A belief of mine....

...generally, the Democrats are incompetent at knowing how to drive a political campaign at the national level, and have been so, since Eisenhower. Only amazing politicians (Kennedy, Clinton) and those who can bring in the south (LBJ) win. Since the Southern Baptists became social conservative, any social liberal democrat (with the exclusion of Clinton) loses. Carter was seen as a church-goer, and he only won when competing post-Nixon.

Let's face it, Obama would not even have a chance except for Bush seen as a total failure.

ETA: This is not a statement of who I would prefer to have win. It's a statement about the ability of Democrats to run a national campaign. Look at the reaction to Palin: deer in headlights.

I am not sure I blame the Democrats for that -- at least, not entirely. I do blame the South. After the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of 1964 and Nixon's southern strategy, the South would not vote for a Democrat except one of their own. That split remains until the present day, and it has hardened over time. White southerners still think Bush is a good president. In this environment, the Democrats don't have the confidence to say what they believe. I don't think the Democrat's response to Palin has been incompetent. I do think that the Palin nomination reenergized cultural conservatives, who will vote for Republicans until or unless a depression comes along, and the Democrats are once again faced with the fact that they can't reach this consistency, except by moving away from the core beliefs of the party.

I don't think, except in times of crisis, we've ever truly recovered from the Civil War.

ETA: This is not a statement of who I would prefer to have win. It's a statement about the ability of Democrats to run a national campaign. Look at the reaction to Palin: deer in headlights.
_____

I suggest you look at the campaign run by Obama. Even the Republicans are impressed beyond belief about how impressive -- amazing, even -- that has been. They even use the word "scary".

Republicans being "scared" -- outside their usual manufactured paranoia as excuse for their politicas of fear -- is a good sign: it shatters their usual hollow arrogance presented as "competence".

More generally, the Deomocarts "can't" run a successful national campaign so long as they don't do as the Republicans do: appeal to the basest of human passion, the lowest of the low, wth hate-speech and the politics of paranoia. What, as example, have traditionally local issues such as gun control/regulation -- which in reality has existed since the advent of guns -- to do with national governance and international realities? Nothing -- except as a lie used as a tool to scare the willies out of paranoids over nothing.

Abortion? An opportunity to feel "rightous" based upon unrelated irrelevancies which would be relevant if the issue were education.

Gays? Ontological anxieties dragged into the racist-theological realm.

Obama wouldn't have a chance were Bushit not a failure? So: if Bushit weren't a failure, Obama's organizational skills wouldn't have existed?

If Bushit weren't a failure, McSame would therefore be a success?

As for "reaction" to Palin: as time wears on, more and more of her female followers are being made jealous -- and hostile toward her -- by her hyped "attractiveness" and the "responses" to that by their boyfriends and husbands, who actually act as if they'd have a chance with a person who wouldn't give them a second look.

"I am not sure I blame the Democrats for that -- at least, not entirely. I do blame the South. After the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts of 1964 and Nixon's southern strategy, the South would not vote for a Democrat except one of their own."

Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting Rights Act of 1965.

"That split remains until the present day, and it has hardened over time."

It may have "hardened," but it isn't that hard, and it is changing, as during the past 3-4 decades many educated Northerners have mced to the South and established themselves there.

"White southerners still think Bush is a good president."

Some. And even many who did no longer do. And see above.

"In this environment, the Democrats don't have the confidence to say what they believe."

Not at all true. The difference is that those who tend to support Republicans are those who tend to support winning by any means. Where they are the powerless, they support bullying. Where they are racist, they tend to support bullying and cheating.

Where they are uneducated, they tend to believe name-calling and shouting down alternative points of view is "debate" and "winning the argument".

"I don't think the Democrat's response to Palin has been incompetent."

Palin was an unanticipated anomolous monkey wrench thrown into the mix. The first responses were to point to her being unqualified -- which is the reality. The next was to endeavor to ignore her -- which should be more or less possible, except that she has engaged in a degree of hate-speech with consequences that cannot be ignored.

"I do think that the Palin nomination reenergized cultural conservatives, who will vote for Republicans until or unless a depression comes along, . . . ."

So-called "cultural conservatives" -- bigots against alternative points of view -- will support the same ilk even if the world is burning down. Very few of them are able to rise above their self-centeredness in order to consider issues as being as important as their own thumbs for the purpose of thumb-sucking.

"and the Democrats are once again faced with the fact that they can't reach this consistency, except by moving away from the core beliefs of the party."

And faced with the nonsense that the electorate is divided "right down the middle". In fact, 70+ per cent are "socially liberal," but -- due to lack of information and no lack of fear-mongering from the right -- "conservative"/reactionary in terms of foreign policy. They're for leaving others alone, by and large, on one hand, but on the other for bomb first then only later find out if one should have; and then being ambivalent about admitting the results of that inquiry.

They'd rather "move on" than look at and CORRECT their errors BEFORE "moving on".

A small minority has refused to "let go" of the "Southern cause". They are as hateful -- and falsifying of legal history and history -- and loud-mouthed as ever.

But the vast majority don't continue to live in that past, else Obama would not be winning the election.

I have read somewhere that when the civil rights acts were passed as part of LBJ's Great Society, he said that he knew the Democrats had lost the South for a Generation.

I hope that generation is over, yellow-dog Democrat that I am!

Yes, he knew and said that. I hope that generation is ended also.

I don't, though, no the relation of yeallow-dog to it; I've always understood a yellow-dog Democrat to be what is today called "DINO".

The saying was that a "yellow dog Democrat" would vote for the Democratic candidate even if that candidate were a yellow dog -- they would always vote Democratic, no matter what.

It was associated with the "Old South", which was the most reliably Democratic part of the country before the New Deal, and even to an extent up to the Great Society. And "yellow dog" itself, I think, is a Southernism. Wikipedia has an article on the phrase I haven't actually read. But many of such southerners did abandon the Democratic Party in the latter half of the twentieth century, and most were very conservative no matter which party they were part of.

The "Democrats In Name Only" (DINOs) you may be thinking of could be a right-wing faction of conservatives in the Democratic Party that call themselves the "Blue Dog Democrats". Recall that in the rest of the world (and in the US up to the 2000 election), "reds" like me are to the left and "blues" to the right.

Thanks for explaining yellow dog Democract, daschaich. My MiL first used the phrase around me about 15 years ago and it fit.

I don't understand your last sentence, though....

In the United States, blue is the color associated with the Democrat Party (as in "blue state"), while red is the color associated with the Republican Party ("red state").

In most of the world, it's exactly the opposite. The more conservative parties are associated with the color blue, while the more liberal parties (often socialist or social democratic) are associated with the color red. This is also what tended to be done in the United States before the year 2000, though not as consistently since the true "reds" (socialists and communists) were locked out of the electoral system. Since the "Blue Dog Democrats" were founded in 1994, they called themselves "Blue Dogs" to indicate that they were conservatives, while at the same time referencing the "yellow dog" phrase to indicate that they remained reliable Democrats, unlike many other conservative Democrats who had switched to the Republican Party by that time. (There's also some story that they chose the name to say they were being "choked blue" by the left, which I don't give much weight to.)

Nowadays in the US, red and blue are closely associated with the Republican and Democratic Parties, respectively. This was locked in during the 2000 election, which was the first to feature extensive (and extended) 24-hour cable news coverage. Echoing, but subtly altering, the traditional significance of red and blue, most (though far from all) coverage of the election used blue to represent the incumbent party, red to represent the challenger. As a result, when "blue state" and "red state" entered the cultural lexicon, the Democrats ended up with the typical conservative color, Republicans with the typical liberal color. It's a little ironic, since even though the Democratic Party is relatively conservative in global terms, it tends to be to the left of the Republican Party.

A belief of mine;

Democrats and Republicans are branches of the same party.

Traditional Conservatives i.e. anti-Corporate legislators like Eisenhower who warned us of the military industrial complex no longer exist in the US.

Significant shifts in policy only come about when the business community turns against them.

There has never been any significant or widespread correlation between public policy and public attitude.

Don't expect much agreement on any of those points :)

Democrats and Republicans are not "branches" of the same party. They are different parties with very different philosophical foundations.

As for your "Traditional Conservatives": Eisenhower was not a legislator; he was a president.

They do have very different philosophical foundations but to suggest that they still adhere to their philosophical foundations is naive. As with Eisenhower you are correct legislator is no the right word, but his warnings as President are pretty stark and in my opinion correct. Theodore Roosevelt who obviously had many conservative values and a healthy streak of racism would be appalled by both Democrat and Republican politics now particularly in relation to economy.

In the post-war (WW2) period there have been virtually no substantial shifts in policy. There is an irrational faith now attached to certain parties. "If you vote for them they will raise your taxes" or "If you vote for them Medicaid will be a shambles". It is a lie; the basic structure of power can never be questioned through the so-called democratic systems of the even more so-called civilised western democracies. Both Democrats and Republicans have continuously been involved in wars to the extent that if every US president was to be tried under the Nuremberg principle that aggression is the worst form of war crime they all would have been hanged including JFK including Bill Clinton.

The notion that there is a massive polarisation between again so-called leftists and rightists (whatever those terms are supposed to mean) is totally erroneous in historical terms. Take for example the notion that one party is more effective in terms of Medicaid. The United States has consistently ranked last in the top 20 industrialised nations of the world for infant mortality, under both democrat and republican. Democrats are supposedly the more socially aware of the two parties while it was Bill Clinton who effectively dismantled the Welfare State insofar as the United States had one. This is why I struggle to understand how venomous US election campaigns can become. I wonder if anyone will ever run under the banner of "Maintain the Status Quo" yet ultimately that is the result of election after election after election. Anybody ever heard teh fundamental way the system is organised being called into question? I maybe have once in all my time enjoying the often depressing elements of US politics. The strange thing is I live thousands of miles from the US yet feel this need to be informed.

You might say I am not very well informed but anyway that is not for me to decide. Perhaps at one time in their 'philosophical foundation' there was some major dichotomy between the two parties but if you ask me I have seen very little difference or very few major shifts in policy since the post-war period. Even changes that do come firmly root the shambles that we rely upon to make our voices heard; generally known as elections.

At least we can agree on religion JNagarya :)

Fourseasons, what policies would you like to see?

I am an Anarcho-Syndicalist which really does not encompass a static or stationary philosophical basis. There has been a massive denegration of the idea as workable through propaganda as well as an instant repulsion at the mere mention of the word anarchy, therefore I hesitate to use it but unfortunately it is the word that most closely describes my standpoint.

