Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Market/Syndicalist/Cooperative Anarchism

socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:06:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This isn't meant to be an argument on my part for anarchism, so please judge this within the context of anarchism (or don't, whatever).

Lately I've been thinking about the possibility of anarcho-syndicalism being a viable anarchist philosophy. AnSyn favors the organization of the economy with worker controlled firms being the primary unit. This can be contrasted with capitalist anarchism which argues for the corporation to be the basic unit, anarcho-communism where the commune is, etc. Workers of a firm democratically manage themselves as opposed to stockholders, investors, or a board of trustees making decisions. In effect, power is equalized (though not completely; more so than under AnCap, less than AnCom) among the workers under anarcho syndicalism.

The only reason I ever considered the possibility of this setup was through looking at the relationship between the State and the citizen and juxtaposing it with the relationship between employer and employee. Although this is not true in all situations for employer/employee relationships, there exists a fair amount of analogousness between the authoritarianism at the core of such relationships. Not like the explicit violent control of the State to it's citizens, but a more de-facto social control. Employers are generally in a much stronger bargaining position with regard to employers, especially in low-skilled industries. This allows for distressing authoritarianism which can only be differentiated from that of the State by the directness or indirectness of the control. The control though is still there.

Because technically no rights are violated (in this scenario I'm referring to under a truly free market, not one like our current one where the majority of large corporations are propped up in some way by the State, and thus violence), I as a voluntaryist wouldn't advocate violence to stop these interactions. However, these types of relationships go against my own moral sensibilities as well as prop up a type of authoritarianism which is all too close to that of the State. Here I follow the thick libertarians in supporting dissolution of these types of relationships and hierarchies (among them sexism, homophobia, racism, etc.) as a practical as well as moral ideal.

But back to the lack of technical rights violation, this doesn't mean nothing can be done. The AnSyn response which seems intuitively appealing to me is equalization of power in the workplace. The obvious way to do this is through worker controlled firms, not simply strong labour unions. Under simple unions, one group is always struggling for power over the other, a profoundly authoritarian type of relationship still exists. Under autonomous, worker controlled firms, there is not self division within a firm and thus the authoritarian relationship (at least between employee and employer) has been dissolved as much as possible without making everyone completely equal robots with no differentiation.

Now this would all be great, except most of the literature I have found on anarcho-syndicalism takes what I just describes and adds another tenet, that of for consumption production. Even though I don't agree with the authoritarian structure of capitalist structured firms, I still have a bit of economic sense in me. For consumption production just doesn't work out. There needs to be some sort of price mechanism to tell producers and manufacturers what the best way to use their resources is. Under for-consumption production, AnSyn becomes little more than a slight variation of the structural setup of anarcho-communism.

Therefore, I would support the self-managed workers as the primary economic unit, but without abolishing the price mechanism and thus the entire idea of rational production. When I looked into schools of thought utilizing this approach, the only things I could find were under cooperative setups, of which most so advocated abolishing of prices. But those that supported cooperatives within the context of a market economy didn't include within their structures the abolishing of the State. They were either AnCommunistic or Statist. Therefore, I seek to synthesize the direct self management and anti-corporatism of Anarcho-syndicalism, the retainment of the price mechanism by worker's cooperatives, and the various non-corporatist aspects of the market economy.

I suppose there's no reason to call myself an AnCap. What word could be used to describe this? Perhaps anarchistic market syndicalism. I dunno. Oh, just to be clear, I don't support this type of setup as a first order ideal. Voluntaryism still retains that position. I just think that within the sphere of voluntary economic possibilities, this one is preferable as a second-order ideal.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:21:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
But back to the lack of technical rights violation, this doesn't mean nothing can be done. The AnSyn response which seems intuitively appealing to me is equalization of power in the workplace. The obvious way to do this is through worker controlled firms, not simply strong labour unions
No such thing. There might be firms controlled by a majority of workers, but not by worker, straight up, no qualifications.
Historically, these have been tried, they've usually sucked at competing even with state subsidies going there way. There are some exceptions. Nonetheless, with the "equalization of power" bit (which again, not possible, majority of workers will not be equal to minority of workers)-- to imply that this is a means to that is to imply that the means by which one would achieve such worker control is expropriation at gunpoint, which means you can toss that anarcho out the window. Certainly, it's not a logical impossibility that such worker cooperatives would outcompete hierarchical businesses on the free market, but there's some historical experience suggesting it unlikely (insofar as the state interventions have largely been to favor the cooperatives), and there's not a lot of business sense to the proposition.

