Why are right-Libertarians and even the hardcore Anarcho-Capitalists a thing? Why be against state hierarchy but be so strongly in favor of business hierarchy?
>>55218523
Agreed, but to be fair, most "anarchism" today is laughable.
>>55218523
The whole thing I never understood is, what's the difference between a business controlling things and a government? How is a government not, itself, a business, which charges for use of its territory?
Because the anarcho-capitalists think they will be the masters in the new system. It's a power fantasy.
>>55218523
Because libertarian are not against hierarchies but, allegedly, against the use of force.
This is not absolute however, as right-libertarian usually believe that an arbiter, the government, should exists in order to enforce contracts.
>>55218706
The U.S. government can force you to give it money.
The ford motor company cannot.
>>55218523
I continue to maintain that libertarianism is a very deformed cross between shit-tier (i.e. Molinari, Bastiat, Mises) classical liberalism and modern conservatism. They take all the worst parts of liberalism (support of free markets and private property) without understanding the moral assumptions the classical liberals made to JUSTIFY those things and run with it because something something initiation of force.
>>55218756
The government forces you to give it money, the Ford motor company does not.
The question of whether they can depend on who has the biggest army.
>>55218523
'left libertarianism' does not exist today.
the entire left has been co-opted by progressivism; which demands that you must do as 'people in power' instruct you.
sadly, the right is beginning to be taken over by progressives as well, i.e: donald trump, john boehner, jeb bush, all establishment GOP, etc.
>>55218756
The threat of force in private property protection is functionally the same as the threat of force in demanding tax payment. Try living in a rented house without paying rent and the landlord will use physical force if necessary. So really the difference between taxation and ownership is that you accept one as legitimate and circularly proclaim it as non-aggressive for that reason.
>>55218756
>The U.S. government can force you to give it money
The state has democracy, a mega-corporation does not. Social Democracies do usually tax their citizens heavily, but they provide benefits for the population as well.
>The ford motor company cannot
Without a democratic state that is for the people and not big bossiness, corporations could do whatever they pleased.
>>55218523
Anarchism doesn't make any sense anyway.
remove state > power vacuum is created > vacuum filled by another state > repeat
Ancoms want to replace the existing state with a committee, i.e. another state.
Ancaps want to replace the existing state with business, i.e. another state
Anarchism is just replacing one state with another, even a pure anarchist has "achieved victory" after simply destroying the current state. What do they do afterwards? Maybe form an organization that prevents to formation of another state, which in itself is another state anyway. Maybe do absolutely nothing, which creates a power vacuum that will be inevitably filled by someone else unless action is taken against it (which, again, is just another state).
Anarchism is complete nonsense, states literally have to exist, it's impossible for human beings to not form states, whether it be family, tribe, workplace, commune, city, nation - all of these are states. Removing one just replaces it with another.
>>55218523
>ITT people that do not know what a State is and the difference between a business and a State
>>55218756
Try to use a car without paying for it and without their express consent, see what happens. You could argue that the state treats land and infrastructure just like Ford Motor Company treats their cars, so it is you disrespecting a business, and initiating aggression, by not paying your taxes.
>>55219241
>it's impossible for human beings to not form states, whether it be family, tribe, workplace, commune, city, nation - all of these are states.
Nigr are you forreal? Way to dilute the definition of the state to the point that it's absolutely meaningless.
>>55219224
>corporations
Corporations are State programs man.
>>55219425
Define state in a way that it can't simply be extended into any of those categories.
>>55219395
The difference being that Ford aquired and made there car in a just fascion through voluntary exchange, gifting or original appropriation. They actually have a justification for protecting the property.
The State actually has the justification of throwing you in prison because needs food to feed the wreched.
>>55218523
>empty platitudes or reasoned arguments
It isn't a hard choice.
>>55219532
Is the state not in control of the land through original appropriation or inheritance?
>>55219467
The institutionalized monopoly on force and power in a given society, including things like a police force, parliament (to create laws), legal system (to maintain them), etc. You know, the definition anarchists have always used. There's a difference between a state and a hierarchy or an organization. The family unit is perhaps state-like in that it's hierarchical but you're not legally-sanctioned to physically beat your relatives. The only people allowed to do that are cops, who, surprise surprise, are state figures.
>>55219467
1. A state is a monopoly on the use of force
2. a monopoly justice in every conflict occuring in a geographical area
3. a monopoly on taxation.
So
>Family
1. parents do not monopolise the use of force. If they do, they go to prison
2.Parents are not one entity and both can resolve issues. When visiting other families, the same concept goes.
3. Families do not tax each other.
>workplace
1. A business owner cannot assault you unjustly(you can try and kill hm and he can defend himself)
2. In any business, if you have ever workjed you would know, conflict is resolved within department or independant teams. Totally decentralized.
3.Employee's are not taxed by the employer and in fact receive payement before the return on profit.
I could go on and on and on.
>>55218523
>hierarchy
Sorry I'm not a communist, hierarchy isn't included in my political philosophy. What we're against is aggressive force so naturally we wouldn't want force institutionalized. There is not an imposition of force in business, it's a voluntary relationship.
>>55219811
See my comment here: >>55219222
Private property by its very nature requires the institutionalization of aggressive force.
>>55219224
>corporations could do whatever they please
That's when they're boycotted and either change or die.
>>55219912
No it doesn't. Your property is your labor. If you don't agree you own your own labor and body then you're pretty deranged.
>>55219975
>mfw you guys actually believe this
>>55218523
Businesses can't take your money by force and can't maintain a monopoly without the help of the state. it is in a businesses best interest to give it's customers what they want whereas the government only cares about itself since they get to take our money regardless.
>>55220051
What do they do then?
>>55220035
My body is no one's property. The thing is, even if you hold to the view that you own the products of your labor, that doesn't say anything about whether property as a legally-sanctioned relationship of violent exclusion is justified. We're not talking about homes here. We're talking about sweatshops, factories and stuff like that.
>>55219975
Yeah, so what happens when a corporation has a monopoly on a resource?
>>55220175
>can't maintain a monopoly without the help of the state
And how is that?
>>55220187
They seem pretty fond of either calling for police protection or using private security forces to tell anyone that dislikes them to fuck off.
>>55218523
Because "business hierarchy" is voluntary, whereas "state hierarchy" emerges from the point of a sword (gun).
>>55220209
What's the difference between your house and your factory? Both are the product of your labor.
>>55219794
>3.Employee's are not taxed by the employer and in fact receive payement before the return on profit.
But taxation isn't done on just workers of the state, it's from all people living on property claimed by the state.
Also,
>conflict is resolved within department or independant teams. Totally decentralized.
How is "within the department" totally decentralized? And do you honestly believe certain issues never go up the chain of command to higher levels in a business? Because if so, I think YOU must have never worked in a business.
>>55220287
So far as I know, other people built both my house and my non-existent factory. Also I'm not extracting profits from living in my home. The whole purpose of owning a business is to extract profits.
>>55220270
How is business hierarchy voluntary? What if, in the geographic area you live in, there is nowhere to have your own land and you're forced to rent out land?
>>55220261
>ancap
>police protection
>what is nonagression
>>55220221
It doesn't happen.
>>55219975
Oh don't get me wrong, they'll change. They'll change near the end when the public is so completely fed up with their shit they'll end up supporting state-enforced Center-Left reform, because by this point many are considering full blown Socialism/workplace democracy and they'll soon have a revolution on their hands. By this point it'll still take years of progressive reform to really grow a middle class and raise standards of living to acceptable levels.
Welcome to early 20th century American history.
>>55220423
The people who made your house entered a voluntary relationship with you to trade their labor for your money (Your stored labor) It's just an exchange of labor. It's basically your labor now.
>>55220431
It's still voluntary, the fact that someone owns the land in a certain area doesn't mean you absolutely HAVE to live there.
I own all the land around my house and you can't move in, sorry.
Contrast that with a State that can take over YOUR LAND, that YOU OWN, and tell you that you have to obey such and such laws, regulations, you can't build this, you must build that, etc.
>>55220458
>It doesn't happen.
You can't just say "it doesn't happen" without some explanation for how that's prevented. If someone managed to buy up all access to an essential resource in a geographic area, how is that not a monopoly? And if you say it wouldn't happen, why not?
>>55220423
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMfTbSBLks4
>>55219636
Every cent a State owns is a product of taxation or loot. They never actually create anything.
People originally appropriate because they go on the land and transform it into some of utility. which they can trade, gift or inherit.
A State declares itself owner of the territory and does not have to do anything else but fight for it.
Preventing peopole from crossing a perimiter is not sufficient.
Now State can gift and inherit but that's someting totally different.
Like for instance if a king gifts his kingdom to another, fine but, he did not transform the land or even originally financed it. Maybe after invading he might see profit and invest stolen loot but the crime is already done.
