/liberty/ - Liberty

No, it's because the alternatives are obscure, and 99% of the time, the debate is simply centralized/planned market vs decentralized/free market. Go ahead though, I'm open to considering a good alternative

Because virtually all alternatives to capitalism involve the limited use of economic planning.

The phrase "planned economy" refers precisely to the fact that the market in question is not spontaneous, organic and undirected. Capital and investment is directed through laws and not market forces.

There are centrally planned economies, also known as command economies, which is probably what you're thinking of. India's Five Year Plans and Hitler's Four Year Plans are examples of economic planning. Mao's Cultural Revolution, Lenin's NEP and Stalin's Five-Year Plans are examples of central planning. Marxist socialism requires a high degree of central planning.

The implication of Anarcho-Capitalism is that in the absense of a state, property rights and hierarchy would be protected by the people.

The difference between AnCaps and other Anarchist collectivist mindsets is that other anarchists picture capitalism as a branch of the state, and thus try to eliminate hierarchy/voluntary transaction and create a society, effectively, in their image- they try to change human order against its natural state (entrepreneurship, greed, and voluntary association) and incentives. This attempt to change human nature may not be a centrally planned -economy- but it's still a central planning strategy focused around the individual theorizing. If they truly believed in democracy, then they would be gung-ho about whatever the majority is currently proposing.

By definition, peer-to-peer technologies are free markets. Worker's co-ops are free markets. Communes are free markets, anything that is not planned by a central authority is effectively part of the free market system. You'll notice I didn't use the word capitalist because a free market already implies capitalism. You can't have a market without capital.

The only two assumptions of capitalism are that

1) Capital and Property are privately owned (whether contractually in a group or individually) and thus have inherent rights associated with the owner (one of which is they still own it even if they let someone borrow it for a week or two).

2) Transactions are voluntary and failure to comply with a transaction would not result in a loss of life, liberty, or property and yes, rape violates your human capital, so it is a form of property loss.

Therefore the alternative to a free, spontaneous "market" order where anything can be attempted and allowed to succeed or fail on its own merits, is by definition some form of planning by a central (sometimes collective) authority. This is also why when otger anarchists claim we're not really anarchists, we tell them that we're really the only anarchists- because we don't force people to conform to a belief system, and instead give them the opportunity to succeed or fail in society on their own merits.

There are many lefties who are also AnCaps- the only reason they're considered "right-wing" is because they believe in private property and free enterprise.

>>13800

So if I get your post correctly, capital and property being privately owned are just part of "human nature" and in no way and shape a belief system that everyone in a libertarian society would have to comply to? And anarchists aren't real ones because they weren't blind enough not to realise private property was already a social contract, and more generally a spook you can't get rid of? I already started a similar discussion with some anon in an other thread, and basically said the same thing: private property might be useful in organising human societies, but it in no way is some inherent absolute right rather than a matter to settle in courts of law.

In the end justifications of private property are always arbitrary and it only works because basically people all agree to accept that it does. I guess you get where I'm going: recognition of private property, and under which terms, belongs to the voluntaryist aspect of your philosophy (that we share), as something people might want to agree on once anarchy achieved, but doesn't stand alone as a second axiom (presented as first in your post, which is a non-sense to me). Which means that under anarchy (or anarcho-communism/socialism as some like to call it), libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism is possible, actually making it a less coercitive system, letting you act according to your beliefs if you wish to organise a community that way without forcing other communities to accept it as their basis. Your sanctification of private property, on the other hand, prevents anarcho-communism from existing since it's an ideology based precisely on its abolishment, effectively impossible if we accept your assumption n°1. Which is the complete opposite of a popular opinion I usually see on this board, that is that libertarianism would let anarchy exist while it couldn't happen the other way, but you're free to defend it further if you wish.

>>13819

>So if I get your post correctly, capital and property being privately owned are just part of "human nature" and in no way and shape a belief system that everyone in a libertarian society would have to comply to?

No one has to comply to private property, they just have to respect other's private property.

>And anarchists aren't real ones because they weren't blind enough not to realize private property was already a social contract, and more generally a spook you can't get rid of?

I'd say AnCaps should just give up on using the term anarchist altogether and just use "Voluntaryist/Voluntarist" instead, but generally speaking, yes, private property is a "spook" that humans just can't get rid of without changing human nature.

>private property might be useful in organising human societies, but it in no way is some inherent absolute right rather than a matter to settle in courts of law.

More or less. In the AnCap hierarchy there's still rules, therefore that's how you establish private property. It doesn't really "exist" as a right, but we consider it a right because people act weird without it.

