JamesShrugged

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    71

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by JamesShrugged

    Anarcho-capitalism VS Objectivism

    in About Objectivism

    Posted

    Cowboy, never mind the theoretical arguments. They are fallacious. The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehill was a nice attempt in its time and place. But if you read it closely, you will see how they glide from "should" or "could" to "would" and then "will." I mean, they were just guessing and then claimed it was accurate without any empirical evidence. Empirical evidence did exist. They were just ignorant of it.

    Realize also that Roy Childs repudiated his "Open Letter" on anarchism and became a mini-archist. His original arguments might still be valid, objectively, but his renunciation makes the essay problematic at best.

    Why is it problematic? Since we don't know what logical demonstration (if any) led Childs to change his mind about anarcho-capitalism, it hardly follows that his original argument is questionable.

    For comparison, consider that Alan Greenspan is a former supporter of laissez-faire capitalism. Do his present views make the 1966 essay "Gold and Economic Freedom" "problematic at best"?

    Thank you for calling this out. I swear every time the open letter is mentioned, objectivists rush to this ad hom.

    Anarcho-capitalism VS Objectivism

    in About Objectivism

    Posted

    I was just curious what the differences between these two ideas is and why one is the better then the other? Is the only difference that Objectivism would support states and Anarcho-capitalism wouldn't? If this is a bad question I apologize I am still new to Objectivism.

    Hi! I consider myself an AnarchObjectivist, which is essentially anarcho-capitalism with an objectivist justification. Here are some great resources on the topic from my sub http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchobjectivism :

    AnarchObjectivism:

    Genus: Objectivism

    Differentia: Anarchism

    What is AnarchObjectivism? -

    An AnarchObjectivist is one who accepts the fundamental principles of Ayn Rands philosophy, but rejects her advocacy of minarchism as inconsistent with those basic positions in metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.

    The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman -

    This excellent 23 minute video gives a brief introduction to anarcho capitalist concepts and answers the most common objections, such as "wouldn't there be constant gang warfare?"

    Ayn Rand “The Objectivist Ethics:"

    “The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. No man——or group or society or government—has the right to assume the role of a criminal and initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man. Men have the right to use physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. The ethical principle involved is simple and clear-cut: it is the difference between murder and self-defense.”

    Open Objectivism

    Objectivism is a body of rational knowledge rather than a fixed, closed set of doctrines like a religion. This fact is implied by the very nature of human knowledge, which Objectivism teaches us is contextual, fallible, and open-ended. The philosophy itself must therefore be open to expansion, refinement, and, if necessary, revision in the same way as any other body of knowledge, such as Newtonian physics, the theory of evolution, market economics, etc.

    Answers to Ten Objections to Libertarian Anarchism

    (4) Ayn Rand: Private Protection Agencies Will Battle

    (5) Robert Bidinotto: No Final Arbiter of Disputes

    (6) Property Law Cannot Emerge from the Market

    AnarchObjectivist's on the Web

    Related subreddit's

    Anarcho Capitalism

    Agorism

    Libertarian

    Objectivism

    A Free Market Defense of Walmart? Not so Fast.

    in 4 - Politics

    Posted

    Yeah I agree, and I didn't really write this article to point the finger at walmart necessarily, so much as point out that Doug Altner and the ayn rand institute are very misguided when they defend these company's (I've written articles on objectivist defenses of Goldman Sachs, mcdonalds, and walmart now) actions and policy's on free market grounds, as if this is how a free market works.

    A Free Market Defense of Walmart? Not so Fast.

    in 4 - Politics

    Posted

    In his November 27, 2013 Forbes article, Doug Altner asks the question, “Why do 1.4 million Americans work at walmart?” His answer, presumed to be along free market lines, is that walmart and its employees voluntarily trade value for value to mutual benefit and satisfaction. “So, let’s stop attacking Walmart for paying market wages,“ Altner urges readers. Since Walmart and its business model exist in the context of a mixed economy, and depends fundamentally on state interference into the economy on their behalf, or that, at the very least, give rise to a business model that could not exist unsubsidized (even nominally) it cannot be said that Walmart operates according to free market principles .

    See the rest of the article here:

    http://anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com/2014/05/21/a-free-market-defense-of-walmart-not-so-fast/

    AnarchObjectivist subforum

    in Tech Support / IPB Help Desk

    Posted

    Ah, I've been thinking a home for "Anarcho Objectivists," we have a subreddit http://www.reddit.com/r/anarchobjectivism, (and you can see the hundreds of articles on anarcho objectivism i and others have collected there) but I would like to have a place with profiles and all that. I love the community here, and I thought that since George H Smith is already here, this would be the perfect place :). I didnt mean for it to be a forum to promote anarcho objectivism, just somewhere to discuss it.

    Svanberg takes a que from Binswanger, gets it wrong

    in 4 - Politics

    Posted

    It sounds like you've found a hobby horse to ride. What's your point? Is your point that no activity is defensible in a mixed economy? All people are immoral until they adopt and fully practice your political theory?

