• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

On why the only free market can be socialist

Mathematician

Reason, and reason again
Property is theft.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft
- Proudhon

I take a multi-pronged approach towards a socialist economy, which would be comprised of:

- Mutualist principles (free, decentralized market)
- Communism

Piracy, freeware, and other recent developments acting as forms of a growing gift economy compromise communism. Information is one example where supply outstrips demand; anything where scarcity does not play any significant factor will develop into a communal economic relation. I take a left-Rothbardian, quasi-Proudhanian (say that three times fast) towards the market. Government intervention is often done with recognition towards the big competitors. A truly free market is, I believe, inherently socialist, as Tucker and Proudhon stated over a hundred years ago. It would not be compromised of subsidies, corporate handouts, business personhood, copyrights, or even patents. There would not exist ownership over unused land. Instead you would have competing firms which operate without shareholders. Workers would be able to organize into free associations. Organization, compromising of strikes, boycotts, and other such actions would actually dent unethical industries whereas larger firms are able to avoid any significant damage. Any hierarchal firm would have to allot workers with a fair payment for their labor. Since worker co-ops are demonstrably superior in terms of alloted leisure time and productivity, sole proprietorships and partnerships can't extract a huge surplus. In fact, they would probably diminish beyond small family-owned businesses and contract work. Workers could easily leave employment for another firm.

Regulations could still exist when necessary, but they would be done through free associations and on a federal basis.

Before Rothbard swagged in defense of paleo-conservatives and started to defend police brutality, he held very reasonable ideas towards defeating capitalism: agorism (participation in the black market) and socializing major industries. All corporations and universities receiving insurance from the government are to be turned over to the workers.

For practical purposes I reject David Friedman's notion that law can be bought and sold on the marketplace. Many American right-libertarian anarchists have adopted this idea, partially influenced by the American economist's prestige, but I look at Tucker as an example for where legal action should derive from - direct democracy through association.
 
Top