Assuming neither anarchocapitalists nor anarchosyndicalists would engage in expropriation at gunpoint to favor capitalism or syndicalism, there is no difference in their political program. Assuming one would, they are not an anarchist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:22:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Assuming one would, they are not an anarchist.

Or, more importantly, a libertarian at all.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:30:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 10:21:40 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But back to the lack of technical rights violation, this doesn't mean nothing can be done. The AnSyn response which seems intuitively appealing to me is equalization of power in the workplace. The obvious way to do this is through worker controlled firms, not simply strong labour unions
No such thing. There might be firms controlled by a majority of workers, but not by worker, straight up, no qualifications.
Historically, these have been tried, they've usually sucked at competing even with state subsidies going there way. There are some exceptions. Nonetheless, with the "equalization of power" bit (which again, not possible, majority of workers will not be equal to minority of workers)--

I admitted full equality was not the ideal. It was only higher equalization vis a vis employer/employee relationships which through their inherent nature are less equal in power than workers who collectively own a firm.

to imply that this is a means to that is to imply that the means by which one would achieve such worker control is expropriation at gunpoint, which means you can toss that anarcho out the window.

When did I advocate gunpoint expropriation? I said very clearly this entire setup would be of a first-order, voluntary nature as an alternative to capitalist methods of industry.

Certainly, it's not a logical impossibility that such worker cooperatives would outcompete hierarchical businesses on the free market,

Why not?

but there's some historical experience suggesting it unlikely (insofar as the state interventions have largely been to favor the cooperatives), and there's not a lot of business sense to the proposition.

It's not necessarily about the business sense, though there is nothing inherent to worker control per se that says they're necessarily going to be economically inferior to capitalist businesses. Unlike traditional syndicalism which wouldn't act under the assumption of prices, this setup would, thereby allowing it to compete in rationally allocating resources to their optimal locations. The only difference is in internal structure.

Assuming neither anarchocapitalists nor anarchosyndicalists would engage in expropriation at gunpoint to favor capitalism or syndicalism, there is no difference in their political program. Assuming one would, they are not an anarchist.

True, though that wasn't the point of the post. The point of all of the second-order isms under anarchy (AnCommunism, AnCapitalism, AnMutualism) is to point out the optimal economic systems in an anarchic society after anarchy has been reached. Just because we wouldn't have shoot outs doesn't mean we have no differences.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:30:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 10:22:02 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Assuming one would, they are not an anarchist.

Or, more importantly, a libertarian at all.

Tell that to the minarchists.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:42:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
When did I advocate gunpoint expropriation? I said very clearly this entire setup would be of a first-order, voluntary nature as an alternative to capitalist methods of industry.
I didn't catch the voluntary part.
If that's so, best of luck. But (assuming anarchy works for a moment) it will never work. Your political program will be the same as the anarcho-capitalists' and will work toward their ends, not yours.

Why not?
Why would it be a logical impossibility? It's your program, if you think it's logically impossible tell us why and stop having it be your program :).

though there is nothing inherent to worker control per se that says they're necessarily going to be economically inferior to capitalist businesses.
Well, there's less specialization, it's more difficult to find someone accountable for poor performance, and so forth. This doesn't say it's necessarily going to be inferior, but it's suggestive, and combined with the historical experience paints a rather bleak picture.

