From: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu (Walter Lee)
Subject: Bob Black, cooperation vs. competition, &c.
Reply-To: w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:50:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.164941.3322@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>>>For instance, I'm a propertarian anarchist (read, anarchocapitalist,
>>>free market anarchist, voluntarist, or whatever). I'm basically what
>>>is now called a libertarian (different from what the old meaning of
>>>the word was, as it used to just mean "anarchist"), desiring to see a
>>>society in which anyone can do anything they like that does not
>>>involve the initiation of violence against others. This would include
>>>a free market economy (not what we have now, which is a government
>>>controlled and regulated "mixed economy"), with people purchasing
>>>security forces on the open market in lieu of having publically funded
>>>police and defense forces.

>triley@weber.ucsd.edu (Tristan Riley) writes:

>>well, see bob black's essay "the libertarian as conservative" on the
>>differences between libertarianism and anarchism.  some criticisms:
>>"the initiation of violence against others", many would argue, is
>>just what hoarding of capital, resources, whatever you call it,
>>consists of--you taking all you want  (and then defending it with
>>police force? in an anarchist society? : (   ) automatically creates
>>the likelihood of severe power disparities which are illegitimate
>>and contributes to the kind of fetishization of property/commodities
>>which has helped construct the 'iron cage' we find ourselves in in
>>the advanced capitalist West.  it's been my experience that
>>libertarians i've met mistakenly understand the state as the only
>>(or perhaps just the central) oppressive institution/apparatus
>>operating on humans and keeping them from freedom, when in fact (as
>>black points out in the essay mentioned above) the 'free' market
>>they advocate so vociferously is driven by a work ethic and
>>occupational regimentation and oppression far more experientially
>>repressive than the often-abstract (but of course still real and
>>powerful) state apparatus.

In article <1992Dec28.164941.3322@shearson.com>, pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

>Well, I find the claim that one can do without police of some kind
>amusing. As a base example, without someone willing to use at least
>retaliatory force, who will stop the psychopathic killers of the
>world?

I would have to describe any effort on anyone's part to stop the psychopathic
killers of the world as, AT BEST, a compromise of any principle of anarchy,
market or otherwise.  Since I have no viable alternative to offer (yet) I may
someday find some need to compromise my values by effecting some kind of police
force against criminals.  I hope it never comes to that.  And even if it does,
I see _no_ reason for it to take the form of retaliatory force.

I should also point out that I see NO WAY to apply law enforcement (public or
private "sector") to psychopathic killers without applying it to you and me
also.  I also consider ANY theory of deterrence to be incompatible with ANY
theory of all OR some individuals being capable of "self government".  Friendly
rebuttals always welcome.

>Similarly, I find the notion that in a society based entirely on
>voluntary mutual exchange (i.e. a propertarian anarchist society) that
>one can refer to the market as somehow "oppressive". If one does not
>want to participate in it, one is free not to. If 700 followers of Bob
>Black decide that they dislike the marketplace and find it to revulse
>them they can go off to a farm somewhere and live any sort of
>collective lifestyle they choose. Indeed, they can stay right where
>they are (assuming they have places to live) and live any sort of
>lifestyle they choose that doesn't involve doing violence to others.
>You might find working, the "fetishization" of goods and services,
>etc, to disgust you, but I'm not aware of any way that I could make
>sure that I had enough to eat otherwise. Regardless of their hopes and
>desires, I have yet to hear a single concrete idea from a socialist
>anarchist on how society could be structured to assure that even
>basics like food and the transportation system to assure that that
>food got to the people who needed it to survive could be provided for.
>However, I think that we all agree on one basic point -- the use of
>violent coercion via government as a means for structuring society is
>not an acceptable path.

First off, I'm counting you among anarchists, but I ask one small favor in
return.  Don't imply that Bob Black is trying to cultivate a "following", or
that _anyone_ considers hieself a "follower" of Bob Black.  (I can almost
guarantee nobody who has read any of his material does.)  If you read as many
as, say, two issues of "Anarchy, a Journal of Desire Armed" you will see that
Black flames _everyone_ (except _maybe_ himself).  I hereby apologize for any
reference I may have made to "followers" of, say, Ayn Rand.