Basically the idea is the attainment of a vastly more democratic process through mass decentralisation and destruction of State power. Furthermore it contends that without a degree of economic equality among the population there can be no meaningful enjoyment of the liberties we are supposedly afforded in the current situation. I guess the nearest equivalent you could find that has been proposed for the the current form of Democracy is Senator Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy. Fundamentally it is based on the notion that there is an innate altruism within man and that he can survive with a greater degree of success through cooperation than competition. I apologise to the feminists for my use of man and he just trying to make a point :)

There have been various notable successes under this idea although they have unfortunately all been crushed by force. The most notable examples of this in practice are found in pre-Civil War Spain, Russia, Paris Commune, Israeli Kibbutz though this is no longer true, maybe also in East Timor before the Indonesian Annexation; the Timorese situation was certainly far more egalitarian and cooperative after their civil war, though this was short lived. I guess there have been bursts of this in action throughout the world at various stages but none succeed generally due to external pressures.

Again though I must stress that the idea of Anarchy as Peter Marshall suggests (Author: A History of Anarchism) that it can be treated as a river incorporating many streams, divergences and tributaries in its evolution; one which Marshall traces back to Tao Buddhism and of course Christianity. I guess if you wanted to examine in more detail Anarchism in its most evolved form then I would take a look at Mikhail Bakunin, William Godwin, Noam Chomsky, Peter Kropotkin, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Oscar Wilde, though there are so many that have contributed ideas even to mention specific names in reference to my belief seems illogical.

I am still only a youngster so I guess you could say that I am daily formulating new ideas or refining older ones but my beliefs have not hit a wall. So there are no real policies per se but there is an ideal situation in which policy would be decided locally and deal with local concerns with an overriding sense of cooperation. It is dependant on a change in the soul of man and a return to 'natural' beliefs or conclusions towards which it is supposed that Anarchy will also contribute. I guess if you were to say I have any sort of a faith based belief it would be in Anarchy and her beautiful implications for us all :)

Are you familiar with Lunar or Carnophile? Lunar describes himself as an Anarcho-Syndicalist and carnophile is a little less anarcho but definitely swings from the Libertarian branch. On the books thread, I invited JNargaya to join us at Pro & Con where much political discussion takes place. Join us over there, I can guarantee you Lunar will welcome the reinforcements.

If I am not mistaken, Lunar describes himself as an Anarcho-Capitalist. Whether this is close to an Anarcho-Syndicalist or the polar opposite depends on your point-of-view.

Time for What kind of Anarchist are you?.

If so, my mistake. We still need more points of view in Pro & Con.

I do not believe Anarcho-Capitalism will ever work as capitalism is fundamentally based on competition. I am aware of the concept but hold little stock in it. I am an anarcho-syndicalist, which is not a million miles away from libertarian socialism however libertarians as with the party in America tend to have an authoritarian streak. e.g. Frank Zappa I do not believe these people deserve the term libertarian but it has been effectively usurped.

Apologies if that makes no sense 3.39 am here and I am quite drunk :)

#14--

Basically the idea is the attainment of a vastly more democratic process through mass decentralisation and destruction of State power.
_____

Accusing me of naivete for pointing out that the two major parties have different philosophical foundations, therefore are not two "branches" of the "same" party is bizarre in view of the simply stupid idea that destruction of "state power" makes sense.

I'll 'splain it for you:

1. Humans are not perfect;

2. Not being perfect, humans are imperfect;

3. Being imperfect, humans are prone to error, usually of excess;

4. The purpose of law is to regulate -- constrain -- the excesses of imperfect humans;

5. The purpose of state -- which is a system of laws -- "power" is the enforcement, as necessary, of the laws.

Originally humans started out not knowing any better, so everything was settled by "might makes right". Problem is, that isn't secure or stable, so does do well as foundation for stability, survival and perpetuation of human society. So we surrender a little freedom -- such as the "right to kill others" -- for a little security -- such as others' "right to kill us".

Granted, humans aren't perfect, so nothing humans make is perfect, including gov't and rule of law. But state power, and its enforcement of law, tends to reduce the amount of murder.

You would demolish stability and backstep "civilization" by at minimum one step of progress: from instability to stability.
_____

Furthermore it contends that without a degree of economic equality among the population there can be no meaningful enjoyment of the liberties we are supposedly afforded in the current situation. I guess the nearest equivalent you could find that has been proposed for the the current form of Democracy is Senator Mike Gravel's National Initiative for Democracy. Fundamentally it is based on the notion that there is an innate altruism within man and that he can survive with a greater degree of success through cooperation than competition. I apologise to the feminists for my use of man and he just trying to make a point :)
_____

Great. I'm for cooperation over competition. But I'm opposed to roommates in cooperatives combining together for their interests against mine.
_____

#20 --

"Libertarianism" in the US is RIGHT-wing (it is the party of the various lunacies and nuttinesses based upon self-centered wishful thinking over reality).

Do you really want to try to talk "progressive" -- center-left -- and "Libertarian" and "Anarchy" and "right wing" in the same breath?

Accusing me of naivete for pointing out that the two major parties have different philosophical foundations, therefore are not two "branches" of the "same" party is bizarre in view of the simply stupid idea that destruction of "state power" makes sense.

Yes in their foundations but I was speaking in the present tense; as in today not when the parites were founded. The choice you are handed between Dem and Rep is what private interest groups you want to see pandered to for the next 4 years, that is it no more no less. I have seen no discernible difference between the administrations since the second world war except on niggling and ultimately false abstractions on how monumental state power should be used. As it turns out both parties when given the opportunity used this power effectively the same way. That is enacted an aggressive foreign policy and keeping the domestic rabble in line. I am not sure how aware you are of the consistent gap between public attitudes and public policy but it grows ever larger and the notion historically that a population has ever been represented by is a government is a historical falsehood and is easily demolished through an actual examination of how historically the US and all supposedly democratic systems work.

I'll 'splain it for you:

1. Humans are not perfect;

2. Not being perfect, humans are imperfect;

3. Being imperfect, humans are prone to error, usually of excess;

4. The purpose of law is to regulate -- constrain -- the excesses of imperfect humans;

5. The purpose of state -- which is a system of laws -- "power" is the enforcement, as necessary, of the laws.

Originally humans started out not knowing any better, so everything was settled by "might makes right". Problem is, that isn't secure or stable, so does do well as foundation for stability, survival and perpetuation of human society. So we surrender a little freedom -- such as the "right to kill others" -- for a little security -- such as others' "right to kill us".

Again all of this stands up to no historical or archaeological scrutiny. Your belittling of human development by implying that humans did not know any better and that might makes right is a total phallacy. Humand being never existed like this and if you examine how the medieval world operated you will see that up until exceptionally recently the state had absolutely no impact on the lives of most people. They existed without encroachment and somehow managed to flourish and survive.

Of course I am not advocating the right to kill but I will further add that the law is far from the only thing preventing people from murder. Secondly the notion that we need a police force to capture murderers. It is true that few would consider it reasonable to totally dismantle the police force but again there is little weight in the idea that the police prevent all that much. Certainly they are the ones we ask to respond after the fact. Some people were quite successful at murdering raping and rampaging for years while evading the police. If such efforts were localised the possibility of the occasional deranged human slipping through unnoticed is severely diminished. I highlight the fact that it is only the occasional crazy who goes on a spree killing, over 90 per cent of murders are driven by economics generally domestic economics or marital discord. Over 90 per cent of murder victims know their killer also. The society that is willing to give up liberty for a little security deserve neither liberty nor safety; surely you can tell who gave us that little gem :)

Human beings are far from perfect so why then should we entrust our future to teh ultimate of imperfect human organisations i.e. the state. I think you will find again historically that great advances in personal freedoms are attained through times of discord and anarchy. The tendency on the part of mercantile or noble elites to usurp this has hampered this development massively in my opinion. During the English Civil War for example there was a massive anarchic (insofar as the idea existed at the time) element of the peasantry. Both the Royalists and the Merchant class (essentially the two main protagonists of the war) saw a great need for the quelling of basic notions of liberty to be extended to the whole population. They were horrified by this notion. One of them remarked (can't remember the name) at the time that these ideas were making the people 'so curious that they will never show enough humility to submit to a civil rule'. I find it interesting to see the same ideas essentially being spouted at me four centuries later.

Great. I'm for cooperation over competition. But I'm opposed to roommates in cooperatives combining together for their interests against mine.

The idea that one could not live comfortably under this system and that everything would be reduced to a collectivist mode of life again is untenable. I must stress the fundamental change in the soul of human beings that anarchy not only requires but will also facilitate. This notion is perhaps put most lucidly in Oscar Wilde's somewhat lesser known political writings.

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/hist_texts/wilde_soul.html

Maybe I am wrong that man can comfortably and peacefully coexist through systems of free association and cooperation with control over the means that dominate their life i.e. production. Then again what have we got to lose only our chains. Surely you can tell me where the last mine came from also.

J, I can't help but believe from the tone of your posts that you are an angry and unhappy man. It's unfortunate for you that the rest of us are just so dumb.

After inviting you to join us at Pros & Con, I hope now that you will not join us, mostly for your sake. Your angry sense of superiority would not stand you in good stead there. We're not much on being lectured to, we like to discuss. You just wouldn't be happy with engaging with others and like I said we're past being preached at.

You go your way and I'll go mine. How's that?

#24 --

J, I can't help but believe from the tone of your posts that you are an angry and unhappy man.
_____

I'll assume that refers to my verbatim quotes from the first Georgia constitution, which shredded your anti-Constitutional claims re. the First Amendment and your "right" to confuse "religion" for the Founders' actual intents on the point. (I can do the same with other such founding materials.)

I simply don't allow uninformed and irrational gibberish presented as "fact" to go unrefuted.

The bottom line isn't that I'm "angry" but that I don't remain silent in the face of dumbnitude. "Personal preference" and BS and bluff do not stand in place of objective fact, and I don't remain silent in the face of such corruptions.
_____

It's unfortunate for you that the rest of us are just so dumb.
_____

I note, Mr. Angry, that you make no effort to address, let alone refute, any of the points I make. Instead you revert to the usual substitute: name-calling. I'll assume that is consequence of the fact that you cast everything in anti-intellectual terms -- as "feel" -- whereas I distinguish between "feel" and "think," between "feel" and fact.
_____

After inviting you to join us at Pros & Con, I hope now that you will not join us, mostly for your sake.
_____

I already explained my experience and position on that issue; you needn't attempt to substitute your after-the-fact anger for those. And I already said that I reject the invitation for my own sake, and detailed why.
_____

Your angry sense of superiority would not stand you in good stead there.
_____

Right: don't confuse you with the facts, else the best "response" you can make is to name-call.
_____

We're not much on being lectured to, we like to discuss.
_____

Stating unequivocal facts which refute your uninformed gibberish isn't "lecture," regardless that it leaves you with no factual response.

