I'm not going to lie to you. Anarchism won't work for everyone.
If your goal is to force people to pay you, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to own people, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to violate the bodily integrity of other people without their consent, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to throw people in cages for refusing to obey your arbitrary demands, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to sell off the future labor of the unborn to pay for pathologically altruistic moral hazards like welfare and warfare, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to milk people for resources by allowing the future assets of your children to be auctioned off to the highest bidder, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to get your way by making death threats instead of informed, rational arguments, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to violently impose your will on others to interfere with consensual exchange under auspices of "regulation", anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to counterfeit money, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is cartelize entire industries, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to insulate yourself from the consequences of your actions by offloading unintended negative externalities onto other people at gunpoint, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is to seize the means of production, anarchism won't work for you.
If your goal is Mad Max style chaos, anarchism won't work for you.
Anarchism won't work for leeches, parasites and sociopaths because resources wouldn't flow to leeches, parasites and sociopaths without the mass superstitious delusion that the theft of taxation is morally just for no other reason than that the people facilitating the theft call themselves "government".
If you have a problem with depriving evil people of resources, you should probably oppose anarchism with the full force of your being. Otherwise, resources will flow to people who will make the most efficient and moral use of them for the maximum benefit of everyone.
And I know no one wants that.
Great article Jared. When I became a special education teacher for public schools I thought I was part of the very representation of the good hearted, unselfish and altruistic nature of the job. Now, after becoming a Voluntaryist, I've come to realize being a beneficiary of stolen money is one of the most selfish acts possibly. Starting up a homeschooling/unschooling business soon and leaving the State behind for good.
That's so good to hear! "Public" schools are horribly inefficient in terms of both quality and cost. You'll be doing a service to the children you help by getting out from under "the state"!
Yep! And have some very good mentors in Lisa DeLasho, Dayna Martin to help get the ball rolling. Wish I'd thought of this years ago. Keep up the great work!
"If you have a problem with depriving evil people of resources, you should probably oppose anarchism with the full force of your being. Otherwise, resources will flow to people who will make the most efficient and moral use of them for the maximum benefit of everyone."
"If your goal is to seize the means of production, anarchism won't work for you."
Seizing the means of production is giving it back to the humanity it was stolen from nice try tho
Except the fact that there is no one to give it back to? The labourer has parted with his labour in return for the money of the capitalist. Truly, we all already own our own means of production and we sell it to the highest bidder. There is nothing to seize other than the output which was already paid for. That is called theft.
Exactly correct Gregory. Communism is when you steal the product of other people's labor, namely which that went into the production of higher order production goods.
won't let me reply on the other one. im a communist i know what my system is about are you that stupid?
Your claim is that I'm stupid because you don't want to admit that you're a proponent of theft?
hit reply limit.....its taking back not stealing i already explained that. it doesn't matter if we steal it the rich take 95% of what we make either way and many people die because of them....
You still haven't provided evidence of how consensual exchange is theft so I'm left to believe that what you call "taking back" is actually an initiatory act of theft.
uhhh communism is getting the full results of your labor so I think you need to rethink that.....also it's owned by the rich not shared by everyone.....
What are the full results of my labour?
If company x offers me $20/hr for my labour in return for keeping what I produce and I agree. I own my means of production and I am voluntarily parting with it in return for money. If company X combine the product of my labour with the product of person b's labor (which they also paid for), then sell that for a profit (the price of THEIR labour). How has anyone done anything wrong? If I then turn around and tell company a that really the money they made for their part in the process belongs to me somehow I am nothing more than a thief and a schyster.
You need to labor for the rich to eat in this society they take most of what you produce
Walk me through this. Workers and employers have consensual relationships where workers trade time and labor for fixed sums of money because they prefer the money more than what they're producing (and the responsibility and risk that comes with owning what they're producing). Workers enter into these relationships because they expect to be better off than they otherwise would have been if they hadn't. This is called profit. Are you saying that the employer has no expectation of profit? Are you saying that workers are too stupid to agree to terms that are beneficial to them? Are you saying employers, investors and entrepreneurs don't work? Investors incur a majority of the risk in a business and entrepreneurs usually put in 16 hour days. At what point does it become reasonable to expect investors and "rich" people not to profit? What evidence do you have that they don't work?
It sounds to me like you're just class baiting like a typical Marxist
At what point does a consensual exchange become theft?
full results are everything you produce e.g. the equivalent of 400-500 thousand dollars a year min
What's your evidence of this claim?
"The means of production" is such an arbitrarily defined term that it has no value. I own a computer for personal use, but let's say I'm working on one of my film projects. I've hired a friend of mine to do the sound design and he uses my computer to do the work. I'm paying him for his services (like the evil capitalist exploiter that I am) and my computer has now become the means of production. Does he have the right to seize it? If not, how often would he need to use my computer while under my employ before it becomes his right to take it away from me?
Except you're using a computer for a monetary reason just by participating on this site, so doesn't your demonstrated preference betray your claim?
private property is different from personal property look it up it's basic lmao
And I just gave you a scenario that challenges those arbitrary definitions. Do you have an answer?
I do know the definition and in my scenario the computer is owned by me but laboured on by somebody else. My question is, at what point do they have the right to lay claim to it? Is it only if I don't use it at all? Or do they simply need to use it more than me? And for how long a period?
personal property is property labored on by one and owned by somebody else personal property is stuff you use.
