The economic wisdom of the Pope, ironically a long post.

This is an analysis of the economic commentary in the pope's little document.  Evangelii Gaudium.

"I. Some challenges of today’s world

52. In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from
the advances being made in so many fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve
people’s welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications. At the same time
we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day,
with dire consequences.  A number of diseases are spreading."

Which diseases and why are they spreading?  The fact that "His Holiness" doesn't mention a certain retrovirus and why it is spreading as much as it is doesn't bode well for forthrightness in this analysis.

" The hearts of many people are gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living frequently fades,"

Frequently?  How frequently?  More frequently than previously seems to be the implication, but there is no evidence, let alone statistics to support that.

"lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise,"

Again, not sure what he bases this on or even the time-frame. Historically violence has been going down for centuries.

"and inequality is increasingly evident.  It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity. "

This has always been the case for many, why is the Church suddenly concerned about it?

"This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid and cumulative advances occurring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application in different areas of
nature and of life. "

Note the reference to an "epochal change" directly after the reference to the struggle to live and live with little dignity.  Is the pope actually claiming this is a "change"?  Because if he is he is horribly ignorant of economic history.

"We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power."

Actually what's led to new and often anonymous kinds of power is government.  It wasn't simply knowledge and information but their gathering by secret intelligence organizations for instance that led to enormous numbers of people's emails being surveilled.

"No to an economy of exclusion

53. Just as the commandment 'Thou shalt not Kill' sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the
value of human life, today we also have to say 'thou shalt not' to an economy of exclusion and
Inequality."

And how is such an economy defined?

"Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points?"

Well because when the stock market loses two points that can mean that many, many people are poorer and therefore cannot spend or invest the money that would save the lives of many such women.

Also because the first thing happens every day, disproportionately in areas where the Catholic Church was influential in economics and politics, I might add.

"This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving?"

Food being thrown away by who?  In any case the cause of starvation isn't food being thrown away, it's government interference in the economy that has historically led to starvation, not people not
finishing their dinner.

"This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest,"

Really?  Because last I checked huge areas of the economy were not only not under those laws but were being actively preserved from any "survival of the fittest" test.  The banking system for instance
is full of firms that survive due to government action, despite their lack of fitness.  In fact due to the expansionary monetary policy of most of the Western world (especially the USA) many firms are
surviving only due to government largess.

"where the powerful feed upon the powerless."

And how do the powerful "feed upon the powerless"?  Is it a market process or one initiated, supported and continued by government?  Is it competition or the lack of it, guaranteed by government, that is allowing the powerful to feed on the powerless?  Look at the most egregious feeding and the answer is clear, where government is powerful, the predation is worst.  This is true in terms of geographic area (e.g. Africa), and area of industry (e.g. finance).

" As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and
marginalized:"

And what maintains this exclusion?  Why are not people able to find a way to include themselves in the economy?  Blank-out.

"without work, without possibilities, without any
means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered
consumer goods to be used and then discarded. "

By who?

"We have created a 'throw away' culture which is now spreading. "

Who is "we" how does this supposed "throw away" culture differ from
any other culture and where is the evidence that it is spreading?

"It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but
something new. "

I don't suppose he's going to define "exploitation" at any point is he?  It's always used as an expression meaning something bad, but I never know what bad it represents.  It is simply an "anti-concept" a word designed to make it impossible to tell what the speaker means, and therefore impossible to dispute the condemnation implicit in the phrase.

"Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the 'exploited' but the outcast, the “'leftovers' "

So who is doing this exclusion?  Who is making them not a part of society?  How would that even be possible?  Well of course it's not. These people aren't being rejected from society but merely from being paid.  And the reason they're being rejected from that is because they don't generate productivity, that is they don't make things others want.  This is not exactly new.

"54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts,"

I see, and where exactly does the Pope, who is so ignorant of economic history he doesn't know what's happening NOW get that knowledge?  How is it that he can confidently proclaim something on such a profound and controversial topic?  Well let's look at the bibliography, the cited references.  Oh wait there are no cited economic texts, only citations of the bible and church documents. Needless to say they weren't peer-reviewed.

" expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power"

Oh god, is it really possible that he is that ignorant of economic theory?  Surely even he has heard that the whole point of economics is that incentives can ensure good results without anyone wanting good for others.  "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." Adam Smith.  No?  Well what can you expect.


"and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system."

The prevailing economic system is not the free market, and anyone who even casually follows the news knows this, or has deliberately avoided the knowledge.  Note that he nowhere talks about exclusion that results from anything other than the market.  There is no mention of trade walls, immigration restrictions or anything else that might cause someone to be excluded.  This is highly significant given the Church's support of highly interventionist governments that excluded people very effectively.  An honest review of the situation would require a few "mea culpas" in the form of apologies for all the victims of governments that deliberately enriched the rich and impoverished the poor, and which the Church was all in favor of.  Various fascist regimes for instance.

"Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed."

Has developed?  Since when?  There has been a large amount of indifference towards the poor of other countries for as long as I can remember, and the Catholic Church can fairly be pointed to not only as participating in it, but in actively courting governments that made things worse for the poor.

"Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. "

Compared to what?  When exactly has compassion and charity been so much more than now?  Because it certainly wasn't when the Church and it's friends were in power.

"The culture of prosperity deadens  us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us."

Prosperity has been a greater promoter of concern for others than
anything else in the history of the world, including the Church.

"No to the new idolatry of money

One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies."

I'm not sure what this means.  We accept that we have to pay people to get them to do lots of things for us.  Not sure how that means we "accept it's dominion" over us.

"The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person!"

No it originated in governments monkeying around with the money supply and lying about their accounts.

"We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose."

Again I have no idea what this means.  I don't know about you but my purchases have a truly human purpose, to fulfill my needs as I perceive them.  Calling a process that allows millions of choices a "dictatorship" is hardly accurate. You choose what you want and how you want to pay for it, within constraints of productivity.  That's reality not dictatorship.

 "The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption."

Wow, consumption is "one need" rather than thousands.  All right, fine.  The
problem is that the crisis doesn't reduce him to one need, it simply means one
set of needs is difficult to satisfy right now.  That doesn't mean he suddenly
becomes inhuman just because people are focusing on that need right now.  It
simply means that there is such a thing as Maslow's hierarchy of needs.


"56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation."

Really?  Who holds these ideologies and how are they imposing their will on the economy?  Because I know of not one believer in the "absolute automony of the marketplace and financial speculation" that has any position of power.  Blaming it all on "market fundamentalists" may have flown back in 2007, when some people might not have noticed Bush, Greenspan and Paulsen were highly interventionist and always had been.  Now after the bailouts, QE I, II, and III, trillions of dollars in secret government loans, only a complete fraud or ignoramus would go that route.

"Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the
common good, "
A charge for which there is no evidence and which can be dismissed.

"to exercise any form of control."
Yeah states have been exercising quite a bit of control.  In fact an overwhelming
amount.

"A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and
relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules."

Nope, same old tyranny, government.

"Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. "

Yeah and who's debt is that?

"To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion,
which have taken on worldwide dimensions. "

Again "taken on", since when?  How is this different from what always happened?

"The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits."

Indeed, and who is statisfying that thirst most effectively and most harmfully?

"In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits,"

Government stands in the way of many people's profits, in fact it stands in the way of people even keeping their own money, like in Cyprus.  Yet I do not see it being devoured.  Note the weasel words here "tends to".

"whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule."

Again the market is hardly the "only rule", if he had bothered picking up a paper he would have found quite a lot of rules regarding many things including greenhouse gases, monetary policy, and regulations on practically everything.

"No to a financial system which rules rather than serves"

And what sort of financial system is that?  Is it based on government control of
the money supply, or private?

"Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. "
By who?

"It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative."

Seen by who?  And since when were power and money not relative?

"It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person."

And what does this "debasement" consist of?  Again who feels this?

"In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace."

Firstly ethics don't lead to any god, capitalized or not.  Ethics lead to conclusions about what is appropriate behavior, not whether or not there is a "God" to witness it.  I understand you have no knowledge of real morality but you should do some research.  Not every moral system is based on your imaginary friend.

But what does the phrase "outside the categories of the marketplace" mean?  The marketplace includes all who are capable of trading and they have different categories.  Some of those categories include benefits to others.  People trade in the marketplace with the aim of benefiting others all the time.

"When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement."

Actually God was fine with enslavement, read your bible.

"Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. "

A non-ideological ethics, and what exactly does that mean?  How can ethics NOT be informed by what you believe to be true?  And why would such an ethics, even if possible lead to a more human, rather than more insane, social order?

"With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: 'Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs'.55

I'll ponder it for them.  It's bullshit.  The fact that you don't give someone something that they did not create, did not pay for, and you have not in any way promised them or obliged yourself to give to them, doesn't mean you stole from them.  The fact that you continue to breathe doesn't give you the right to all my stuff.  Note that the church was OK with lots of ACTUAL theft for centuries.

"58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. "

Why yes, and we've seen the results of such a "change of approach" a number of times.  It's not pretty.  Fundamentally it's an approach where no man can count on a single hour of his effort remaining his, a slavery of all to all.

"I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case."

Note the weasel words here.  If disaster happens when following the Pope's advice it's because they ignored "the specifics of each case".

"Money must serve, not rule!"