>rest of your post

I'm simply stating that people would tend towards private property in an open market because it gives them good results. In the case of AnComs, they could establish a region without private property (it would effectively be considered a "collectively owned" private property by the rest of the AnCap world) so long as they don't force others to participate. They can have their own courts and everything so long as, again, they aren't forcing others to participate (though noncompliance could easily be grounds for removing them from the community if you look at it from a more hoppe-like perspective). If their ideas are more successful than ours, then it'll gradually come to replace ours. If not, then we were right. Either way we're better off without the state on our backs.

>>13826

>No one has to comply to private property, they just have to respect other's private property.

But it still forces people to accept private property as an absolute right, so it still is forcing them to accept a belief. I'm not saying beliefs are necessarily wrong, but that accusing anarcho-communists of wanting to impose a system of thought is quite unfair, regardless of the assertion being true or not, when capitalism is about doing the exact same thing.

>I'd say AnCaps should just give up on using the term anarchist altogether and just use "Voluntaryist/Voluntarist" instead, but generally speaking, yes, private property is a "spook" that humans just can't get rid of without changing human nature.

That's where we disagree: firstly because I'm still unsure whether or not "human nature" really has much room when we largely are conditioned by culture and our material environment, and what we are taught is and isn't natural; secondly because even assuming human nature can clearly be defined, I don't believe recogniton of private property is part of it. There'd be in that regard no forcing human nature to change to get rid of property, but merely letting human nature express itself, free to use this concept if it ever appears to be needed.

Which is precisely the problem I have what anarcho-capitalism (and what you said about it being the real form of anarchy): I don't see why the anarchist stance "by default" would have to make private property one if its principles alongside liberty, it doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't the idea of anarchy precisely be to let people organise as they see fit, without any form of authority telling them which concept (except for liberty maybe…) they should embrace?

I figure we're more or less agreeing on eveything though, even if I firmly think that giving too much importance to private property can only have catastrophic consequences, and of course the state is to be smashed. I believe it to be a necessity though as long as capitalism will exist, since it is so inherently unjust that it shouldn't be let loose, which is probably the reason why so much leftists are still defending it today.

>>13876

>Wouldn't the idea of anarchy precisely be to let people organise as they see fit, without any form of authority telling them which concept (except for liberty maybe…) they should embrace?

Anarchy is letting people organize as long as there's no violation of rights.

If you want to create a state like organization that only tries to impose coercive authority on land it has homesteaded, purchased from a willing and legitimate owner, or land where the owner has voluntarily submitted to the terms of the organization without the threat of violence.

Your whole idea of "lol we'll just steal from whoever we want and if u want to stop us u r a state11!" is retarded. People have property rights which stem from self-ownership, if you violate them that's not "voluntary organization" that's theft.

>>13877

>If you want to create a state like organization that only tries to impose coercive authority on land it has homesteaded, purchased from a willing and legitimate owner, or land where the owner has voluntarily submitted to the terms of the organization without the threat of violence.

That's fine. The instant you try to impose coercive authority on land you don't own you've committed an act of aggression, you can say "lol I don't care" but that doesn't make it ethical/morally justifiable.

>>13883

On how personal and private property are different* is what I meant to say.

>>13883

Private property and the means of production are not the same thing.

>>13888

To Lefties it is.

Nice waste of trips.

>>13789

Is there any alternative that isn't just something in the middle?

>>13899

social democracy?

>>13826

>>13800

private property is theft, thief

>>15634

Read this:

>>13790

>>13792

>>15652

Let's let the whole of the proletariat have a crack at your boypussy then, comrade.

>>15652

Create an actual definition that differentiates private property from "personal property" that doesn't rely on the "means of production" and we can talk.

Additionally, do so in which contractors who built the factory get an equal cut compared to the factory workers, otherwise you're just a double-standards faggot who's butthurt and secretly gay for the Koch brothers.

>>15673

private property is any property that is not being used

literally that

>do so in which contractors who built the factory get an equal cut compared to the factory workers

both are workers, the idea that the contractors only work once is retarded

this point is honestly retarded

contractors dont work on the factory, they work making factories, the benefit to the contractors come from the construction sector, not from the manufacturing sector

>>15700

wat

dubs wasted

>>15707

they are great dubs

>>15693

>private property is any property that is not being used

So when the factory workers leave the factory, the factory stops being their personal property?

>>15700

I have never seen so many circular reasonings in a single post. I'm impressed.

>>15730

It's a description, there's no reasoning involved.

>>15693

So if my labour is used to produce a factory, and i do not use said factory for a certain period of time (have it automated or just stgnant), it is private property?

If so, then my labour is theft by your reasoning.