>>55220458
>what is nonaggression
Woopee, finally someone brought up this nonsense. I assume you advocate a grab-what-you-can world?
>>55218523
Did you even read that picture you posted?
>>55220501
>It's still voluntary, the fact that someone owns the land in a certain area doesn't mean you absolutely HAVE to live there.
But what if there's literally nowhere you can go where someone else DOESN'T own land?
>Contrast that with a State that can take over YOUR LAND, that YOU OWN, and tell you that you have to obey such and such laws, regulations, you can't build this, you must build that, etc.
That's based on your interpretation that you own the land. But how do you argue that you own the land in the first place over the state? Is there anybody here who settled land without the help of the state, without the sanction of the state to expand their own national borders, and within territory that was not claimed by others?
left libertarian isnt a thing. just a front for communism. its an oxymoron.
>>55220528
no government power is in place to help companies establish and maintain themselves as monopolies. Without such power, any monopolies that do exist can only continue to do so by providing superior products to their customers. Examples of 19th century monopolies (e.g. Standard Oil) illustrate the point.
It is inconceivable that a single company manages to acquire (through purely free market transactions) a global monopoly over an essential raw material.
Without such monopoly, any other company with dominant market position in its industry will always face competition, actual or potential. The threat of such competition will force the monopoly to keep its prices low. If it ignores the threat, competitors will emerge and the monopolist will lose its market-dominant position.
>>55220594
Assumption incorrect.
>>55220482
>It's basically your labor now.
Yeah, no. How is that any different from the Marxists who talk about abstract labor hours in production? Stop being such a damn liberal, dude.
>>55220569
http://mattbruenig.com/2015/10/01/capitalism-is-coercive-and-creates-patterns-of-deprivation-as-explained-by-libertarian-blockquotes/
>>55220584
>People originally appropriate because they go on the land and transform it into some of utility. which they can trade, gift or inherit.
This initial appropriation is still an issue you 'tard.
>>55220638
>But what if there's literally nowhere you can go where someone else DOESN'T own land?
Then you have to either buy or rent land.
> But how do you argue that you own the land in the first place over the state?
I guess if you mean "the state of law" you can't, but you can have a deed that's commonly recognized, you don't need the state to "distribute" land.
>>55220584
>People originally appropriate because they go on the land and transform it into some of utility. which they can trade, gift or inherit.
So how do you determine the borders of this appropriated land? What defines the exact boundaries? This is important, because how do you settle boundary disputes if someone nearby appropriates land? What if someone's use of some land affects the quality of your own land? Are they damaging your property? Are you entitled to that land that has potential to damage your own?
>>55220715
Then you don't support non-aggression in any non-ideological sense. Play again sometime.
>>55220746
>How is that any different from the Marxists who talk about abstract labor hours in production?
Because it's not abstract, and it's not coercive.
>>55220755
>Then you have to either buy or rent land.
Then the hierarchy is not optional.
>I guess if you mean "the state of law" you can't, but you can have a deed that's commonly recognized, you don't need the state to "distribute" land.
I do mean in an abstract sense, how do you argue that the land is rightfully yours?
>>55220821
If you're directly building those things, I'm sorry but there is some level of abstraction involved in claiming it's YOUR labor.
>>55220884
>>55220821
Sorry, if you're *not directly building those things.
>>55220884
You exchange labor for money, you exchange the money for labor. It's pretty simple.
>>55218523
Because both groups are retarded and can't form logical opinions
>>55220378
>But taxation isn't done on just workers of the state, it's from all people living on property claimed by the state.
Your missing the point.
What I am saying is that the State will tax your ass. You do not chose to pay your taxes
A business does not taxe you and doesnt even force you to remain on it's property.
>How is "within the department" totally decentralized? And do you honestly believe certain issues never go up the chain of command to higher levels in a business? Because if so, I think YOU must have never worked in a business.
Ok buddy, your a cunt. don't expect to be taken seriously when you cut out half my answer.
>And do you honestly believe certain issues never go up the chain of command
Having a chain of command does not imply centralization. For instance, a federation in the jeffersonian model is extremely decentralized even if a federal government exists.
And a higher level in business is something functionnal not privilegial people aquires 98% of the time there position. Nobody in a business hierarchy can force a person to do something.
I means can't you see the differences?
>>55220693
>can only continue to do so by providing superior products to their customers
What do you mean providing superior products? If they're a monopoly they have no competitors. That's the definition of a monopoly.
>It is inconceivable that a single company manages to acquire (through purely free market transactions) a global monopoly over an essential raw material.
