(April 14, 2010 at 7:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't deny it, then why argue it? You quote extreme socialism back at us, why is that? I'm undecided on cheaper labour from abroad. Exploitation is more the point where capitalism is concerned. And I don't care how you want to wrap it up, it's all greed to me.

I'm not arguing it...you are. This thread was about anarcho-capitalism in a Libertarian society; you went off on a tangent about slavery, to which I responded by telling you it was a pathetic argument (post #28). You clarified your point again, and I re-iterated why it was a stupid argument (post #33). You then change your argument by saying that businesses try to get the cheapest labour possible, a point on which I agreed and you knew I agreed on since we've discussed it before. I further re-iterated why bringing slavery into the discussion was ridiculous when the topic is anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism (post #37). Are we following the same conversation?

(April 14, 2010 at 7:36 pm)Saerules Wrote: Anarcho ≠ anarchy?

The 'anarcho' in anarcho-capitalism refers to anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy advocating the total elimination of the state in favour of a free market that controls everything through natural means. I happen to disagree with anarcho-capitalism and side with a personal brand of minarchism (where the courts, law-enforcement, and healthcare are provided by the state).

Quote:If it is anarchy, then there are no regulations in the entire system. There is no concern with social justice in libertarianism (as per my dictionary, see

Dictionary Wrote:The adherents of libertarianism believe that private morality is not the state's affair and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution, which arguably harm no one but the participants, should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in the U.S.). Unlike traditional liberalism, however, libertarianism lacks a concern with social justice.

Indeed, there would be no regulation in an anarchist society other than the natural regulation that grows out of society anyway. I've already said that I'm a minarchist, and I support minimal government regulation.

Yes, I believe that private morality is not the state's affair. I think people should be allowed to do whatever they like with their own bodies, as long as they don't endanger others or infringe on the rights of others. As for not having a concern about social justice, a Libertarian would have no problems with the majority of liberties espoused by social justice. In fact a Libertarian takes these liberties as natural rights. We hold that everyone has and should have an even playing field in terms of social issues; everyone is born as an equal human, but under different circumstances. Women should no more be treated as slaves than black people, but this doesn't mean that they are guaranteed a position at a company (Libertarians oppose affirmative action since it is discriminatory given the assumption of natural rights).

Quote:Are you, or are you not, using anarcho to mean anarchy? Are you, or are you not, using libertarianism to mean "an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens."? It appears that you are arguing simply for the abolishment of regulations... but then you have told us that laws (which are regulations, and in our countries (US, UK) socially derived) supersede business actions... and you simply can't have them both at once (no regulations and laws). Would you like to explain how you figure it is possible to have them both at once?

I'm arguing for a free market, in other words, the abolishment of regulations on the market. This has nothing to do with social laws that protect people from each other. An example of a social law is a law criminalizing murder (since it violates the right to life, a natural right). Social laws are separate from economic laws, but they can coincide. For instance, if a company were to hire someone to kill another, the company (or more importantly, the people behind the company and the order) would be brought to trial under the social law. There would be, however, no regulation of the market in terms of economic laws. Business would pay no tax, would be able to trade freely, would be able to hire freely, etc.

Quote:I hope we all understand what you mean by capitalism... considering that we are constantly arguing socialism vs capitalism of late.

I hope so, but the amount of veering off-topic and general misinterpretation of my stance leads me to believe otherwise.

(April 14, 2010 at 9:38 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 14, 2010 at 7:01 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: If you don't deny it, then why argue it? You quote extreme socialism back at us, why is that? I'm undecided on cheaper labour from abroad. Exploitation is more the point where capitalism is concerned. And I don't care how you want to wrap it up, it's all greed to me.

I'm not arguing it...you are. This thread was about anarcho-capitalism in a Libertarian society; you went off on a tangent about slavery, to which I responded by telling you it was a pathetic argument (post #28). You clarified your point again, and I re-iterated why it was a stupid argument (post #33). You then change your argument by saying that businesses try to get the cheapest labour possible, a point on which I agreed and you knew I agreed on since we've discussed it before. I further re-iterated why bringing slavery into the discussion was ridiculous when the topic is anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism (post #37). Are we following the same conversation?

