Not talking about the state. I am not sure you understood what I was saying there in that quote. The state is definitely not a voluntaryist entity, but some hierarchies, such as in my employment and painting class example, are. Cheers!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
So you're saying that private ownership of industries doesn't exist?
That people can't hire private entities to police for them?
That they don't have the right to refuse basic services?
This is why I don't take "an"caps seriously as not only do they do no real life activism or coupes but they also seem to be unwilling to accept that a powerful capitalist is nothing less than a state, and because of how capitalism works there will always develop powerful capitalists.
The painting class is only voluntary if economic pressures don't force you to work there, earning way less than you produce, as otherwise you will literally die in a few days.
Hierarchy is not bad per-se, I agree, but hierarchy in capitalist is ruling, as you do not elect or simply follow the more experienced, but rather you're forced to follow the one with more power/wealth and what they decide.
Not saying any of that. It seems like you missed where I am coming from in this post.
Yes, exactly, and this is why I don't take "an"caps seriously, as I said before.
If I start out, earn good money, and then begin to buy all the land around me and rent it out, making even more money, expanding every month, then I leverage my property over residents saying they have to go out into the wild and starve unless they pay for me,meanwhile the only jobs around are owned by me, as I own all nearby property, are they not enslaved?
If I use that wealth to build a large long fence around a large population, then restricting the free movement of goods and building of roads, am I not the aggressor? Am I not acting essentially as a state does, but simply more openly for profit (or maybe even just my political goals)?
Honest question, do you understand the cost-per-good structure of the market, where if you purchase more of a product it will usually be cheaper?
Do you not understand how this creates monopolies and mega-corporations like we have today?
Do you not know the history on how these entities turned America, land of the mostly free, entire a corporate-fascist nightmare by beefing up the state and turning them into their puppet? They only used the state as it gives them a way to seem less driven by money. A capitalist can do the exact same, and they would.
If you did all that stuff you mentioned in a free market absent a coercive, centralized state you would starve to death. The very people from which you might endeavor to "buy all the land" would refuse to do business with someone who would destroy them.
Also, as land is consumed, the price rises exponentially. The moment you "buy all of it" you have made everyone around you rich.
In what way is it meaningfully different from a centralized state? The US government started fairly innocent, then some capitalists made money and changed that, slowly making their grasp wider. What makes you think a capitalist can't do that on their own?
Why would you refuse, especially if you were being economically raped? If I, the capitalist, owns the roads, and refuse to let you use them unless you sell me your home so I can rent it back to you, how exactly are you going to refuse if I already bought your neighbors or the surrounding area and you're fenced in from building other roads as a result?