masses, enriches them at an incredible rate?” Second – you’ve made a distinction here between “free market capitalism” and what you’ve called here “state capitalism.” You’re also claiming that the former is the more efficient system, and will ultimately produce greater wealth, if not equality, for all, whereas the latter produces “undesirable and unintended consequences.” But this is not the case historically. In fact, the opposite is true – the period 1945 to the mid-1970s is often called the “Golden Age” by historians, since income inequalities were at their lowest in the United States, Canada and most of the Western European countries, and growth rates averaged between 4 and 5 percent. This period, though, was not characterized by anything close to a “free market,” since states imposed restrictions on cross-border capital flows, and also established numerous social welfare programs that did not operate according to free market logic. By contrast, the period since the late-1970s, and especially since the 1980s, has been characterized by the dismantling of the capital controls and social programs established during the early postwar period. In short, since the late-1970s, the market has been more “free” than ever. But income inequality in the United States, Canada and Western Europe has also been greater than ever during this period. And growth, moreover, has been slower in this period, usually hovering around 2 percent. So in light of this historical evidence, I’m wondering: how would you justify your claim that free market capitalism, “far from impoverishing the masses, enriches them at an incredible rate?”

]]> Comment on Capitalism: Moral, Practical, Necessary by Question/Critique http://libertariananarchy.com/2011/11/capitalism-moral-practical-necessary/comment-page-1/#comment-4963 Question/Critique Mon, 16 Jan 2012 19:21:11 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=588#comment-4963 I have a couple of questions/points of critique. First – you’ve argued here that the labour theory of value was long ago “exploded,” and replaced by the “subjectivist notion of prices being determined by the relationship between supply and demand.” But it’s not clear in this article how the relationship between supply-and-demand “determines” prices, as you put it. It’s obvious, of course, that the relationship between supply-and-demand determines fluctuations in commodity prices – an increase in the supply of, vis-à-vis the demand for, a particular commodity will decrease the price of that commodity, and an increase in demand vis-à-vis supply will increase its price. But it’s not at all obvious how the relationship between supply-and-demand determines the general level around commodity prices fluctuate – why is it that the price of bread, for instance, fluctuates around three dollars per loaf, instead of thirty or three-hundred dollars per loaf? I have a couple of questions/points of critique. First – you’ve argued here that the labour theory of value was long ago “exploded,” and replaced by the “subjectivist notion of prices being determined by the relationship between supply and demand.” But it’s not clear in this article how the relationship between supply-and-demand “determines” prices, as you put it. It’s obvious, of course, that the relationship between supply-and-demand determines fluctuations in commodity prices – an increase in the supply of, vis-à-vis the demand for, a particular commodity will decrease the price of that commodity, and an increase in demand vis-à-vis supply will increase its price. But it’s not at all obvious how the relationship between supply-and-demand determines the general level around commodity prices fluctuate – why is it that the price of bread, for instance, fluctuates around three dollars per loaf, instead of thirty or three-hundred dollars per loaf?

]]> Comment on Philosophical Anarchism — Government as Necessary Evil by DJP http://libertariananarchy.com/2011/11/philosophical-anarchism-government-as-necessary-evil/comment-page-1/#comment-4946 DJP Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:46:31 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=574#comment-4946 The thing that bothers me is that we see so clearly where government fails, and also the problems associated with powers that the government should not have. And we are inline with the founders of this country. That said, we have to wonder how we got to the point we are at now? How have our citizens become so brainwashed? I think that some things that we need to teach are more logic, more critical thinking, and more history. The thing that bothers me is that we see so clearly where government fails, and also the problems associated with powers that the government should not have. And we are inline with the founders of this country. That said, we have to wonder how we got to the point we are at now? How have our citizens become so brainwashed? I think that some things that we need to teach are more logic, more critical thinking, and more history.

]]> Comment on Capitalism: Moral, Practical, Necessary by DJP http://libertariananarchy.com/2011/11/capitalism-moral-practical-necessary/comment-page-1/#comment-4945 DJP Fri, 16 Dec 2011 15:22:29 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=588#comment-4945 @ frame correctly please: I like how you find conclusions based on statements without showing why anything you conclude could happen, and just saying it does. He is not implying that everyone will own a market, nor does everyone have to. Exclusion? From what? How? Profits are the natural product of time preference (interest), wages, and prices. In a VOLUNTARY society, how is there exploitation when anyone is free to work for someone or not? Your reaction to capitalism is based on an initial problem but you have no idea how those problems are then solved by capitalism. Just the fact that you state "How can there be freedom in a world dictated by private ownership" shows you really don't understand private property rights. Public ownership creates conflict, not solves it. Read some Hoppe on the ethics and economics. Learn about the socialist calculation problem and you might learn a thing or two. @ frame correctly please: I like how you find conclusions based on statements without showing why anything you conclude could happen, and just saying it does. He is not implying that everyone will own a market, nor does everyone have to. Exclusion? From what? How? Profits are the natural product of time preference (interest), wages, and prices. In a VOLUNTARY society, how is there exploitation when anyone is free to work for someone or not? Your reaction to capitalism is based on an initial problem but you have no idea how those problems are then solved by capitalism.

