Philosophy of Freedom

Kimberly Cox59 said:I don't know, that just sounds like a total utopia to me... I mean, look at how things are now. There’s already way too much capital concentrated in the hands of a tiny group of people, so they’re starting out at such a massive advantage compared to everyone else. Anarcho-capitalism might actually be fair if we could all just hit the reset button—you know, start from scratch, basically from nothing. Then maybe everyone would be on a level playing field, and everything would really just come down to an individual's talent or how clever they are. But honestly? Even if we did that, I guess things would just slide back to the current status quo after a single generation. You'd end up with a new generation born into poverty with zero real shot at succeeding. It just seems impossible if you actually care about individual freedom.

So, I guess the main difference comes down to what I've picked up from talking to some other communists out there. Apparently, in anarcho-communism, you aren't actually allowed to work for your own benefit, trade for profit, or even hire people. It’s like, totally forbidden to enter into any kind of agreement where all parties actually agree on the terms. You know what I mean?

It’s not like there’s some rule against hiring people, right? I mean, how else would factories even run? It just wouldn't work. 🤷
The only real difference is that you wouldn't have individual bosses hiring new people anymore. Instead, it would be these worker councils handling the recruitment. And hey, trade isn't actually banned—at least not in anarchism. That's a totally different story when you're talking about state socialism. The whole system is built on exchanging goods without using money. As for working... well, communism is all about the labor, I guess.

I get where you're coming from—it feels pretty unfair that an individual isn't allowed to hire people on a large scale. I mean, sure, small businesses are a different story, but scaling up? Not so much. But then again, in a communist system, an individual wouldn't even be able to accumulate any kind of capital anyway, because there just isn't any money to go around, and all those material goods are supposedly available to everyone equally. I guess that's just how it works.

Look, on the flip side, in an anarcho-capitalist setup, you’ve got these successful individuals who can basically hire anyone who’s desperate enough to take the job just to survive. Libertarians love to chant this mantra about how those workers are "technically" free to quit and go find work somewhere else. But I guess people tend to forget that in an anarcho-capitalist world, there aren't any federal laws setting a minimum wage or guaranteeing social safety nets. Everything is up to the employer. So, what does that actually mean? Well, it means an employer is only going to pick the folks willing to work for absolute peanuts, while everyone else just sits around. It doesn't really leave much of a choice, does it? You either take a tiny, pathetic paycheck, or you don't work at all and end up starving. Either way, I don't see much room for success there. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems pretty bleak.
So, I was thinking about why anarcho-capitalism isn't actually a libertarian ideology... I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like there's a huge distinction there that people often miss. It’s such a tricky thing to wrap your head around sometimes.

How can anarcho-communism even work without eventually sliding back into a market economy? I mean, someone is always going to step up—someone who’s just a bit sharper or has some super niche skill set—and they'll naturally start demanding more in exchange for what they bring to the table. It seems almost inevitable, I guess.

So, look, anarchism isn't actually trying to kill off trade or anything. It totally relies on it, actually. But, I guess if someone gets greedy and starts demanding more than their fair share, you run into two big problems—well, at least from their perspective:
1) I mean, he already has access to tons of everything, so asking for more just seems like pure greed and arrogance, if you ask me.
2) If he keeps pushing for more, society will eventually step in and stop him. At the end of the day, he relies on everyone else just as much as they rely on him. Someone provides his food, someone makes his clothes, someone pumps his gas, someone builds his house, and yeah, someone has to fix the plumbing too. No matter how important people think he is, he isn't any more vital than anyone else out there.

If workers were to take over factories, that would basically be stealing property from shareholders and owners.

But then again, those owners have been exploiting the workers—who there are way more of, by the way—for years. So, the owners would just be forced to live in a society where their own lifestyle might dip a little, while the general standard of living for everyone else actually goes up quite a bit.