Money by definition has only the power of consent, you cannot be ruled by money,
since you can choose to ignore what it offers.

"The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings."

As opposed to what, favoring lizardmen?

"No to the inequality which spawns violence

Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence."

Of course he offers no evidence that this is true or that once "exclusion and inequality in society" is reversed the violence will abate.

" The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence,"
Note "accused" without any comment on the accuracy of the accusation. Whether someone accused is guilty or not is significant to me, but then I don't have ethics that lead to God.

"yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode."

And how are "equal opportunities" defined?  Are we talking "everyone gets an education"  or "everyone's parents get the same income"?  No indication.

"When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility.  This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root."

By what definition of justice?  Who is doing the "excluding" and in what does it consist?  Is he saying that not giving people stuff is "unjust at it's root" without any reference to whether they created any value?

" Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear."

Note that the Church tolerated far worse evils than merely not giving people free stuff.  They were OK with slavery, serfdom and racial and other discrimination in economic matters.  There is no mention of this, yet we're expected to take their criticisms as valid?  Sorry, if you're not prepared to acknowledge your own mistakes I don't have to listen to your theories of what is right.

" If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. "

And when is this fraud going to get to the the actions of governments?  When is he going to say "Oh and there are bad things done by governments too, and here they are."?  Never.

"It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called 'end of history', since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized."

He's right they haven't.  Certainly not in this pile of offal.

"Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption,"

Which mechanisms and how?

"yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric."

Oh yes it is evident.  I can see that in the imaginary peer-reviewed research papers you cited.
Oh course what "unbridled consumerism" actually means I don't know.  Since 2007 it's been fairly
bridled, certainly compared to before.

"Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. It serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts."

And your own solution of dissolving property rights, how has that worked out for solving violence?  Not well IIRC.

" Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves
for their troubles;"

Again, no mention of whether these accusations are accurate.

"indulging in unwarranted generalizations, "

Yes, I hate it when people indulge in unwarranted generalizations.  Particularly for 190 goddamn pages.

"they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. "

Who claims this?  What are you talking about?  And since when is this a stone the Church should cast?  They've been "educating" the powerless to be accepting of tyranny for a long time now.

"All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders. "

Finally a mention of government evil.  Note that he doesn't draw any conclusion from the presence of evil in government, it ignores the implications for his own plan of giving governments power. This is this part of the statement's real function.  Not to deplore exclusion and inequality but to selectively excuse and hide it.  When someone says they hate the harms of usury, but mention only Jewish usury, you know they really hate Jews.
When someone mentions that they hate totalitarianism but only mention either fascist or communist crimes and not the other, you know they hate fascism or communism, not totalitarianism.  When someone says they hate inequality and exclusion and they ignore the centuries of such enforced and encouraged by government, you know the do not hate inequality and exclusion, they hate the market.

Hooray for underinsurance.

Recently Obama tried weasel out of his lie that "You can keep your plan, period." by claiming that he was helping the "Underinsured" by making them lose their crappy plans.  Allegedly there are all these people in America that haven't bought enough insurance and he'll fix that by making them buy enough.  Yes it's the standard paternalist claptrap, we know better because you're a five year old.  However because these people can't actually imagine someone else's situation I'm going to give them a theoretical understanding of why.

To understand why underinsurance makes sense for a lot of people let's look at why people want insurance at all.  People want insurance because the financial loss from a disaster causes more dissatisfaction per dollar than the financial losses from paying premiums.  We know this is true because policy holders pay more on average than they receive in claims (absent idiotic government mandates to insure people at a loss).  So they don't expect more money, yet they expect more value (otherwise they wouldn't do it) on average.  So why would some dollars be more valuable than others?  This is due to the "Law of Returns" that says the more you have of a resource the less valuable each additional unit of it is.  Consequently the LESS you have the more valuable each unit of that thing is.  In the event of a catastrophic event like your house burning down, a health problem that requires expensive surgery etc. you have lost things worth a lot of $, so you effectively lack a lot of $.  Therefore each $ is worth more.  While before that you have (relatively) a lot of $ so each one is worth less.  Therefore it makes sense to sacrifice a lot of $ in premiums for a small average number of dollars in post-disaster dollars.

Consider the accompanying graph.  Point A is your income without paying premiums.  Point B is your income minus partial premiums and point C is your income paying full premiums that make good all losses in the event of whatever you're insuring against.  Point D is where you are if you have a disaster and are only partly covered, "underinsured" in Obama's terms.  Point E is where you are if you are totally uncovered in the event of a disaster.  Notice how the majority of the benefit of being covered (the dark blue area under the curve from D to E) is provided by only partial insurance.  The benefits from being fully as opposed to partly insured is the light blue area.  Notice also that the pink area representing the additional cost of full premiums is larger than the red area of paying partial premiums.  That's because what you give up to pay the extra premiums is more valuable than what you give up to pay the basic premiums.  That's because you give up buying less valuable things first, that's how you know you consider them less valuable.

So say you insure your house and it would cost $100,000 to replace it it burnt down.  Suppose also that you could afford to pay for $50,000 of the cost of rebuilding your house, either from savings or from making loans at reasonable rates.  You no premiums and if your house burns down you have to spend money on rental accommodation until you scrape up the money.  Maybe you even give up on owning a house and sell the land (maybe in a buyers market, since you don't know when your house will burn down).  Or you could pay for a $100,000 policy and if your house burns down the cost is minimal (other than the sentimental value of heirlooms etc).  I'm assuming here everyone gets out safely BTW.  Or you could get a $50,000 policy and if your house burns down you can rebuild, but you have to work overtime to pay off the loan, the holidays for the next few years are at your sister's place etc.   The middle course obviously avoids the majority of the harm of a fire, while only costing half the cost of full insurance.  That doesn't mean that everyone is better off underinsuring, it depends on how you value the various outcomes.  It does mean that it is possible to want insurance and not full insurance, so "under-insurance" can make sense for some people.

Of course there is additionally the fact that people who underinsure are sometimes lower risks on average.  For instance if you know that you are unlikely to have a car crash (because you don't drive much) you might be more likely to underinsure.  If this is true in a market then under-insurers might get a better deal from insurance firms who know the risk of insuring them is lower.

However whenever I've heard of "under-insurance" on the news it's always presented as a bad thing, whether by the Obama team who criticize other's healthcare choices or in bushfire season, where fire insurance executives will often warn of under-insurance.  Don't listen to them.  If you want to under-insure, do it.  

Another series of lies from the liar.

Idiot: "You've dodged my question, why is it important to measure oppurtunity costs with a monetary cost?""
Because dumbshit, there is no other way to measure them, at least none that you or I know of.

Idiot :  "I've shown you examples of how we'd "measure" those costs in an RBE,"
No fucktard liar you haven't.
Idiot :  "And stop building strawmen. We don't assume infinite resources, we say that resources on the planet are finite in pretty much the first sentence when we describe a resource based economy to people."
Yes TVP does assume infinite resources, it has no mechanism for limiting anything liar fucktard and I didn't strawman.  The fact that you SAY something means nothing, because you're a liar. Me:  "So then you don't tell them what they're doing is consuming too much resources and you run out of resources. You lose."Idiot :  "Learn how to read, i said "there is no forcing people...", not that there's nothing at all suggesting people not to overconsume. "
Yeah dumbshit, that's my point.
Idiot :  "And another thing, people don't normally overconsume. Only when they feel the pressures of society and are conditioned to overconsume, when being ABLE to overconsume is a status symbol. All that is gone in a RBE."
Bullshit asshole, people have overconsumed when given the opportunity in pretty much every society and your claim that it will disappear in RBE is just your moronic wishful thinking.Me:   "No dumbshit, none of that will work because you don't have a system to assign values to resources."
Idiot:  "What?? You... you mean there will be no common sense, education, no wish to contribute, no interest in wellbeing, just because there is no monetary value attached to things? Wow. You just... no, nonono. Prove some of what you say, seriously. You make outrageous claims like this, you back your words up."
As I said "Common sense won't tell you that what you're consuming is worth less than what could be made out of it. Nor will education without a means of measuring value which you don't have.".
Look shithead it's not my job to repeat everything to you like you're a fucking dog that needs to have a command repeated 30 times before he gets it.
Me "Common sense won't tell you that what you're consuming is worth less than what could be made out of it. Nor will education without a means of measuring value which you don't have."Idiot :  "I've explained to you that we have a means to measure VALUE, just not a MONETARY value... Just return to the first question and show me why exactly you believe money is so important."Yes dumbshit, I get that.  I get everything you tell me the first time, because as retarded as it is, it's simple.  Common sense doesn't measure value.  You can't tell how much someone wants or needs something by "common sense".
Me:  "Learn to read dumbshit. A vote can't measure how much you want something. A vote simply says you want it, not that you want it enough to sacrifice something else."Idiot :  "Aaahh... an example then. You survey a group of people and ask them how much, on a scale of 1 to 10, they want something. Done. I think i was clear about this when i said there would be surveys."
Note that you just abandoned "common sense" as a measurement of value.  So dickhead would you like to admit that you were full of shit on that point?  If you don't in your next reply, don't make one.  I don't see why I should have to put up with your shit if you don't admit when you're wrong. In any case what stops someone setting all their priorites to 10 and getting everything they want?  What do these values even mean?  Does it mean that if you rate something as a 10 it's worth 2 5s?  How do you compare people's values if they don't vary their scores as much as each other.  Hey I've got an idea, everyone has a limited number their scores can total.  The system's success is determined by how much the total of everyone's scores is satisfied.  There's just one problem, that's money.