>>15693

>private property is any property that is not being used

lmfao

>>15652

Define "theft".

>>15693

>t. Thief

>>15862

what capitalists do

>>15733

We didn't ask for a description, we asked for a definition.

>>15730

>>15841

>So when the factory workers leave the factory, the factory stops being their personal property?

the factory was never their personal property, he did not build the factory himself

>but what if he did!!

then it obviously is dummy

>so what if is has never been used

then its collectivized

>>15852

>NeetSoc

lmfao

>>15873

I am not a capitalists

>>15891

they did not*

>>15880

>voluntary society free from aggression and coercion

>s-stop stealing, capitalist pigs…

>>15896

You've got the order wrong. First you stop the capitalist pigs from stealing, and then you have a voluntary society free from aggression and coercion, and it's called communism.

>>15903

>voluntary exchanges

>stealing

kek

>society free from aggression and coercion

>communism

maximum overkek

>>15891

>not capitalist

glad you know

>>15903

>First you stop the capitalists from voluntarily exchanging, and then you have a controlled society based on aggression and coercion, and it's called communism.

>>15891

but he did build the factory either directly or indirectly through his own labour

>then its collectivized

then they are stealing the factory owner's labour by confiscating his property (purchased or built by his labour) and deteriorating the equipment through use.

And what if I need help on my personal property to produce something? It magically becomes private property by hiring someone and paying them a wage? Then how can it be exploitative if they agree to work for me, when they can work in a collective or private enterprise?

>>15925

>lifeboat scenario

Leftists love these

>>15925

Dick sucking wasn't part of the agreement. What they agreed to was a simple gift; a ride across a lake with no strings attached. After his little threat, Captain Faggot can now either take his captive to the other side of the lake or bring him back where he started, but either way he attempted fraud (or committed rape or murder if he went through with it). Your cartoon has nothing to do with anything "voluntary" and is not a metaphor for typical wages labor, but prostitution. I'd like to know if you think voluntary prostitution is rape.

>>15934

>land where he placed his factory is stolen land

Stolen from nobody, as there is no previous owner. If unused land is owned "collectively" by everyone, then land is stolen from everyone any time any one uses it for any reason without everyone's permission.

>personal property is not something that it is used to produce

I've never heard this distinction before, and it seems very arbitrary. What is this claim based on? And what is a productive object, collective property? Something else? Based on what?

>private property does not exist

I hereby declare personal property does not exist! What happened to "private property is any property not being used"?

>workers build a factory and you are claiming it as yours using the false authority given by state apparatus

No, they sold it to me. They built it for me because I'd pay them, I payed them because they built it for me. If they'll accept my dosh in return for it, you can't get in their way. If they build a factory for themselves, I shall not pay them nor shall I take it away.

I didn't threaten to starve them either. I didn't do shit to them. I did not present them with any options beyond "if you're looking for construction work call XXXXXXXX". I don't say a word to them if they never contact me, and my offer does not take away their other options. As you said, they can do their own investments, be the only shareholders, excavate their own clay, provide their own steel, extract their own fuel, manage their own livestock, make their own clothes, and write their own entertainment. They can have as much or as little of this stuff done by others too, even all of it. They can go full Amish/innawoods, run a farm and buy whatever else they want, or start their own business. I am not needed in their lives, and neither is your collective.

>wages are theft

Don't bother saying whether or not you think prostitution is rape. I have my answer.

>lifeboat scenarios are simplified because people fail to understand bigger examples

While most lifeboat scenarios are terrible arguments akin to "Newtonian physics is awful because it misses Mercury's precession by 40 arc-seconds per century", your lifeboat scenario was more like "Newtonian physics predicts chimpanzees turn into humans near black holes, therefor the sun orbits the earth".

>>15943

>I'd like to know if you think voluntary prostitution is rape.

>you can VOLUNTARILY chose between having sex or not being able to eat, not be able to pay rent, or afford anything

>Stolen from nobody

stolen from the collective

>If unused land is owned "collectively" by everyone

it is not owned by anyone, land doesnt have an owner, you are merely a user of it

>it seems very arbitrary.

no it isnt, literally every anarchist writter who is agints private property uses a deffiniton similar to this

>Based on what?

based on the idea that people have the rights to make use of the land

>I hereby declare personal property does not exist!

you dont seem to understand, there is no reason to collectivize the shoes I am wearing right now because my shoes are not going to provide footwear for everybody, not even my second or third pair and so on

but If I have a factory of shoes and I am exploting the worker via wages instead of giving them the profits they earned and then even charging them for the shoes they made, its pretty clear I am privating them from getting the shoes they made

>No, they sold it to me. They built it for me because I'd pay them,

nothing wrong with this, thats how construction works, you and your coloperative needed to expand and you dont have the experience to build the factory so you hire another coop to do it for you, you pay them the fair price which is one factory at whatever charge you both determine, and both decide to accept or not

the construction coop then has to pay the workers the fair share of their labour, if they dont do this and pay them via wages whle the leader pockets all the difference then the leader of said coop is exploiting the workers

you dont seem to understand market socialism at its fullness

>>15889

Same thing.