And, no, you don't "discuss": you agree not to attack ideas -- name-calling is acceptable, even though not "discuss"ion -- and to only kick around agreed ideas, without regard for whether they are valid or even true. All that matters is the mutual affirmation of ideological positions: I won't "offend" you if you won't "offend" me. That isn't "discuss"ion; it is mutual masturbation.
_____

You just wouldn't be happy with engaging with others and like I said we're past being preached at.
_____

I present facts, you lie that they are "lecture" -- and now "preaching". And I don't allow you the dishonest out of name-calling as substitute for having something relevant and factual to say. My time is more valuable than to waste it playing circle-jerk with children who preach their "religion" and how everyone must read the "bible," blah blah blah.
_____

You go your way and I'll go mine. How's that?
_____

I'll go where I see fit. And I'll back what I say with fact -- and actual sources -- instead of with name-calling, and your preachment that everyone is expected -- it is "mandatory" -- to read the "bible".

#23 --
. . . .

Great. I'm for cooperation over competition. But I'm opposed to roommates in cooperatives combining together for their interests against mine.
_____

The idea that one could not live comfortably under this system
_____

I did live under that "system" -- and as I noted is was not comfortable.
_____

and that everything would be reduced to a collectivist mode of life again is untenable.
_____

The difference being is that I've lived in and under (and debated in real-time) the very circumstances you imagine would be so wonderful. My statement on that point is the summary of the experience. Everyone is "free" to do as they please, including ganging-up in order to force their will onto others.

All your theories of "freedom" are but half the truth -- which is the thematic point I made: the other half is responsibility. You can "freely" steal my bread, and take "responsibility" for having done so by eating it too fast and thus self-inflicting gas pains. But I want law enforcement to get my bread back before you make yourself ill and then impose yourself onto the taxpayer-funded healthcare system.
_____

I must stress the fundamental change in the soul of human beings that anarchy not only requires but will also facilitate.
_____

Neither of which is going to happen -- especially the latter. See again my summary.
_____

This notion is perhaps put most lucidly in Oscar Wilde's somewhat lesser known political writings.
_____

Oscar Wilde was not an "anarchist"; his personality says as much.
_____

Last but not least:

"I'll 'splain it for you:

1. Humans are not perfect;

2. Not being perfect, humans are imperfect;

3. Being imperfect, humans are prone to error, usually of excess;

4. The purpose of law is to regulate -- constrain -- the excesses of imperfect humans;

5. The purpose of state -- which is a system of laws -- "power" is the enforcement, as necessary, of the laws.

Originally humans started out not knowing any better, so everything was settled by "might makes right". Problem is, that isn't secure or stable, so doesn't do well as foundation for stability, survival and perpetuation of human society. So we surrender a little freedom -- such as the "right to kill others" -- for a little security -- such as others' "right to kill us".

Again all of this stands up to no historical or archaeological scrutiny.
_____

Except that it does. See John Locke, and the presentation of his fundamentals in the first constitutions of New Hampshire and Vermont.
_____

Your belittling of human development by implying that humans did not know any better and that might makes right is a total phallacy.
_____

(The word is "fallacy".) I'm actually a humanist and optimist. And I don't belittle human "development"; the issue is excesses, and the protection of humans from humans in that regard. Has the development of "nukes" really been necessary?
_____

Humand being never existed like this and if you examine how the medieval world operated you will see that up until exceptionally recently the state had absolutely no impact on the lives of most people.
_____

And the medieval world is the earliest known stage of human history?
_____

They existed without encroachment and somehow managed to flourish and survive.
_____

That doesn't manage to reveal its meaning to any great degree. "They existed without encroachment"? Who were "they"? There wasn't "encroachment, so there weren't wars arising out of overlapping/competing claims?

I did live under that "system" -- and as I noted is was not comfortable.

I highly doubt it but I will entertain this idea and ask where and when?

All your theories of "freedom" are but half the truth -- which is the thematic point I made: the other half is responsibility. You can "freely" steal my bread, and take "responsibility" for having done so by eating it too fast and thus self-inflicting gas pains. But I want law enforcement to get my bread back before you make yourself ill and then impose yourself onto the taxpayer-funded healthcare system.

I feel you may be too set in your ways to reverse this erroneous notion that the police will successfully return with your loaf of bread and wont just find a potential culprit lying in an alley with apparently gastroenteritis. Then based on the fact that he has gastroenteritis they will haul him in beat him until he admits. Maybe get you in for some token effort and have you say "That's the guy, right there". Basically what I am saying is the actual likelihood of police finding stolen objects before they are destroyed, eaten whatever is very slim indeed. That is why the point you tried to make here negates what I have just pointed out above about localised forms of law enforcement. The police are afforded far too many rights with few responsibilities. I now over here if you make a complaint against a police officer you are lucky if it ends up in the bin.

Oscar Wilde was not an "anarchist"; his personality says as much.

Mmmmm, deriving a conclusion of politics from personality. I am reminded of the totally irrational forces that operate during election time. I received a letter through my door regarding a local councillor who was running in the elections. The first thing it says is Cllr. Chris Andrews has a wife and two children. So rather than make any posthumous assessment of Wilde's personality and then try to infer his politics I would rather focus on what the man actually wrote. Sounds like anarchism, looks like anarchism, tastes like anarchism but no you expect me to believe it is "I can't believe it's not anarchism".

Except that it does. See John Locke, and the presentation of his fundamentals in the first constitutions of New Hampshire and Vermont.

So the fact that John Locke points it out makes it true. What I said was that it stood up to no archaeological or historical scrutiny. Archaeology was not a field when Locke was around and history has undergone so many theoretical shifts since that time that it would be unrecognisable to Locke as a field. Basically I fail to see the point of this argument. What if I disagree with Locke's assessment, which I do?

(The word is "fallacy".) I'm actually a humanist and optimist. And I don't belittle human "development"; the issue is excesses, and the protection of humans from humans in that regard. Has the development of "nukes" really been necessary?

Haha yes phallacy if it was actually a word would mean something quite different :P Well I do not believe that human beings in an enlightened form would need protection from one another. If you consider yourself an optimist then you must consider me as having my head in the clouds. I don't believe that nukes were ever necessary just as their use was never justified in the thankfully in only two instances it has happened and we managed to survive the last 8 years without feeling the effects of Bush admin's. notion of "controlled nuclear conflict". The nuclear question is an excess on the part of the state not human beings as a whole. Again I would just like to reaffirm the sheer chasm that exists between public policy and public attitudes. Therefore I fail to see how you bringing up nuclear arms as an indicator of human excesses works? It doesn't work for me anyway. (I think that was your point there anyway).

And the medieval world is the earliest known stage of human history?

Did I ever suggest that? You pick a time period and I will give you parallels or in terms of prehistory I will discuss archaeology though I get the feeling you would be more comfortable sticking to history. The point I was making here is that it is only in ridiculously recent times that there has been any encroachment by a centralised state into the lives of most humans.

That doesn't manage to reveal its meaning to any great degree. "They existed without encroachment"? Who were "they"? There wasn't "encroachment, so there weren't wars arising out of overlapping/competing claims?

"They" are the peasantry of medieval Europe and in terms of encroachment I meant by central authority or monarchy. Of course there was war because of wealth and unsustainable levels of greed by regional, monarchic or financial powers (Should further point out these tend to be the same minority). The peasants in these cases had no impact on decisions they just followed orders like lambs to the slaughter. The main acts of violence speaking of the medieval period that are worth noting as they can be actually considered populous, tend to be borne out of irrational tribalism (St. Bartholomew's Day) or with the stark realisation on the part of the majority of the population about how terribly they were treated and regarded on a daily basis by those with wealth and power (Peasant's Revolt).

#27 --

I did live under that "system" -- and as I noted is was not comfortable.

I highly doubt it but I will entertain this idea and ask where and when?
_____

While at university, when those experiments were common, and on the increase, and viewed with excitement and enthusiasm.

The reality was different.
_____

All your theories of "freedom" are but half the truth -- which is the thematic point I made: the other half is responsibility. You can "freely" steal my bread, and take "responsibility" for having done so by eating it too fast and thus self-inflicting gas pains. But I want law enforcement to get my bread back before you make yourself ill and then impose yourself onto the taxpayer-funded healthcare system.

I feel you may be too set in your ways to reverse this erroneous notion that the police will successfully return with your loaf of bread and wont just find a potential culprit lying in an alley with apparently gastroenteritis.
_____

Experience of the painfully negative does tend to set one against doing so a second or even third time. We have gov't not simply because a segment of the population thought it a good idea. We have laws -- and law enforcement -- because humans recognize that during times when there are no laws there are excesses. If rape ain't illegal, and the consequense for committing it isn't jail-time, then you mother, wife, sister and daughter are freely vulnerable.
_____

Then based on the fact that he has gastroenteritis they will haul him in beat him until he admits.
_____

Right: law isn't perfect therefore should be repealed.
_____

Maybe get you in for some token effort and have you say "That's the guy, right there". Basically what I am saying is the actual likelihood of police finding stolen objects before they are destroyed, eaten whatever is very slim indeed. That is why the point you tried to make here negates what I have just pointed out above about localised forms of law enforcement. The police are afforded far too many rights with few responsibilities. I now over here if you make a complaint against a police officer you are lucky if it ends up in the bin.
_____

What's your intended point about "localized forms of law enforcement"? Perhaps you should discuss clarifying your point by first looking at why Jim Crow "law" was successful.
_____

Oscar Wilde was not an "anarchist"; his personality says as much.

Mmmmm, deriving a conclusion of politics from personality.
_____

Wilde was a self-promoter who relied upon a pre-existing hierarchical structure concerning social status which afforded him a platform upon which to perform in accordance with his literary and social ambitions. Anarchy doesn't allow such careerist divisions of labor.
_____

I am reminded of the totally irrational forces that operate during election time. I received a letter through my door regarding a local councillor who was running in the elections. The first thing it says is Cllr. Chris Andrews has a wife and two children. So rather than make any posthumous assessment of Wilde's personality and then try to infer his politics I would rather focus on what the man actually wrote. Sounds like anarchism, looks like anarchism, tastes like anarchism but no you expect me to believe it is "I can't believe it's not anarchism".
_____

Oscar Wilde was an anarchist? At which point did he give up all the lucrative returns for acting upon and pursuing his social ambitions?
_____

Except that it does. See John Locke, and the presentation of his fundamentals in the first constitutions of New Hampshire and Vermont.

So the fact that John Locke points it out makes it true.
_____

The fact that one can see the provess in real life, and he based his alternative thereto on observation of that process, makes it a valid alternative to the anything-goes you propose.

It isn't complicated: law isn't perfect, so doesn't prevent all prohibited excesses, but it reduces them substantially enough to make social stability possible. That law is imperfect is not going to be cured by repealing it in the name of lawlessness misunderstood as "freedom".
_____

What I said was that it stood up to no archaeological or historical scrutiny.
_____

In fact, it is based directly upon historical "scrutiny". There are a few -- only a few -- theories of gov't. One is preferred over another based upon how many have freedom, and the limits on freedom -- which later always exist because you aren't the only member of society; and you, being human, cannot be trusted to limit your conduct in order not to infringe others freedoms. This is only rocket science to those who have no grounding in actuality.

