Anarchism, what was your stumbling block?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by hawkeye, Jun 25, 2014.

  1. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    I'm only thinking of that as ultimate last resort though. Not something commonly applied.

    If you think about what life would be like for someone who chose not to follow their obligations, who actually murdered someone, they would be pretty much akin to an outlaw. Think about the way a business gets treated now, if say the owner advocates a homophobic or racist position. They are generally pretty quick to retract. In a free market, reputation matters. Who would want a reputation as a racist or a homophobe much less a murderer?

    I guess that's what I'm trying to say. It would be for very rare extreme cases. Like say a unabomber or the like, someone living in the woods and not having to depend on the market.
     
  2. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    12,941
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE[/youtube]
     
  3. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,808
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    For the sake of the discussion I will concede that such a scenario is possible.

    However based upon the fact that it hardly ever occurs in the civilised world now, even with adjoining countries that are hostile or antagonistic toward one another (eg the Russian gas pipeline), it is therefore equally unlikely to happen under an alternative social system.
     
  4. Jislizard

    Jislizard Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    My main problem with the idea of Anarchy is that leaving the free market to decide may ultimately end up with monopolies all over the place, which would be acceptable if the monopoly provided the best service and continued to do so in the absence of competition.

    I am well aware that with democracy there are monopolies all over the place and I know the government can take action to limit the monopolies that they don't already own. Without government interference the free market might not have time to select the best choice.

    There are numerous examples of the best choice not being used for various reasons, but what thread would be complete without a couple of them?

    Narrow Gauge and Wide Gauge Railroads: Wide gauge would allow more stable transport at faster speeds but in order for trains to run from one end of the country to another there had to be a standard width for the rolling stock. Narrow gauge meant less excavation, less labour costs and less materials, so the people with safer faster transport had to swap to the take slower, more dangerous option for the sake of saving money.

    VHS and Betamax: Apparently Betamax was the better standard but VHS had better marketing and flooded the market with cheaper VHS machines, saturating the market and crowding out the better option, creating their own monopoly.

    Windows and Linux: Windows bundles with new computers is very convenient unless you are trying to promote Linux, then you have an uphill struggle because computers don't come preloaded with both and I have not seen any new PCs offering Linux as the default operating system. But new systems are coming out with Android so they are making some headway. Is Windows the best operating system? I have no idea because I have only ever used windows and I can't use my android tablet because it doesn't work like windows does.

    My concern would be the security companies. The first in would have a great start, they could build up the business but once the hard work is done, others would come in to try and poach customers. If my company was staffed with well armed ex-military types and someone was poaching my clients after I had put in all the leg work then I can see how it would be easier to lean on the competition, rather than cut wages, costs or increase services.

    And the bins! I personally would be happy to take my bins to the tip when they are full, not have them incubating for a week or have to try and cram a bit more in and get the lid shut to keep the smells in. As it is I am paying to have someone come around and collect them so I don't bother. But if you have half a dozen different groups coming around picking them up at different days and times then it is going to cause even more congestion on the roads as the numerous bin companies make their pick ups. Then you will have a constant revolving door of companies coming into the market, undercutting the existing businesses, companies going broke because newcomers are cheaper or poaching clients etc.

    I don't want to have to be renegotiating my bin contract every year, as it is I struggle to find time to look at my insurance companies each year.

    Unless anarchy can be as convenient as government then people are not going to have time for it.

    McDonalds is more convenient than home cooking, people know that it might not be as healthy (depending on the quality of your home cooking) but they decide they would rather eat crap in front of the TV than be working in the kitchen to make a healthy meal and then cleaning up afterwards.
     
  5. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,808
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    @Jis, valid points raised mate, esp in regards to monopolies. When I have a few minutes I'll try and answer some of those questions, or someone else may in the mean time.

    On another note, you would gladly take your bins to the dump yourself but couldn't find the time to research or renegotiate a waste disposal service once a year?? :/ :cool:
     
  6. Jislizard

    Jislizard Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Sometimes it is easier to just do things yourself, plus it is on the way to Bunnings, plus having a full bin in summer, with shrimps in it, and still three days to bin collection, that's a powerfull motivator!

    On the plus side, we now recycle and compost. With five adults in the house we could fill a bin in a day. Take out all the food scraps (worm farm), left over food (Bokashi), packaging (recycling) and we can just about get it all into the bin and the lid shut by bin day. The recycle bin is packed to the lid every fortnight, that's with collapsing boxes and squashing down empty drinks bottles, plus fishing out all the stuff my family thinks is recyclable because they can't be bothered to read the sheet of A4 with the instructions, or even glance at the pictures.

