Topic: Bitcoin Austrian Economic Study Group - page 2. (Read 12698 times)

Time to stop derailing the thread with annoying long wall of texts. We're trying to learn economic analysis, not teach people of the "democratic" faith or "private capital" faith.

Political philosophy should now be put away so that we can learn some real science.

(Yes, that include me too)

I think I am still being consistent. I see the state as a necessary tool in the transition away from state capitalism. Others here have more faith in the tools of private capital. I maintain that if we disarm ourselves by getting rid of the tool of the democratic state, then we are at the mercy of private tyranny. Ideally, we can approach a point in which the state is unnecessary, but that point is very far away - perhaps not entirely attainable; I definitely can't envision it. But I strongly suspect that the only way we can improve our human condition is to progressively dismantle the worst parts of the systems in place and to build the kinds of systems that we think will lead to a better condition within the remaining scaffolds - the shells of the existing unjust systems. All the while, building more just societies which are based on enlightenment and democratic principles.

Because of where we place our faith for the best tool for the transformation (private capitalist power vs. democratic state power), and I won't presume to speak for Babylon, there are sharp differences between what anarcho-capitalists believe and what I believe, as is evident in this thread. You call it "the only difference," but this is fundamental. To be honest, I don't consider "libertarianism" or what is called anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist philosophies. My experiences and intuition lead me to suspect that the endpoints of these approaches are vastly different: that the endpoint of anarcho-capitalism is a nightmarish condition of industrial feudalism.

I'll end the post with a quote by Immanuel Kant:

"one cannot arrive at the maturity for freedom without having already acquired it"

I think the same applies to democracy. Perhaps the people of Tunisia and Egypt will show us how it is done.

I expect you to argue about the merit/non-merit of organizational setups without governments screwing up the equation.

If you're arguing that corporations as we know them would not exist without government, I completely agree with you. Subsidized security is the best thing the state has to offer the mega corporation. The more geographically dispersed resources you have, the more benefit you gain from having the state protect those resources, versus if you had to explicitly pay to have them protected. That said, if there were no state, I don't think the world would turn into an anarcho-socialist commune. I think you would see the large corporations dissolve or break up into smaller businesses, some of which might be run by the workers.

Babylon, gene...

It seemed earlier like you guys were arguing for the state, now it seems like you're arguing against it, and for something like anarcho-socialism. If that is the case, why are we arguing? We both agree that society would be better served without a state. The only difference is that you think the best society is one where there is no private ownership of property (MoP), whereas we do. If you try to enforce your opinion on how society should form lacking a state, how are you acting any differently than the state itself? Lacking states, there will be more than enough room in this world for all sorts of different voluntary organizations of society.

I maintain that without the legal fiction of a company they could not.  Companies are not real things, they are legal fictions.

They externalize cost, through government, without government they could not function more efficiently.

If you've ever been involved in a co-op, they tend to operate extremely inefficiently.

The companies hired soldiers (the definition of mercenaries) to protect their economic interests. Sometimes these interests are the same as those of the people, other times not.

You get out-competed by companies who can operate much more efficiently.

Why would it be in the interest of the truckers to accept just their wages and not simply claim ownership of the means of production that they are controlling and operating?

Oh, you don't know that. It's a matter of diseconomy of scale versus economy of scale. Some companies in a free market may be quite large.

Without the state to enforce their ownership the trucking companies would not be able to exist.

The trucks are owned by the trucking company because the owners of the company risked their own savings to purchase capital (trucks) and employ others. The workers benefit from the risk of the owners by being able to trade a potentially higher salary for a more stable paycheck. If they wanted the higher salary and higher risk, they could start their own company. However, in order to do that, they will need savings, in order to invest in capital.

When the state intervenes in the economy, it picks winners and losers. It regulates, subsidizes, taxes, creates barriers to entry, becomes corrupted and is captured by the biggest members of the sector in which it seeks to create order. Those entities then use the government for their own means, and the result is what you see before you today.