Me:  "Great and how are they told what they have to do without to get what they want? If they want, say a new bridge between the town of Ketchikan, Alaska and Gravina Island how are you going to tell them what they can't have if they build it? There is no mechanism for doing this in TVP. In fact TVP can be seen as being specifically designed to avoid the question.""A survey doesn't establish priorities, it establishes what people would do if it could be done without compromising any other goal. This information is worthless."Idiot:  "OK so if people want a new bridge to be built next, they will have to understand that the construction operators will be busy for a time, and that other projects will have to come after the one they think is a priority."
No dumbfuck, in RBE the builders don't decide one resources allocation.  They don't just decide that they'll use thousands of tonnes of materials, fuel, electricity on their own.  It's all allocated by computer remember?  God dumbfuck it's hard enough to explain economics without explaining your moronic system.


"The costs of such things in an RBE are measured just as the name suggests... in resources. And in time, obviously. The people can be given no more than there is to give, and no faster than those things can be produced."
There are millions of resources dumbfuck, you can't simply say "they're measured in resources", how do you compare using 1,000 tonnes of coal with 500 of wheat?  Or 10 megawatt hours versus 2 hours of the time of skilled programmer?  If you want to measure you need ONE UNIT you loathsome, retarded, loser shithead.  Learn the basics of fucking science before you talk again.

Me:   "No dipshit, asking people whether they want something doesn't measure value. All it measures is whether value is positive."Idiot:  "You must really think before you write. "

Fuck off, you're the one who is incapable of thinking.

Idiot:  But as i already said, you CAN measure value with surveys...

Yeah but you're a shithead liar.

"when is the last time you've had a company survey how satisfied you were with their services? Well, they had specific questions, like "how satisfied are you with our delivery time?" and you had many options to answer, like "not pleased at all" all the way up to "very pleased". Life isn't in black and white... and so aren't economies, and so isn't the RBE... too many people think there's just capitalism and communism, and that's it. Things aren't that simple... and that's why i understand why RBE's are difficult to grasp. But we'll get there.
Yeah dumbfuck that's not good enough.  What does "very satisfied" mean in terms of how much I'd give up to have something?  You don't know fucktard so stop pretending you do.  Businesses use HOW MUCH YOU'RE PREPARED TO PAY, to measure value, because it involves a choice and choice is the only way to compare values.  You can't compare values unless someone gives up one for another.

Me:  "No there isn't. Unless you mean literally needs like "This person will die if they don't get this.". But unless you're going to have everyone live just over starvation you're going to have to determine a lot more than that."Idiot;  "This is exactly what i mean! But knowing what are the minimum necessities for life doesn't mean we would have people live on the minimum - that's just what you assume,"

No shithead I didn't assume anything.  I pointed out that unless you mean "This person will die if they don't get this" you can't determine "needs".  And you did mean that.  So now you're saying that people will have more than the minimum, that means that what I said, that if you're going to have everyone live just over starvation, you're going to have to determine much more than "needs".  And you agreed dumbfuck so don't call what I said a strawman.


Idiot:  " because you really really love to build strawmen"
Appologise for that lie or not another comment of yours get's published.

Idiot:  " and because you really really can't grasp that we're not commies :)"

You are commies.

Idiot:  "I think i told you - the aim of the RBE is to make all people live healthy lives... "

I know, and it's a lie.

Idiot:  "so finding out what the recommended intake of calories, certain amino acids, vitamins, minerals, etc... it's simply the scientific method applied in real life economics."

No dumbfuck it's not.  What you propose has no measurement and I suspect you know it.  That's why you've been lying and dodging and being an idiot.
Me:   "And is that all you're going to determine? Nobody gets to eat what they actually want? You see dumbshit, this is what happens when you assume you can just determine what people should be given without a price system. You look like a dumbshit."
Idiot:  "And again, this is what happens when you assume we'll have people living on rice. When did i ever say we'll prevent people from getting what they want? "

Hey fucktard you said that what people "needed" would be used to determine what they ate, and you agreed that "needed" means "they will die if they don't get this" so why are you NOW saying that's not how food is distributed?

"You were complaining earlier IN THIS POST that we assume infinite resources because of this exact reason, not forcibly preventing people from getting what they want. Try to be coherent when you attempt to make counterarguments."
Look dumbfuck, I'm arguing against your incoherent claims.  You claimed that what people needed would determine what they would be given.  Now you admit that isn't how it's going to be done.  So fucktard, kindly appologise for this fucking lie.  Again, no appology no more comments.
Me:  "And how do you determine whether to put resources into fighting cancer or diabeties? Or rheumatoid arthritis?"Idiot:  "I believe i can pretty much copypaste what i wrote in the first place: Do we have a great number of certain diseases in the population, and what can be done to reduce those?So we again SURVEY the population, see how many people there are afflicted with certain diseases. How many new cases are there in a time period. How debilitating is the disease. How could it be treated? Professionals assess all those factors, and focus on the greatest problems as the greatest priority."

But retard that doesn't tell me how you determine what to spend resources on.  You have to decide whether 100,000 cases of arthritis are worth 5 cases of leukemia.

Me:   "...If your system was interested in human wellbeing it would have a price mechanism of some sort."
Idiot:  "Returning to the main question. WHY is it so important to have a monetary value assigned to everything? Value can be measured in different ways. "

No it really can't.  You've tried to make that case and failed.  You can't answer a single question honestly.

Idiot:  "Sure, we would use what the monetary system taught us! Capitalism, all that - it was very important in human development! We won't just throw out all the numbers and speculate on what's more common: dirt or diamonds. But we will abandon those numbers and currencies we're used to today."
You can't compare values unless someone gives up one for another.  Your system doesn't do that, and you admit it.  So you can't compare values.

Idiot:   "Alright, that would be all for now. I hope you'll read this with an open mind, and not just try to disagree with me. Disagreement makes sense if there is a genuine wish for understanding behind it. Later!"
Ok shithead, as of now you're blocked.  When you apologize for your lies about me that's I've listed you can comment again.

My further response to the anonymous cunt

I told you, my blog. Or yours or anywhere that is actually likely to be seen.  BTW my blog is working fine, you lying cunt.
Practically everything you say is a lie.  By the way, I'll keep swearing at you until you stop lying and wasting my time.  That is far more rude than calling you a waste of sperm that would best help society by getting cancer and taking part in a drug trial.

"I think i've explained how an RBE would determine values of materials.:
Well then you're an idiot aren't you?  What you've said is that you will collect a bunch of data and somehow put it all together to determine opportunity costs and value.
" It would be calculated out of two parameters: the available amount of the material, and the need for that material in society."
The first is a meaningless measure, what does it mean "the available amount of material"?  Do you mean all of the material that could possibly be extracted no matter what the cost in other materials?  Because that would be fucking stupid.  No you'd have to consider how much materials would be extractable given certain resource limitations which wouldn't be able to ennumerate because you don't have a measure of value.  To have a measure of value of the resources used to extract the material you'd have to have a measure of value of the material itself, which you can't have until you measure the value of the resources used to extract it.

The second measure is also meaningless, all it tells you is that a certain product has positive value not how much value it has.

" And if you can show me a flaw in our system, i'll be happy, because we try to learn from criticisms, not ignore them or get mad about them"
No you fucking won't because I already showed you a flaw in your system you ignorant cunt.

"-you said we have no mechanisms to determine value, right?":
Yes and I was right.  The shit you brought up is not a fucking mechanism.  It's the fucking specifications for what the mechanism has to do, with NO way to do it.

" I'll visit it if you stop with the namecalling, i believe i can at least expect that tiny bit of common courtesy"
No you fucking can't expect that tiny bit of common courtesy, fucktard.  What you can expect is for me to be pissed off that you wasted my time after I specifically told you that your shit was shit.  Now either get some real information or FUCK OFF.
" But until then, you're welcome to copy this exchange over there, if you're not too ashamed of your rude behaviour."
Thanks but I don't need your permission.  I'm not ashamed of my behaviour, although you should be ashamed of yours.  You wasted my time with lies fucktard.


"OK what public place would be good enough for you to have a conversation with me? You keep saying that i'm lying to you. I'd be happy to have people around us to verify i'm not lying, i'm just trying to explain what i know about TVP.

I think i've explained how an RBE would determine values of materials. It would be calculated out of two parameters: the available amount of the material, and the need for that material in society. We have no money, so there would be no monetary value associated with it. That is just a short answer, but ask a more detailed question and i'll answer that too, as good as i know! And if you can show me a flaw in our system, i'll be happy, because we try to learn from criticisms, not ignore them or get mad about them.

"That someone will collect data and smart people will use it decide what to do."
-a slight bit different. Most of that data collecting will be automated, and deciding what to do won't be arbitrary, it will also follow from what data we collect from society, what people need, want, what is needed to improve life. So in a late phase of a resource based economy, most of this will be automated, no human bias or corruption involved.

"There is NOTHING, NOTHING I said about TVP that isn't true."
-you said we have no mechanisms to determine value, right? I'm just saying that we do have it worked out, so if you're attacking a system that doesn't know how to find out values and costs, you're not criticising TVP.