Archaeology also bears out those facts.
_____

Archaeology was not a field when Locke was around and history has undergone so many theoretical shifts since that time that it would be unrecognisable to Locke as a field.
_____

But humans haven't evolved. I give you the Bushit criminal enterprise as sufficient evidence for that fact.
_____

Basically I fail to see the point of this argument. What if I disagree with Locke's assessment, which I do?
_____

You fail to see the point of this "argument" because you focus only on what you want, not what is. Those who ignore the necessity for limits always conclude that aw is at best an unnecessry interference in what they want to do -- and screw everyone else.
_____

(The word is "fallacy".) I'm actually a humanist and optimist. And I don't belittle human "development"; the issue is excesses, and the protection of humans from humans in that regard. Has the development of "nukes" really been necessary?

Haha yes phallacy if it was actually a word would mean something quite different :P Well I do not believe that human beings in an enlightened form would need protection from one another.
_____

Doesn't it depend on how one defines "enlightened"? And are you going to enforce how everyone is enlightened, in keeping with YOUR definition?

And how will you do that with fource, with or without law?
_____

If you consider yourself an optimist then you must consider me as having my head in the clouds.
_____

There is only one other possibility.
_____

I don't believe that nukes were ever necessary just as their use was never justified in the thankfully in only two instances it has happened and we managed to survive the last 8 years without feeling the effects of Bush admin's. notion of "controlled nuclear conflict". The nuclear question is an excess on the part of the state not human beings as a whole.
_____

Einstein was not the state.
_____

Again I would just like to reaffirm the sheer chasm that exists between public policy and public attitudes. Therefore I fail to see how you bringing up nuclear arms as an indicator of human excesses works? It doesn't work for me anyway. (I think that was your point there anyway).
_____

Einstein was not the state.
_____

And the medieval world is the earliest known stage of human history?
_____

Did I ever suggest that?
_____

Why not? You make all sorts of other assertions that aren't true.
_____

You pick a time period and I will give you parallels or in terms of prehistory I will discuss archaeology though I get the feeling you would be more comfortable sticking to history.
_____

I'll stick to law, only stepping outside that to the history as illustration of why the law.
_____

The point I was making here is that it is only in ridiculously recent times that there has been any encroachment by a centralised state into the lives of most humans.
_____

Not true. Regardless whether one called it "centralized state" or not, there was from earliest memories a coordinated body which "governed" with force.
_____

That doesn't manage to reveal its meaning to any great degree. "They existed without encroachment"? Who were "they"? There wasn't "encroachment, so there weren't wars arising out of overlapping/competing claims?

"They" are the peasantry of medieval Europe and in terms of encroachment I meant by central authority or monarchy. Of course there was war because of wealth and unsustainable levels of greed by regional, monarchic or financial powers (Should further point out these tend to be the same minority). The peasants in these cases had no impact on decisions they just followed orders like lambs to the slaughter. The main acts of violence speaking of the medieval period that are worth noting as they can be actually considered populous, tend to be borne out of irrational tribalism (St. Bartholomew's Day) or with the stark realisation on the part of the majority of the population about how terribly they were treated and regarded on a daily basis by those with wealth and power (Peasant's Revolt).
______

There is irrational tribalism -- anarchy. Or there is rationalized governance in the form of state and law.

"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams.

#27 --

I did live under that "system" -- and as I noted is was not comfortable.

I highly doubt it but I will entertain this idea and ask where and when?
_____

While at university, when those experiments were common, and on the increase, and viewed with excitement and enthusiasm.

The reality was different.
_____

All your theories of "freedom" are but half the truth -- which is the thematic point I made: the other half is responsibility. You can "freely" steal my bread, and take "responsibility" for having done so by eating it too fast and thus self-inflicting gas pains. But I want law enforcement to get my bread back before you make yourself ill and then impose yourself onto the taxpayer-funded healthcare system.

I feel you may be too set in your ways to reverse this erroneous notion that the police will successfully return with your loaf of bread and wont just find a potential culprit lying in an alley with apparently gastroenteritis.
_____

Experience of the painfully negative does tend to set one against doing so a second or even third time. We have gov't not simply because a segment of the population thought it a good idea. We have laws -- and law enforcement -- because humans recognize that during times when there are no laws there are excesses. If rape ain't illegal, and the conseq

Then based on the fact that he has gastroenteritis they will haul him in beat him until he admits. Maybe get you in for some token effort and have you say "That's the guy, right there". Basically what I am saying is the actual likelihood of police finding stolen objects before they are destroyed, eaten whatever is very slim indeed. That is why the point you tried to make here negates what I have just pointed out above about localised forms of law enforcement. The police are afforded far too many rights with few responsibilities. I now over here if you make a complaint against a police officer you are lucky if it ends up in the bin.

Oscar Wilde was not an "anarchist"; his personality says as much.

Mmmmm, deriving a conclusion of politics from personality. I am reminded of the totally irrational forces that operate during election time. I received a letter through my door regarding a local councillor who was running in the elections. The first thing it says is Cllr. Chris Andrews has a wife and two children. So rather than make any posthumous assessment of Wilde's personality and then try to infer his politics I would rather focus on what the man actually wrote. Sounds like anarchism, looks like anarchism, tastes like anarchism but no you expect me to believe it is "I can't believe it's not anarchism".

Except that it does. See John Locke, and the presentation of his fundamentals in the first constitutions of New Hampshire and Vermont.

So the fact that John Locke points it out makes it true. What I said was that it stood up to no archaeological or historical scrutiny. Archaeology was not a field when Locke was around and history has undergone so many theoretical shifts since that time that it would be unrecognisable to Locke as a field. Basically I fail to see the point of this argument. What if I disagree with Locke's assessment, which I do?

(The word is "fallacy".) I'm actually a humanist and optimist. And I don't belittle human "development"; the issue is excesses, and the protection of humans from humans in that regard. Has the development of "nukes" really been necessary?

Haha yes phallacy if it was actually a word would mean something quite different :P Well I do not believe that human beings in an enlightened form would need protection from one another. If you consider yourself an optimist then you must consider me as having my head in the clouds. I don't believe that nukes were ever necessary just as their use was never justified in the thankfully in only two instances it has happened and we managed to survive the last 8 years without feeling the effects of Bush admin's. notion of "controlled nuclear conflict". The nuclear question is an excess on the part of the state not human beings as a whole. Again I would just like to reaffirm the sheer chasm that exists between public policy and public attitudes. Therefore I fail to see how you bringing up nuclear arms as an indicator of human excesses works? It doesn't work for me anyway. (I think that was your point there anyway).

And the medieval world is the earliest known stage of human history?

Did I ever suggest that? You pick a time period and I will give you parallels or in terms of prehistory I will discuss archaeology though I get the feeling you would be more comfortable sticking to history. The point I was making here is that it is only in ridiculously recent times that there has been any encroachment by a centralised state into the lives of most humans.

That doesn't manage to reveal its meaning to any great degree. "They existed without encroachment"? Who were "they"? There wasn't "encroachment, so there weren't wars arising out of overlapping/competing claims?

"They" are the peasantry of medieval Europe and in terms of encroachment I meant by central authority or monarchy. Of course there was war because of wealth and unsustainable levels of greed by regional, monarchic or financial powers (Should further point out these tend to be the same minority). The peasants in these cases had no impact on decisions they just followed orders like lambs to the slaughter. The main acts of violence speaking of the medieval period that are worth noting as they can be actually considered populous, tend to be borne out of irrational tribalism (St. Bartholomew's Day) or with the stark realisation on the part of the majority of the population about how terribly they were treated and regarded on a daily basis by those with wealth and power (Peasant's Revolt).

While at university, when those experiments were common, and on the increase, and viewed with excitement and enthusiasm.

The reality was different.

I personally am doubting the credentials of any conclusions that were drawn from your experiences specifically within a university. While I was at university the entire place was turned into a schill-fest for rampant corporate capitalism and that didn't seem to work for me. The point is that such an idea is inevitably founded on either self-sufficiency or meaningful relationships with like-minded neighbours. I am not saying that this makes it impracticable but as is well known among socialist revolutionaries 'Socialism can't exist in one country'.

Experience of the painfully negative does tend to set one against doing so a second or even third time. We have gov't not simply because a segment of the population thought it a good idea. We have laws -- and law enforcement -- because humans recognize that during times when there are no laws there are excesses. If rape ain't illegal, and the consequence for committing it isn't jail-time, then you mother, wife, sister and daughter are freely vulnerable.

It is funny that when I look at history my assessment of history is entirely different as I see excesses only on the part of a tiny minority who have sewn up the means of production and wealth throughout the world. I cannot believe here you are suggesting that the only reason I or pretty much anyone else is not raping somebody else is because there is a law against it or a fear of reprisal. If I knew I could rape someone and evade detection I still would not commit a rape.

Right: law isn't perfect therefore should be repealed.

I agree it is just that I believe the extent to which the law isn't perfect is far more monumental than most realise. Particularly vice laws which allow the flimsiest of pretexts for police crackdowns and repression. The subsequent historical repression of things that are plainly obvious to mindful people at the time of their happening is another sad consequence. Take COINTELPRO for example. Did the FBI act within the law and who were they answerable to?

Wilde was a self-promoter who relied upon a pre-existing hierarchical structure concerning social status which afforded him a platform upon which to perform in accordance with his literary and social ambitions. Anarchy doesn't allow such careerist divisions of labor.

Wont comment on the self-promoter bit though I know few who are afforded the ability to speak their minds morally who are not reliant on that system of prestige and advantage. I know I am, my ability to examine these things is derived from being afforded every advantage by my parents. I can vouch to this as the house in which Oscar Wilde was born and the one in which he sub subsequently lived are about a 10/15 minute walk from my own house. It is an unfortunate reality of dissent that the comfort it requires is precisely the thing that must be questioned first.

Oscar Wilde was an anarchist? At which point did he give up all the lucrative returns for acting upon and pursuing his social ambitions?

Wont remark on the social ambitions of Wilde though I will point that just because Noam Chomsky has made upwards of 2 million dollars predominantly from his position of dissent makes his points no less valid. The same applies for Wilde although I dare say he put away his social ambitions in later life after he had been to prison.

The fact that one can see the provess in real life, and he based his alternative thereto on observation of that process, makes it a valid alternative to the anything-goes you propose.

It isn't complicated: law isn't perfect, so doesn't prevent all prohibited excesses, but it reduces them substantially enough to make social stability possible. That law is imperfect is not going to be cured by repealing it in the name of lawlessness misunderstood as "freedom".

I have been speaking generally in theory though I do believe anarchy is the ultimate expression of man's perpetual desire for freedom, in thought and expression. I do however believe that a minimalist state and police force may be a requirement as it takes time to make entire generations think critically about their existence. I do believe that the conclusion however will invariably be that we must exist totally free from government constraint. As Henry Thoreau puts it 'That government is best which governs least'. Or maybe you will give greater credence to Friedrich Nietzsche when he states that 'I call it the State where everyone, good or bad, is a poison drinker: the State where universal slow suicide is called life'. Or perhaps our old friend Mr. Wilde when he says 'Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion'.