    Over in Greece you carry your rubbish out in bin bags and each street has a couple of the big bins which you chuck them into, non of this 'personal' rubbish! However it looks disgusting and the bins fill up and overflow, plus I don't think they get washed out very well. I think the main problem there is that they keep going on strike.
     
  7. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    12,941
    Likes Received:
    2,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Here's a positive thought from an intelligent writer:
    (even if the journalist, or his editor, is not up to the task!)

    http://www.theguardian.com/environm...source-revolution-conquer-one-percent-cia-spy
     
  8. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,808
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    ^ communism :(
     
  9. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    OK, so we've moved on from silly vague threats if you don't get your own way, that apparently people wouldn't be able to understand :rolleyes:, and now we are on to simple,unrealistic, not well-thought out scenarios.

    I can tell you what would happen to said road-owner. He would have breached a bunch of contracts where he promised not to arbitrarily close the road. Then he's off to arbitration, where I don't think he's going to fare too well. In fact he's probably going to lose a lot more than 2 million dollars thanks to all the inconvenience and expense he has caused everyone by closing the road.

    Look, the key when you are setting up these scenarios is to remember nothing happens in a vacuum. Plus, it isn't the case where people just forget transgressions against them. Plus, people will think about such a thing beforehand and want to protect themselves against it.

    If you had any real world experience in the market, you would realise that dealing with other businesses on a long-term basis means it ISN'T a good idea to arbitrarily piss them off. And it's highly unlikely that any business can just grab 2 million dollars when they want it. Plus, while the road is closed waiting for the money the road business itself will be losing money because it has shut down commerce. And finally, the road business is extremely unlikely to have one owner-operator. Try and get that crazy ransom plan past any boardroom in the world and see how far you get. They will say it's nuts and we are making plenty of money anyway so why do it?
     
  10. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    Was VHS so bad? Honestly, it seemed fine to me. I saw the ,movies I wanted to see for what seemed reasonable prices. Was Betamax so much better that we ended up with a significantly worse experience? btw, I think I just dated myself. VHS? Betamax? I have no idea what you are talking about.

    Windows? Sure. The market at the time was essentially looking for one OS. There were a bunch of others, OS2 and the like, plus Apple of course (which many will claim is better, but I'm not getting into that argument) but Windows came out on top partly due to price, partly due to superior marketing and understanding of the market, and partly because it was relatively good at what it did. Microsoft actually made more on their Office products than Windows anyway and the relative monopoly on computers (it was never a complete monopoly) is on the way out now. There's a reason why Gates left. They never did adapt all that well to the internet. Linux, for all it's benefits is still not user-friendly enough for the average person. At least it wasn't last time I looked. Don't hate on me, I'm a supporter of Linux and hope it does gain more traction in the future. But personally I am still with Windows for now (partly for professional reasons).

    Don't know anything about railways.

    With the security companies could you honestly imagine just one starting out and grabbing everyone? The idea seems inconceivable to me. Take for example ISP's or other telecommunication providers. No-one is dominating the market. Even if it did become a monopoly similar to Microsoft, which also seems unlikely, they still have competitors. I don't know the security industry but it actually seems pretty diverse with room for a wide range of services and providers.
     
  11. Jislizard

    Jislizard Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    510
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    I had to google VHS and Betamax myself, ahem.

    Anyway, they both worked fine as far as I know, would betamax have been better if it had been developed, would VHS have been improved if it had a bit of competition, who knows? and ultimately, who cares, both were superseded by newer technologies.
     
  12. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,808
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    It is natural in a market economy for monopolies to form, in fact it is the dream of all business operators to have a monopoly. Theoretically if a monopoly develops, it provides a business opportunity for a competitor to enter the market. This generally does happen, but it may take time and ultimately it may be successful or it is not. On the other hand, even under our current system monopolies exist in abundance across the country and the government takes no action to limit their existence basically because in the most cases, they are monopolies that have arisen as a response to market need. To put it another way, they are either pioneer businesses that created their market or they are remnant businesses that have survived where others have failed - neither of which could be classified as uncompetitive business practices.

    One pub towns are such an example, the local ferry service to Great Keppel Island is another example of a monopoly operating in a free market. There has not always been a monopoly ferry service, but a number of different operators have indeed had a monopoly on the market at different times. There are countless other monopolies across the nation, they are all characterised by being the only operators in a limited market. In a broad market, the likelihood of monopolies forming is much more unlikely. Ferry tickets to a run down resort island are not highly sought after, unlike essential services such as rubbish collection which would be utilised by nearly 100% of the population in an urban environment, consequently monopolies are much more unlikely to arise, and if they do, are more likely to be challenged by competitors because there is greater need and greater wealth demanding such a service.