You did not challenge them because you did not know the definition. Please try to learn about something before you debate it.
"personal property is property labored on by one and owned by somebody else personal property is stuff you use."
I certainly don't accept your convoluted and made up definition. Personal = private
Stealing is giving? Walk me through that please.
How exactly were the means of production stolen from the people? Which individuals were involved? Isn't your phone or computer a means of production? Who did you steal it from? Are you saying I can steal your phone or computer back from you because you stole it from me?
wow you can't even define private property vs personal property can you.....
The means of production in the begging of humanity were shared and all could use them because nobody owned them. Eventually feudalism and then capitalism rolled about with this land and other private property. They may have bought it but ultimately it was stolen from the people. They are simply taking it back not stealing it.
Personal property is something you own not use e.g. the billionaire you work for who has never worked a day in his life owns the building you work in. Personal property is something you work on or use that you own yourself. For example computers and phones
"wow you can't even define private property vs personal property can you....."
I guess I can't because that sounds like a distinction without a difference to me. Who did you steal your phone or computer from? Your hands are means of production too, now that I think of it. Who did you steal your hands from, capitalist swine?
read my comment again i answered that
I've reread it several times but it still looks like a distinction without a difference to me. It seems like you've invented this definition because it's too painful to admit that you're wrong.
"If your goal is cartelize entire industries, anarchism won't work for you."
Actually Anarchism would facilitate that nicely. In fact weak laws against monopolies are why Roosevelt had to go Trust Busting. Lack of government would only make it easier for those monopolies to come back!
"In fact weak laws against monopolies are why Roosevelt had to go Trust Busting. Lack of government would only make it easier for those monopolies to come back!"
He fought monopolies by granting a monopoly on regulation to the men and women calling themselves government. How does creating a monopoly restrict monopolies, exactly?
The "monopoly" on regulation already existed, and is intrinsic. Unless you can think of a way to have competing regulations?
Now, are you saying he didn't actually break up any monopolies? Because, he did. Are you saying monopolies wouldn't form without government intervention? Because, they did.
Anarchy would leave it wide open for industries to monopolize.
What do you mean by "intrinsic"? The men and women with this monopoly always existed? That's a non-responsive response.
How does creating a monopoly restrict monopolies? How does one oppose monopolies through the use of a monopoly? That's a performative contradiction. Once you resolve the logical conflict of your claim, we can move onto your next question and give you an opportunity to provide evidence for your other claims.
So far I'm getting that your position is, "but without a monopoly, who will prevent monopolies?" Doesn't make logical sense.
You're literally twisting words to avoid dealing with an inherent weakness of anarchy. Roosevelt did not create a monopoly. Even if you twist the meaning of monopoly to include government, it already existed. Even if it did, a monopoly can prevent OTHER monopolies from forming. So you have one "monopoly" if you use your twisted definition, rather than all industries being monopolies. You're avoiding the real issue:
How can anarchy prevent monopolies from forming?
How am I twisting words? The government is a monopoly. Whether he created a monopoly on regulation (which is what he did) or whether he created the monopoly on force in which the monopoly on regulation exists is irrelevant to whether or not using a monopoly to stop monopolies is a performative contradiction.
Again, your position still boils down to, "we need a monopoly to prevent monopolies!" This is logically incoherent especially given that the situation you're referencing didn't happen in anarchistic environment (as evidenced by the rulers who intervened in the market and who set up the monopoly on the circulation of money upon which the market was forced to exist). If your position is that failure to prevent monopoly is an "inherent weakness", statism fails by your own criteria given that it literally means to give a monopoly to people.
You're projecting the weaknesses of your own position onto anarchism and being a hypocrite in the process.
It's twisting words because monopolies are about business, and you're attempting to apply the concept to government.
You've still provided no evidence or arguments that would show anarchy would prevent monopolies. Pointing out that there is ONE monopoly with "statism" does not mean Anarchy provides a better situation, as with Anarchy there would be monopolies of nearly every industry... rather than one government.
Monopolies are impossible to sustain absent government protectionism because absent market competition, there's no way to determine accurate prices. When prices don't accurately express consumer demand in terms of finite supply, supply gets out of whack. Also, when there's no competition, there's no incentive to provide good service or reduce costs lower because there's no competitor who will beat you to to it. In an anarchistic world, any monopoly would draw competition that would effectively end the monopoly.
And it absolutely should be applied to the men and women calling themselves "government" because these men and women are still providing services (roads, schools, emergency response, etc.) without competition, which means they are being inherently inefficient with regard to both quality and price.
So again, how does one prevent people from getting monopolies by giving people a monopoly? That's logically incoherent. What evidence do you have that the men and women calling themselves government should be granted an exception to basic economics just because they force people to pay them instead of relying on good customer service?
Beautifully stated my friend! I love it! Upvoted for sure! I'm following you as well. Keep up the awesome work! Cheers! :-)
Thanks Danilo!
I think it would be just as accurate to say that these people would not work under anarchism
They sure make it seem that way, don't they? They'd have to change their ways though if there was no excuse to get away with universal plunder.
Love the article. The dismantling of the counter arguments was a lesson as well. Thank you!
I upvote U
Hi! This post has a Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 9.9 and reading ease of 60%. This puts the writing level on par with Michael Crichton and Mitt Romney.
It's written that way on purpose for public consumption.
He is a bot with a horrible rep.. Don't pay it any mind, unless it gets a lot smarter then I recommend to pay lots attention!