In fact, it is based directly upon historical "scrutiny". There are a few -- only a few -- theories of gov't. One is preferred over another based upon how many have freedom, and the limits on freedom -- which later always exist because you aren't the only member of society; and you, being human, cannot be trusted to limit your conduct in order not to infringe others freedoms. This is only rocket science to those who have no grounding in actuality.

Archaeology also bears out those facts.

Again I believe the people you speak of would be in a minority, I believe people respond quite differently when allowed decide their own fate. My own studies in history and archaeology have led me to somewhat different conclusions that I have mentioned above. That is that I see only the excesses you speak of on the part of a small elite. This is of course somewhat less discernible in archaeology as the finds and sites that inform our opinions tend to be the result of elite activities. Again this appeared through the control of the main forces of production generally of agriculture but also of prestige good such as metals or salt. I believe this has been true since agriculture took root in the Middle East (though that is harder to prove) right through to the problems with mini- and latifundia in Latin America and pre-Revolution Spain. It is a constant pain to me that as the shackles of an old landowning elite was removed in Lain America it was speedily replaced with a different economic system of corporate exploitation and foreign looting of land and resources. The same is true in parts of Africa. It is heartening to see however a populous recoil against this imposition of economic hardship in Latin America at least.

But humans haven't evolved. I give you the Bushit criminal enterprise as sufficient evidence for that fact.

I feel you are again using here an example of elite excesses as representation of popular will. I will give it to you that the Bush administration all appeared unevolved but they are not deserving of any other title than radical sect. They are certainly not representative of man's nature or his political concerns for that matter.

Doesn't it depend on how one defines "enlightened"? And are you going to enforce how everyone is enlightened, in keeping with YOUR definition?

And how will you do that with fource, with or without law?

Yes it does though I believe education should be a fundamental human right. If people actually got passionate enough to make a decision of that scale I can accept their will as I have this perhaps erroneous idea of trust in human beings in deciding what is best for them. It appears to me at a more fundamental level as a lack of education as well as a lack of democratic forms in industry and the workplace. I guess you might consider my belief in that sense something of an educated guess on how man can best achieve unity and peace so we can, to quote Bill Hicks, "explore space together as one for all eternity" :) I am a proponent of neither force nor the law.

Einstein was not the state.

In both instances you have used this cute little phrase I fail to see how it has addressed my points.
_________

And the medieval world is the earliest known stage of human history?

Did I ever suggest that?

Why not? You make all sorts of other assertions that aren't true.

I will take that as an admission of the fact that you know I never suggested that. I have studied quite closely mankind's development over the last 3 million years or so. I have completed extensive research projects on subjects from the Laetoli footprints to the Iraq war and my beliefs have never faltered as a result of what I have uncovered. So you pick the period for discussion I feel I can hold my own. As far as sticking to the law all I can say is that the law is recent innovation as far as the State goes. In Ireland I know for a fact that tribal and cultural laws go back into the early middle ages yet in their modern forms our laws are the products of maybe the last three centuries. The fact that the country only became a Free State in 1922 and Republic in 1949 also sow vast reforms of laws through a new Constitution in 1937. Perhaps in the older forms of democracy such as the US, France and Britain there can be no claim of a modern conception of the law as it exists until the 18th century and perhaps in the instance of Britain the 17th. I prefer to draw conclusions from history as well as our current situation and tend to find that the law in most of its modern forms is a very effective tool for obfuscation and manipulation.

Not true. Regardless whether one called it "centralized state" or not, there was from earliest memories a coordinated body which "governed" with force.

I will point out that history is not cyclical and that human development is dependant on a massive array of factors. It is true that historically most of what is recorded is the deeds of 'the great' who form a ridiculously narrow sliver of actual human history. I delight in more recent years through social history the realisation of the existence of a perpetually discontented and downtrodden majority upon whose backs this wealth was built and sustained. I think you will find that I used the medieval period as it is the last example before the increased centralisation of the Early Modern period where there was virtually no impact from a central force of governance. In spite of the increased centralisation there remains a great deal of organisation without State involvement and dissent remains a constant in the affording of all extra personal liberties and rights, ones which the State and private wealth seem perpetually opposed to.

There is irrational tribalism -- anarchy. Or there is rationalized governance in the form of state and law.

"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams

Are you implying here that a notion of anarchy is part of irrational tribalism? What do the two dashes between tribalism and anarchy mean?

I will remind you that a great deal of irrational tribalism is the result of the deeds of government and law.

"A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams

Who makes the laws? I will further remind you that abandonment of laws does not means the abandonment of civilised life. I like to think we have made some advances over the last few centuries. I believe much of the law to be unnecessary ballast referring to the games elites play with a vast majority of people. As for the fundamentals murder, rape etc. I believe man's morality stops him from committing these acts. The fact that I am prohibited by law to rape somebody is not an imposition on me as I had no intention of doing so anyway. I am sure it will be near impossible to merely do away with the law and the principles that man has attained from its existence can only serve any move towards anarchy especially in terms of the relationships between free associations. I hesitate to use the word free trade as the word free in my understanding of how free trade in its current guise works is a complete misnomer.

I would like to ask you a legal question now J as you appear to know your stuff. Does the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution afford a Corporation the same legal rights as an individual?

#17: Lunar describes himself as an Anarcho-Syndicalist

*stomp* *stomp* *stomp*

Are ye disrespecting the House of Lunar??? :P

I'm not going to pretend to understand what the debate is about here since I can't tell the difference between what people are quoting and what they're saying (quotation marks might be helpful). But I do want to make one brief clarification.

#20: I do not believe Anarcho-Capitalism will ever work as capitalism is fundamentally based on competition.

This is a common misperception of capitalism. While there is competition between people who are in the same business/industry, the relationship between buyer and seller is cooperative rather than competitive. While competitors might glance across the street at eachother to see what prices they're selling at, it's the cooperative face-to-face relationship between buyer and seller that's much more commonplace. To borrow from the evolution metaphor, you only compete against species who occupy the same place in the food chain as you do, not against everyone else.

Apologies for the lack of quotation on my part. I essentially remain firmly within the school of thought that while all Socialists are not necessarily anarchists all anarchists have to be socialists. I do not believe for one moment that the two notions of anarchism and capitalism are compatible. It seems to me that the way capitalism works contrary to the model presented above that the prerogative of the "seller" is to maximise its share within the market. I can therefore see capitalism existing in perhaps no other form than it does now; that is aggressive in its marketing, exploitative both financially and physically of its workers, rampant corruption etc. etc. I remain of the belief that it must remain fundamentally competitive and therefore could not possibly be self regulatory.

... and therefore could not possibly be self regulatory.

They're regulated by their consumers who are natural participants in any economic transaction. That's who sellers see everyday and whom they have to please in order to get that market share. That's a cooperative relationship. You can't reject the principle of human self-organization and call yourself an anarchist. I'm not sure I understand fully what an "anarcho-syndicalist" is supposed to be, but someone calling themselves that called into the Free Talk Live radio show one time claiming it was perfectly compatible with anarcho-capitalism since an anarcho-capitalist system would be able to accomodate any individuals who wanted to start their own communal enterprise using their own voluntarily shared resources. I personally suspect that such people are anarchists who just don't know much about how free market economic liberalism works.

Anarcho-syndicalism is the belief that the ethos of anarchism as it developed in pre-industrial and semi-industrial societies can be applied to advanced industrial society. It appears to me that regardless of the relationship between buyer and seller, which is far from always being cooperative, the competitive spirit of a market place of sellers would invariably lead to private concentrations of wealth and power. This at its very best seems compatible with minarchy or right-leaning libertarianism. It appears to run counter to what most anarchists would perceive as a fundamental for the existence of anarchy i.e. a degree of economic equality. The individual appears to reign supreme in systems based on capitalism and there is the potential for a far larger chunk of weak and vulnerable people to fall through societal cracks than there is now. Correct me if I am wrong but this appears fundamentally based on what Regan and Thatcher did in the late 70s and 80s i.e. allowing markets be the ultra regulatory force. I do not carry that faith that systems that encourage the private amassing of wealth and fairly rampant consumption will automatically regulate society. For me there is too much room to manoeuvre on the part of the crafty individual. I am reminded of the original robber barons or people like Jim Slater perhaps better known as 'Capitalist' from his bursts into financial journalism, these people were allowed tie up the market for their own ends and Slater had so much power in him that a recommendation from him was a golden stamp for share prices. I think I must agree with Chomsky when he says "Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history."

#34: Anarcho-syndicalism is the belief that the ethos of anarchism as it developed in pre-industrial and semi-industrial societies can be applied to advanced industrial society.

I have no idea what any of that means. Anarchism is about not having an involuntary government. If you want to keep government around to enforce your own pet projects, like economic regulation, then there's no way you can call yourself an anarchist.

It appears to me that regardless of the relationship between buyer and seller, which is far from always being cooperative, the competitive spirit of a market place of sellers would invariably lead to private concentrations of wealth and power.

I just explained to you how the nature of market competition is on the basis of a cooperative buyer/seller relationship. Sometimes this cooperativeness is expressed through lowering prices, increasing quality/value, or providing better customer service. I don't know how you can claim that the buyer/seller relationship is "far from always being cooperative" without explaining how.

This "private concentrations of wealth" is also something you do not explain. Are you talking about the corporate dinosaurs who are propped up by your government, like the three big auto companies that are being considered for another bailout as we speak? The "robber barons" themselves were in bed with government in order to do the things they did. Or do mean that you just don't like some people making more money than other people which is a result of people deciding to spend their money with those who provide them the most value?

Don't get me wrong. I used to be where you are. I used to believe all the crap that I was told about capitalism and robber barons and people falling through the cracks. But everything I was told about them turned out to be wrong. This latest financial crisis is a perfect example of how a government-created problem is being blamed on a lack of regulation or capitalism run amok. You really need to become economically literate. Try starting with Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson or Ludwig von Mises' Liberalism.

Though I'm sure Gene is absolutely tickled at seeing two "anarchists" quibble.

- Lunar: I have no idea what any of that means. Anarchism is about not having an involuntary government. If you want to keep government around to enforce your own pet projects, like economic regulation, then there's no way you can call yourself an anarchist.

I did not suggest that there is a need for government, involuntary or otherwise. The level of industrialisation (and indeed education and medicalisation) are directly linked to how anarchism would work in that society. Many of the influential anarchist thinkers were from pre-industrial or semi-industrial societies and syndicalism is the belief that these principles can be applied to advanced industrial society. I am pretty sure that mainly relates to social issues and applies not to such a large degree to economy, though many of them contend that economic equality is essential.