Also, you satirize us for equating working with the "fetishization" of goods
and services.  If this is a flame of Bob Black, I have no objection, since he
identifies himself as "anti-work".  Just don't apply it to non-capitalists in
general.  I, for example, am not anti-work, just anti-employment.  I have no
illusions about where my daily bread comes from, and no theory that there is
such a thing as a free lunch.  I simply reject the theory that competition is a
necessary condition for the motivation which is a necessary condition for work
to be done.

You state that you "have yet to hear a single concrete idea from a socialist
anarchist on how society could be structured to assure that even basics like
food and the transportation system to assure that that food got to the people
who needed it to survive could be provided for." I have yet to hear a single
concrete idea from a market anarchist on how society could be structured to
assure a society without some absolute casualties (literally, non-survivors)
and probably a larger number of partial casualties (people who are effectively
unfree).  The latter would be, for example, people who are less talented at the
arts of salespersonship and negotiation and for that reason end up waivering
their freedom as terms of "voluntary" agreements.  I see such agreements as a
model of the "strong protecting the weak"; which is (surprise, surprise) a
central theme of most justifications of government.  I think this is why I tend
to de-emphasize the distinction between states and business-based hierarchies. 
Difference as I see it is government is the strong defending the weak where
"strong" and "weak" are defined in literal, physical terms.  Employment and
similar rackets (my bias) are the same thing in a more "abstract" sense of
those terms.  And private sector "dominions" are voluntary, in SOME sense.

Call me a dreamer, but I hope someday the "strong" and the "weak", if they
exist at all, can approach each other on an equal footing.  (And I would
consider that a necessary precondition for anarchy).  Better yet, may the
strong have an interest (I hate the term "vested interest"...so cynical). in
the (potential?) strength of the weak, and may they _not_ have the
_opportunity_ to exploit their weakness.  (Being "pro-opportunity" has its
limitations).

On a more personal note...my experience with market transactions, and
competition in general, has been successful less often than not.  I'll be the
first to tell you that all philosophy is really psychology.

Using the starting point that, as you put it, "violent coercion via government
as a means for structuring society is not an acceptable path"; the debate seems
to be whether people will choose to cooperate more often than compete, or vice
versa.  I guess there's just one way to find out isn't there?

I was once work chairperson in a residential co-op.  In honesty I would have to
describe that as a form of authority.  It is a _considerably_ milder form of
authority than I have found in _any_ business workplace.  And in my experience,
cooperative economics does indeed "work".  And I know myself well enough to
state that I can produce a better quantity and quality of work in a cooperative
environment than in a competitive environment.  I should point out that I have
no experience with any serious attempts at "self-contained" co-ops, or
cooperative "society".

Here is one problem I have with market anarchy:

1. Freedom, if not survival itself, demands total self-sufficiency on the part
of individuals.  (call this "Point B")

2. I would assume anarcho-capitalists (like everyone else) recognize the fact
that every one of us comes into this world totally dependent.  It's part of the
Human Condition.  (call this "Point A")

3. As far as I know, anarcho-capitalism proposes no "programmatic" means to get
from "Point A" to "Point B".  For example, an apprenticeship program that
people are _entitled_ to the _opportunity_ (_forfeitable_ right, let's say, for
those who choose to abuse it) to participate in. Instead, people who are in a
position to offer such training have the "freedom", say, to deal only with
people they like, and they don't have to justify their reasons.  As long as
they have the "freedom" to exercise that kind of power over people, I insist on
calling them de-facto governments.

4. Certainly they must realize that _nobody_ (even those who start pulling
themselves up by the bootstraps very early in childhood) gets from "Point A" to
"Point B" _entirely_ on hir own.

5. But the anarcho-capitalist sense of social-justice assumes the negation of
4.

I'd like to hear that at least one of my assumptions about anarcho-capitalism
is inaccurate.  I think my other assumptions (2 and 4) are universally
accepted, but I'm open to debate on those too.

(Yup, I'm one of those "entry-level but college educated types" you read about
in misc.jobs.misc)

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Walter Lee                                          w2lee@argo.acs.oakland.edu

You are the center of every group's attention.
Xref: sparky alt.society.anarchy:963 alt.individualism:6147 talk.politics.misc:65496 talk.politics.theory:5560