>>15947

>stolen from collective

lol

>muh low wages

literally kill urself

>>15975

>this indicates the capitalist frustations

>>15934

>then if he gathered the materials, did the engineering, built it,

I didn't build my computer nor gathered the resources, yet everyone agrees it is mine becuase I paid for it.

>personal property is not something that it is used to produce

My computer is personal property and yet I produce most of my work on it.

>dont make us of factories because they deteriorate guys!

Well the workers are not compensating me for damage by giving me a share of their production. If a group of people use your razorblade, do you expect compensation for deteriorisation? Otherwise you will have to buy/trade/make a pack every a week.

>private property does not exist

so if the factory that i bought or built is not private property and not personal property, then what its it? Surely not collective property, because 100% of my labour (and no one else's) was allocated to all of its expenses.

>but I don't want to work in the factory

>then why did you build it?

Why build a farm if I am not going to use it in the winter? Because i will use it in the spring. Or maybe I do not plan on working on it because it will be automated.

>where does the capital comes from?

My labour exchanged for the resources or currency used to build/purchase the construction.

>then its pretty obvious you are building the factory to increase your production, thus you are part of the collective, using the capital generated by the collective

What if I am not part of the collective?

>wages are theft

But the wage represents the the worker's produce minus depreciation, resource costs, and reinvestment. It is the same that they will make in a collective. Your argument is equivalent to saying 'my production is theft'.

>then land where he placed his factory is stolen land

It is not stolen. I own the improvement on the land (i.e. the factory). If a collective owns a factory, would it be considered land stolen from everyone not part of the collective because it denies them access to produce on it?

>lifeboat scenarios are simplified on purpose,

it is not simplifying anything if it is creating a strawman and absurd situation at that. Such exploitation cant happen in a collectively owned lifeboat where a majority can aggress any individual.

>you can choose to be exploited or starve to dead!

if-only fallacy. You are assuming only 2 outcomes.

>at the end of the day, the work of investments, shareholder and other capitalists "work" can be done by the workers themselves

not entrepreneurship and certainly not the work of industrial engineers which requires knowledge in statistics

>>16064

>So prostitution is always evil and wrong.

spooked tbh

the idea that the current capitalist system forces women to prostitute themselves is bad, not the job itself

>Who? You mean "everyone" right? Why not just say "everyone" or "my group"? What are you, The Borg? Yes, you are.

0/10

>People are justified in using land, therefor "collectivize" productive stuff but not shoes?

of course

are my shoes going to have sex with your shoes and make little small shoes for everybody?

>no

shoes dont produce anything

that guy is wrong regarding collective property, but his point still applies

>>16064

Work is always evil and wrong.

>>15979

wat

>>16114

It means ``umad''

>>16123

not rly

>>16286

yea

>>16079

1. It does produce goods and services. These things do not have to be physical. Even programmers require compensation for their labour.

2. They are damaging it becuase they are not contributing to the maintenance costs.

3. Then if a collective confiscates it, they will not contribute to the labour I provided to build it. Building factory after factory is unrealistic because I would be operating at a loss.

4. The farm does not have any use in winter unless you modify the land to make it unsuitable for farming.

5. You just told me it was "collective property"? If it was truly mine I should be able hire wage workers. The collective would take it from me anyway, just as the CNT took property away from other private and collective firms during an-syn Catalonia.

7. Workers are not going to get 100% of their produce from any collective. You have to take into the costs of resources, maintenance, reinvestment. If you get rid of the capitalists, then workers will have to spend some of their time in production planning (thus sacrificing some of their production) and would be the portion of the profit that would go to the capitalists. So, their market-valued produce minus the above costs will be the same as their wage , assuming the workers are as competent as the capitalists at running the firm.

8. But no one owns the land since it was never in use.

9. So basically the collective can confiscate anyone's means of production for the "greater good".

10. You assume that workers will learn about LSS or cost-effective measures by their own accord. Not even politicians and management know about this. You realise an industrial engineer is a fulltime job and requires some serious analytical aptitude, which not everyone is capable of?

I don't think you know about the collective anarchism or capitalism as evidenced above.