So, anarcho-communism involves force and prohibitions, whereas anarcho-capitalism is based on mutual consent, property rights, and the non-aggression principle. That’s just how it looks from a libertarian perspective.

I guess the other one is anarcho-capitalism 😁?

Overall, I don't think anarcho-communism uses "prohibitions" per se; it's more about just getting rid of the current setup, from the cultural stuff to the economic side. Since money wouldn't exist, nobody could ever end up in the situation you're describing because, well, it would just be impossible. And mutual consent is huge in anarcho-communism since it’s all built on direct democracy.

Then again, maybe anarcho-capitalism relies on force too. It’s just not direct force like "do this or get shot," but more indirect, like, "you don't have to work for me, but every other employer has the same rules, so your choice: work for this wage or starve on the street." I mean, sure, everyone has the "right" to go hungry, right?...
Also, anarcho-capitalism has some pretty big practical holes, like the whole issue of independent courts, which driftingjackal5 always seems to dodge when asked.

Capital is already way too concentrated in the hands of a tiny few—they're starting out miles ahead of everyone else... just totally rigged from day one.

Just plain impossible—if you actually give a damn about individual liberty...

It’s not like hiring people is illegal or anything—I mean, how else would factories even stay open?... 🤷
The only real difference is that you wouldn't have individual bosses hiring new staff—it’d be some kind of workers' council instead. Trade isn't banned, at least not in anarchism—state socialism is a whole different beast—because the entire system is built on exchanging goods without money. And as for working... communism is all about labor...

Cash is nonexistent—but somehow, the goods are just sitting there, available to everyone equally...

Also, anarcho-capitalism has practical flaws, like the whole issue of independent courts, which driftingjackal5 refuses to answer no matter what.

Kimberly Cox59 said:Wait, why not? I guess if money is being used as a tool to grab power, then yeah, it's capitalism. It isn't anarcho-capitalism—thank God for small mercies—but it's definitely capitalism.
So, walk me through it... why wouldn't you say this system isn't capitalism...

urbanotter said:How do you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years look anything like what could be called "capitalism" or "free enterprise"? It's blindingly obvious to me that you're just a run-of-the-mill populist demagogue—a total economic illiterate who couldn't explain something as basic as supply and demand without looking at Wikipedia, let alone any advanced economic theory or paradigm. Like Murray Rothbard once wrote: "It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, ultimately, a specialized discipline that most people consider a 'dull science.' But it is entirely irresponsible to hold loud and reckless opinions on economic concepts while still in that state of ignorance."

Enough with the off-topic rambling... I'm asking you nicely to stop commenting if you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the THREAD.

driftingjackal5 said:There is a massive difference between DECLARING something and actually DOING it. On paper, North Korea is a "democratic republic." On paper, the Communist Party of China is communist. Those declarations aren't worth the paper they're printed on... you might as well use them as toilet paper. Just like our Constitution—it's just dead ink on a page.

driftingjackal5 said:So, unlike socialism and its derivatives, right? I guess... maybe... 🙄

So, what you're actually saying is that capital can never truly be lost because of bad calls or redistributed just based on how profits and losses shake out in a free market for goods and services? I guess that's your take, right?

Look, if you’re really talking about individual liberty "from the heart," then you have to realize that personal freedom doesn't mean much without economic freedom. It just doesn't work that way, I guess. By what you're saying, you're actually advocating for the violation of those very economic rights—like the right to actually keep and use the fruits of your own labor, which includes things like capital goods. You can't really have one without the other, maybe.

I guess you just don't like the idea that people aren't actually equal when it comes to stuff like talent, drive, intelligence, or how hard they work—you know, all those different factors that really dictate who succeeds in a free market. Maybe that's just how you see it.

What's really the point of grinding away at a factory job if you don't actually see any benefit for yourself? I mean, seriously, why bother?