    J

    Nope, the point is that alleged defenders of the free market should address the true recipients of state largess, instead of praising them as productive job creators, while attacking the "moochers" who collect welfare, because the state has artificially limited their options to the degree that working at mcdonalds looks viable.

    So, would that mean that you are one of the "true recipients of state largess" because you're typing on a device which was made by alleged "productive job creators," and because you're using the internet and roads and other "state largess"? Why are you choosing to accept the state largess?

    J

    Can you tell the difference between Hank Rearden and Orren Boyle, or between Dagny and James Taggart, as business people?

    edited: had the quote boxes messed up

    Svanberg takes a que from Binswanger, gets it wrong

    in 4 - Politics

    Posted

    Who wrote that piece?

    Readers of that article should keep in mind that, according to Kevin Carson (who is quoted) and other Proudhonian/Tuckerite anarchists, interest and rent are solely the result of illegitimate government intervention. Thus so long as interest and rent continue to exist, we will never have a truly free-market economy.

    Also, note the reference to paying workers what they are worth and their reliance on wage labor. Those people actually believe in the labor theory of value -- an antediluvian doctrine that even many Marxists have abandoned.

    Of course we live in a mixed economy, but that doesn't mean that basic free-market principles do not apply.

    Ghs

    I wrote it. my blog is at anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com.

    I dont think that Carsons statements rely on the LTV, a labor theory of property suffices to justify his remarks on rent and interest. Namely, building from Rothbards homesteading theory (which basically came from Locke), that illegitamite state granted property titles constitute a monopoly on land is what makes living off rents possible and of course that central banking where members of a cartel are given credit cheaply and sell it at a profit to those who dont have access to the money monopoly.

    here is a good page on the question of what theory of value market anarchists subscribe to http://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq/which-theory-of-value-do-market-anarchists-subscribe-to

    A labor theory of land acquisition, in contrast to a labor theory of value (LTV), is a moral theory, and, as such, it tells us nothing about economic phenomena like rent and interest. Kevin Carson is an avid defender of the LTV, if in a somewhat revised form.

    Rent would exist even if the government didn't claim ownership of any land, and interest would exist even if the government had nothing to do with the money supply.

    The link you supplied discusses only the neo-Tuckerite version of anarchism, not the version defended by Rothbard, who once referred to the Tuckerites as "money cranks."

    I still don't understand the point of your article (linked earlier). Even in an interventionist economy it remains true that minimum wage laws will increase unemployment at the margin.

    Ghs

    re: rent and interest. Of course they would exist, but not at the rate they do today as they are artificially inflated by state intervention.

    re "money cranks" Carson discusses this explicitly. http://c4ss.org/content/6888

    "I still don't understand the point of your article (linked earlier). Even in an interventionist economy it remains true that minimum wage laws will increase unemployment at the margin. "

    This is my point: "In true vulgar libertarian fashion, Svanberg then proposes the abolition of the welfare state, without a word about abolishing the state privilege that gives rise to such blatantly exploitative business models, as if the welfare recipients are leeches on society, but the businessmen taking advantage of workers with the assistance of the state are saints. As an advocate of freed markets, I, of course, would like to see the welfare state abolished, but not before the regulatory environment created by state intervention is dismantled, putting workers and employers on even footing."

    It is very common for orthodox objectivists to engage in right-conflationism, thats what I wanted to point out.

    Svanberg takes a que from Binswanger, gets it wrong

    in 4 - Politics

    Posted

    Who wrote that piece?

    Readers of that article should keep in mind that, according to Kevin Carson (who is quoted) and other Proudhonian/Tuckerite anarchists, interest and rent are solely the result of illegitimate government intervention. Thus so long as interest and rent continue to exist, we will never have a truly free-market economy.

    Also, note the reference to paying workers what they are worth and their reliance on wage labor. Those people actually believe in the labor theory of value -- an antediluvian doctrine that even many Marxists have abandoned.

    Of course we live in a mixed economy, but that doesn't mean that basic free-market principles do not apply.

    Ghs

    I wrote it. my blog is at anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com.

    I dont think that Carsons statements rely on the LTV, a labor theory of property suffices to justify his remarks on rent and interest. Namely, building from Rothbards homesteading theory (which basically came from Locke), that illegitamite state granted property titles constitute a monopoly on land is what makes living off rents possible and of course that central banking where members of a cartel are given credit cheaply and sell it at a profit to those who dont have access to the money monopoly.

    here is a good page on the question of what theory of value market anarchists subscribe to http://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq/which-theory-of-value-do-market-anarchists-subscribe-to

    Svanberg takes a que from Binswanger, gets it wrong

    in 4 - Politics

    Posted

    It sounds like you've found a hobby horse to ride. What's your point? Is your point that no activity is defensible in a mixed economy? All people are immoral until they adopt and fully practice your political theory?

    J

    Nope, the point is that alleged defenders of the free market should address the true recipients of state largess, instead of praising them as productive job creators, while attacking the "moochers" who collect welfare, because the state has artificially limited their options to the degree that working at mcdonalds looks viable.