Just because we wouldn't have shoot outs doesn't mean we have no differences.
It does, however, mean that your differences are apolitical, and therefore they should be your allies through and through.

Tell that to the minarchists.
Wait, what? As a minarchist, I've got no plans to go hunting minarcho-syndicalists (if they exist), and (if they exist) they have no plans to go hunting me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 10:54:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 10:42:13 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I didn't catch the voluntary part.
If that's so, best of luck. But (assuming anarchy works for a moment) it will never work. Your political program will be the same as the anarcho-capitalists' and will work toward their ends, not yours.

If by political program you mean the abolishing of government, yeah I know. And I'm not convinced that syndicalist firms would necessarily be out-competed by capitalist ones.

Why not?
Why would it be a logical impossibility? It's your program, if you think it's logically impossible tell us why and stop having it be your program :).

Lol sorry, I thought you said it WAS a logical impossibility. Miscommunication over here, where's O'reilly?

though there is nothing inherent to worker control per se that says they're necessarily going to be economically inferior to capitalist businesses.
Well, there's less specialization, it's more difficult to find someone accountable for poor performance, and so forth. This doesn't say it's necessarily going to be inferior, but it's suggestive, and combined with the historical experience paints a rather bleak picture.

Not necessarily. Equalizing power to a degree among workers like I said doesn't necessitate complete equality. Though I understand your point. I've read enough AnCap lit to understand their arguments against unions. I'm not convinced that it would always be more difficult to hold accountability. This stems from unions being in competition with management. As management has taken up the responsibility of carrying on day-to-day business affairs, they're more distressed by poor performance or behavior. By fusing the two functions, the problem of mid-level workers not having any connection to the profitability of the firm is solved (not fully of course but it's a starting point).

Just because we wouldn't have shoot outs doesn't mean we have no differences.
It does, however, mean that your differences are apolitical, and therefore they should be your allies through and through.

I understand your point. However, it is necessary to differentiate the respective positions. Even if it's only apolitical.

Tell that to the minarchists.
Wait, what? As a minarchist, I've got no plans to go hunting minarcho-syndicalists (if they exist), and (if they exist) they have no plans to go hunting me.

It was a joke. Minarchists typically support a forced monopoly on the provision of law, forcing other would-be providers in an arbitrarily drawn geographical area out through the threat or use of force. I was saying libertarians who support government are guilty of supporting expropriation at gunpoint in favor of their own political program.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
As management has taken up the responsibility of carrying on day-to-day business affairs, they're more distressed by poor performance or behavior. By fusing the two functions, the problem of mid-level workers not having any connection to the profitability of the firm is solved (not fully of course but it's a starting point).
I'm not following. Management solves the problem of connecting decisionmaking to profit because the top manager as an individual person has a great deal of power to affect that profit and thus they can be held accountable. How does that function without a manager?

It was a joke. Minarchists typically support a forced monopoly on the provision of law
Well, yes, within a particular jurisdiction. Just as anyone supporting property rights of any sort supports a forced monopoly on the production of food on a particular field. Because deciding two laws in one place on one matter cannot be consistently be done, just as growing two crops in the same physical space doesn't work, especially with two providers, one of which will trample the crops of the other as he reaches for the crops he planted

forcing other would-be providers in an arbitrarily drawn geographical area
Is a farm arbitrarily drawn? No, you set the boundaries by the boundaries of the crops you plant, assuming no one else is legitimately doing so first in that location.
Likewise, one sets the boundaries of a government when it starts providing law enforcement in that area, assuming no one had a prior legitimate claim.

out through the threat or use of force. I was saying libertarians who support government are guilty of supporting expropriation at gunpoint in favor of their own political program.
Expropriation of what from whom?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:25:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 11:09:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I'm not following. Management solves the problem of connecting decisionmaking to profit because the top manager as an individual person has a great deal of power to affect that profit and thus they can be held accountable. How does that function without a manager?