What is inconceivable about this? This argument is effectively the same as just saying "it doesn't happen". I don't understand what's preventing it.
>>55220934
Abstract nonsense, spooks. I didn't labor directly you twat.
>>55221008
Well of course YOU didn't labor, you're a marxist.
>>55218756
>The U.S. government can force you to give it money.
>The ford motor company cannot.
What is ObamaCare.
>>55221113
But I'm not. Though I'll admit I laughed.
>>55220989
>What I am saying is that the State will tax your ass. You do not chose to pay your taxes
>A business does not taxe you and doesnt even force you to remain on it's property.
A state doesn't force you to stay on its property, either. You can move somewhere else and renounce your citizenship. And as I was arguing with another person earlier, if there is no land that is unowned anywhere that you can possible go, then you are forced to pay rent to somebody.
>Ok buddy, your a cunt. don't expect to be taken seriously when you cut out half my answer.
Because I had no quarrel with the second part of your answer, but it doesn't cover all cases, and the wording you used to cover other cases is not sufficient.
>Having a chain of command does not imply centralization. For instance, a federation in the jeffersonian model is extremely decentralized even if a federal government exists.
No, I agree, it doesn't imply outright centralization, but it does imply that things can be handled elsewhere outside the department yet without an independent party.
>And a higher level in business is something functionnal not privilegial people aquires 98% of the time there position. Nobody in a business hierarchy can force a person to do something.
I'm kind of unclear on your point here. A business can fire somebody, or it can restrict access to their product (i.e. land) from a specific customer. The only thing I can really see here that defines a state is their monopoly on justice, but how do you fairly determine an arbiter in a dispute in an anarcho-capitalist society? What if one party challenges the disinterest of the arbiter? What recourse is there?
>>55220997
>personal incredulity fallacy confirmed
I'm out
>>55220868
You're presenting a false dilemma. Again, no one is forcing you to live on that particular land, whereas the government can do whatever it wants with you.
>I do mean in an abstract sense, how do you argue that the land is rightfully yours?
Lawfully, by use of deeds and the like. I'm not an anarchist, Libertarians believe in courts and laws.
>>55221433
>>personal incredulity fallacy confirmed
>I'm out
It's not a fallacy, m8. I can personally imagine scenarios where it does happen. So I'm waiting for a demonstration of what socio-economic restraints happen in an anarcho-capitalist society that prevents it.
>>55220770
first things first, how do you think it would occure. try to think about a way in which it could function.
Second, from a conceptual level borders are created by transforming the land you want "to border". So either you build a fence(that's in a one person on earth scenario).
In a two person scenario, well they agree this is yours and this is mine, this is how we delimit and blahblahblah.
If one decides to steal from the other, he shoots the guy and eliminates the threat.(don't forget only 2 humans on earth. 2 males with nothing to loose but there lives).
On a national scale,
Let assume Bob Smith wants some property. He can do 3 things.
1.Buy it from someone
2.create it himself
3.get it as a gift.
By moving somewhere regardless of the means, you as a person would want protection from robbery, murder, rape and well wtv you want in fact.
As a consummer you would shop for a court provider in case issues occure. The court actually could be chosen by an insurance company that incluides the service in it's deal.
These court could ask a number of things in order to get judgement from them(humhum basically one way privateregulation can occure). Maybe they would make you pay an extra fee if your missing a camera or wtv.
Now I am tired of writting so, do you see where I am going with this?
Anyway, look into John Locke his writtings are very clear.
>>55218523
Because they live in a magic fairy land where they think everyone can live together peacefully with no rules. They have the complete opposite idea of commie fags but both have the same pitfalls of ignoring reality
>>55221470
>You're presenting a false dilemma. Again, no one is forcing you to live on that particular land, whereas the government can do whatever it wants with you.
I guess in the sense that you could die. But you are being forced to live on someone's land if all land is already owned. And even you responded that you have to rent out someone's land in that case, and then of course you'd have to obey whatever restrictions of use they put on it.
>Lawfully, by use of deeds and the like. I'm not an anarchist, Libertarians believe in courts and laws.
That's not what I mean. I mean, who determines what deed is legitimate? What if there's two competing deeds? What is the legitimate method of establishing initial land ownership? Sorry, I'm guessing I wasn't quite clear on that, and that's a specific point that I'm sure we're going to disagree on that leads to my disagreement.
>>55221655
>But you are being forced to live on someone's land if all land is already owned.
You can buy the land, that's pretty much the one ethical means to acquire it.