    Is government really that convenient? Countless regulations that citizens and business people have to abide by results in a wealth of paperwork, $$$$$, time and effort that must be expended in order for us to remain compliant. But you are correct in one sense, taking responsibility for ones own life can demand extra attention, the bonus though is that there are greater dividends and a higher level of accountability from the service providers.

    The commoditisation of resources enabled widespread distribution of previously difficult to get commodities. If a price is placed upon a resource in need, then an incentive exists for an entrepreneur to meet the market need. I'm not sure what Steele is trying to say when he argues that the commoditisation of resources was done "without regard to the true cost in non-renewable resources." What is the true cost of a non-renewable resource? What are the non-renewable resources he is referring to?

    It begs us to ask Steele then - "How should resources be commoditised with regard to the true cost in non-renewable resources?". Clearly, to engage in such a notion (that's providing you can even understand the question) is to entertain nothing more than nonsense.

    He goes on to suggest that the Industrial Era has enslaved humans and re-commoditised them. I'm not sure what part of the Industrial Era he is referring to, is it the Industrial Revolution or modern post-WW2 times? Industrialisation has provided greater freedom in our lives than before, this is evidenced by the increase in our prosperity and in the increasing life spans in modern industrialised countries. And at what point in history had we previously been "commoditised" if we were "re-commoditised" during the Industrial Era?

    Finally, he argues for a nebulous arrangement of community wealth defined by community knowledge, community definitions of truth blah blah blah "being the ultimate arbiter of shared wealth". In other words, the abolition of private property. It is physically impossible to have shared wealth. It is ethically reprehensible to have shared wealth. Even if wealth should be shared equally and it could be agreed upon as to what constitutes wealth, truth, transparency, authenticity etc, and it was acceptable to take the wealth of one person and distribute it to others, it would be impossible to do so because it would require consultation with every member of a community, eliciting exactly what their opinion is and how much should be allocated to each. Such a task would be time consuming and would have to repeated every time new wealth was created or lost or when a baby was born or someone died. It would mean that until a decision had been reached, society would be stalled. Ultimately, in order to overcome such obstacles it would be necessary to reach a majority decision, exactly the situation we have now.
     
  13. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    I have a proposition for the government supporters on here. I'm perfectly willing to let you keep your government if that's what you want. Really. I have no problem with people that want the government.

    With one condition. I myself, shouldn't have to have anything to do with them if I so wish. I should have no obligations towards them, monetary or otherwise, and by the same token enjoy none of their benefits (or negative effects, which tend to outweigh the benefits by quite a bit). Any services that the government used to provide to me that I still wished to enjoy, like say a security or contract enforcement provider I would need to procure on the open market. This would also be true of any business I might create. It too would not have to have anything to do with the government.

    And this freedom would be not just for me, but for anyone who wished to take the same path.

    Is this such an unreasonable request? Or are you intent on forcing me to do what you want, to obey your government, against my wishes?
     
  14. hennypenny

    hennypenny New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    340
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
     
  15. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,808
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    ^ Long quote from a man (Chomsky) who favours bending the truth.
     
  16. mmm....shiney!

    mmm....shiney! Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,808
    Likes Received:
    2,124
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    昆士蘭
    The belief that workers should have control over enterprises and production is faulty. It is based upon the view that because workers provide the labour in the production process and because their level of reward is small compared to that which the business owners reap, workers therefore are exploited and will only gain just rewards when they control the production process and receive a greater share of profits. The reality though is that workers do not initiate enterprises therefore workers should not have control over the enterprises in which they work. If they initiated enterprises then they would cease to be classified as a worker and would instead be a business owner. Furthermore, business owners risk capital and forgo short term reward in order to reap long term profits. Workers on the other hand receive short term rewards in that they are paid regularly in the form of salaries and wages and within a timely period of fulfilling their obligations. In other words, workers do not have to wait as long for their reward in the same way as business owners do between the investment of their labour and capital, therefore, the reward for business owners should be greater.

    That's Chomsky's take on libertarianism, it is not a view that I or others share. No one is championing unaccountable private tyranny so I do not see the point of Chomsky's arguments.

    To be continued.....
     