There are a number of ways. Besides workers not being disjointed from the profit interest of the firm, some AnSyn models support the election of revolving, recallable delegates. Kind of like a board but with less centralized power. It functions basically as the same type, though to a lessened degree.

Well, yes, within a particular jurisdiction. Just as anyone supporting property rights of any sort supports a forced monopoly on the production of food on a particular field. Because deciding two laws in one place on one matter cannot be consistently be done, just as growing two crops in the same physical space doesn't work, especially with two providers, one of which will trample the crops of the other as he reaches for the crops he planted

Except for that under the former governmental example, a government is simply proclaiming their control over the people's rights. What is aggressive per se about someone performing arbitration or defensive services for someone else within the geographical region, so long as they do not force anyone else to contract their services and they don't violate the rights of others in the way they conduct their business? Nothing brah.

Is a farm arbitrarily drawn? No, you set the boundaries by the boundaries of the crops you plant, assuming no one else is legitimately doing so first in that location.

When you homestead a piece of land, it was unowned before you did so. However, we all own our bodies and thus the ability to contact ourselves in a non-aggressive manner. And that includes providing any non-aggressive services. So the establishment of a government isn't over any "un-homesteaded" claim as we already have the right to perform the services which it provides.

Likewise, one sets the boundaries of a government when it starts providing law enforcement in that area, assuming no one had a prior legitimate claim.

So when a group of people start violating the property rights of others and not allowing them to use their resources in a non-aggressive manner, that in some way homesteads the right to violate people's right to free contract? How do you homestead a right anyways?

Expropriation of what from whom?

Expropriation of one's right to contract on non-aggressive terms. Me providing voluntary arbitration to people who ask for it is not aggressive. Me protecting the property of someone without violating the rights of bystanders is not aggressive. The establishment a monocentric system of law is thus by definition expropriation of the rights of it's citizenry.

=====
By the way I like how this conversation span into a conversation on the legitimacy of government so quickly.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2012 11:59:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 11:25:04 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/28/2012 11:09:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

I'm not following. Management solves the problem of connecting decisionmaking to profit because the top manager as an individual person has a great deal of power to affect that profit and thus they can be held accountable. How does that function without a manager?

There are a number of ways. Besides workers not being disjointed from the profit interest of the firm
That's not a method, that's a conclusion, the question is what method gets you there.

Each particular worker derives only one small share of their actions toward making the firm profitable. The free rider problem, unless you can identify someone peculiarly responsible for profitability and make them identify the rest of the slackers.

some AnSyn models support the election of revolving, recallable delegates. Kind of like a board but with less centralized power.
The centralization of power is the entire reason a board or CEO functions.

Well, yes, within a particular jurisdiction. Just as anyone supporting property rights of any sort supports a forced monopoly on the production of food on a particular field. Because deciding two laws in one place on one matter cannot be consistently be done, just as growing two crops in the same physical space doesn't work, especially with two providers, one of which will trample the crops of the other as he reaches for the crops he planted

Except for that under the former governmental example, a government is simply proclaiming their control over the people's rights.
"The people?" I've never heard of any such entity.

What is aggressive per se about someone performing arbitration or defensive services for someone else within the geographical region
Defense and arbitration? It's retaliatory violence that needs monopolized, not immediate self-defense or arbitration. Not only are privately competing self-defense or arbitration a-ok in minarchy, they are A-ok in the United States right now. You can go out and buy the services of a security firm or an arbitration firm, right now.

Is a farm arbitrarily drawn? No, you set the boundaries by the boundaries of the crops you plant, assuming no one else is legitimately doing so first in that location.

When you homestead a piece of land, it was unowned before you did so.However, we all own our bodies and thus the ability to contact ourselves in a non-aggressive manner. And that includes providing any non-aggressive services.
Such as the "non-aggressive service" of farming. Nothing "aggressive per se" about it, it's just aggressive if you do it where someone else does.
Tell me, do you believe broadcast spectrum can be homesteaded?