>who determines what deed is legitimate?
Courts.
>>55220250
essentially government intervenes on the behalf of the company to secure its interests, giving it a special advantage over others.
Patents are a widely accepted form of this.
>>55221596
>As a consummer you would shop for a court provider in case issues occure. The court actually could be chosen by an insurance company that incluides the service in it's deal.
And how is this not the formation of a government? I know of John Locke's writings, but how does an insurance company or court gain authority in inter-land disputes? And how is that unique from a government? Because in John Locke's writings (though I don't entirely agree) government operates on a social contract.
>>55221722
>You can buy the land, that's pretty much the one ethical means to acquire it.
And if you don't have the means to buy it?
>Courts.
So you don't have a central philosophy on what defines land ownership in the first place? Because that's what I was saying further on there.
>>55221849
Yeah, but that doesn't mean that there's no other way for a company to obtain some special advantage that leads to a monopoly.
>>55221392
>A state doesn't force you to stay on its property, either.
Absolutly it does. In Canada for instance, you need a passport to leave and return. You need to go through emigration procedures and you have to revoke your right to free movement in the country.
Further more, under every State known to man, unles you go very deep inna woods, they will prevent you from building shelter as you prefere.
You are not free to leave. You can assert your freedom to leave, but the State doesnt have to respect that.
>Because I had no quarrel with the second part of your answer, but it doesn't cover all cases, and the wording you used to cover other cases is not sufficient.
So asentence that covers people from within and people from outside does not cover everything? What is there some etherial reality? with something else then everyone. I mean this is logic 101.
>I'm kind of unclear on your point here. A business can fire somebody
Well in a contract , there are firing clauses which you agree to. A business could say well I can't fire you, it's just not very wise.
> it can restrict access to their product (i.e. land) from a specific customer.
Not after trading or giving. That would be theft from there part. Further more, unless the person is a known criminal, why should I sacrifice profits for shits a giggles? The person being prevented from accessing another person property is not being violated.
>The only thing I can really see here that defines a state is their monopoly on justice
Well no man. To own a monopoly on justice, you have to enforce a law that criminalizes the creation of other courts of justice. That requires a monopoly on force.
>but how do you fairly determine an arbiter in a dispute in an anarcho-capitalist society?
It can emerge in many way. Like with insurance companies. Or simply because John Smith and Chris Padder agree's to have Georges the magnificiant to judge. Or because you subscribe to a chain of courts(out of characters)
>>55221953
>And if you don't have the means to buy it?
Then you don't. Life isn't fair, you don't get everything you want.
>So you don't have a central philosophy on what defines land ownership in the first place?
Legal philosophy can get pretty complex, but outside complex political land-claim issues I don't see the complication, you either lawfully buy the land or inherit it, for the most part.
didn't read the thread
but "business-hierarchy" vs. state
well the with state only asshats rise up
in the business world anyone can become a leader
>>55222625
What if we want no leaders? :(
>>55218523
Left "libertarianism" is completely incoherent.
How do you propose to maintain equality with a small state?
Kind of silly, right? They're the exact same thing.
So privatize the government.
>>55222730
>forcing equality
>having a state
Neither of these are a part of left libertarianism.
>>55222565
>Then you don't. Life isn't fair, you don't get everything you want.
Yeah, and that's my point. The hierarchy is not completely optional.
>Legal philosophy can get pretty complex, but outside complex political land-claim issues I don't see the complication, you either lawfully buy the land or inherit it, for the most part.
Yeah, but if nobody owns the land, how do you establish ownership?
>>55221894
>And how is this not the formation of a government
Because it does not conform to any definition any person as come up with to this day.
The court does not own a monopoly on force or justice or taxation.
How many time is this going to be repeated?
>Because in John Locke's writings (though I don't entirely agree) government operates on a social contract.
I know but his logic on appropriation is solide. Don't forget most people where deists and such at this point of time.
> but how does an insurance company or court gain authority in inter-land disputes?
Explained it many times already.
You don't want to loose your property, or get killed or rape. therefore you go to judge-mart check what kind of justice you prefere, sign a contract, have a nice day.
>how is that different from a government
They can't deprive you of your property. Can't Initiate force. Has to compete with other eitites within the same geographical area. Can't be more black and white man.
My take is that generally people do not have to go to court all the time. Therefore, people would probably buy life and property insurance and this entity would take care of finding a judge and dealing with the problem.
And the only way they can be relevant and get money is offering a service people want for a fee that covers the cost of operation and saving.