  17. hawkeye

    hawkeye New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Perth, Australia
    Here's where he starts to run into trouble. Democracy does not constrain private power. "Private power" which by itself wouldn't really be anything significant, is able to buy state power. And then it uses state power to gain even more money and power and the two of them feed off each other both gaining in size and slowly impoverishing much of the rest of society in the process, particularly through the use of inflation and debt.

    If democracy worked, why are we not in a fantastic world now? Why is everything going wrong despite more than 100 years of democracy? Why did democracy bring us the most horrific war the world has ever seen not to mention all the other wars with significant deaths since (Vietnam, Iraq, etc)?

    Chomsky is falling for the propaganda of democracy and not looking at what the facts and evidence are telling him.

    As for the worker owned enterprises. That's fine, if a bunch of workers get together and want to start a business and own it, they can do that. But why should an existing owner, who built up their business from scratch, put all that hard work into it, then have to give an equal share to each new person who comes along? When you actually think about what happens out in the real world it is nonsense. People can start a business if they want. Or they can work for someone else if they want. But you can't force people to give up part of their shares in a business to be able to hire people. And if you have no authority, if you have no rulers and genuine freedom and a genuine free market there is no way to force it anyway. If that's what people end up voluntarily doing, then that is fine. Maybe they will. I'm sure some will but I doubt the majority would. It also completely denies the fact that different people will be in different stages of their working lives with different wants and needs and instead just lumps everyone into this "worker" category. It seems more like repackaged Marxism which I have to say, would not be unexpected from a lifetime academician.
     
  18. Newtosilver

    Newtosilver Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,727
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    QLD
    You have no idea....... You talk about the market like it is magic. Try and get a ransom past any boardroom in the world and see what happens? Ummmm ever heard of the piracy problem off Somalia? I think you will find there have been a LOT of ransoms payed out by companies.

    Read up on Mexico, you seem to believe everything will be fine because the market will fix it. That is stupidity.
     
  19. CriticalSilver

    CriticalSilver New Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    2,725
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    Anarcho-syndicalism and Libertarian-socialism are intriguing concept complexes to be hyphenated together. They are in effect, the compounding of opposites into some kind of third alternative.

    I am baffled at how unionism (syndicalism) can be brought into accord with anarchy, or socialism with libertarianism. One might suspect that trying to do so is a purposeful attempt at obfuscation.

    What I think is meant here though is a Kibbutz styled society, where smaller communes of "workers" labour for the greater good of meeting the needs of the commune. Where overarching governments and bureaucracies are made redundant by the self-organising collectives.

    Which, if I'm not mistaken, is nothing but tribalism within a context of industrialisation and given the tribal background of Chomsky, it might not be so surprising that this is what he favours.
     
  20. bordsilver

    bordsilver Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    May 23, 2012
    Messages:
    9,618
    Likes Received:
    315
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The rocks
    This is a piece of piss. Your "problems" exist now across a wide range of products (not just waste management) and they are already solved for you by the market. Convenience and tailored solutions are indeed a hallmark of services in a competitive market.

    To me, your time and information problems basically scream "aggregators" and "branding". As an example, when competition in the loan market exploded a couple of decades ago and there were a plethora of products available from a large number of lenders (with people switching products every 2-5 years). People consequently had large time costs in finding the best loan/refinancing deal available month-to-month. In came the independent mortgage brokers and aggregators who provided simple platforms for people to sift through the hundreds of available products at no net expense (or in many cases, cheaper than what the bank's own brokers could offer).

    Similarly, most wholesalers and retailers businesses are basically about sourcing and presenting to you a sub-set of all of the possible suppliers of tinned tomatoes, beans, biscuits, meat, electronic goods, cars, etc. Where it matters, they actively shortlist suppliers and supply chains to reduce various risks to the customer. Generally, resellers positively want to reduce the time and search costs to customers and either get remunerated through volume or via people being willing to pay for this service.

    Branding and brand loyalty is another common way for people to reduce search cost. Putting a range of different products under the same brand can have significant value for consumers in reducing search cost.

    In the case of your waste management problems, it is likely that you'll either move towards a multi-product provider that bundles a range of services or just pick an option from the two or three brands that you have some form of trust for.

    Moreover, the simple logistical cost of multiple disposal companies operating in a given geographic area would benefit greatly from economies of scale thereby automatically reducing the number of newcomers and the constant revolving door of companies knocking on your door. Such scale can either happen organically from a dominant local provider that provides good service at a good price suitable for the majority of people, or through an aggregator who bundles customers and passes the work through to its panel of fifty-odd individual local service providers.
     

Share This Page