So the establishment of a government isn't over any "un-homesteaded" claim as we already have the right to perform the services which it provides.
You had every right to go farm that land, before someone else decided to do it. What matters for homesteading analysis is not that whether you could have gone and done something first, but whether you went and did it first.


Likewise, one sets the boundaries of a government when it starts providing law enforcement in that area, assuming no one had a prior legitimate claim.

So when a group of people start violating the property rights of others and not allowing them to use their resources in a non-aggressive manner, that in some way homesteads the right to violate people's right to free contract?
Hold up, no. When a government (which can be a group and probably will be, but could be one person) starts retaliating against those who violated the property rights of others at the behest of others, it homesteads the right to retaliatory violence jurisdiction. You retain the right to write whatever contracts you please, and the homesteading act differs from what you claimed it was.

How do you homestead a right anyways?
The same way I "homestead the right" to a particular farm, if you want to call it that.

Expropriation of one's right to contract on non-aggressive terms.
Two parties who contract on wholly non-aggressive turns need have no dealings with the minarchist state whatsoever. It's only when one of those parties aggresses and the other wishes for a retaliatory remedy that jurisdiction becomes relevant.

Me providing voluntary arbitration to people who ask for it is not aggressive.
And the USFG lets you do that right now.

Me protecting the property of someone without violating the rights of bystanders is not aggressive.
It is when it violates my jurisdictional property.

By the way I like how this conversation span into a conversation on the legitimacy of government so quickly.
Ye asked for it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 12:08:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/28/2012 11:59:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Two parties who contract on wholly non-aggressive turns need have no dealings with the minarchist state whatsoever. It's only when one of those parties aggresses and the other wishes for a retaliatory remedy that jurisdiction becomes relevant.

Why does retaliatory remedy require a monopoly institution to sanction it? Surely there are right and wrong ways to retaliate, which are non-dependent on the existence of a state.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 12:30:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 12:08:57 AM, socialpinko wrote:
At 5/28/2012 11:59:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Two parties who contract on wholly non-aggressive turns need have no dealings with the minarchist state whatsoever. It's only when one of those parties aggresses and the other wishes for a retaliatory remedy that jurisdiction becomes relevant.

Why does retaliatory remedy require a monopoly institution to sanction it? Surely there are right and wrong ways to retaliate, which are non-dependent on the existence of a state.
There are multiple right ways as well as wrong ways, and they conflict with one another.

One defense agency might kill a guy off. Another, not having seen the evidence on which this decision was based, concludes the first aggressed. Maybe the first did, maybe the first didn't, either way we now have a war.

Might that war end with a negotiated settlement? Maybe, maybe it will end with obliteration of one party. In either case if the winner/coalition wants to avoid it happening again they'll want to warn off such policy conflicts, either by establishing rules for alternative providers to follow or (more likely, see below) by forbidding them.

At least as important, jurisdictional defense is a significant part of the cost of doing business for law enforcement provision. The laws won't last if China invades, and yet, if there are competing law enforcement providers, one will be able to offer better prices by skimping on defense while the other goes bankrupt trying to hold it up, and then poof, Chinese conquest, there goes liberty for everyone, not just the customers of the skimper. A monopoly on law enforcement solves this problem, unless no one needs retaliatory services, in which case of course this debate about how to provide them becomes moot and in all likelihood with that radical change in human nature China no longer exists.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 12:46:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 12:30:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

One defense agency might kill a guy off. Another, not having seen the evidence on which this decision was based, concludes the first aggressed. Maybe the first did, maybe the first didn't, either way we now have a war.

Doesn't that provide the incentive to create reliable methods of determining who the aggressor is in a given situation? I mean, why did the State create methods of investigation, court procedures, etc.? Obviously if people were thrown in jail without a reliable method of determining guilt, we'd all be fvcked. George H. Smith provides here an excellent attempt to show how free market defense could give rise to procedural rights. http://www.mises.org...

