Archive for the ‘capitalism’ Category
“What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coca Cola, Liz Taylor drinks Coca Cola, and just think, you can drink Coca Cola, too. A coke is a coke and no amount of money can get you a better coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the cokes are the same and all the cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.”
From the LRC blog.
Hello folks! Welcome to the second edition of Market Anarchy, the only blog carnival for anarcho-capitalists and lovers of freedom. We have an awesome issue today packed with fantastic articles, so without further ado lets get started.
Since we do not normally have a set theme for the carnivals just about any topic related to MA is up for grabs. This issue we have a variety of topics covered and I present them in no particular order.
– We start off with Sholom over at Anarcho-Judaism, who writes this interesting piece comparing Moses to Marxism.
– Greg Gauthier from Doing Philosophy writes a foundational article entitled Anarchy: The New Middle Way. “Our goal, as anarchists, therefore, is to reestablish the primacy of the individual over the ideal, as the only effective means for ending war, terror, and oppression. To do this effectively, we must ground our individualism not in the relativistic nihilism of the liberal left, or the fanatical crusaderism of the absolutist right, but to ground it in the rational, material, empirically real world, that already exists right at the center of our very lives.”
– Greg Swann over at Zillow.com reminds us that working for free is not a crime, but some socialists out there want to make it a crime. “The human mind cannot be outlawed. But the less-gutless champions of Socialism have demonstrated repeatedly that you sure can pile up a whole lot of corpses trying to outlaw the human mind.”
– Francois Tremblay at Check Your Premises unmuddles the mess that is the “rights” issue and especially as it pertains to animals. “Statists often confuse rights with moral obligation. Rights do provide moral obligation, but they are not, by far, the only kind of moral obligation we recognize as valid. I do not recognize the right of any non-human animal to be treated ‘compassionately,’ but that does not mean I go around maiming and goring them. The fact that I do not recognize rights for, say, a dog does not mean that I do not value the dog’s well-being in any way. I have other reasons to value this. A baby has no rights, but this does not mean that babies should be left to starve and die. We have numerous moral reasons to value babies which have nothing to do with rights.”
– Alex Ramos writing from The Freedom To Say 2 + 2 is 4 writes about the hero worship of jack-booted thugs who fight for the State. “By upholding soldiers as virtuous defenders of our rights and freedom, regardless of the actual actions they commit or their absolute subservience to the State, we perpetuate the State’s primary means of keeping us as sheep. If we are not allowed to question whether supporting soldiers is a good thing or not, then we’re going to see more and more immorality coming from the military, command AND grunts.”
– Rick Sincere on Rick Sincere News & Thoughts explains why the current pope, Joseph Ratzinger doesn’t understand basic economics. And why should he? He does have the baby Jesus on his side 😀
– Also on the topic of relgion is Francois Tremblay representing Goosing the Antithesis with his article on how religions struggle against one another and our freedom. “In enforcing a singular value system on the whole of society, the democratic State makes it so there must be victors and losers, and it makes itself the referee. The result of a world where religions are dominated by other religions, as decided by the ruling class, in the name of fear of reprisal and fear of violence is not freedom, or even egalitarianism, but just plain fear. And in these kinds of games, based on coercion and not truth, science and reason have everything to lose.”
– In our first ever tongue-in-cheek article, Robert Bruce on Escape From Pianosa reminds us that in order to have more equality in this world, we need to have more leisure time. “Finally, I call upon the Congress to establish not one but two oversight committees, so as to ensure that none of this new agency’s actions are ever motivated by politics and a diversity czar to ensure that all people have equal free time, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual preference, or class.” Is it really satire or does he have a good point? Read the article and find out for yourself.
– Our good friend Aaron Kinney over at The Radical Libertarian discusses his battle with involuntary servitude and how he won.
Finally, we have somebody taking on last issue’s Carnival Freak.
– David Z. at No Third Solution offers a rubtal to why the flat tax is not any better than the other types of extortion.
Now this month we did not recieve any Carnival Freaks but I did get some interesting comments on a mini-blog I maintain on the Bureaucrash.