Ooooh, you've got a blog? I'll visit it if you stop with the namecalling, i believe i can at least expect that tiny bit of common courtesy. But until then, you're welcome to copy this exchange over there, if you're not too ashamed of your rude behaviour.

PS: i tried to reach your blog page but it didn't work."

Anonymous247n tried to give me shit again.

So that little coward tried to accuse ME of running away, despite me putting up a complete refutation of his bullshit.

Here's what he said:
"I commented on your site, in the discussions section. So it's public. Now i've explained what i could, if you're just going to continue with your strawmen i won't bother with you anymore... but it will be you who retreated from this, you who would choose ignorance. You bothered with namecalling, why not bother asking questions normally? What are you so angry about anyway, have i been rude with you like that?

I'm giving you another chance. Ask your question about TVP, i'll explain. Here, in private messages, or on your page under discussions, where it's public. Your choice, talk to me or retreat."

And here's what I said in reply:
"I don't consider the comments section on a channel with NO original videos to be all that public. 

You've explained what? That someone will collect data and smart people will use it decide what to do. You haven't told me how TVP determines values. You can't determine the value of something from someone requesting it, only that the value is greater than zero. 

What strawmen did I use? There is NOTHING, NOTHING I said about TVP that isn't true. I gave you a chance to explain and you gave the standard TVP shit that tells me nothing. 

I'll give you a chance, fuckwit, either post a comment on my blog, credible.blogspot.com.au (where I will be posting this exchange) or on your own PUBLIC blog. I didn't retreat from anything you posted the same useless shit and I completely destroyed it. That's why you haven't actually looked at my post."


So it's up to him.  Actually man up or run away like the dog he is.

TVP is a fraud and here's more evidence.

So I got a private message from a dickhead who I specifically told not to give me any private messages.  The full text is available at the end of this post, but I'll be quoting the relevant part as I go along.

"The main topic. Our idea of an economic system has ways of determining value and cost. You may have been talking to people who weren't informed enough to KNOW how to explain this to you." 
Indeed, and that includes everyone who's every tried to explain it to me, but they're all sure it works, despite not being able to describe it.  What does that tell you?  Incidentally you're in that group too.

"They will just send you to "learn more", or give up on you too soon. Or like me, they just couldn't explain it within 500 characters. This is why a private message was necessary."
  No a PM was necessary because you didn't want to get caught out lying.  There are many other ways you can send a more than 500 character answer, for a start by multiple comments, blog posts, need I go on?

"So how do we determine values and costs in an RBE? Pretty much directly."
  And what does that mean?  How do you determine the value of something "directly"?  Value isn't a physical thing you can directly measure.
"How much of the material do we have, and how much do we need? Can we replace it with alternatives, can we recycle it, how does it decay, how does it replenish - all those parameters are taken into account. A system of input-output mechanisms finds those parameters out, of course with the help of resarchers and scientists all over the world."
  An answer that vague isn't an answer.  Saying you "all these parameters will be taken into account" tells me nothing.  For instance if a resource replenishs and another doesn't how do you take that into account when determining resource use?  If the unreplenishing resource is used you can't use it for something else in the future, how do you determine which use is greater, given they occur in different time frames?  Are you saying that you directly compare the use of every single combination of resources that could be used to produce one good and that you do that for every good?  If so the programmings going to be harder than doing EVERYTHING the economy currently does.  Basically you just said that the system finds the answers to the question I'm asking with the help of "scientists and researchers".  This is an assertion not an answer.  All you're saying is "Smart guys will figure it out, with data".  Fuck you.  This is not an answer and you're evil for pretending it is.

"But once a mechanism is understood - it can be automated."
  You can automatically determine what sort of plays people like?  You're talking serious AI here.

"So what kinds of materials am i talking about? Copper, iron, wood, water, gold, natural diamonds - whatever it is, its available amounts are constantly tracked. The need for those materials is also tracked - what do we need them for, how much and at what frequency? How fast does the material replenish - wood can be regrown, minerals can't be. How plentiful is the material on our planet? There's less gold there than iron. And how much of the material is needed?"
  Did you just assume that the only relevant resource is natural resources?  Because if you did you're so fucking stupid it's unbelievable.  There is capital and labor too you moron.
  But let's restrict the criticism to how your system will handle NATURAL resource use, because that's both the easiest resource use to handle and the least critical to manage correctly.  Societies with limited natural resource do better than socieites with limited labor resources or capital.  How much of a particular natural resource exists in the world is a minor part of what you need to know about it.  If a billion tonnes of copper exist 15 km deep what does that mean for your system?  Well it means if you expend enough resources you can access that copper.  But which resources?  Well your technicians could calculate thousands of combinations of resources you could use to access it.  Which one you should use depends on how valuable each resource used is, but to know that you have to complete your moronic inventory and compare the supply of these resources with how much will be used.  But this is part of both the supply of copper and how much of other resources will be used, so you can't know. The only way to know would be to list every single possible way to get the copper, liste every single possible way to get the resources to get the copper, then compare every one of these combinations to every single other possible combination of resources to do something else. It can't be done, particularly when we consider the value problem.

"This is a big question - how does our system find out what it needs to run, how does it track the people's needs and wants. In very short, the gathering and measuring systems are cybernated - integrated - with systems that track needs and consumption. You need a new oven? You order a new one, or pick it up at a distribution center - THAT's the input, and every person on the planet creates it all the time while they consume. And the systems, like a living being's nervous system, communicate with each other in real time, constantly making sure that supply meets demand."

How are needs tracked?  I know how wants are tracked but how do you determine what is needed and what would just be nice to have?  This is a critical question, unless you're assuming you can supply even the most trivial want without compromising any other need or want you need to quantify value.  Simply saying that I want a new oven doesn't tell you how much I want it, let alone that I "need" it, however that is defined.  There is no way in TVP to distinguish between a request that really matters to the person and will give great value and a request that is not important and will not give great value.  Your system doesn't determine supply or demand, in the economic sense.  It determines what people want, but not how much they're prepared to give up to get it.  It determines what is produced but not the value of what could have been produced if it hadn't been.  TVP has to decide which requests to grant, or it's just a fairy tale.  If it's a fairy tale and it's being presented as a real solution that's evil.

So now let's deal with the morality directly.  You claim " I HAD MY DOUBTS about the movement! But it did convince me that its goals are very pure and good.".  What convinced you?  That they keep saying they're goals are pure and good?  Lot's of people say that.  The communists said that.  TVP is another bunch of scientistic assholes who claim that private property needs to be abolished and everything tracked by a central mechanism.  If they are different from communists in a fundamental way I don't see it.  It's communism plus robots as Stef said.  What makes me think they're evil is that they don't tell me how they would handle opportunity costs despite repeated requests.  Considering this is something that needs to be determined before anyone could rationally support their system it's a dead giveaway that their real system is evil.  If they were really intent on what they claimed they would openly publish their opportunity costs and values system not lie about it.  And they have been lying, as have you.  What they describe as a system is not a system, it's the requirements for one.  Saying "Smart men will figure it out with data" is not an answer and nobody sane would regard it as one.  They are being insincere, and that is only necessary to protect evil.  Note that I'm including you here as one of the evil ones.
 Now fuck off you little shithead or I'll REALLY humilitate you by going into the capital/labor problems your system has.


Here is the full text of his message.
"Hello!

I've decided to go out of my way and send YOU a private message :)  (edit - looks like youtube changed some things, so this will be sort of public - even better)  I guess as the one representing the minority, and all this time claiming moral high ground, i should reach out. And since i had some time, i've decided to go ahead and write you. Maybe i'll explain something to you about the venus project and resource based economies that you didn't know yet. And maybe you'll explain to me, what that moral hazard of our movement is supposed to be.

I will be honest, i understand our movement pretty well. I've debated philosophers, engineers, young and old about it. I haven't been with it from the beginning, but i've discovered it quite early, when the second zeitgeist movie was made. I HAD MY DOUBTS about the movement! But it did convince me that its goals are very pure and good. I'll also say this, i have my disagreements with Jacque Fresco, so i consider myself more a zeitgeister than a venus projecter, in brief, we seem to be a bit more democratic with our ideas. But the same broad principles apply to TZM and TVP. So i'm pretty convinced that we're the "good guys" :)  And i would be very interested if you could explain what's morally bad about our movement, or what Stefan thinks is morally bad. I honestly don't know. I've reached dead-ends with people concerning the plausibility of our plans, but very rarely has it ended with people just concluding that we're "evil" or "bad" - it mostly happens from people who very stubbornly think we're the new communists. But most people who take at least a bit of time will see, we're very different. So explain if you wish, what's morally bad about our ideas. I think we're morally probably a bit above most other similar movements, but that's just my opinion!

The main topic. Our idea of an economic system has ways of determining value and cost. You may have been talking to people who weren't informed enough to KNOW how to explain this to you. They will just send you to "learn more", or give up on you too soon. Or like me, they just couldn't explain it within 500 characters. This is why a private message was necessary.