Might that war end with a negotiated settlement? Maybe, maybe it will end with obliteration of one party. In either case if the winner/coalition wants to avoid it happening again they'll want to warn off such policy conflicts, either by establishing rules for alternative providers to follow or (more likely, see below) by forbidding them.

But why is it automatically the case that one party must assume supreme control over the correct procedures of retaliatory force? Is a general agreement somewhat resembling medieval common law not at all possible?

At least as important, jurisdictional defense is a significant part of the cost of doing business for law enforcement provision. The laws won't last if China invades, and yet, if there are competing law enforcement providers, one will be able to offer better prices by skimping on defense while the other goes bankrupt trying to hold it up, and then poof, Chinese conquest, there goes liberty for everyone, not just the customers of the skimper.

Doesn't that hold with any service? In competition, company A lowers their prices and subsequent quality so much that the competing company B goes out of business trying to compete. With the shatty quality due to lowering costs so much, company A is eventually taken over by a foreign competitor. We both agree this isn't how rational firms would act just as we know shoe manufacturers wouldn't.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2012 2:00:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/29/2012 12:46:53 AM, socialpinko wrote:

Doesn't that provide the incentive to create reliable methods of determining who the aggressor is in a given situation?
If the first agency submits to the factfinding procedures of the second, the second has already pretty much won statehood because the first has pretty much declared the second's sovereignty over the first.

I mean, why did the State create methods of investigation, court procedures, etc.? Obviously if people were thrown in jail without a reliable method of determining guilt
Um, that's what jail IS. Prison is where they throw you when you're proven guilty, jail is where they throw you with probable cause.

Might that war end with a negotiated settlement? Maybe, maybe it will end with obliteration of one party. In either case if the winner/coalition wants to avoid it happening again they'll want to warn off such policy conflicts, either by establishing rules for alternative providers to follow or (more likely, see below) by forbidding them.

But why is it automatically the case that one party must assume supreme control over the correct procedures of retaliatory force?
Because otherwise the procedures will conflict.

Is a general agreement somewhat resembling medieval common law not at all possible?
Resembling what now? The term "Common law" comes from the legal doctrines followed by a bunch of judges employed by Henry II, who could have chopped off their heads if they didn't coordinate well enough.


At least as important, jurisdictional defense is a significant part of the cost of doing business for law enforcement provision. The laws won't last if China invades, and yet, if there are competing law enforcement providers, one will be able to offer better prices by skimping on defense while the other goes bankrupt trying to hold it up, and then poof, Chinese conquest, there goes liberty for everyone, not just the customers of the skimper.

Doesn't that hold with any service? In competition, company A lowers their prices and subsequent quality so much that the competing company B goes out of business trying to compete. With the shatty quality due to lowering costs so much, company A is eventually taken over by a foreign competitor.
No, it does not hold with any service. It does hold with things like copyrights. The thing you left out of your analysis was A free riding on something expensive and crucial to both businesses that is the reason why B's prices are what they are. See, the thing is that in your version both the benefits (price reduction) and the costs (quality reduction) accrue to the same company and its customers. Customers are thus incentivized to avoid the quality reducer, to the extent that the quality reduction was a bad idea. But with a free rider, customers are not so incentivized-- they receive the concentrated benefits of price reduction, but the costs of quality reduction accrue to everyone, even those firms who didn't defect from defense and those customers who didn't defect from the firms who didn't defect from defense.