- Lunar: I just explained to you how the nature of market competition is on the basis of a cooperative buyer/seller relationship. Sometimes this cooperativeness is expressed through lowering prices, increasing quality/value, or providing better customer service. I don't know how you can claim that the buyer/seller relationship is "far from always being cooperative" without explaining how.

The relationship between buyer and seller appears to me to be founded on the deception of one (the buyer) by the other (the seller). This is performed in many subtle yet intentional ways, for example through irrational emotional connection to a product, planned obsolescence, fetishisation of products etc. I assume that in a capitalist society regardless of government the seller that would be most successful would be the cheapest or most effective. Would this not naturally develop to a monopoly situation whereby the one who offers the greatest amount of choice, efficacy or low prices would dominate that particular part of the market? I know this argument if frequently used in terms of privatising defence. If a company developed in such a way that it owned the greatest market share in defence would they not effectively amount to a standing army?

- Lunar: This "private concentrations of wealth" is also something you do not explain. Are you talking about the corporate dinosaurs who are propped up by your government, like the three big auto companies that are being considered for another bailout as we speak? The "robber barons" themselves were in bed with government in order to do the things they did. Or do mean that you just don't like some people making more money than other people which is a result of people deciding to spend their money with those who provide them the most value?

Well not really I am talking about what I perceive to be the inevitable consequences of capitalism i.e. the amassing of wealth by private interests. Is the priority in capitalist business not to make as much money as possible? It invariably leads to a position of power for those with greater wealth. Economic inequality appears to me to be the greatest barrier to personal liberty that can be enjoyed by all. I believe that private interest would not have social advancement at its core? I am also concerned as to what democratic forms private companies can take? The notion that business should operate unregulated by society implies to me that there will be a loss of self-management for many individuals. In relation to your last sentence yes that would be a problem for me, as I have pointed out above I believe the result of this would be monopoly in whatever component of a market it is applied to.

- Lunar: Don't get me wrong. I used to be where you are. I used to believe all the crap that I was told about capitalism and robber barons and people falling through the cracks. But everything I was told about them turned out to be wrong. This latest financial crisis is a perfect example of how a government-created problem is being blamed on a lack of regulation or capitalism run amok. You really need to become economically literate. Try starting with Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson or Ludwig von Mises' Liberalism.

I must admit your assertions about my economic knowledge are correct and I honestly cannot telly my arsehole from my earhole in relation to it. I am getting slightly better in recent times though I was always more inclined towards the Arts. Many of the notions I glean on how capitalism works (though you may be right that the form of government skews this view) are through simple observation. I always found it amusing how when the economy runs into trouble after years of rampant borrowing and spending they tend to revert to socialist economic models. Maybe that is wrong; me and my economic illiteracy. I personally see the current crisis as the result of two mutually enforcing entities of Corporate greed and State compliance. Again this is only through observation.

- Lunar: Though I'm sure Gene is absolutely tickled at seeing two "anarchists" quibble.

I am sure many people relish the thought and believe me we are not the first nor will we be the last :) Maybe we can discuss these issues on a human level without resorting to formulas, if that is possible? I have tried to highlight my concerns with the notion of anarcho-capitalism as such and hope you can answer them as such. I am sure there is a great deal we agree on in social terms though our economics differ. Let us try and bear that in mind first and foremost.

PS Where is J gone? I was enjoying our conversation. I can hold two at once, it is ok if you want to jump back in here. Probably fed up with stubborn anarchists :)

I did not suggest that there is a need for government, involuntary or otherwise.... economic equality is essential.

See, here's the thing. You say that anarchism must be "socialist" and that capitalism must be "regulated," but then you say you're not suggesting a need for government. How are you going to get people unwilling to share into socialism or people who want to be capitalist to go along with you without a "legitimate" government to force them into it? In the paragraph I quoted from above you repeated the same vague thing about "applying pre-industrial principles," which in no way tells me anything. And if you're against economic freedom, you can't call yourself an anarchist because you can't favor imposing upon people's financial choices. It's an outright contradiction.

The relationship between buyer and seller appears to me to be founded on the deception of one (the buyer) by the other (the seller).

I don't think even you truly believe that any sizable number of economic transactions you personally engage in on any given day involve a "used car salesman"-type personality. The vast majority of the people who buy things go to the businesses with which they are satisfied with what they receive. The next time you go buy something, try telling yourself that you're being "deceived" and see if you really believe it. I think you know exactly what you're getting when you go there. Any business that makes money off of deception isn't going to have a very good reputation for long. That's the way spontaneous order works. It regulates itself.

As for "monopolies," there's a challenge I like to use when it comes to this issue. It goes something like this: "How many monopolies can you name that have been able to survive and profit in the free market?" What this question usually results in is someone trying to answer the question and then it turning out that their example was either not a monopoly or had actually been shielded or instituted by government. And the thing about "standing armies" gets even further out there. Hiring security is one thing. But intiating violence can only be profitable if you have a government to foot the bill on your behalf.

Is the priority in capitalist business not to make as much money as possible?

What good is money if you don't use it? The priority of making money is only a proximal goal towards affording a higher standard of living. If you want people to spend money with you, it's because you want to be able to spend that money right back. You're not going to be hiding that money in a vault somewhere so that it never sees the light of day.

As for economic inequality, there's nothing you can do to make it go away. In an anarchic scenario, people will spend their money with those who best maximize value for them. That means everyone is choosing to send more money in a certain direction rather than another direction. Maybe it bothers you that there is economic inequality, and that's only human. But if you intend to go beyond that sentiment into forcing everyone to be economically equal, you're not an anarchist. Also of note it that government regulations hit the poor the hardest. Big businesses love regulations because they can afford to comply with them while smaller businesses can't, shielding big business from new competition (read The Triumph of Conservatism by socialist and historian Gabriel Kolko). And Drew Carey had a good documentary on Reason.TV that illustrates well how regulations stifle the economic mobility of the poor (the Los Angeles Bacon Dog episode).

I believe that private interest would not have social advancement at its core?

I have no idea what "social advancement" means to you. My own definition might include a higher standard of living, something which capitalism excels at accomplishing and not just for the those at the highest income levels, but for the poor as well. In a third world country, being poor might mean you don't know where your next meal is going to come from. In the US where the standard of living is higher, being poor might mean that you simply can't afford to buy your kid the latest iPod. And that's not a joke. I've come into contact with plenty of urban low-income immigrant families and inequality does not mean destitution. It may mean hard-working and having relatively fewer "luxuries" than other people, but it's not what you make it out to be. Their standard of living is higher here than it is for many people the world over. That's because there's more economic freedom here than in much of the rest of the world.

The notion that business should operate unregulated by society implies to me that there will be a loss of self-management for many individuals.

I don't know what you mean by "society" (you probably mean "government"), but I already said that businesses are regulated by their own customers. We seem to keep coming back to you not accepting the self-regulating nature of all systems and spontenous order, which is entirely central to anarchist thought from Zhuang Zi to Rothbard. It's even part of the anarchist logo itself (the letter "A" inside the letter "O") which is based on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's statement, "Anarchy is Order without authority." You can't be an anarchist if you're in favor of economic interventionism by some outside authority.

I always found it amusing how when the economy runs into trouble after years of rampant borrowing and spending they tend to revert to socialist economic models.

Yes, it's interesting how politicians, both on the right and the left, always have government "solutions" on hand whenever there's a crisis of some kind. In any case, it was about banks that were forced by government to make loans that they would have otherwise avoided. That's what Bush's "Ownership Society" was all about. Clinton had a similar policy before. This is because presidents like to be able to brag about home ownership statistics, and since presidents only have about 4-8 years in office, they prefer short-sighted policies with quick and dirty results so that they can take the credit. So you have banks forced to make bad loans that they know they have to sell off (or insure, which is why AIG went down) if they don't want to lose money, as well as the US Federal Reserve having a low interest policy that also made loaning money unnaturally cheaper than it would have been. This causes home prices to climb and other people in the market look and see homes as a "sound" investment and help pile onto the bubble, but it's all a government-created illusion and the bubble pops eventually. The "too big to fail" factor plays into this as well since these banks come to expect the government to bail them out if things get too bad.

I am sure there is a great deal we agree on in social terms

Very likely. But I do know that there are a share of social right-wingers who like to mingle in the "libertarian" and "anarchist" crowds. Some of them are even christian supremacists, Confederate enthusiasts, or racial bigots (I'm looking at you, Hans-Hermann Hoppe).

I'll tell you what. A very accessible way to understand free market anarchism is Free Talk Live, who I briefly mentioned in a previous post above. They're a Monday though Saturday radio show in which the co-hosts are an anarchist and a minarchist. I don't know if you're amenable to listening to podcasts, but they post a free podcast of their show each night after the broadcast. Even if you're not a fan of capitalism, they're a good listen for other aspects of anarchism, like on social freedoms. You might want to try listening in to them a few times or even phone in if you want to pick their brains. They're at www.freetalklive.com.

Lunar:- See, here's the thing. You say that anarchism must be "socialist" and that capitalism must be "regulated," but then you say you're not suggesting a need for government. How are you going to get people unwilling to share into socialism or people who want to be capitalist to go along with you without a "legitimate" government to force them into it? In the paragraph I quoted from above you repeated the same vague thing about "applying pre-industrial principles," which in no way tells me anything. And if you're against economic freedom, you can't call yourself an anarchist because you can't favor imposing upon people's financial choices. It's an outright contradiction.

If people chose to live in a capitalist society then I could live with that. I know personally what I would advocate in terms of my community's economic organisation insofar as I think globally but act locally. I would never impose a belief upon anyone. About the application of pre-industrial principles I was trying to say above that pre-industrial principles apply to social conditions and not economic models. An Anarcho-syndicalist believes that these social conditions that were advocated in the pre-industrial society can be applied to industrial society.

Lunar:-I don't think even you truly believe that any sizable number of economic transactions you personally engage in on any given day involve a "used car salesman"-type personality. The vast majority of the people who buy things go to the businesses with which they are satisfied with what they receive. The next time you go buy something, try telling yourself that you're being "deceived" and see if you really believe it. I think you know exactly what you're getting when you go there. Any business that makes money off of deception isn't going to have a very good reputation for long. That's the way spontaneous order works. It regulates itself.

Your used car-salesman analogy fails to address the several specific ways in which business is deceptive that I mentioned above. I suggest you examine how the PR and advertising industries work. I am glad you want me to conduct this little experiment as I have done it a thousand times in my head and everywhere I look there is either irrational emotional connection to a product, planned obsolescence and even more recently I realised while walking through the city here that fundamentally I want for absolutely nothing. This is not because I live in a capitalist society but because much of what is on offer is unnecessary ballast, the possessions that alight greed and ultimately bring about misery.