So how do we determine values and costs in an RBE? Pretty much directly. How much of the material do we have, and how much do we need? Can we replace it with alternatives, can we recycle it, how does it decay, how does it replenish - all those parameters are taken into account. A system of input-output mechanisms finds those parameters out, of course with the help of resarchers and scientists all over the world. But once a mechanism is understood - it can be automated. So what kinds of materials am i talking about? Copper, iron, wood, water, gold, natural diamonds - whatever it is, its available amounts are constantly tracked. The need for those materials is also tracked - what do we need them for, how much and at what frequency? How fast does the material replenish - wood can be regrown, minerals can't be. How plentiful is the material on our planet? There's less gold there than iron. And how much of the material is needed? This is a big question - how does our system find out what it needs to run, how does it track the people's needs and wants. In very short, the gathering and measuring systems are cybernated - integrated - with systems that track needs and consumption. You need a new oven? You order a new one, or pick it up at a distribution center - THAT's the input, and every person on the planet creates it all the time while they consume. And the systems, like a living being's nervous system, communicate with each other in real time, constantly making sure that supply meets demand.

I guess you could have many sub-questions, and i'd be glad to answer them. Go in detail, ask specifics, i'm sure i can be of help. Just show me that you're really interested in this, and not just enjoying the bashing of those who think too much out of the box ;)  I really enjoy Stefan's shows and agree... i think 95% of the time with him, i strongly believe we should join forces and work together toward a better future, instead of arguing. But for that, understanding needs to be made. Stefan and Peter failed at that, unfortunately... so let us be better, what do you say?
Looking forward to your reply - peace"

The Paul Armstrong Problem or staging a revolt against boring work.

Those familiar with the Austrian School of economics will remember the Economic Calculation Problem, how to decide what to produce with what resources.  While this is usually presented as a problem of what goods are best for consumers there is another problem, how people would prefer to use their resources, particularly their labor. 

For example Paul Armstrong was a high level health administrator in the New South Wales governement.  He was good, so good other sections of the NSW health administration headhunted him for his skills in getting diverse people to work together.  His high pay represented the benefits others saw in his organisation and people skills (and the lack of competing people who could provide the same skills for less of course). In other words his effort was thought to be able to provide the same or better results than large amounts of capital, land and other people's labor.  So why then did he quit and become an actor, a profession notorious for not being financially stable?  Put simply his valuation of doing the job he wanted to do had to be compared to other people's valuation of doing the job they wanted him to do.  This fundamental problem of how to balance the preferences of those who want services with the preferences of those who want to provide them I call "The Paul Armstrong problem".  It is a subset of the Economic Calculation Problem and I want to determine if can be solved without prices or without a free market*. 

Obviously if there is an opportunity to do a job that is highly valued by others but highly disvalued by the person doing it then someone has to make a decision.  Whose desire predominate?  Since the abolition of slavery nobody can be coerced into doing a particular job if they haven't agreed to do it.  The only exception is "National Service" that is to say "Government Slavery" i.e. conscription or conscription-like institutions.  So given that people can veto what other people think they should do how do we persuade them to do what would suit us?

Several methods suggest themselves.  Social pressure/guilt can work in some cases, but it isn't the sort of thing that can or should be applied on societal scales.  Attempting to do so would result in those with the least active consciences benefitting most and those with the most active getting the shaft.  This in the long run is not good.  It also encourages people to be bad at unpopular jobs (or pretend to be) which is not what we want.  In any case it does not really measure the cost/benefit of a particular person doing a job.  The disutility of a person doing a job (i.e. how much he would prefer not to do it, for whatever reasons) is a cost of them doing a job.  If it is not expressed in a monetary form, it's still a cost.  There might be people who would do the job almost as well and dislike it much less, thus having almost as much of a benefit and much more of a cost.  This is not measurable using social pressure.

Consciption, which is fundamentally no different from slavery with a paycheck could also be tried, but it suffers from a central defect.  Under slavery there is no incentive to actually do a good job.  Under selective slavery, where only those who seem good at the job are enslaved, there is even less incentive.  The worse job you do, the sooner people stop forcing you to do it.  Any of you guys out there used the "Drop a few plates and get out of drying up" trick?  Same deal, society wide.  It also doesn't allow cost/benefit analysis in the same way social pressure did not.

The current solution is some form of recompense.  That is provision of more goods and services in return for the more valuable labor.  Labor can be more valuable because there are a limited number of people who can do it, because those who can do it can do other valuable labor or because nobody wants to do it.  With some jobs the value difference between them being done well and not as well is very great.  For instance the aforementioned Mr. Armstrong had a job that involved various different health services, including drug & alcohol, pyschiatric hospitals, regular hospitals etc. working together.  Anyone could try to do that, but doing it well meant high value in terms of better patient outcomes, less time shuttling them around, less bureacratic effort and more time actually spent helping patients etc.  So his labor was highly valued in terms of goods and services.  It was cheaper to provide him with large amounts of goods and services (via the medium of a paycheck since double coincidence of wants is a thing) than to try and accomplish goals without using his labor.  In other words his labor substituted for large amounts of capital and other people's labor.

So could people be given recompense without prices?  Fundamentally no.  All that would happen is a de facto barter system where, for instance, doing a particular job gets you particular packages of goods and services and you trade them for the goods and services you want.  This in effect gives you a price system but with the inefficiencies of a barter system.  While it is possible to provide part recompense in goods and services rather than money (e.g. free housing for some workers, especially those who need to be a particular place) that is only a modification to the idea of prices.  For some organisations in some cases it is cheaper to provide a benefit by providing a good or service rather than the cash necessary to provide an equivalent value to the worker.  For instance mining companies provide free accommodation in remote areas to many workers.  This is cheaper than providing the worker money which he then uses to rent accomodation which would be difficult if the company hadn't built said accommodation.  


*  Yes his job wasn't in the free market, but it was subject to competition from other employers who were in the free market and so had some free market discipline imposed. 

A critique of Daibhidh's "Anarcho-Hucksters: There is Nothing Anarchistic about Capitalism"

“From each according to their gullibility, to each, according to his greed.”

Ok, for a start that's a stupid thing to say.  Being greedy under anarcho-capitalism won't get you anything.  Even being greedy and being born with a large chunk of capital won't get you anything.  You have to actually produce something people will voluntarily trade for.  Now I know to a leftist this seems like a distinction without a difference, but it's not.  Actually providing people with stuff rather than just taking the money is a BIG difference between AC and State Capitalism.  

“Anarcho” capitalists are, in fact, simply capitalists who object to the State cutting into their own profits by way of regulations and taxation. That is their sole gripe with the State. They see the bureaucrat as the nefarious boogeyman in their lives, motivated solely to enmesh the world in red tape — simply out of maliciousness alone."

Actually anarcho-capitalists object to the state for many other reasons, including that it cuts into their WAGES, into their time, into their integrity and many other things.  The claim that they object only to the state's effect on profits is insane.  Even minarchists like Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand repeatedly pointed out the ways the state harmed wage earners and the poor.  Nor is it true that ANY anarchist (or minarchist for that matter) that I know of claim that the State was motivated out of maliciousness alone, or even primarily.  The State actively helps the powerful get an unearned income, that openly said by every anarcho-capitalist I know of.  Many feel that this is the primary motivation of those who control the state.  I do not, I think it's justification of their previous acts, but I'm not a significant force in AC.

“Anarcho” capitalists do not object to private property, to class distinctions, social stratification, concentrated wealth, and other bourgeois trappings in society."

Yes we don't object to private property that's true, so what?  How does that make us not anarchists?  It simply means that we have something we don't think the state should be able to take away from us.  So should you if you were a GENUINE anarchist, which I don't think you are.  

Class distinctions, what are those?  Do you mean that we don't oppose people not associating with people they don't think are in their "class" or only associating with such people under very different terms than those that apply within the "class"?   Well what's a "class"?  If it is simply a group of people who choose to associate within the group differently than without then every anarchist allows class differences.  To do otherwise would require a state.  To say that we don't object to such groups is untrue, as usual the leftist doesn't understand the difference between not objecting and not wanting to use violence to stop it.  

But perhaps she means distinctions between people with "different relationships to the means of production" or some such quasi-Marxist stuff.  Well  of course we don't object to those.  There are people who, due to their history, circumstances, abilities, interests, activities and other things have a different relationship to the means of production than others.  For instance there are those who have not saved resources and traded them for the means of production required for their particular profession.  Should there be no distincition between these people and those that have?  Should there be no distinction between someone who worked and saved to buy a car and now wants to hire out as a taxi driver, and someone who just turns up wanting the job?  Should there be no distinction between the man who cleared the land and the man who just wants to farm it without putting in any effort to make that possible?  Of course not, and any system that pretended not to notice those distinctions would perish. 

Leftist anarchists are fond of saying that people should keep the results of their labor, but some of those results are the means of production*, so should they not keep the means of production?  And can they not trade said means of production for the products of others labor?  If they can't tell me how you're going to forbid that without a State.  And given the fact that not everyone creates the same amount or would have the same amount left over from consumption even if they did, that means some people have more capital than others.  Yes in some cases that means some people have a lot of capital and others have none, but how is that not anarchist?  Anarchists can't dictate people's circumstances.  We can no more tell people they have to act such that all have the same amount of capital** than we can tell them to act such that they all have the same amount of lung cancer, skiing experience, appreciation for the complexities of pre-industrial management of the commons or anything else.  