We both agree this isn't how rational firms would act just as we know shoe manufacturers wouldn't.
With only two? Probably but not definitely. defence agency A and B can coexist at a reasonable probability, A probably won't defect from a cartel of two. But we don't have the option between monopoly and duopoly, what we're analyzing is a world of unlimited competition, and eventually there will be a free rider in that world, and that free rider will win, and then everybody loses. Again, shoe manufacturers aren't getting a free ride. Retaliation agencies that don't pay into jurisdictional defense are. We have exactly two ways of paying for the jurisdictional defense requirement of a functional retaliation agency-- one, exclude people who don't pay into it from retaliation services, which requires excluding firms that don't pay into it-- or two, absolutely, indisputably forbidden to libertarians: taxation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 8:15:48 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I read the OP and obviously as an an-syn, I agree with the initial observations. After that I only skimmed some of the responses, mostly because it's hard for me to follow forum replies (the italicized text distracts me...). I noticed a few things:

At 5/29/2012 12:30:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
One defense agency might kill a guy off. Another, not having seen the evidence on which this decision was based, concludes the first aggressed. Maybe the first did, maybe the first didn't, either way we now have a war.

What you described would be no different under an-cap. I'm not sure if this was a statement opposed to anarchy in general or not though because I didn't really follow the context too much, admittedly.

In terms of business competition, I think a lot of people forget that under an an-syn society the number 1 motivator might not necessarily be profit but instead freedom from oppression. If efficiency/profit were the sole consideration for business, then slavery would be ideal. Anarchy is supposed to be about the elimination of oppression (which is why many leftists scoff at an-caps because capitalism necessitates oppressive hierarchy; the origins of the political movement were leftist).

However I don't necessarily agree that business would suffer under democratic workplaces and whatnot. We have evidence that many thrive. I think you can make an argument that if workers got to share in the profit, they would be inclined to do better and more efficient work. For example, I used to work at a coffee shop making minimum wage. Actually I worked for less than min. wage because we had a tip jar. Regardless of whether my employer had a good day or bad day, I was making $7 an hour. What was my incentive to promote sales? I wasn't making commission. What was my incentive to be more efficient instead of taking extended breaks (if I could get away with it)? In other words what was my overall incentive to make his business as successful as possible?

Don't say "promotions" because that wasn't realistic and isn't in many small businesses. Plus promotions aren't really that great when you work menial jobs. I turned down the Shift Supervisor position they offered me because they did a lot more work and only made $8 an hour. The manager of the store (highest person next to owner) made $9 and worked non-stop. Big deal. Oh and it took her years to earn that high honor lol. Obviously if I performed my job poorly I'd be fired. I did just fine - but I'm saying if I got to be more involved in the decisions, if I had more at stake in terms of sales, if I had a vested interest in the profitiability of the store, etc., I probably would have worked a lot harder and did a much better job not to mention would be significantly happier (and research shows happier workers are better, more loyal workers).

Of course capitalists want the majority of people to beg for scraps and do the best job possible for as little money as possible. I have a lot of issues with this both morally and pragmatically speaking.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 9:49:28 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think a lot of people forget that under an an-syn society the number 1 motivator might not necessarily be profit but instead freedom from oppression.
"I'm not gonna go to work today."

"But but, freedom from oppression."

"I'm still not gonna go to work today."

Freedom from oppression is a motive for a limited class of actions, it does not solve the generalized incentive problem.

If efficiency/profit were the sole consideration for business, then slavery would be ideal.
Huhwha? The historical record does not bear you out. Slavery can get your cotton picked and your cock sucked at the price of paying enough to keep them alive, keep them well-ordered with a lash, and suppress revolts. Sharecropping can get you the same damn thing except removing most of the price of suppressing revolts and all the price of the lash. Industrial wage labour and salaried specialized workers can get you so much more than either of those.

which is why many leftists scoff at an-caps because capitalism necessitates oppressive hierarch
Hierarchy and oppressive hierarchy-- bit of a leap from one to another.

However I don't necessarily agree that business would suffer under democratic workplaces and whatnot. We have evidence that many thrive.
Danielle, the ones you see thrive because the majority, which didn't thrive, died out. We have evidence that a relative few survive and even fewer thrive.