Capitalism means that the trucks are not owned by the drivers, they are owned by the trucking company.  The trucking company receives the profits from operating the trucks, the drivers are employed by the company.    In Soviet Russia the trucking company was part of the government, in the US it's an independent company, both are forms of capitalism because control is exercised not by the workers but by those with capital.  Ownership of the trucks by the drivers is worker ownership, also known as Marxism.  The issue with Mayberry's law is who gets to define exactly what is one person's property and what is another's.  So long as ownership is determined by capital we are operating in a capitalist system, capital however is not possible without government to enforce it.

I think that's a bit over the basic.

How about something shorter, such as What Has Government Done to Our Money? I've already read it but would read it again. It's available in html or PDF form on Mises.org.

Education of Austrian Economic. Yes, we should return to that topic.

It seem that the study group is not taking off because I choose a particularly heavy book. This does not bodes well for the economic literacy of market anarchists.

IF there is one civic duty in an anarchist society, it's the study of economic. With economic, we can make the decision to be on the side of civilization.

If you mean Executive Outcome, could you explain their activities in depth? They worked for governments and multinational, which is a negative in my book but I don't know what they actually did in the services of these governments and multinational.

Since, Executive Outcome employed by government and corporations(which are directly a creation of the state), so it isn't exactly a prime example of private tyranny.

One positive note is their activities in the Blood Diamond War. They fought against the Revolutionary United Front, which had been raping women and making soldiers out of children, as well enslaved people to work in the diamond mines. However, they are probably primary the result of being employed by a lesser evil compared to the more insidious and evil RUF statist thugs.(It parallels the communist Vietnamese fighting against the more evil Khmer Rogue for invading and killing off whole Vietnamese villages)

I'm sure that's true, but considering that libertarianism isn't part of the thread topic, you still don't know what you are talking about.  Hell, you don't even know what you should be talking about.


I would have to read a different thread, the only ideology in this one followed you here.

I'm not.  I'm not an anarchist, nor a Marxist.  I have proposed nothing, and if others have, it is only in response to your thread highjacking.

From my perspective, it merely looks like you had not done your homework. If you are at any good at refuting libertarianism, than you would have cause cognitive dissonance by now, and I felt a rush of emotional anger. I don't.

The constant implications that I am unfamiliar with what is called "libertarianism" in the US are tiresome.

I have offered several examples of how private tyranny can emerge in the absence of government in this thread and others. The retorts essentially amount to links to mises.org (or some other Auburn intellectual) accompanied with arguments that are logically equivalent to "because the government is evil, then evil cannot exist without government." If you don't believe me, just read this thread.

Since you are proposing a new form of society of which many people are extremely suspicious, I must point out that the burden of proof is on you to show how it won't be worse than what we currently have. I hold myself to the same standard when supporting my ideas in the face of those who support the status quo.

I have asked for an outline of how private tyranny can be suppressed without a state. I quoted a website, which was presented as an authoritative source, and pointed out that the author's response to my question is lacking and why.

If nothing else, I can't be accused of not supporting my position.

The right to keep what you produce is a fundamental human right.  It may be control, but no one else loses any honest freedoms when the owner does what he will with his own property.  There is no such thing as collective property, even in the former USSR the trucks may have been bought by the government, but the drivers held *possession*.  Real capitalism existed in the USSR, it exists everywhere, because it's not an ideology.

When you boil it down, there are only two laws of civilization...

"Do all that you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on another's person or property."  (Mayberry's Laws)

This is the whole of the law.   Notice, also, that these are laws concerning individuals, not all of society.  Ideologies aside, any society that generally honors and supports these two laws, tends to prosper.  Yet, once a society no longer honors these two laws, it tends to decline.  They are not absolutes, and can be violated often before the society begins to show it's rot, but they never will be denied.  Marxism cannot exist, simply because it fails to honor these two laws.  Democracy fails this test also.  Capitalism, even as defined in the context of control of the means of production, does not neccessarily violate these laws.