Then we come to "concentrated wealth", well not literally obviously.  Yes, we've got no objection if the free market concentrates wealth.  We might not like it but there's not a lot we can do about it without using force, which is exactly what REAL anarchists refuse to do.  But time and time again libertarians, both anarchist and minarchist, have pointed out that the State INCREASES the concentration of wealth.  Even Noam Chomsky, who says as many bad thing about anarcho-capitalists as anyone, agrees that the State diverts money to big corporations.  If there is anyone who describes themselves as an anarchist who hasn't pointed out that the State diverts wealth from the poor to the rich, I don't know them.  Hell even Ayn Rand (not an anarchist) who described big business as "the most persecuted minority in America" openly pointed out the way the State ripped off the poor for the benefit of the connected rich.  Now some might say that without the State the rich would take even more wealth from the poor. Great, now tell me one thing: how?   How are they going to get 30% bank returns for years on end without the state rigging the money supply?  How are taxi companies going to make fortunes while paying peanuts without medallions to limit the supply of young men eager to slap a meter on their car and drive all night in competition with them?  How is the military industrial complex going to sell the F-35 without someone forcing someone else to pay for it?  

" Their idea of a utopia is a world of unaccountable, unfettered corporate power where literally everything is up for sale and is negotiable."

Firstly there would not even necessarily be any corporations in anarcho-capitalism as you'd know if you did any actual research.  Corporations are a product of the State.  It is hard to see how they would even exist without it.  You would know that if you did any research.

We have that world now.  At the moment literally anything is up for sale and negotiable.  You want someone's son to go blow up arabs so you can steal their oil?  Just don't be stingy at the Party fundraisers.  You want to murder someone and not have it investigated?  Barack baby does it every day?  Torture, theft, murder, phone-tapping, detention without trial, all these are up for sale and negotiable.  So if that's what Anarcho-capitalists want why aren't they just shutting up and basking in the glow of sucess?  Because that's not what we want.  We want EVERYONE to be accountable including people who act in the name of corporations.  If someone is talking about anarcho-capitalists and pretending that we propose no mechanisms to make people accountable he's lying.  Either he's lying about what he knows or lying about fact that he knows nothing.  Now you might want to argue that the private courts and protections agencies proposed in AC would not be effective in keeping corporations accountable, however to jump from your disbelief to us disbelieving and to use that as evidence against us is just being a bad human being. 

Far from being the vindication of humanist values, the “anarcho” capitalist ethic is the denial of them before arbitrary, inhumane market forces. 

Market forces are simply the aggregated desires of human beings, as such they are human values.  Whether they are "humanists" or not depends on how you define them.  But I fail to see how you can define "humanist" to consistent with ignoring the values and preferences of real human beings, which is all market values are.  People want bread, toy trucks, the ability to travel long distances in a short space of time, not to have to work on their kid's birthday etc. etc. etc.  These are values that are expressed throught the market, because if you want these things that has an effect on what you can get in trade from others and what they can get from you.  That's all "market forces" are, the expression of these desires.   

The “ideal” social interaction, in “anarcho” capitalist terms, is that of prostitution.

Oh god, there is so much stupid packed into that sentence it's, well it's bad.  Firstly there is no "ideal social interaction" in anarcho-capitalist theory and if there was then anarcho-capitalist theory wouldn't necessarily be aimed at achieving it.  Even if there was there is no way to tell if it would involve either sex or money since anarcho-capitalism has things to say about things unrelated to both.  There is NO prejudice in anarcho-capitalism in favor of interactions that involve trade of value-for-value, other than a prejudice against forced interactions that necessarily aren't value-for-value.  For any particular anarcho-capitalist, at any particular time the "ideal social interaction" might involve a cash sale, a barter trade, providing something in return for social prestige or other purely social advantage or something that doesn't involve any actual benefit to him/herself other than discharging what he/she feels is a moral obligation.  

At this point I'd like to make about about arrogance, stupidity and unacceptable behaviour.  If you're going to comment on a doctrine it is unacceptable to simply make things up without doing the research.  This is because when you write 16 ignorant words people like me have to write 146 intelligent words to correct your mistakes and you simply don't have the moral right to take that time away from me and be considered a decent human being.  Clean up your act, that's all I'm saying.  

Prostitution, e.g., selling your services for an anticipated monetary gain, is the highest definition of “anarcho” capitalist “empowerment”, amazingly. The ability to sell yourself to whomever you want is the “anarcho” capitalist idea of “freedom”.

And yet strangely anarcho-capitalists repeatedly point out that the State prevents you from doing anything else.  Anarcho-capitalists have never said that selling your services is "the" anarcho-capitalists idea.  The anarcho-capitalist idea is that you should be able to sell all that you legitimately own, this INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO selling your labor.  That might involve selling your services, but then so does almost every leftist conception of anarchism.  Plumbers would still plumb, surgeons would still cut, anesthesiologists will still give unwanted advice to those surgeons during surgery and they would all expect to be paid for this***.  There are these things called "customers".  If you want something someone else has you tend to have to do what they want, at least to some extent.  

"Nothing would be free from market forces. Not families, not children, not the environment, and, of course, not you!"

What does it mean to be "free from market forces"?  I know what people want you to think it means when they say it.  They want you to think that being not being "free from market forces" means not being degraded to the extent that the thing can be picked up by whatever sleazy, child-enslaving, nature-raping, perversion-spreading, unethical, selfish doucebag pays the most.  But that's not what it actually means.  What "free from market forces" really means is "I don't have to justify my use of your efforts, I can do anything I want, take anything I want, regardless of how much extra effort you have to put in to make it right and not give you a damn thing.".  Because the moment you say "I'll only take from you what you willingly give me, in trade or otherwise.", you're not free from market forces.

"Literally everything would have a price tag!"

As I've already pointed out, we have that now.  If you want discharge mercury into the sea at rates that will kill dozens, or maybe even thousands just pay up.  If they catch you you have the choice of paying an inadequate fine which will not even be given to your victims, or bribing helping with their campaign some government leech.  In anarcho-capitalism you might have to actually shell out the VALUE TO THE VICTIMS of the damage you do, and to the victims at that.  

But the assumption that this would happen is interesting.  Would there be a price tag on the love of your life?  Why would you put one there?  Would YOU sell your children?  No?  Then clearly there would not be "a price tag on everything".  There is only a price tag on whatever you want to sell that belongs to you.  Your children do not by the way.  

" Clean air, clean water, housing, human organs — each not an end unto themselves, but a marketable commodity: a product!"

Again, already happens.  China, one of the LEAST anarcho-capitalist states is doing a thriving trade in livers and such.  Since the livers are of former dissidents who often were teatotallers they're in excellent condition.  Clean air and water are purchased daily via pollution permits.  

" In such a dystopia, anything which could not be readily translated into product would be cast out as pointless and without value (measured only in economic terms, of course)."

By who?  Who would throw these things out?  Do you really hate people so much that you imagine they only keep things with commercial value?  Then why are they keeping their kids.  It reminds me of the old joke about Sydney some years ago being a great place to raise children.  You could get a good price for a child back then.  That joke works because the expectation is that people DON'T raise children to sell, but they raise them.  So why would they suddenly stop doing things for non-commercial gain just because there is no State?  Do you imagine the State makes them more concerned about their children?  More compassionate towards those they find in their care?  Two words for you: "Foreign wars".  

Why would people start valuing things "measured only in economic terms"?  Do you do that now?  Do you only keep things in your house that you could sell later at a profit?  Or do you value things for what you gain by owning them, including but not limited to warmth, rememberance of times past, convenience, protection and well the list is pretty much endless.

And this is how one detects fundamental dishonesty.  It's not that the author of this piece is wrong, or even that's she's wrong about things she could easily have found out about.  She's wrong about things she COULD NOT HELP FIND OUT ABOUT.  You cannot help but notice that there are things you would not sell, that have no price tag, that you would keep even if they were without "economic" value.  Not that the author understands what economic value is.    

"Thus, visual art would become, instead, graphic design; writing would be merely ad copy; poetry reduced to syrupy greeting card maxims; and so on — The humanities as we know them would wither away. 

Writing would become mere ad copy if it were up to the market.  Hmmm.... interesting.   So then "Atlas Shrugged" is ad copy?  Because it sold 500,000 copies in 2009.  Whatever else you might say about it, and no doubt Daibhidh hates it, it isn't "ad copy".  It isn't a simplistic, easily readable piece of pap like you think will be all that's available under a free market.  But perhaps you're totally ignorant of Rand and her commercial sucess, I mean she's only one of the most influential writers in American history, it's not surprising.  What about Dickens then?  He's acknowledged as a great writer and he wasn't reduced to explaining the virtues of opiate baby tonics.   Nor was Herman Melville, he made a decent living.  None of these got a dime from universities that I know of.  Certainly Mark Twain didn't.  Alain de Botton there's another one.  

"This is occurring already in higher education, as humanities departments get less and less academic funding."

Well television gets no academic funding, is it being reduced to syrupy greeting card maxims?  No, in fact according to "EverythingBad Is Good for You: How. Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making. Us Smarter. " by Steven Johnson todays television is far more sophisticated and intelligent than yesteryears.  Compare "Hill Street Blues" in it's time considered a complex, sophisticated program, with say "The Sopranos".  HSB had continuing story arcs, fairly complex characters and subplots.  But nowhere near the number or complexity of them that "The Sopranos" did.  You could watch a single episode of HSB in a season and still understand almost everything that went on.  In the Sopranos if you did that you'd be filled with questions about why everyone did what they did, because you missed a lot of complex backstory.  Contrast this with "Dragnet", "I love Lucy" and "Columbo" where you can watch one episode and not even KNOW whether it comes before any other episode you've seen, not that it matters.  The lack of academic funding is not turning everything into the sort of crap you seem to think the market wants in any area.  Publishing, television, movies, games, in all of these you can find good "artistic" work if you want it.  To pretend that without "academic funding" this would wither is simply classist arrogance, and not particularly anarchist.  

