@ rlumley: "How is pro-anarchy any different than pro-capitalism?"

Modern capitalism is largely based on property rights and requires at least some form of organised government to provide protection for private property both physically and legally.

Anarchy is about having no central government at all.

If Anarchy was present right now this thread wouldn't exist. I don't mean it would be censored. Just that there wouldn't be a need of it.

@ rlumley

As an anarchist, I don't see any difference in principle between ‘I own this.’ and ‘I have jurisdiction over this.’. It's ‘I use this.’, ‘I live here.’, ‘I take care of this.’, etc that matter to me. (Some anarchist theorists distinguish ‘property’ from ‘possession’ here; this distinction is also in the English common law, although it doesn't mean quite the same thing.)

>They're happy because they made the purchase...

Until the next day, when they learn that the flooring is riddled with termites. Or (if they sold) that there's oil underground. Or in any case, when they realise that they made an emotional decision without thinking it through carefully.

If you're going to argue that that's anywhere close to the majority of transactions, I don't think we have much more to discuss. :-)

I argue that the *vast* majority of transactions feature asymmetry of information, and that therefore it is important in understanding economics.

But I think that you're asking how many transactions are such that it is the best option available to both parties, by their own judgement if they had all of the information. But in that case, now I say that *all* transactions are like this; if I had perfect information, then I'd know what to do that would be much more useful than what I actually do. For instance, instead of posting here, I'd point you to a reference that explains this all much better than I do (which I'm sure exists but which I don't know offhand).

But that's probably not really your point either. The real problem is if the seller knows about the termites but the buyer does not; otherwise it's just hard luck for the buyer, not something really wrong about the transaction. (Although some regulatory liberal might step in here and say that the problem would be averted if the government required termite inspections before all house sales.) So now I take the question to be how often the participants would change their decision if each had all of the information that the other has. In that case, I'd guess that it's fairly common, but not close to the majority.

So we may have much more to discuss, hurrah! (^_^)

saying that anarchism is in any way pro capitalism, (while arguably correct if using a dictionary definition of anarchism) fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory, not just against government. Anti-capitalism is something anarchists espouse rather vehemently.

Also in reference to toby's post on property, right on. it's never, I own this, but always I use this. thats the difference between private property and personal property

As a communist I would also emphasise the difference between personal and private property. Private property is the issue.

@ Toby, in the vast majority if transactions, while there may be a gap of knowledge, it's not enough to make it where wealth isn't created in a transaction...

rlumley: You keep ignoring all the posts regarding your definition of anarchism as the perfect form of capitalism.

I would also agree with Toby that the majority of commercial transactions feature asymmetry of information. After all that's what a lot of adverisiting is designed to do - mislead potential customers (c.f. a previous thread regarding Nurofen vs generic ibuprofen)

@ Xapi: Because it's irrelevant, and I have things to do, like work and class...

Work and class hasn't stopped you from reading and posting here, it just stopped you from answering what you've been proven wrong about.

Actually, if you read my posts, frequently I say things like: Sorry, I don't have time to read this, I've got class.

The point I made that started this tangent was largely irrelevant, it just popped in my head. If you can actually explain the worth of arguing about the semantics of the matter, than perhaps I'll consider gracing you further with my opinion. Until then, I'm going to study.

Well, it's just that you did two thing that I usually hate, first you posted a nice phrase that has no backing whatsoever as if it were an obvious truth, and then you answered the things you had a witty answer to, but not the things you were shown to be wrong about by many.

You can keep that attitude, but I will keep not liking it and pointing it out.

OK. I'll make you a deal: I'll respond to your irrelevant points about whether or not anarchy is the purest form of capitalism if you respond to my points about the creation of wealth (Which no one really did, by the way... Toby came close, but he just argued semantics - much like you want me to do. Ya'll are big on semantics.)

I didn't make any claims on the creation of wealth, why would I need to respond?

Because you want me to respond to your battle of semantics, and I told you I'm not arguing semantics with you all until someone responds to the point I ACTUALLY made...

Xapi, he's just making excuses for not responding. If he was as familiar with John Locke as he was with Ayn Rand, he would never have made his claim about anarcy and capitalism in the first place.

* anarchy

"That's not the point... It may be relevant, but the overall point is that in every transaction, wealth is created..."

This is what you want me to answer to?

Really? All this fuss for a phrase that says nothing and means nothing?

You are wrong. Comercial and financial transactions do NOT create wealth.

For example, when a firm divides itself into tiny sub-firms to distribute profit as it sees fit (sometimes overseas) in order to lower their tax burden, they are not creating wealth, they are just juggling money around to screw the Government (wich is, in a way, a way to screw the people).

@ Jamie: I won't let him have the excuses.

And rlumley, the question you are being asked to answer is not one of semantics, it's a fairly fundamental one.

The difference between a capitalist society and an anarchic one is huge - it's not just a semantic difference.