What’s actually the point of grinding yourself to the bone if, at the end of the day, you end up with the exact same payoff as someone working a chill desk job—or someone doing nothing at all? I mean, I guess it makes you wonder about the whole motivation thing.

How would your society even function without some kind of currency? How would you determine the value of everyone's labor and effort? We moved past simple bartering 5,000 years ago when we realized using money as a temporary store of value was way smarter and more efficient than just swapping goods.

I'm asking again: in such an imaginary economic order, what is the actual motivation to work and put in effort?

Doesn't an "employer" face competition in the labor market from others wanting to hire those same workers? It seems to me you don't understand WHAT a free market is, let alone why that kind of "exploitation" wouldn't even be possible in a truly free market.

Look at this video AGAIN http://youtu.be/IFbYM2EDz40 and if it still isn't clear to you after that, I honestly can't help you.

Another lie. I already gave you the link to the video you decided to ignore (even though you pretended to watch it), so here it is again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

I think Milton Friedman would explain this way better than I ever could, but if you don't understand English, just say so and I'll try to help.

urbanotter said:How do you even have the nerve to claim that American politics and the economy over the last 20 years look anything like what could be called "capitalism" or "free enterprise"? It's blindingly obvious to me that you're just a run-of-the-mill populist demagogue—a total economic illiterate who couldn't explain something as basic as supply and demand without looking at Wikipedia, let alone any advanced economic theory or paradigm. Like Murray Rothbard once wrote: "It is not a crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, ultimately, a specialized discipline that most people consider a 'dull science.' But it is entirely irresponsible to hold loud and reckless opinions on economic concepts while still in that state of ignorance."

Enough with the off-topic rambling... I'm asking you nicely to stop commenting if you don't have anything intelligent to contribute to the THREAD.

urbanotter said:That's the point; those are communist nations.
But we are a capitalist country—certainly not socialist or communist by any stretch of the imagination😍—and if you choose to ignore the reality of how things work, then everything just becomes a dead letter on paper to you.😉😂

Drew Phillips3 said:Just pick a direction.
Basically, you start at 0% on one end of the line, then you pick a spot on that line and label it 100%.
Now, look at it this way.

The 0% mark? That's anarcho-capitalism.
The 100% mark? That's communism.

Those numbers represent the percentage of GDP taken from people and spent by the Federal Government.

Then, I guess you could compare us to somewhere like Singapore, which you could call capitalist.

Ryan Nelson5 said:Don't get mad, but you really are clueless. 🤷 Everything he said is true. Our system is two-thirds socialism and one-third capitalism, and that socialist component is exactly what’s causing our problems. Yet you continue to advocate for even more socialism.

Kimberly Cox59 said:That's not quite right... Communism doesn't even have a state. 😉

urbanotter said:What specific metrics or indicators are you looking at to claim we have that kind of ratio or that type of government?🤷

I'm curious to know where exactly you see this 2/3 socialism and 1/3 capitalism split.🤷

Personally, I find myself rooting for a fairer nation where every single person has the right to live a dignified life,

and frankly, I don't care much about the label attached to it or which specific economic theory is being applied.

Besides, I can't think of a single instance where any pure theory of either capitalism or socialism has actually worked perfectly in practice.

urbanotter said:What specific metrics or indicators are you looking at to claim we have that kind of ratio or that type of government?🤷

I'm curious to know where exactly you see this 2/3 socialism and 1/3 capitalism split.🤷

Personally, I find myself rooting for a fairer nation where every single person has the right to live a dignified life,

and frankly, I don't care much about the label attached to it or which specific economic theory is being applied.

Besides, I can't think of a single instance where any pure theory of either capitalism or socialism has actually worked perfectly in practice.

Drew Phillips3 said:Oh, right. North Korea, Cuba, the USSR... I guess there was never actually a state, a government, or anything like that.

Which specific elements would you use to establish communism, and what happens to people trying to trade for profit in a society like that?