If humanities were “worth” anything, economically, universities would invest in them more heavily. Why this attitude?

Where this attitude?  Tell me one anarcho-capitalist that even assumes the universities would continue to exist let alone "invest in [humanities] more heavily" or even at all, in humanities under AC.  Universities, as currently structured, are statists institutions, and I can't think of a single anarcho-capitalist who doesn't think their influence on the humanities hasn't be a corrupt, thought-destroying, discriminatory and yet undiscriminating, politically-correct, anti-imaginiative boondoggle that has massively helped justify and hide the crimes of the State.  This complete ignorance of the anarcho-capitalist position combined with complete confidence in what it is betokens a complete disinterest in the truth.  Not deliberate (if possibly unconscious) deception like I detected before, but an apathy towards the facts of the matter that is complete.

Now it's possible that something like universities could survive without sucking on the tit of absolute evil.  And it's possible that such an institution would decline to fund humanities.  So what?  Universities aren't the only institution that would fund things, even if you assume an institution is necessary at all.  Either people find value in things like Goethe criticism or poetry or whatever or they don't.  If they do they will do what people have always done when they find value in something, find a way to pay for it.  

"It is because, to the “anarcho” capitalist, what is “good” is purely what is profitable. Conversely, that which is not profitable is termed “bad” (or at best, “worthless”)."

To which anarcho-capitalist?  Who amoung them has said this or anything that might be construed as this?  Nobody.  Not one anarcho-capitalist has said that John Maynard Keynes The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money is a good book even though it undoubtably made a profit.  The anarcho-capitalist doesn't decide for others what is good.  That's the point.  This is a problem with leftist "anarchists" and other "leftists" they hear the words "the market" and think the person talking only cares about money and monetary stuff.  They don't bother to actually listen to what is said because if they did that they might not be able to pretend to moral superiority.  

In fact what is good to the anarcho-capitalist is WHAT THE INDIVIDUAL CHOOSES.  That might be that which makes him the most profit, but it will not always be.  The whole point of making a profit is that you can then do things that don't make a profit without starving.  If there were no non-commercial values then commercial values would be impossible and absurd.  It's amazing the extent to which leftists think that without the government interfering in the market we'd all turn into Ebenezer Scrooge or the Ferengi from "Star Trek: The Next Generation".  

You can see how this attitude has poisoned our existing culture to the extent that it has.

Yeah it's a really anarcho-capitalist culture out there, only 40% of the economy is spent by the government.  

How do you defend an open park along such harsh, utilitarian lines when to the “anarcho” capitalist an open park is a parking lot waiting to happen?"

How do you defend a working class neighbourhood when to a Progressive a working class neighbourhood is just a development waiting to happen?  If you want a park you can buy the land, either individually or as a group and make it a park.  Whether you want to charge admission to cover the cost of purchase and upkeep, just to cover upkeep or not at all and rely on donations, up to you.  If the land is unused you might not even have to do that, just improve it enough to make it yours (e.g. put in swings, paths, stuff to make it more like a park).   If the park is more useful as a park than as a parking lot "utilitarian" lines aren't harsh at all.  It's only "harsh" if you want to ignore the preferences of others and get someting for free to their detriment.  So what is the difference between the AC system and what we have now in this context?  Two words: eminent domain, a.k.a. Hand over the land and nobody gets hurt.  This makes it HARDER to keep land that is genuinely valued by the community.  I'm not aware of what Daibhidh prefered system is but under what system would there not be a challenge choose between parking lot and park?  And how would his system decide better?

 If what is profitable is good, then a book that sells a million copies MUST be good, right? Or a coat that costs $2,000 has to be high quality, by their own definition.

Well as previously described what is profitable is not necessarily good to an anarcho-capitalist.  A book that sells a million copies is good - to those million buyers.  A coat that costs $2000 has to be better than $2000 worth of other stuff - to the purchaser.  That doesn't mean that it's good to a single supporter of anarcho-capitalism.  Others have tried this with libertarianism in general, saying "Well your philosophy isn't very popular, therefore it must be wrong because you believe popular things are right".  It's simply a strawman by people who haven't bothered to do any research or thinking at all.   I mean if you're criticising capitalism and you don't even know about subjective value, then you're not even in the 20th century yet.  Your ideas are outdated by over a century.  What I'm trying to say is, READ A FUCKING BOOK.  Or a blog or something that might give you a damn clue.  

Moreover, what sells the most tends to be that which appeals to the largest number of people 

Only if there aren't close substitutes that appeal just as much and are easy to produce.  Sure Mills and Boon sell a lot of books, but each book doesn't sell that much because anyone with a modicum of skill can come along and produce pap like that and undersell you.  If you want to sell something for a decent price you need to produce something that can't be produced easily by your competitors.  

this means that things which challenge or threaten people the least will typically do the best, economically. 

Again, ATLAS SHRUGGED.  Charles Darwin's "On the origin of species".  Most of Mark Twain's work.  The claim that what does best "typically" challenges or threatens people least is at best disputable, at worst meaningless.  In any case what is the alternative?  Someone has to decide what works have economic resources dedicated to their production.  Other than possible popularity what other measure would you have to decide that?  Well you could have people dedicate their own resources to producing something they think others should have.  Would that be better than the anarcho-capitalist way?  Hah!  Tricked you!  There is no anarcho-capitalist way, if you want to self-publish, without concern for profit, nobody's stopping you.  On the other hand WITHOUT private ownership of property someone will.   You see without private property any resources you use to publish belong to "the community" and they might not like to see it wasted on pushing your views.  How this differs from government control of printing under a state I leave for the "real" anarchists to describe.  

Putting Profits Above People

Profits earned by who, lizardmen?   Profits are profits OF PEOPLE, it is meaningless to talk of profits being above people.  

Because “anarcho” capitalists use the market as their sole gauge of good and bad, they are, in effect, unable to make effective moral judgments! 

Again we don't use the market as the sole gauge of good and bad.  And we make moral judgements all the time.  I'm making one about you right now - it aint good.  

General Motors must be the most virtuous of corporations! 

Note that The Anarchist Library uploaded this in 2010, 2 years after GM got a huge government bailout.

“Anarcho” capitalist “freedom” is the freedom to have anything which you can afford!

Well no it's the freedom to have AND DO anything which you can afford and which does not violate the rights of others.  You see you're not owed the effort of others unless they voluntarily give it to you.  You can't just say "I want a flight on a rocket to the moon because I want to feel what it's like to walk on another celestial body, do that for me and don't expect anything in return.".  Any system that tried to ignore the use of resources, that tried to ignore the fact of limited resources would be a disaster.

Thus, those with the most money in an “anarcho” capitalist society have the MOST freedom — which means that those with the LEAST money have the LEAST freedom. 

No those with the most money have most ability to convince people to do things for money.  That's not the only way to convince people to do things, nor is convince people to do things the only way to achieve goals, i.e. is not the only freedom.  There was a joke by Larry David "Who do you think has the most freedom, the married men in America or the single men in Communist China?".  It's a good joke because the amount of freedom doesn't depend solely on political or economic circumstances.  And so it would be under anarcho-capitalism.  If you have money you can get a place to stay San Francisco, but if you have a friend in San Francisco you can do that too.  If you have money you can get a house, if you have a lot less money and know how to build a house, you can get one too.  You see that's the problem with people who don't listen, they assume you mean things, even if you say the exact opposite.  

To anarchists, freedom has to be available for ALL, not just those with the cash to afford it! Otherwise, it is meaningless. True anarchists would never put a price tag on freedom!

I see, so then I'm free to fly to the moon am I?  Because I really want to do that and if you put a price tag on it, or any conditions at all I'm not "free".  Except that flying to the moon can't be avaialable to all at the current level of development.  So what I'm free to do is only what everyone else can do without bankrupting the economy.  So how is that measured?  How do I know when I've taken too much out of the common stock of resources?  Since there is no "price tag" on any of these freedom it's impossible to tell.  Did I travel twice as much as the average fellow citizen?  Does that mean I've taken a freedom not "available to all"?  Or does the fact that I live in a smaller house and wear older clothes counterbalance that?  How about medical expenses?  Do those who consume more of them exercise a freedom not available to all if they also consumer as much in other resources?  

It is this difference that reveals the manifestly bourgeois, reactionary quality of “anarcho” capitalism, 

There is nothing bourgeois about the insistence that one pay one's own way (excepting in difficult circumstances beyond your control).  In fact if anything it's a working class attitude.  As for being "reactionary" that's not an argument.  That something is a reaction, that is seeks to prevent or reverse a change doesn't make it bad.  That depends on the change.  

But anarchists look at that statement and ask:

What of the boss in the workplace?

What of the wealthy owner of property?

What of the capitalist industrialist?

What of the church elder?

What of the judge?

What of the patriarch of a family?

Don’t these people have very real authority over others’ lives? Haven’t each of these, in their way, brought shame, misery, and degradation to those under their control?

You can walk away from the boss in the workplace.  You don't need to ban bosses to be free of them.  Just decide that what they offer isn't worth what you have to give up to get it.  If what they offer is good enough to give up what you need to to get it then why ban them?  

The wealthy owner of property isn't bringing you shame,misery or degradation.  That he has something has no implications for you.  You need not deal with him.  If you choose to deal with him how can you claim he is making your life worse?  If you do not how could he possibly be making your life worse?

The capitalist industrialist again, isn't bringing you any shame, degradation or misery.  You don't have to sell your labor to him or buy his products.  If the choice not to deal with him isn't enough, what do you want?  

What of the church elder?  What of him?  Either you believe his fairy tales or you don't.  Either way he has no power under anarcho-capitalism but what you give him.  Unless you're proposing that you ban ideas you think are bad that's how it would be under your system. 

What of the judge, well finally we get to a relevant question.  The judge under anarcho-capitalism would have to satisfy the public that his court is fair, price-competitive, and customer focused.  That means that unlike every other judge in history there would be a price to bringing shame, misery and degradation to those who came before you.  Would you go to fast-food joint that habitually humiliated it's customers?  Or a furniture store that degraded those who came through the door?  Probably not, because none of these are monopolies, and in REAL (i.e. capitalist) anarchy neither would the courts be.

What of the patriarch of the family?  What the hell does that have to do with AC?

So, if your boss eavesdropped on your calls, the “anarcho” capitalist would say, “hey, you can always get a new job” rather than taking the anarchist stance of “how dare X boss eavesdrop on their employees?! We must work to end workplace tyranny!”

Actually what he'd say is "Did you agree to allow your boss to eavesdrop on your calls while at work?   No?  Then let's sue the bastard.".  So then the question is "Why would anyone agree to let the boss eavesdrop on their calls" well for the same reason they'd let fellow members of their coop do it in anti-capitalist anarchism, because some workers do real damage to their workplace.  While this might be less common in cooperatives, you cannot guarantee it will never happen.  Some workplaces, cooperative or not, might decide that the inconvenience of having their phones bugged occasionally is less than the cost lost by dishonest, lazt or incompetent employees.  If you don't agree then yes, find another job.  Describing ending consensual eavesdropping as an "anarchist stance" is inaccurate.  All anarchism says is that there are no rulers, not that nobody can consent to eavesdropping.  

In fact, to the “anarcho” capitalist, being able to work for whomever you want (including working for clients [e.g., “self”-employment) is what they consider “freedom”. This amounts to choosing who gets to be your boss! Some choice, huh?

Well yes, it is some choice.  It's what generations of workers have wanted since the feudal system was imposed.  It's the most significant advance in human economic freedom ever.  The fact that you recognise that self-employment is possible and still talk about bosses as though everyone had to have one is insane.  Yes you've got a boss, it's you.  Do you know how easy that makes it to chuck a sickie when the crickets on?   Yes if you're self-employed you'd still have to satisfy clients, but you'd have to do that under any economic system.  The alternative is that you do whatever the hell you want, whether anyone else thinks the results are worthwhile or not and then they give you stuff you think is worthwhile.  That people can't get why this wouldn't work is a continuing mystery to me.  

Anarchists, in contrast, don’t think there should BE any bosses. Everyone pulls their fair share of the collective social burden of day-to-day living. 

So let me get this straight there are no bosses, and that specifically includes customers.  So nobody has to do what someone else wants to get anything.  So who decides what is "pulling their fair share of the collective burden of day-to-day living"?  

"the distinction between this and typical capitalist drudgery is that, in anarchy, you’d be working for your own needs, rather than for the profit of another!"

But in capitalism you're always working for your own "needs", if wants are included in needs.  If they're not then his version of anarchism is desperately poor, since people work for needs and don't get anything they only "want".  I don't believe that is what he meant, he meant that you are working for your own wants.  But notice, he specifically rejected working for clients rather than bosses, so who decides what work is done for what "needs"?  

As such, you wouldn’t have to put in 40+ hour weeks lining the pockets of whoever owns the company you work for (or servicing your clients’ needs).

You don't have to do that now.  I myself don't usually work that much, and I survive.  Most people don't work 40 hours, or even 30 to survive, they do it to get things they want, so they don't "have to do it".  In any case you'd be servicing someone's needs, what difference does it make that these people wouldn't be clients?  And if they're not clients and you're working for their needs what the hell are they?  Unless he means that people would literally be working to supply their own needs, i.e. no more specialisation of labor?  This guy is actually stupid enough to have that as a positive.  

The only “freedom” that exists in the capitalist laissez-fairyland “anarcho” capitalists defend is the freedom to work for another’s gain or starve!

Which is exactly what they'd be doing in your moronic commonwealth, or are we going to pretend that people who didn't pull their fair share of the collective social burden of day-to-day living.  Would eat?  Or is that not a problem since you'll be shooting them?

In any case do you have to work for another or starve in AC?  Nope, not unless you need someone else's product to not starve and nobody wants to give it to you for free.  If you do need something someone else produces you're going to have to convince them you're worth giving it.  Otherwise guess what?  He's working for YOUR profit, and not getting anything back. 

But in capitalist society, some people (owners), don’t HAVE to work! They live off of the surplus (that is, profit) earned by others — their employees!

The profit is not earned by their employees.  Learn some damn economics or have some common sense.  If employees earned the profits why wouldn't they go into business for themselves?  

In other words, the “choice” of working for another or starving isn’t a choice, in capitalist society, because the worker can’tgo off and live on their own; somebody owns the very ground they walk on.

Actually there's plenty of places which aren't owned by anyone except the state.  In anarcho-capitalism there is no reason to believe that every square centimeter would be owned, no reason to expect that none of it would be owned by charities etc. etc. 

the absolute necessity of the State in their affairs. All rhetoric aside, laissez-faire capitalists NEED the State to uphold contracts and defend property “rights”. Otherwise, there is nothing to prevent squatters from coming along and usurping someone’s holdings.

This is bullshit and he knows it. 

So, these selfsame “anarchs” will rely on law enforcement personnel and paramilitary goons to protect their property. 

Note that he assumes that anarcho-capitalists will have property under anarcho-capitalism, but assumes the workers won't. 

Now, they note that these latter-day Pinkertons would not be instruments of Statist oppression, but rather, are employees of private “defense firms”. But I guarantee that the truncheons they use on you will feel the same, regardless of who their boss is. In fact, there are fewer safeguards with paramilitaries, because, unlike municipal police forces, these are paid employees of the capitalists in question!

Actually there would be more safeguards because they don't have the monopoly of force, their boss can't decide what constitutes reasonable use of force etc.  Nothing would stop others from hiring their own private security firms, and nothing would shield them from the courts.  

Thus, if their boss wants them to shoot strikers, they’ll do it, or risk losing their employment! 

Losing your employment is a hell of a lot cheaper than a wrongful death suit, which unlike under a state (and I suspect unlike your system) they'd actually lose if they were in the wrong.

And you know what? This is exactly what happened during the golden age of laissez-faire capitalism, when the Pinkerton Detective Agency serviced industrialists across the United States.

What actually happened was that the strikers tried to beat up murder alternative workers (scabs in their delightful parlance).  This bizarre myth that industrialists just started murdering strikers is insane.  How is murdering your workers supposed to get them to go back to work?  

Further, the “anarcho” capitalists will still require a court system, and thus laws, to uphold property rights and contracts!

And your system would require a court system and laws just as much. 

These private judicial firms would offer the “best” justice to the clients who paid them the best!

Oh for fuck's sake.  No they wouldn't because they require that BOTH parties agree to use them. Why the hell would those who pay less use a court that decided on that basis?  Except possibly nostalgia for the current system.

They say, “nobody FORCES you to work for somebody else”, but if you don’t have your own capital reserve (like most of us), what choice do you have? You must work or starve!

Which you would have to do in your system too.  In our system however you can work to get a capital reserve, and given how little is needed to make a living with, not for very long.  

The simplest exploration of the workplace reveals this reality: who has the final say in the workplace...the average worker, or the owner?

The one who has the final say is the one who is more prepared to end the relationship.  When the state is out of the way the number of employers and the number of people willing to lend enough money to become self-employed explodes.  The owner is one of many, many possible choices, they can no more force you to do something than your hotdog vendor can.  But of course this guy doesn't understand that, because he is fundamentally a statist, he simply cannot imagine  world without a state.

In fact, laissez-faire capitalism has much more in common with fascism, the old enemy of anarchism, than with democracy!

Such as what?  Well they've both got employers, that's about it.  

Look fundamentally this guy is dishonest about what anarcho-capitalism is, what it does and how it would differ from his system.  Which makes me think he's dishonest about his system, i.e. that it is not anarchistic at all but fascistic/Stalinist.  Note how he insists that everyone would work for "society" which historically has meant "the government" in the context of socialist systems.  He doesn't want market provided courts, which leads to the question who would provide the courts?  Because if they aren't market provided, if you can't choose what court you use, how is that not statism?  And statism where you're made to "[pull] their fair share of the collective social burden of day-to-day living." is Stalinism.  But that's OK, nobody is going to take this guy seriously who isn't already a Stalinist anyway.  

*  Well the capital part of it anyway.  Land by definition requires no effort to create.

** The concept  "the same amount of capital" is not actually definable in any reasonably consistent and accurate manner anyway.

*** Most of the time some freebies for the poor and unfortunate would happen as they do now.