I think you can make an argument that if workers got to share in the profit, they would be inclined to do better and more efficient work.
That's an argument for profit sharing, not democratic decisionmaking. Two totally different things. Of course, the trouble is profit sharing has a more limited effect the larger the firm is, unless there is considerable peer pressure going on, or it takes the form of an individual commission or some such.

What was my incentive to be more efficient instead of taking extended breaks (if I could get away with it)?
Well that's just it, you're supervised under such a business model, to prevent you from getting away without a bare minimum of productivity. This isn't terribly expensive, assuming the work you do is easily observable. It doesn't incentivize production at quite the same granularity as some other models, but those other models are expensive and may have other problems, it depends what you do which will make sense. A coffee shop might not profit much from you being a super worker, compared to the costs of getting you to be one.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 1:46:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Raggy, I already said that I don't like these back and forth forum responses because the italicized text distracts me (I'm not kidding). Just respond in paragraph form chaleslb style if you expect me to make sense of what you're saying. It's also annoying to have to sort through responses when replying to direct quotes, but whatevs, I'll try.

At 5/30/2012 9:49:28 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Freedom from oppression is a motive for a limited class of actions, it does not solve the generalized incentive problem.

Why would there be no incentive to work?

Huhwha? The historical record does not bear you out. Slavery can get your cotton picked and your cock sucked at the price of paying enough to keep them alive, keep them well-ordered with a lash, and suppress revolts. Sharecropping can get you the same damn thing except removing most of the price of suppressing revolts and all the price of the lash. Industrial wage labour and salaried specialized workers can get you so much more than either of those.

I don't know how this is relevant but okay. I was saying that profitability should not be the standard for what political system is best.

Hierarchy and oppressive hierarchy-- bit of a leap from one to another.

Yes, they're different. Hierarchy may be beneficial and/or necessary but oppression isn't, and leftists see aspects of capitalism (especially an-cap) as oppressive.

Danielle, the ones you see thrive because the majority, which didn't thrive, died out. We have evidence that a relative few survive and even fewer thrive.

Democratic workplaces aren't very popular, but many do well.

http://www.worldblu.com...

What evidence are you referring to?

That's an argument for profit sharing, not democratic decisionmaking. Two totally different things. Of course, the trouble is profit sharing has a more limited effect the larger the firm is, unless there is considerable peer pressure going on, or it takes the form of an individual commission or some such.

Yes the 2 are different. But there doesn't have to be complete equality in terms of decision making in a "democratic" workplace. There can still be hierarchy, though the workers would have more say. For instance if a manager was in place, she might be democratically voted on instead of appointed by the owner.

A coffee shop might not profit much from you being a super worker, compared to the costs of getting you to be one.

Sure, but the shop could become more overall profitable (not just for the guy who owns it) by providing superior products and service which benefits not only the majority of workers in cases of profit-sharing but also the customers.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2012 2:05:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/30/2012 1:46:20 PM, Danielle wrote:
Just respond in paragraph form chaleslb style
Le wat! Error. Override, le sigh, your funeral, but I can't do wall of text, meet you halfway.
I didn't say there's no incentive to work, I said freedom from oppression isn't one.

A refutation of the claim that slavery is the best way to make a profit is relevant to where that claim was made. Incidentally, profitability is shorthand for producing things people need. You're certain you don't wanna consider that in choosing political systems?

Specify oppression pl0x.

Folks getting awards are not necessarily representative, and your award site seems to define democratic workplace much more broadly than the absolute worker ownership advocated by anarcho syndicalists.

A workplace is either fully democratic or it ain't. A state can still be a republic with an initiative or referendum process, and a workplace isn't syndicalist just because it has a glorified suggestions box.

How many of the corporations on the list had elected managers, and how many of those elections weren't carefully crafted by the owners to have a narrow range of acceptable candidates?

A shop becomes profitable not just when it sells more, but when the actions it takes to sell more cost less than the value of selling more. I don't drink coffee, but if I did I'd want it cheap, even if the service didn't have as bright a smile.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.