I’m not quit so sure if anarchism should be the goal here. Minarchism is a more practical realistic solution for as proven previously through out history, anarchism as always failed. Without government to act as a detourent so to speak, men will be engaged into a constant war of all against all. Ayn Rand has also critisised anarcho-capitalism as a disgrace to the libertarian title. “Another leftist discard adopted by the right” is how she put it, and I totally agree. We need a minimal state limited to nothing more than the mear function of protecting our natural rights through the rule of law. For any form of government or social organization that rules through de facto authority is inevitably bound to lead to coruption and tyranny. It is only through de jure authority were the government is limited to the point of only protection and nothing else can a just heirarchy be acheived. The only things government needs to fund are police, courts, and national DEFENSE, not to be confused with offense. Another thing about anarcho-capitalism is wether you agree with it or not, anarcho-capitalism is a form of direct democracy. If a private police department doesn’t at least have a majority to fund it then it will go out of buisness. So if a community composed of mostly mean people don’t want to fund any police departments, then the minority of nice people will be oppressed by the majority. Any form of a social structure that makes laws through will and not nessecity is a tyranny, and thats exactly how anarcho-capitalism works. In a constitutional republic, people are garanteed to be protected by miranda rights or search warrents. Thats the reason our founding fathers gave us a republic and not a democracy, because they wanted the rights of the minority protected from the de facto authority of the majority. In a direct democracy, the minority can have his/her property voted away from them wether they like it or not. Republics protect every body from ever being stuck in a situation like that in the first place so nobody is tyranized. There is honestly nothing wrong with a minimal state and it is alot more desirable of a system to strive for than an anarchy. It scares me that some people actually think that all they have to do is abolish government and all their worries are over. Let me tell you, if it were that easy don’t you think some country or grouping of people somewhere on this planet would have started a market anarchism already? they haven’t becaue they always failed. There were anonymous examples like Somalia and Icelandic common wealth, however both systems failed because they plumited into a state of chaos and wound up having some new form of government being imposed upon them insted of being made for them. Abolishing government is not the answer, limiting it is.
I told a friend of mine that I was a libertarian.
He started berating me on my political choice. I asked him, “Why are you so uncomfortable?” He told me “I don’t believe in a world without speed limits! Anarchist!”
Anarchy is a dirty word…and most often linked to Libertarians like myself. I’m sick of hearing about it. Why doesn’t the word “capitalism” leap into the mind when one is thinking about extremist freedom groups? Capitalism is an economic state. Anarchy is a political state. Carl Marx made the dangerous mistake of crossing the two, and look where he left us. Anarchy is just the flip-side of his socialist coin.
Don’t get me wrong though – the FCC can go. Right now. No more communication legislation!
And there are some other comments on there as well if you’d like to take a look. If anybody would like to offer a rebuttle to any of the comments above you may do so at any of the upcoming carnival issues.
That will be all for this month. I would like to thank all the above writers for contributing to this carnival. Remember, carnival issues come out every month on the 29th and you can submit an article at any time.
We are gradually growing as more writers are signing up for this wonderful carnival. This is the best place to showcase your contributions to freedom. Issue #3 will be over at Hellbound Alleee on May 29th, so keep an eye out on that blog for further info.
Do you have a blog that is related to market anarchy? Do you like reading blog carnivals? Then we’ve got a cool deal for you! Introducing the very first The Market Anarchist Blog Carnival that will be hosted by Francois Tremblay at Check Your Premises. Not sure if my co-host is up for this, but I will be throwing my hat in the ring for this inaugural carnival.
What to do? Click on the link above (or the picture above) and after reading the rules just write an article before the 29th of this month and then click on the submission link located on the carnival intro page and that’s it! Be sure you also make a post advertising who is hosting this carnival so others interested can submit if they wish.
If you have any questions leave comments on Tremblay’s post above or this post and we’ll be happy to answer them.
Thanks and see you at the carnival!
No doubt about that, but Captain Capitalism provides a very strong empirical evidence to back this up.
The greater the time frame, the greater the correlation.
Read more about it HERE
So if our only purpose was to have a better economy, Capitalism is the only way to go. In the long run, the economic system which renders the greatest growti will tend to dominate.
Socialists like to believe that free-market economic growth will tend to crystalize a power structure and increase inequality. But as the size of the economy has no clearly defined boundary (it can go on forever), inequality can only go as far as 100%. With 100% meaning that there is only one owner for all capital, 0% meaning that there is a perfectly uniform distribution of wealth (more on this HERE).
Inequality won’t increase indeffinately. At best, it can vary, but it will settle at some value (which won’t be in the vicinity of 0, neither that of 100%). Quite simply, the wealthiest people around are those in the business of mass consumption. You can’t be a very large business unless you cater for the masses. So it’s absurd to say the masses will be “skinned” and left with a decreasing share of wealth, when these people are precisely the ones marketers must target to enter and remain in business. A business must please its customers to be viable.
Most people understand that employees will compete for jobs and customers will compete to get the products they want. But the other side of the equation is frequently ignored: that businesses compete for customers and employees. They understand the idea of a price, but can’t associate this concept with wages. They have an understanting of supply and demand, but frequently fail to apply this knowledge to labour relations and consummer protection. I blame the public school system and the media for most of this, but I also associate responsibility of action even to those ignorant of their effects. That is, not knowing is not an excuse.
Something to take home.