- Capitalism and Alternatives -

What do you call fair?

Posted by: Gee ( statist fanzine special edition ) on March 19, 1999 at 11:31:12:

In Reply to: Now, about anarcho-capitalism. posted by Red Deathy on March 18, 1999 at 15:51:40:

: 1:How can such people account for the state being a particular manifestation of Rentierism, After all the British state evolved through the remnants of aristocracy, and the Rentier powers of erecting tarifs on use of teh nation state- what would stop groups of land owners, under anarcho capitalism, using their rentier powers to erect trade tarrifs, and extort surplus value out of the capitalists in the form of rent?

I a land owner charges a rent which makes it unprofitable for others to trade with him they wont. Another land owner would find it in his interest to compete for that rent business. Its possible that a land owner might lose his rationality and just 'try it on' and take a loss of custom. How long does he last?

: What about the road owners?

If they charge too much then other modes of tranport will become economically attractive. And it is possible to build (and unbuild) roads.

: How can you account for the state having a necessary monopoly on violence, or would anyone be allowed to resort to violence, in the free market of force? These issues need to be considered.

they are _considered_ by many

: 2:Given that crisis is inevitable under capitalist functionings

? You can 'give' the assertion, you might not find many takers.

: what is to stop the equally inevitable concentration of property into fewer and fewer hands

Oh dear, the old static pot from which we steal view of wealth again. What happens when somoene in the village has bought all the tables, we make some more.

: What happens when one firms 'wins' the competition, and achieves monopoly? How will they be stopped from, like Stagecoach here, using anti-cmpetative pricing (predatory pricing, i.e. going well below the odd, because you can afford to, to drive competitors out of business). or like Microsoft, just buying out, or smashing smaller competition.

The fact that they'll run out of money by spending all their resources on trying to outwit what will become an endless stream of new entrants. think about it, if a company keeps buying out small ones then many companies will deliberately enter the market in order to be bought out - eventually the buyer runs into a cash crisis. If they try and outprice them then they'll need to get the prices so low (especially agaisnt lean or smart competitors) that they'll.....run into a cash crisis. In a free market, the only type of monopoly that could exist is a non-coercive monopoly, one that is earned. This could be
accomplished only if the firm "delivered the goods" better than any of their competitors, and even if they did, they would only have
monopoly status only so long as they were the best in their field and they would still be subject to competition from other firms in
their industry. Historically speaking, any business that tried to establish a monopoly in a free market by buying out its competitors
or undercutting prices by selling at a loss has gone bankrupt.

People often fail to realize this because most monopolies are either plain state run (eg utilities, state franchises) or less obviously created (through tariffs, regs and controls) and it is these that become the malevolent monsters.

: 3:Given that the wages system requires at the least, the compulsion of relative poverty to make workers sell their labour powe

What do you mean, children are born rich but have their welath stolen so they need to work? a capitalist sneaks up & empties my stomach, creating the compulsion to eat?

:, and further, requires a reserve army of labour (pool of unemployment), and further, reduces the number of workers needed through automatisation (creating 'surplus population') why would the vast majority of people want to live under anarcho capitalism?

And where are the millions upon millions of unemployed people projected by anti-technologists? Oops, theyre at work.

: 4:Further, since folk accept that being born rich gives advantages of education, and status, and that such advantages continue and re-enforce class divisions (with only a tiny amount of movement, for every rags to riches story there are ten or more rags to rags stories), how can the society be said to be fair (considering that social systems are human constructs, and not non-human processes, such as skin colouring, or hieght).

What do you call fair? in an earlier post about rich kids I said that i can no more hate or blame a rich kid for being rich than I can blame an athlete for being fast. I wasnt born owing him, and he wasnt born owing me.

: 5:If access to the law involves taking cases to 'Justice Bob's Law Emporium' doesn't that mean it'll be one law for the poor, and as many laws as money can buy for teh rich? Wouldn't equality before the law disapear?

My link up there.

: Simple question- why should I vote for anracho-capitalism?

Vote? Who would you be voting for except your self and your interests (which for most include the *people they value* like family & friends)

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup