Governments are transferring more wealth than ever from the poor to the rich.

Well, yes. Capitalism, as a system, is based on the protection of private property rights through the
use of force, typically by a state. Few people would argue that the state doesnt have a large role in
keeping the rights of the workers to control the produce of their labour at bay. I assume an argument
is going to be made that some non-government system of capitalism is what we really need. However,
for now, were in agreement.
However, a free society is inevitable because the global paradigm is shifting as we learn how
to better assert our right of self-ownership.
Is this actually happening? I suspect this is more, Ive now become so embedded in the cult-like
anarcho-capitalist environment that I am simply no longer aware that neoliberal ideas about freedom
are still widely rejected.
We all know life is better with freedom that our own individual experiences dont mean
nearly as much without the ability to assert our will, rather than having our choices limited by
force.
This is a very manipulative way of arguing your point. Somebody could just as easily argue, We all
know life is better with food we need food to survive and often times it can lead to gastronomic
delights. At this point the academic could simply point out that this obviously lends itself to the fact
that there are no concerns beyond food, thus the acquisition of food for the most people through
whatever means necessary must be just. Do I like freedom? Sure I do. I disagree with the definition
that Im sure will be laid out in this book, but I do like freedom. However, I also like
environmentalism, egalitarianism, basic human decency, et cetera.
Even those who are doing well are living in a less vibrant and robust environment due to
violations of individual freedom around the world.
Again! Agreement! Yes, even the rich would be better off with a socialist system, as a socialist system
provides a better community, more awareness of issues that affect everybody, and would eventually
lead to no class conflict.
Any act of violence or threat of violence between individuals represents a violation of
someones freedom.
So saying, Give me my TV back or I will beat you up is a violation of somebodys freedom? But
how will I defend my property? Already we have, Freedom is defined by these loose concepts that
many people could all agree on while not actually agreeing on anything at all.
Governments are the greatest cause of violence in the world today. They are coercive
monopolies with only an illusion of public support.
Dont argue against the government simply by stating that currently governments are
underperforming. This would be like me arguing against capitalism by simply observing that we are
currently in a recession.
Everything they do is based on a presumed right to point guns at people who are acting
peacefully.
This is patently false. People are happy to riot against the government. Nobody fears the government.
People accept the government because anarchists come off as lunatics a lot of the time. There is no
reason to believe that the unchallenged existence of the government is based on the governments
ability to kill people who dissent. At best you could argue that people are conditioned to accept the
government. However, this runs into issues. If people are conditioned to accept the governments
authority, then why is it not just as concerning that workers are conditioned to accept the authority of
a boss? Should not all culturally entrenched power dynamics be dispensed with?
Freedom is the ability to exercise your will within your rights without the threat of force from
anyone else. Its really that simple. You own yourself.
Commence mindless libertarian happy talk. Again, all points that people can agree on while not
agreeing on anything at all. I believe the worker has the right to own the produce of their labour. I
believe the threat of the capitalist to force the worker to leave the factory is an infringement on the
workers freedom.
Freedom
Freedom is what you have when no one is forcing their will on you. Everyone inherently
recognizes this as a good thing because we all value our power to make decisions.
In a book this short you really shouldnt have obvious repetitions go unnoticed like this.
A violation of freedom is an attack on a particular victim whose will is being forcibly
hindered by taking their life, stealing their property, or threatening them with assault.
The capitalist attacks the worker when they make an exclusivist claim to property denying the
worker access to the means of production ; demand the produce of the workers labour; and threatens
them with assault if they attempt to peacefully work and keep what theyve produced. This will be the
last time that I address the issues with simply presuming that ideas about force and property are
agreed upon in political science. You should know that this chapter goes on for a few more
paragraphs, but that last sentence means I have no cause to address any of it.
Government
Most definitions describe government as the people in charge, but the foundation of control
is always the threat of force. The authority claimed by governments is unique because it is
considered license to use force or coercion against peaceful people.
You need to defend this contention. Just because the government can initiate force, it doesnt follow
that every social phenomenon can be explained away by stating this fact alone.
War is mass murder. If an individual commits murder on their own, it is a crime and they
should face consequences. But if an individual commits murder as part of a massive
organized effort they might get a medal.