Just the fact that you state "How can there be freedom in a world dictated by private ownership" shows you really don't understand private property rights. Public ownership creates conflict, not solves it. Read some Hoppe on the ethics and economics. Learn about the socialist calculation problem and you might learn a thing or two.

]]> Comment on The Root Problem: Corporations or Government? by ianj http://libertariananarchy.com/2010/05/the-root-problem-corporations-or-government/comment-page-1/#comment-4938 ianj Sun, 04 Dec 2011 18:35:03 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=382#comment-4938 How is anarchism in conflict with capitalism? I would imagine the two compliment one another perfectly. Today, where does government arm its military branch from? Government factories? No; the military industrial complex. It's not free-market, but it is analogous to the free market. An arms industry would flourish just as much in a free marketplace as it would under a corporatist government. The basis of natural rights is the idea that rights, as enunciated by a bill of rights, exist in the state of nature - you have the right to defend your property from theft. You have the right to be secure in your possessions. Government is just one way to ensure that right is protected. How is anarchism in conflict with capitalism? I would imagine the two compliment one another perfectly. Today, where does government arm its military branch from? Government factories? No; the military industrial complex. It's not free-market, but it is analogous to the free market. An arms industry would flourish just as much in a free marketplace as it would under a corporatist government. The basis of natural rights is the idea that rights, as enunciated by a bill of rights, exist in the state of nature – you have the right to defend your property from theft. You have the right to be secure in your possessions. Government is just one way to ensure that right is protected.

]]> Comment on Capitalism: Moral, Practical, Necessary by Toban http://libertariananarchy.com/2011/11/capitalism-moral-practical-necessary/comment-page-1/#comment-4936 Toban Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:31:16 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=588#comment-4936 If you deny property rights altogether, that's a whole other issue. Once we admit property rights, free market capitalism follows. Government, by definition, violates property rights. Without government, you could have all sorts of voluntary socialism, syndicalism, etc, but you'd pretty much be guaranteed to get markets as well. If you deny property rights altogether, that's a whole other issue. Once we admit property rights, free market capitalism follows. Government, by definition, violates property rights. Without government, you could have all sorts of voluntary socialism, syndicalism, etc, but you'd pretty much be guaranteed to get markets as well.

]]> Comment on Capitalism: Moral, Practical, Necessary by frame correctly please http://libertariananarchy.com/2011/11/capitalism-moral-practical-necessary/comment-page-1/#comment-4935 frame correctly please Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:50:31 +0000 http://libertariananarchy.com/?p=588#comment-4935 Like a true capitalist you've let out much of the story in order to frame something in a way that supports you. Even wikipedia presents a more accurate picture of Capitalism, including mentioning private ownership, wage labour, for profit production, and well as so called free, competitive markets. The picture you present implies everyone will own a market to participate, but under capitalism, theoretically and realisticly, that is not true. Capitalism realies on a profit mechanism, therefore un-sustainability, labour exploitation, and basically exclusion of many. Some of the many are disproportionately affected more than others. Anarchism socialism, anarchist feminism, anarchist syndicalism creates conditions based on actual freedom for all. How can there be freedom in a world dictacted by private ownership. Simply understanding colonialisation, which is still going on today- presents the injustice of capitalism. Some people just walked over and claimed to own the land inhabited by others. Who owns the earth? No one. Who owns other people? No one. Then why does capitalism, as you call "moral", create these conditions? Like a true capitalist you’ve let out much of the story in order to frame something in a way that supports you. Even wikipedia presents a more accurate picture of Capitalism, including mentioning private ownership, wage labour, for profit production, and well as so called free, competitive markets.

The picture you present implies everyone will own a market to participate, but under capitalism, theoretically and realisticly, that is not true. Capitalism realies on a profit mechanism, therefore un-sustainability, labour exploitation, and basically exclusion of many. Some of the many are disproportionately affected more than others.

Anarchism socialism, anarchist feminism, anarchist syndicalism creates conditions based on actual freedom for all. How can there be freedom in a world dictacted by private ownership. Simply understanding colonialisation, which is still going on today- presents the injustice of capitalism. Some people just walked over and claimed to own the land inhabited by others. Who owns the earth? No one. Who owns other people? No one.

Then why does capitalism, as you call “moral”, create these conditions?

]]>