Lunar:- As for "monopolies," there's a challenge I like to use when it comes to this issue. It goes something like this: "How many monopolies can you name that have been able to survive and profit in the free market?" What this question usually results in is someone trying to answer the question and then it turning out that their example was either not a monopoly or had actually been shielded or instituted by government. And the thing about "standing armies" gets even further out there. Hiring security is one thing. But intiating violence can only be profitable if you have a government to foot the bill on your behalf.

So a monopoly could never develop in this way, the small businesses will be able to compete with bigger ones on an equal footing? I have little faith in a completely unregulated marketplace leading to spontaneous order. Can you cite me an example where this has worked before or where a chunk of society has been anarchic in structure and relied on a capitalist economy? In fact in a classic example of anarchist organisation in the form of the Kibbutz it was only when capitalism crept into the society that the principles of egalitarianism and freedom were lost. It was not the only reason and indeed the State had no insignificant role to play nonetheless how would this occurrence fit in with your view? How is this unregulated marketplace you suggest different from what Thatcher and Reagan did in the late 70s and 80s? I obviously cannot answer your question about the monopolies because it is totally obvious that they are propped by government, and have never existed in any other form of economic organisation other than capitalism. I was not talking about initiating violence per se, the threat of violence is often enough to stifle action, I was considering the implications of how one company by proving a leader in the marketplace could retain a monopoly on security. Could this occur or not?

Lunar:- What good is money if you don't use it? The priority of making money is only a proximal goal towards affording a higher standard of living. If you want people to spend money with you, it's because you want to be able to spend that money right back. You're not going to be hiding that money in a vault somewhere so that it never sees the light of day.

Why not keep it in a safe, people do that now? In fact many wealthy people have absolutely no inclination as to when to say "I have enough money". That is why 1 per cent of the world's population own over fifty per cent of the wealth and why five per cent own over ninety per cent. In terms of the amount of wealth we are talking the occasional return to society when this person buys another house or yacht or any other item is indeed the proverbial drop in the ocean.

Lunar:- As for economic inequality, there's nothing you can do to make it go away. In an anarchic scenario, people will spend their money with those who best maximize value for them. That means everyone is choosing to send more money in a certain direction rather than another direction. Maybe it bothers you that there is economic inequality, and that's only human. But if you intend to go beyond that sentiment into forcing everyone to be economically equal, you're not an anarchist. Also of note it that government regulations hit the poor the hardest. Big businesses love regulations because they can afford to comply with them while smaller businesses can't, shielding big business from new competition (read The Triumph of Conservatism by socialist and historian Gabriel Kolko). And Drew Carey had a good documentary on Reason.TV that illustrates well how regulations stifle the economic mobility of the poor (the Los Angeles Bacon Dog episode).

I believe that economic equality is the sine qua non of democracy. I have used the same arguments about the nature of choice yet the most obvious conclusion seems to me that as people's money flows in a certain direction it will lead to a vastly disproportionate concentration of wealth and more than likely power will be derived from that. I could have sworn you just said Big Businesses love regulations. Regulations in their favour can be passed until doomsday. If anything in a capitalist society regulation should be geared towards protecting and preserving small local business and not the orgasmic free for all you advocate where the cheapest is preferred every time. Business for me should be brought down to a local level and at all stages should be controlled by those who have chosen to work in it.

Lunar:- I have no idea what "social advancement" means to you. My own definition might include a higher standard of living, something which capitalism excels at accomplishing and not just for the those at the highest income levels, but for the poor as well. In a third world country, being poor might mean you don't know where your next meal is going to come from. In the US where the standard of living is higher, being poor might mean that you simply can't afford to buy your kid the latest iPod. And that's not a joke. I've come into contact with plenty of urban low-income immigrant families and inequality does not mean destitution. It may mean hard-working and having relatively fewer "luxuries" than other people, but it's not what you make it out to be. Their standard of living is higher here than it is for many people the world over. That's because there's more economic freedom here than in much of the rest of the world.

Social advancement means to me everybody's choice to participate or not in a free association of ideas and social organisms i.e. communities. It has as a prerequisite the idea of the self-managing individual and idea there appears to be little room for in capitalism. Being poor in America might mean that you do not have access to medication or treatments as well as not having an ipod. The reason the standard of living is high in America and the West in general is because of the ruthless exploitation of Third World resources and peasants. Are these people entitled to economic freedoms or must they remain reliant on rampant western consumption of their resources in the hope that they can climb their way up from what genuinely is destitution? Or are they merely an acceptable cost of capitalism? I will not accept the argument that the Third World can be brought up to a reasonable standard of living without massive sacrifice on the part of Western countries. These people's situation is a result of capitalism, how can this same system in a different organisational model bring these people out of destitution when it has so firmly rooted them in it?

Lunar:- I don't know what you mean by "society" (you probably mean "government"), but I already said that businesses are regulated by their own customers. We seem to keep coming back to you not accepting the self-regulating nature of all systems and spontenous order, which is entirely central to anarchist thought from Zhuang Zi to Rothbard. It's even part of the anarchist logo itself (the letter "A" inside the letter "O") which is based on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's statement, "Anarchy is Order without authority." You can't be an anarchist if you're in favor of economic interventionism by some outside authority.

Whatever about Rothbard, I am unsure of how valid your posthumous appraisal of what Zuang Zi had in mind when he spoke of the spontaneous organisation of all things. His ideas were likely closer to self-management an idea you still have not explained in terms of its functioning under capitalism. Will there still be management? Will you still have to work until your 65 or you die? Will the line of work you pursue be a choice or a necessity to remain on the bread line? What forms will wage slavery take? Will businesses competing be under the control of worjkers or managers and owners? I cannot see spontaneous order arising from the market because the main protagonists in the market will have to impose themselves to some extent on the individual. And yes we all know what the symbol means :)

Cannot get podcasts, any other way of accessing this show? Sounds quite interesting.

I suggest you examine how the PR and advertising industries work. I am glad you want me to conduct this little experiment as I have done it a thousand times in my head and everywhere I look there is either irrational emotional connection to a product, planned obsolescence and even more recently I realised while walking through the city here that fundamentally I want for absolutely nothing.

If you're going to argue that the buyer/seller relationship is exploitative just because of the colors and pictures they put on the box, you're going to have to argue that all human relationships, including non-economic ones, are based on "deception." But people aren't stupid. When it's their own money they're spending, they learn very quickly to separate the the cons from those who reliably provide value. I asked you before if you really don't know what you're getting when you engage in everyday economic transactions and all you gave me was some Hallmark card message about how you want for nothing in the world. Not everyone has the same wants as you.

It's funny because I was just watching an interview of Earvin "Magic" Johnson on PBS about his business ventures and he was repeating the same stuff I was telling you about how successful business people give customers what they want. He saw that urban blacks were driving over 30 minutes out of their own communities into upscale communities to go to theaters and to coffee shops because the quality of service and cleanliness was much higher, so he decided to provide that same quality of service directly in urban areas. Now, maybe to you a movie is still a movie no matter how dilapidated the venue is, but not everyone's preferences run that way. They're not being fooled. They are getting what they want. Maybe it's not what you want, but different qualities are valuable to different people and you are in no position to judge them for living their own lives.

Can you cite me an example where this has worked before or where a chunk of society has been anarchic in structure and relied on a capitalist economy?

For a surprising example of market anarchy, you need look no further than Somalia. Somalia had been at the bottom of the bottom and they still have a long way to go, especially with the way outside nations keep trying to impose a government on them and propping up warlords and militias. Co-author of Making Poor Nations Rich, Benjamin Powell, put together a paper describing how many stardards of living have improved both relative to other African nations and in absolute terms. His full report can be read here.

But let's not forget that I asked you for examples of the free market monopolies you've been talking about every time you bring up "accumulation of wealth." If you're so worried about them, it should be based on evidence. Careful not to confuse capitalist situations with the corporatist shenannigans of Reagan and Thatcher. Corporatism is an alliance between government and the private sector, not a free market outcome. And it is indeed a very strange thing that you claim that monopolies only exist in "capitalism" when you're advocating socialism. The very definition of socialism is a government monopoly over an industry.

But if you do accept that monopolies have been propped up by government all this time, I don't know why you're worried about a "security monopoly." How could someone monopolize any service without some kind of governmental support? Are you worried about one mega corporation hiring up all the security guards? Ignoring the unsustainability of one businesses paying for all that unnecessary security, the supply and demand factors eliminate the possibility as well. If they hire up a bunch of security guards, the price of hiring them starts to rise because supply has been reduced. As the price of security rises, more and more people will decide to go into security jobs as well because of the rising pay. As the supply of security rises to meet the demand, prices start falling back and smaller businesses can still afford security.

Why not keep it in a safe, people do that now? In fact many wealthy people have absolutely no inclination as to when to say "I have enough money". That is why 1 per cent of the world's population own over fifty per cent of the wealth and why five per cent own over ninety per cent. In terms of the amount of wealth we are talking the occasional return to society when this person buys another house or yacht or any other item is indeed the proverbial drop in the ocean.

You entirely missed my point about how people earn money to spend money. Wealthy people don't leave their money in banks collecting dust or just buying the occassional luxury yacht. They're actually using their money, as is everyone else of different economic statuses. Of course, there should be a balance between spending and saving, but the factors for why people don't save money is a slightly different subject.

I believe that economic equality is the sine qua non of democracy.

If you're an advocate of democratic government, you're clearly not an anarchist of any stripe. You're what's called a "social democrat."

Business for me should be brought down to a local level and at all stages should be controlled by those who have chosen to work in it.

The economic "free for all" would result in only the people involved having any "say" in a business. That means buyers and sellers. Business owners buy resources, like labor. Workers sell their labor. And customers buy goods or services from the business. But what you seem to be advocating is that a business owner shouldn't own their own business and that it should be stolen from him by the workers. Without a government to back you up on that scheme, there's no way it could be sustainable.

The reason the standard of living is high in America and the West in general is because of the ruthless exploitation of Third World resources and peasants. Are these people entitled to economic freedoms or must they remain reliant on rampant western consumption of their resources in the hope that they can climb their way up from what genuinely is destitution?

No, it's because of the large "free trade zone" that has historically existed within the United States. States are forbidden from passing tarriffs against eachother under the commerce clause of the US constitution, while the US itself has historically been very tax-heavy against outside goods coming in. And perhaps you're confusing capitalism with hegemonic mercantilism, which the US cannot have been said to have adopted until around the time of the Spanish-American War. And even then only tentatively at first, not adopting it in full until after WW2. I don't know how you could propose that any kind of mercantilism be sustained without a government to prop up local dictators.

Social advancement means to me everybody's choice to participate or not in a free association of ideas and social organisms i.e. communities. It has as a prerequisite the idea of the self-managing individual and idea there appears to be little room for in capitalism.

I have no idea what that means. How does a "self-managing individual" not have any room for capitalism? Is a "self-managing individual" some kind of utopian "I shall not want" drone?

Being poor in America might mean that you do not have access to medication or treatments as well as not having an ipod.