Ryan Nelson5 said:Based on the percentage of GDP allocated to social programs and government salaries (as I previously noted).

Do you honestly think I’m advocating for an unjust state where people don't deserve dignity?

#kocar#;43427115 said:

All you Smith and Friedman followers—and those who just worship them—are the reason we ended up in this mess.
It’s great that you think you know everything, even if your "expertise" has steered us into a corner with almost no way out.

It's all just theoretical chanting, logic games, and demagoguery. We've been listening to this same rhetoric for twenty years now, and it hasn't produced a single real result—it's just left us in a massive hole (to borrow a phrase from a former thief-turned-Prime Minister).

You're still beating a dead horse here. I've been hearing this for two decades, and instead of progress, we’re actually sliding backward.
Personally, I’d much rather see some basic, decent politics where countries actually trade on equal footing, rather than this current system that hurts our community while only lining the pockets of a tiny few.
Are you honestly trying to tell me that American economic policy is working? That we're a successful nation with a bright future?

If that's what you really believe, then you're incredibly shortsighted. You're ignoring our grim reality and the future ahead of us—something our honorable Secretary of the Treasury admitted tonight.

From where I'm sitting, our policies are pushing us into a "league" where only the giants thrive and reap the rewards. Meanwhile, many others who are similar to us aren't even given an equal playing field after all these years; they're stuck in the same struggles and hardships that we are, or even worse.

Now, saying we're regressing isn't quite right. We *are* moving forward, just much slower than everyone else. Those other countries are pulling ahead because they actually liberalized their markets and created a better climate for investment, whereas here, the government keeps dumping massive amounts of money into social programs, pensions, and bureaucracy—all while maintaining absurdly high taxes.

urbanotter said:I have to say, this is genuinely a new perspective for me; it’s actually the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest those specific metrics as a way to judge whether a nation is socialist😍

If that's the case, then I must be completely mistaken in believing that an economic system is fundamentally defined by the ownership of the means of production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

It seems like the people who wrote these entries on Wikipedia might be just as confused as I am.😍

Kimberly Cox59 said:Well, in North Korea, the official ideology is Juche, though I think they scrubbed most of the communist references a few years back. And honestly, the USSR and Cuba aren't actually communist states because, if you look at the encyclopedia definition, communism is supposed to be a society without a state, classes, or money, and none of those things existed in those countries.

Which specific elements would you use to establish communism, and what happens to people trying to trade for profit in a society like that?

Which elements? I mean, what even counts as an "element"? I guess the way it starts is through revolution, which would be led by the working class—not that I’m pulling that out of some political party handbook, because, man, I really can't stand parties 🤣).

Trading for profit wouldn't be possible anyway, since there wouldn't be any money. Period.

Harold Martin10;43429775 said:

urbanotter said:It feels like all these followers and devotees of guys like Adam Smith and Milton Friedman are ultimately the ones who steered us right into this mess we're in today.
At the end of the day, what really matters is that you possess such a deep well of knowledge, even if that expertise has left us navigating a situation where an exit strategy feels almost impossible to find.

Low labor costs aren't the only way a manufacturer can hold their own against the competition. In my experience, much more critical factors like automation, niche specialization, and constant innovation tend to drive the real value. To put it simply, if someone else out there can manufacture a product both cheaper and better than you can, then it actually makes sense to import that item rather than wasting resources trying to build it domestically. Following that same logic, if you can pivot to specialize in a different area where you can produce goods more efficiently and with higher quality than your rivals, you’ll find yourself in a great position to export. At the end of the day, the consumer is always the one who comes out on top.

It feels like we've been stuck listening to the same theoretical mantras, recycled logic, and empty demagoguery for twenty years now. It’s a cycle that never yields actual results, and honestly, it's exactly why we find ourselves in such a massive mess—to borrow a phrase from that former thief who used to run the show as Prime Minister.