The slave trade is just an example of the extremes of capitalism... that's where it naturally leads, and would lead to with your ideal. Slavery IS the cheapest labour possible, and that's why capitalism NOW practices it. And this is with regulation. Just imagine what would happen without regulation!

The point is fr0d0, it is illegal. Criminals don't care about regulation and laws...because they are criminals. Even socialism wouldn't be able to stop criminals from existing. So what would happen without regulation? Well, the market would naturally regulate. If a company is found to be keeping slaves, it would be brought to trial by the government in the exact same way it is now.

Stop pretending that slavery is some capitalist fixation when it is clearly a criminal one. Unless you give me a proof of how socialism somehow magically causes there to be no slaves, I'm not going to accept your argument.

They kind of both count, depending on how you define the details of the definition of slavery...

Slave to the gummint... Slave to the Corporation... What about a Corporate Government? Does that count as double slavery? Servitude while engaging in bondage? I'm on a roll...

-Pip

(April 15, 2010 at 12:04 pm)Pippy Wrote: Servitude while engaging in bondage? I'm on a roll...

-Pip

That could garner you a rather large wage. Plus points if you are willing to engage in bondage while painted in liquid latex.

Freow kitty!

Hiss,
Rhizo

(April 15, 2010 at 7:47 am)Tiberius Wrote: The point is fr0d0, it is illegal. Criminals don't care about regulation and laws...because they are criminals. Even socialism wouldn't be able to stop criminals from existing. So what would happen without regulation? Well, the market would naturally regulate. If a company is found to be keeping slaves, it would be brought to trial by the government in the exact same way it is now.

Stop pretending that slavery is some capitalist fixation when it is clearly a criminal one. Unless you give me a proof of how socialism somehow magically causes there to be no slaves, I'm not going to accept your argument.

It's illegal to keep slaves directly. But it isn't illegal to buy goods produced by slaves. Of course no business is going to be stupid enough to be too directly involved, but just being part of it is guilt enough. Without them paying for it, it wouldn't exist.

Big businessmen are criminals. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind. They are also above the law. Look at the bankers. Those two this week received a fine they could well afford and a restriction from working within the financial industry. Hardly punitive measures. Yet someone caught stealing a meagre amount could be jailed. This is not 'fair'.

Slavery is just an extreme that capitalism naturally sinks to. If they can get away with it, they will. The chocolate company using child labour. Ikea and Primark using child labour is another recent example that springs to mind. And this is the small fry.

And no one is promoting any other ideology here. We're just reacting to your own extreme position, because it's off balance.

You are reacting to my position by saying it leads to slavery, even though social regulation is above business regulation in Libertarianism. Business isn't regulated by business laws, but it is by social laws. Businesses cannot legally keep slaves (or profit from slaves in any way) anymore than they can kill people who disagree with them or try to silence the freedom of speech of anyone.

Is there something you aren't understanding here? "No business regulation" means there is no government regulation of business in terms of economic statutes and laws. In other words, no business tax, no VAT, no anti-trust laws, etc. It does not mean that business are suddenly exempt from social laws! Social laws are entirely real in Libertarianism, and they protect people as they do in any other for of government.

Now if you are talking specifically about anarcho-capitalism (without the Libertarianism) or just general anarchy, then yeah, I'd agree with you. Capitalism with absolutely no social regulation leads to slavery, but it only does it under that specific pretense, and it is certainly not my position, so you can stop trying to claim it is.

Do you accept that capitalism as we have it now supports slavery? And how can your brand of capitalism be different? What stops it being the same?

No I don't accept that. Slavery is illegal in the UK...any company that has slaves or uses slaves would be committing a crime. It may have supported it in the past, but it doesn't anymore. You seem to be stuck in the past.

How is my brand of capitalism different? I've been over that so many times now...read the numerous threads we've had on the subject. Capitalism under Libertarianism (or any modern democratic / republic system for that matter) doesn't support slavery, and unless we undergo some weird moral reversal, it never will again.

Then you don't accept the evidence that sites like stopthetraffic present? I am slightly astounded at this. I know these reports to be fact.

Getting that out of the way, what I want to know is if you think capitalism we have NOW, that evidently supports slavery, is the same as would occur in your own brand. If it does; if your brand would be the same, including your denial of facts then as well as now, then I'm finished.