No, being poor in the US means that you might die of cancer. Being poor in a 3rd world country means that you might die of cholera.

His ideas were likely closer to self-management an idea you still have not explained in terms of its functioning under capitalism.

Again, I have no idea what you mean by "self-management." Zhuang Zi spoke of how things should be left ungoverned and how creating a righteous "benevolent" state only gives thieves a new way to steal.

I cannot see spontaneous order arising from the market because the main protagonists in the market will have to impose themselves to some extent on the individual.

You're probably still confusing modern corporate America with "capitalism." The only concrete example you've given of the market "imposing" upon individuals is the idea that people are "hypnotized" by advertising.

Cannot get podcasts, any other way of accessing this show? Sounds quite interesting.

You don't need to do anything special to "get" podcasts. Just go to the website I gave previously and and you can download the episodes listed on the left-hand margin. You could try to find a station near you on their list of affiliates, but they're only on 42 stations at this point (up from 30 from a year ago). Their live stream, available by clicking the "tune in" button along the top, also loops the most recent episode, but you might want to start listening from last Wednesday or Thursday considering that the main host was arrested for civil disobedience just this past Friday so you can understand what they're referring to in the following episodes.

Lunar:- If you're going to argue that the buyer/seller relationship is exploitative just because of the colors and pictures they put on the box, you're going to have to argue that all human relationships, including non-economic ones, are based on "deception." But people aren't stupid. When it's their own money they're spending, they learn very quickly to separate the the cons from those who reliably provide value. I asked you before if you really don't know what you're getting when you engage in everyday economic transactions and all you gave me was some Hallmark card message about how you want for nothing in the world. Not everyone has the same wants as you.

"The colours on the box" is an interesting way of ignoring the monumental impact that advertising, Public Relations and popular culture generally can have on the mind of an individual. All I can do is again suggest that you examine how these industries work. "The Hallmark caption" was an effort (in vain I see now) to emphasise the fact that most wants are created by the industries I have mentioned above. Given the option to make a rationa
l and informed decision as to whether the suffering of many should continue for a needless identifier of social standing I believe many would opt to end the suffering. Coffee is an interesting example- I wonder if people were made aware of the nature of the coffee growing and manufacturing processes in large parts of Latin America whether they would decide to put down the coffee cup altogether until a fairer lot can be achieved. It seems to me that you want to put even worse forms of tyranny than we have now, ones that aren't even slightly accountable to society or people apart from those with a direct interest. To be honest I am beginning to feel that I would prefer the minute levels of representation afforded under the current system to one in which private concentrations of wealth are expected to give more than the bare minimum back to society as they do now.

Lunar:- For a surprising example of market anarchy, you need look no further than Somalia. Somalia had been at the bottom of the bottom and they still have a long way to go, especially with the way outside nations keep trying to impose a government on them and propping up warlords and militias. Co-author of Making Poor Nations Rich, Benjamin Powell, put together a paper describing how many stardards of living have improved both relative to other African nations and in absolute terms.

Mmmm, yes you might take a read of that one again, appears to me that while statelessness has brought benefits the free market is falling somewhat short of expectation. You may have missed some key passages of that piece you recommended. The standards of living for 19th century slaves was far better that for 18th century slaves. Is that an argument for slavery?

Lunar:- But let's not forget that I asked you for examples of the free market monopolies you've been talking about every time you bring up "accumulation of wealth." If you're so worried about them, it should be based on evidence. Careful not to confuse capitalist situations with the corporatist shenannigans of Reagan and Thatcher. Corporatism is an alliance between government and the private sector, not a free market outcome. And it is indeed a very strange thing that you claim that monopolies only exist in "capitalism" when you're advocating socialism. The very definition of socialism is a government monopoly over an industry.

But don't you say that the businesses would be answerable only to those who are customers, to managers and owners? The fact that these businesses would be answerable to a profit margin and not society as a whole is worrying for me. It appears to me to be a step towards enabling massive concentrations of wealth to be built up as I am finding it difficult to fathom any business wanting to do anything other than further its own concerns. The definition of socialism in an anarchist situation is quite different. What it really means is economy would be controlled from the bottom up, with industry taking on internally democratic forms. By the way, many words will be lost in translation in this conversation. I think you are American, but just as an example I can call myself a libertarian socialist over here yet it means something quite different in the US; something that generally belies the core ideals of the system those words are meant to express. Just one example out of many.

Lunar:-But if you do accept that monopolies have been propped up by government all this time, I don't know why you're worried about a "security monopoly." How could someone monopolize any service without some kind of governmental support? Are you worried about one mega corporation hiring up all the security guards? Ignoring the unsustainability of one businesses paying for all that unnecessary security, the supply and demand factors eliminate the possibility as well. If they hire up a bunch of security guards, the price of hiring them starts to rise because supply has been reduced. As the price of security rises, more and more people will decide to go into security jobs as well because of the rising pay. As the supply of security rises to meet the demand, prices start falling back and smaller businesses can still afford security.

Could one not monopolise a sector of the market by simply offering the "best value"? The initial point was about communities hiring private security, businesses providing it not paying for it. As for the last part; I disagree with wage slavery. The fact that labour is a commodity is one of the greatest inhibitors of what is for me the essence of anarchism; the self managing expressive individual. The division of labour quells the creative elements of man reducing his existence to a repetitive process of menial tasks; ones that for the individual would hold little of significance or relevance as a motivating force.

Lunar:- You entirely missed my point about how people earn money to spend money. Wealthy people don't leave their money in banks collecting dust or just buying the occassional luxury yacht. They're actually using their money, as is everyone else of different economic statuses. Of course, there should be a balance between spending and saving, but the factors for why people don't save money is a slightly different subject.

Not really, I was talking about businesses amassing wealth not individuals. I know how people earn and spend money and both processes for me seem to carry a fair degree of unnecessary exploitation at both ends be they physical or emotional.

Lunar:-If you're an advocate of democratic government, you're clearly not an anarchist of any stripe. You're what's called a "social democrat."

Another loss in translation. When I say democracy I mean people having a say in the decisions that govern their lives. I meant real democracy, not government.

Lunar:- The economic "free for all" would result in only the people involved having any "say" in a business. That means buyers and sellers. Business owners buy resources, like labor. Workers sell their labor. And customers buy goods or services from the business. But what you seem to be advocating is that a business owner shouldn't own their own business and that it should be stolen from him by the workers. Without a government to back you up on that scheme, there's no way it could be sustainable.

Don't believe labour should be a commodity. I believe this may be the main reason why I don't think anarcho-capitalism will lead to any meaningful form of freedom. People will be advised to consume and will have absolutely no stake in the economy that will govern their lives. You hope that everybody can latch on to the coat tails of those capitalists that prove most business savvy in much the same way that they have to do now, by hiring themselves out to a cold impersonal taskmaster that regulates rather than liberates.

Lunar:- No, it's because of the large "free trade zone" that has historically existed within the United States. States are forbidden from passing tarriffs against eachother under the commerce clause of the US constitution, while the US itself has historically been very tax-heavy against outside goods coming in. And perhaps you're confusing capitalism with hegemonic mercantilism, which the US cannot have been said to have adopted until around the time of the Spanish-American War. And even then only tentatively at first, not adopting it in full until after WW2. I don't know how you could propose that any kind of mercantilism be sustained without a government to prop up local dictators.

Right a vast proportion of the American economy is based on protectionism. Western countries in fact appear to have been pretty careful that the free market doesn't operate as it does in the Third World where free market capitalism is simply forced upon the population.Hegemonic Mercantilism, nice propaganda term there. It is in fact the way that capitalism evolved- to call it anything else is erroneous dissociation from historical realities.

Lunar:- I have no idea what that means. How does a "self-managing individual" not have any room for capitalism? Is a "self-managing individual" some kind of utopian "I shall not want" drone?

Well at a fundamental level the self-managing individual is someone who is not forces into a system of wage slavery. This appears to be an inevitable consequence of the system you advocate.

Lunar:- No, being poor in the US means that you might die of cancer. Being poor in a 3rd world country means that you might die of cholera.

Probably because in both instances treatment was unaffordable.

Lunar:- Again, I have no idea what you mean by "self-management." Zhuang Zi spoke of how things should be left ungoverned and how creating a righteous "benevolent" state only gives thieves a new way to steal.

I do not advocate a benevolent state.

Lunar:- You're probably still confusing modern corporate America with "capitalism." The only concrete example you've given of the market "imposing" upon individuals is the idea that people are "hypnotized" by advertising.

No I am not. Hypnotised is not a useful word but I guess it is not a million miles away.

Sigh... this could just go on forever, so I might as well just distill this down.

The basis upon which you oppose market anarchy is by referring to government-backed corporatism. If you can't rationalize your economic prohibitions by citing the consequences of market anarchy, I don't know where the antipathy is coming from other than through confusion. In fact, you have never explained at all how such prohibitions could ever be implemented without a coercive government, thus leaving the question wide open as to whether or not you are actually in favor of government. You've got nothing but envy for those who earn more and a desire to impose your personal value system on others about how people shouldn't buy coffee or sell their labor. But that's what people are going to do and there's nothing you can do to stop them from trying to make their own lives better as they personally see fit. If you had any understanding of anarchy, you would know that it works itself out.

Ok, though I must say there are a great many who have far firmer grasps of anarchy than you or I and believe unchecked market capitalism would be unacceptable for a majority of the population. I did not just pluck these concepts out of the air they have been voiced before. As far as living standards go maybe they would improve under this system. However, I do not feel this is an argument for anything, in Somalia or anywhere. The living standards of most Germans went up under Hitler. This is not an argument if favour of Hitler.

"To be an anarchist you must first be a socialist" - Mikhail Bakunin

"While not every socialist must be anarchist every anarchist must be a socialist" -Adolph Fischer

I have always found that Chomsky has been the most persuasive in such arguments of economy; he believes that the free market you advocate would lead to private forms of tyranny that are even more unanswerable to the public than representative government.

I never advocated any kind of state throughout this conversation, what I advocated is a bottom up approach to control of economic matters. If people want to remain consumerist, which brings its own dangers, then as I said before I can live with that. It is just I have not been persuaded by your argument. Attribute this to ignorance of economic machinations, though I feel my knowledge is sufficient to feel I have a reasonable position.

Anyway a pleasure chit chatting with you Lunar. Sorry we couldn't find greater resolution.

Spot on, Four Seasons!

Spot on about what? He's arguing against anarchy by pointing out the problems of having government power. Just because you agree with his anti-capitalist sentiment doesn't mean his argument makes any sense.

Oh, Lunar! Fourseasons was obviously sent to you as a mirror on the wider world. Ain't it fun trying to explain something to someone who just won't or can't listen to reason?

Are people actually reading the comments in this goddamn forum or is it all kneejerk?

The argument from reason is nice coming from our religious friend. If you want reason put away your superstitions.

strangely enough I agree with the first 2 post, each by JPB and JMCgarve respectively.