So war is never ok? I agree that war is bad a lot of the time, but its possible for a government to
initiate a war that actually goes a long way towards protection peoples rights and peoples freedom. It
is governance that provides the best mechanism for discerning between a just war and an unjust war. I
assume that in anarcho-capitalism private militias have the right to kill workers who attempt to take
over factories? What if one hundred thousand workers (less than the total number of socialists in the
world) attempt to take over the means of production? At what point do the skirmishes between the
workers fighting for the right to control the fruits of their labour and the private armies fighting
for their capitalist bosses become a war? Why is it just for a corporation to ruthlessly defend their
interests, but not just for a government to do so?
Taxation is theft. If an individual kidnaps you for not giving them half your income, they go
to jail. But if someone does that to you on behalf of government, they get a nice salary as a
tax collector.
This was bound to come up. While it is vacuously true that taxation involves taking money from
people via force, its not a convincing argument to suggest there is an obvious equivalence. Im only
going to address this claim in one regard, because its been addressed hundreds of times. The trouble
with these libertarian thought experiments is that they rely on emotional manipulation by appealing to
the concept of singling someone out. Why do we find it so morally offensive that one person would be
kidnapped and have to give up half their income? Because it seems tremendously unfair. Why do we
not have such an issue with everybody having to foot the bill for the civilised society we live in?
Because that is fair. You can only achieve wealth by living in an orderly and fair society. You can
only have individualism and freedom by living in a civilised society. The greater your personal
economic gain from living in a civilised society, the greater your economic duty to maintain that
civilised society.
The poor would be much better off and the environment would be much better protected if we
did not entrust those functions to the same people who make war.
Surely this wasnt intended to be an actual argument?
Even when a government gives money to someone in need it must first steal that money from
someone else.
Again. Manipulation. The government doesnt take money from one person and give it to another
person. Its much more nuanced than that. Besides, somebody can easily be a social liberal while
rejecting giving money to the poor. Most left wingers support establishing public services for
everybody. Of course, socialists dont support taxation at all, but simply worker control of the means
of production, which doesnt require stealing money from anybody.
No noble act can excuse theft, as much as governments would like us to believe.
Governments or the people that make up governments dont actually regard themselves as tricking
the public into accepting something thats bad for them. The majority of government officials
certainly those with real power at least regard the government itself as necessary, even if not the
specific functions theyre undertaking. Its not like the only people who think the government is
actually required are those who arent in the government. Arguing that there is a conspiracy
orchestrated by the government that involves the intentional manipulation of language is an
astounding claim.
As much as we have progressed, it has not been because of governments but despite them.
This whole nonsense about what different social factors caused or hindered our progression is
sociologically and historically inane. Its impossible to argue what would have happened in human
history if we removed an integral part of it. What if human society began with a group of hominids
deciding to live an anarcho-primitive lifestyle? Its an interesting question, but its one that I doubt
anybody can answer succinctly. At best you might argue there was an optimum time to remove the
government, and it was perhaps at some point in the past. Perhaps around the time libertarian
socialists first brought about anarchism. However, without further clarification on what this vague and
casual assessment of the entirety of human history means.
Government today could be described as a global tumor. While it can be eradicated locally,
we will only be safe when it has been completely abolished.
If youre curious about the context for this analogy; it literally just pops up out of nowhere I guess
because Molyneux had cancer when he wrote this. Also, this implies that an anarcho-capitalist
America would see it as imperative to wipe out government internationally Id like to hear more
about this plan for international anarcho-capitalism.
Government is an idea so good that it has to be forced on us.
People could overthrow the government tomorrow. A few rioters are a big problem. People like the
government. The government is a good idea. It hasnt been forced upon us. I wish that it were possible
for you to talk to every human being on the planet, or at least in the western world, so that you could
hear them tell you that they actually do value the government and do regard it as necessary.
Statism
We have moved from acceptance of crude slavery and serfdom to demanding some role in
participatory government.
Serfdom and slavery had more to do with lenient and all-encompassing property rights than the power
of the government. Its possible to have slavery in a system with no government, as its also possible
to have feudalism in such a system. Private property especially its inevitable abolition is the
closest institutional method of control we have to the likes of serfdom and slavery.
At one point, it was accepted that whoever could pick up the biggest rock was in charge. Then
we had to be convinced of the divine right of a king or queen. Then we needed a vote to be
satisfied.
Im going to call this The reverse slippery slope. The argument involves appealing to the fact that
we have previously changed or limited the capacity of something, so it must follow that the most
agreeable and socially palatable variant of this power is also guaranteed to go. What about property?
We removed outright slavery where the person was owned by the master; serfdom where the land was
owned by that master; why not private property where the means of production are owned by the
master? Why not personal property where anything is owned by the master? Oh. I know why, because
its possible to take a step down a hill without tumbling the whole way down.
If it is wrong for one person to do something, why is it acceptable when 51% of a voting
population agrees to hire someone to do it for them?
Acceptable as in, lending itself to being accepted is defined by the majority. You would have to
argue for a system of objective morality, which would justify ignoring major social convention, but I
doubt youre going to do that.
Property
Youd think at this point wed see an argument that blows socialism an ideology that is only distinct
from libertarianism insofar as it defines property differently totally out of the water. Lets see:
It takes severely twisted logic and a low sense of self-worth to deny that you own yourself.
The very act of asserting this falsehood proves it wrong because the act of self-expression is
an exercise of self-ownership!
Oh this chestnut. This is in the same vein as Stefan Molyneuxs, You cant get an ought from an is
is getting an ought from an is argument (the same way that saying you cant fly must mean that
somebody is morally offended by the notion of flying, presumably). That is to say, it argues that the
form of the argument contradicts the argument. Incidentally, the reason why this argument fails is the
difference between an ought and an is. You cannot argue that simply because we have ownership
of ourselves it follows that we ought to have ownership of ourselves. I could just as easily argue that
everybody is a statist because everybody lives under a government. There is nothing in a descriptive
statement (about how things are) that entails a normative statement (about how things ought to be).
However, even if we accepted that people who voice their opinions are agreeing that self-ownership is
morally preferable, it is only in regards to free speech. Somebody can argue that people can exhibit
and act upon a right to self-ownership when it comes to freely speaking, but not when it comes to
shouting Fire! in a crowded theatre.
Because you own yourself, you are responsible for your actions.
If we are talking about the moral sense in which somebody owns themselves, then this statement
might be true. However, we have no reason to accept the moral argument for self-ownership.
If you create something of value by combining natural resources with your labor, you have a
right to control it. You can destroy it, consume it, trade it, or give it away.
On this we agree. Many socialists accept this claim. This chapter doesnt actually address the obvious
issue with the pre-existing contract between the capitalist and the worker when it comes to deciding
whether people can work the means of production. Such a contract prohibits the rights of people to
own what they produce.
It is wrong to claim land in order to prevent its use. It is wrong to limit access to natural
resources for those who would put them to good use.
Holy crypto-socialism, batman! Is this an argument against absentee ownership Im seeing? Why am I
still arguing against this guy when he is clearly a socialist? As of this point, this book is advocating
socialism, until we see an argument to clarify that this prohibition against those who, claim land in
order to prevent its use doesnt extend to capitalists who use land as a means to demand the produce
of workers labour.
Whether you like it or not, part of your income will fund a system that is based on injustice
and a corrupt sense of property.
You mean capitalism?
Such false claims are central to governments, which often assert that they, or the collectives
they represent, own your income or your body.
I agree. Terrible. I would provide a social liberal defence of why taxation can be moral at times, but as
a market socialism Im currently more in the mood to simply agree, especially seeing as agreeing is
going to be the order of the day here:
Governments also serve to enforce all types of false property constructs to serve the interests
of the super rich. By obscuring the simple concept of property rights, governments have been
able to commit untold injustice by transferring property from the poor to the rich.
What is this? What is happening right now? Why is this guy arguing that governments defend unjust
claims to property that benefit the super rich? What could he be talking about other than private
property enabling the super rich to extort the labour of the workers?
Voluntaryism
When you learned "don't hit" and "don't steal," it wasn't "unless you work for the
government." When you learned not to kill, it wasn't "unless a politician says its ok."
Everything government does is made possible by violating someones rights.
Although, most people have no issue with conceding that we do learn those basic moral ideas with
some exceptions. Defending your property, for one.
Because people are prone to interpersonal violence, the absolute ideal of a purely voluntary
society might be impossible.
You mean like when the socialists attempt to take over the means of production? Or do you support
that? Im so confused! Id be interested to see if this guy will (1) actually show himself to be a
capitalist at some point and (2) address the issue of how order and peace can be maintained according
to unjust capitalist property theory that puts control in the hands of the few.
The understanding that we should work toward a free society by ridding all relations of force
is known as voluntaryism.
So thats part 1 of 10. Very little of substance was said. Ill address part two tomorrow.