Locke (someone I would have assumed you to be familiar with, given your views) argued that organised civil government is necessary in order to provide a legal framework and to resolve the disputes which naturally arise naturally with the rise of property and civilisation. His writings had a huge influence on the American state and the form of capitalism which has developed in America and across the western world. To crudely summarise:

1. Men have a right to life, liberty, happiness, and possessions, and have the right to defend these.
2. As men organise themselves and seek to exploit their property they form contracts between each other.
3. Where contracts exist there inevitably arise disputes.
4. A legal system is required in order to resolve such disputes.
5. This legal system requires a goverment (ideally a majoritatian government, but not neccessarily as long as whatever government does not unduly interfere with property rights).

This is essentially the philosophical basis for capitalism within a western-style democracy. However most anarchists would not accept that a central, organised government of this kind was neccessary.

Therefore your suggestion that capitalism and anarchy are the same, does not appear to hold true.

@ Xapi: "For example, when a firm divides itself into tiny sub-firms to distribute profit as it sees fit (sometimes overseas) in order to lower their tax burden, they are not creating wealth, they are just juggling money around to screw the Government (wich is, in a way, a way to screw the people)."

I agree with you here of course. Playing devil's advocate, I suppose rlumley could argue that the tax-dodging transactions between subsidiaries of one firm are not _genuine_transactions because essentially the firm is transacting with itself, so do not come into the definition of "transaction" upon which his statement about wealth creation is based.

"rlumley could argue that the tax-dodging transactions between subsidiaries of one firm are not _genuine_transactions "

He can also argue that anarchy is the perfect form of capitalism, that wouldn't make him right.

"I agree with you here of course. Playing devil's advocate, I suppose rlumley could argue that the tax-dodging transactions between subsidiaries of one firm are not _genuine_transactions because essentially the firm is transacting with itself, so do not come into the definition of "transaction" upon which his statement about wealth creation is based."

QFT. But I'll add that the tax system (If you assume that we should have one) should be structured in a way that doesn't allow for this. A low flat sales tax, exempting essential items, IMHO is the best way of doing this, but that's a tangent of a tangent, so I won't go into it. (And in order for that to work, we'd have to cut spending tremendously...)

@ Xapi: It would be nice if you actually went back and read my original post on the matter of creating wealth, and understood what I was responding to, and why I said what I said (hint: This post was on the previous page)

In respect to Jamie, who is actually contributing things of substance, I'll respond, despite the fact that no one has responded to my original point.

If I didn't phrase it this way, I should have: All I was saying is that anarchy and capitalism are on the same end of the spectrum. Yes, I realize that capitalism != anarchy. Only a moron would say that. But being pro anarchy is very much in a way pro capitalism.

I'll make this analogy (Albeit a bad one). If I'm in Florida (Where we are economically), and want to go to DC (Capitalism), I can hitch a ride with a trucker going to Boston (Anarchy). How does that not make sense? Being pro-anarchy and pro-capitalism are similar, because they both want things to go in the same direction... Now can we please stop discussing this point, which, in addition to incredibly tangential and annoying stupid, is completely semantic?

"@ Xapi: It would be nice if you actually went back and read my original post on the matter of creating wealth, and understood what I was responding to, and why I said what I said (hint: This post was on the previous page)"

I read the entire thread, I agree that wealth is created, it doesn't just "exist", but that doesn't mean that any transaction creates wealth.

It is, in fact, labour that creates wealth. In that sense, I'm a marxist, even though I wouldn't call myself a communist.

@ rlumley:

>Toby, in the vast majority if transactions, while there may be a gap of knowledge, it's not enough to make it where wealth isn't created in a transaction...

Well, maybe you'd better explain what you mean by ‘creation of wealth’, since you never explained it when I asked earlier. But I took you to mean that, for each party, the utility after the transaction is greater than the opportunity cost (which is the utility after the best other alternative). If we allow, among the alternatives, anything that would be available to either party if they had all of the knowledge of the other party, then I think that there are many transactions that don't ‘create wealth’, especially ones that are heavily influenced by advertising. (Of course, some advertising actually provides information, so please don't say that I think that advertising is always evil, like somebody mistakenly said that I think that profit is always evil on another recent thread.)

>Toby came close, but he just argued semantics - much like you want me to do. Ya'll are big on semantics.

Don't blame me! It's economists who bring in strange semantics for concepts that people already thought that they understood, like ‹whatever you like› for ‘wealth’ and ‹overall increase in whatever you like› for ‘profit’.

I was defining wealth as your utility after - utility before. While there may be a better alternative, I don't think that the majority of transactions come close to losing utility...

I would agree that not all transactions increase utility either. Our judicial system orders them everyday when two people disagree and they make a decision for one side or the other. If they rule for the plaintiff, then the dfendant has to pay whatever is ordered and gets no additional utility in return. Therefore, just because a transaction has occured does not mean wealth has been created. It may even reduce wealth if the loss to the defendant exceeds the gain to the plaintiff.