You’ve hit on a crucial point there—local manufacturers, absolutely crushed by heavy taxes and regulatory burdens, simply can't compete on price with imports from countries where the tax overhead is a fraction of what we deal with here. That really is the heart of the issue. I don't think the answer lies in slamming our borders shut against foreign goods, because that just ends up punishing the American consumer with higher prices at the checkout counter. Instead, the real fix is a massive reduction in the tax burden; otherwise, nobody is going to find it worthwhile to actually build anything on American soil. Of course, quality and global competitiveness don't just appear overnight—building a truly successful business takes years of grit and investment—but without cutting those taxes, that progress will never happen. Relying on "closed borders" or "high tariffs" isn't just a primitive form of mercantilism; it also flies in the face of the very economic policies the Federal Government has been pursuing for decades as we've worked to integrate into a global system built on free trade and the removal of customs barriers.

It feels like I’m just listening to the same broken record over and over again. Honestly, I’ve been hearing this exact same lamentation for twenty years now, and yet, I don't see any actual progress being made. If anything, it feels like we’re just sliding backward.
To be honest, I find myself leaning toward a much more straightforward, almost primitive approach to politics—one that focuses on establishing truly equal trade relations between nations. I would take that over our current system any day. The way things are running right now feels like it’s actively working against the interests of our community, serving only to line the pockets of a tiny handful of individuals while the rest of us are left to deal with the fallout.
Are you honestly trying to suggest that the economic policies of the American government are actually working, or that we’ve become a successful nation with a bright outlook for the future?

If that’s really how you see things, then I think you might be missing the bigger picture here. You seem to be overlooking the harsh reality of our current situation and where we're headed, a point that our honorable Secretary of the Treasury actually conceded quite candidly during his address this evening.

I can't help but feel that our current political landscape is steering us toward a sort of "elite league," where prosperity and profit seem reserved exclusively for those at the very top. It feels like we’re watching a system designed to benefit the heavy hitters while everyone else—those who share similar struggles or simply want a fair shot—gets left behind. Even after years of trying to navigate these waters, so many people find themselves stuck in the same cycle of hardship and instability, never quite reaching that level playing field we were promised. It reminds me of a few years back when I was struggling to get a small business off the ground; no matter how hard I worked, the systemic hurdles felt insurmountable compared to the giants in the industry. We just seem to be spinning our wheels while the powerful continue to pull ahead.

Drew Phillips3 said:Gold?
Like buying wheat for a pound and selling it for two?

Kimberly Cox59 said:For example:
Factory workers make things, and farmers grow food out in the country. The factory workers give their stuff away for everyone to use, and the farmers do the same with their surplus. All these goods are kept in some kind of warehouse or shop where anyone can grab what they need—for free. Since everything is free, nobody has a hard time getting what they need. Workers from Factory A might want something from Factory B, so they just go take it, and the people at Factory B are totally fine with that because they know they can grab stuff from Factory A too. Even a professor or a doctor could grab food and supplies since they’re providing education or healthcare to society.

If you decide to just take everything without giving anything back, well, you just get kicked out of the whole exchange process. I guess that wouldn't apply to retirees or people with disabilities, since basic necessities would be provided for them. Socialism is a self-regulating system, maybe even more so than capitalism.

In short—you don't get a physical paycheck, but everything is there for you. There would probably just be some logical limits so someone doesn't just walk off with 100 plasma TVs or 10 tons of wheat, leaving nothing for everyone else. And those limits would be decided democratically—that’s the other side of socialism.

Ryan Nelson5 said:You aren't wrong, it just isn't the only metric. It’s actually useful that you brought it up, because the sheer scale of government-funded money pits in our economy is another clear sign of how much socialism has taken over.

urbanotter said:That's the point; those are communist nations.
But we are a capitalist country—certainly not socialist or communist by any stretch of the imagination😍—and if you choose to ignore the reality of how things work, then everything just becomes a dead letter on paper to you.😉😂