OP’s question is illogical. Businessmen opposed to government regulation who accept it happily when it benefits them? Sure! There are also men who totally approve of marital fidelity but, or so I’m told, might be happy to splurge on a buxom stripper at a drunken bachelor party.
Many businessmen touting the benefits of a “free market” are actually bragging about the power imbalance they exploit. For examples one need look no further than Congressional shills who tout America’s “free market” healthcare system. (Hilarious!)
Anarchism isn’t anarchy, so I don’t particularly see the relevance of the first one.
And I’m an actual anarchist, so I don’t give a flying fuck what the dictionary says about anarchism. But *if *I did, it wouldn’t matter, since all the dictionary definitions of anarchism I can find seem to have very little to say about how market regulation is handled, one way or another.
Perhaps you had a specific one in mind that says different, that you can share with the rest of the class? Since you seem to think the dictionary definitions somehow counter what I said.
Which I stand by - anarchists don’t want unregulated markets. we either want*no *markets, or else *very *tightly regulated ones, depending on flavour of anarchism.
I would like to know more about this, and possibly support your efforts, but I’m assuming this is not the thread to discuss it further. And I’m unclear on the rules on a thread specifically about lobbying for something. I’ll ask in ATMB.
I don’t know about anarchists, but the one libertarian I knew didn’t want the government to do anything but run the military and the police force. Specifically, he wanted every homeowner on a street to own the roadway in front of his own property and charge a toll to everyone who uses it, or even walks over it. He hoped the owners would get together and have a joint agreement, but if they didn’t that was okay too. He wasn’t exactly stupid (he had a PhD in math and then got a degree in law) but he cannot really have thought through all the implications of this. Is it something he could have picked up in Ayn Rand, whom he worshiped?
If anarchists don’t believe in anarchy, don’t you think they should choose a different name for themselves?
What I had in mind were the dictionary definitions, because they show what most people think it means. If you asked people, I think you’d find that 99% think that anarchists believe in anarchy. Now, perhaps you don’t care a flying fuck whether other people misunderstand what you believe in… except that your anger and vehemence seem to show that you do.
No markets? Good luck trying to change human nature!
Well, most of my work has been writing articles for regional publications and talking to the industry lobbying groups (ADI, ACSA, and DISCUS) about getting it added to their platforms. The original version of the Craft Spirits Modernization Act had a provision to legalize home distilling but that was removed when it was rolled into the Trump tax cuts. I spent hours talking to my local congressmen and senators about the CSMA but it never even got brought up for a vote.
In general, I’d like to bring spirits (and to some extent wine) into regulatory parity with beer. Currently you can brew beer at home, make wine and (in some states) grow weed but you can go to jail for distilling even a drop of potable alcohol and can lose the property you’re distilling on. Further once we are in the realm of taxed spirits beer is taxed (federally) at $0.11/gallon while 40% abv whiskey is taxed at $2.16/gallon and most wine is at $0.57/gallon. These excise taxes should be equalized with my preferred method being to equalize at the craft beer level and all alcohol should be taxed at $0.92 per proof gallon.
Both of these things will help the craft spirits industry because allowing home distilling will enable people to perfect their recipies and processes before spending the money to go pro. This will increase the quality of craft spirits. Right now we generally, have people either with more balls then brains who are either willing to break the law and learn how to distill before investing but then we expect them to become perfect rule following robots after years of being law breakers or people with more money than brains who are willing to invest hundreds or thousands or millions if dollars into something they know nothing about.
“Most people” aren’t anarchists, so what they think is irrelevant.
What makes you think I’m angry? You think you’re the first person around here to mistake a dictionary for a manifesto? What I am is bored by the lack of originality in the discourse around anarchism.
What does make me *vehement *is someone telling me that I’m wrong about something I’m actually involved in and they’re not. Because they read a fucking dictionary.
A dictionary, we should all note, that they still haven’t quoted from as to it saying anything about markets and the regulation thereof.
Yeah, all those millennia of pre-market Homo sapiens. They might have *looked *human, but clearly they lacked some intrinsic element of humanity… :rolleyes:
Help me out here. In an anarchist system, how can you have “tightly regulated” markets? What mechanism would be used to regulate the market? And how is tight regulation a principle of anarchism? (Not trying to be snarky or play gotcha - i’M genuinely interested in your comment and would like more info.)
Markets don’t require a money economy. People have been bartering goods as far back as recorded history goes. There was also plenty of trade early in prehistory, as items found a long distance from their origins among different cultures show.
Examples would be the artificial markets of Proudhon’s Mutualism (that’s really old-school anarchism) and Fotopoulos’ Inclusive Democracy (hipster post-modern anarchism). Fotopoulos himself seems to favour market abolition, but the upshot of the artificial market proposed isn’t abolition, just a different kind of regulation. IMO, obviously.
It isn’t, which is why different anarchist tendencies have radically different views on it.
And why a stance on markets isn’t part of dictionary definitions of anarchism.
A gift economy is not a market economy. We have no way of saying for certain that very early prehistoric “trade” was one or the other, but we can certainly say that human societies have existed based on the former. Without losing their “human nature”, apparently.
What kind of dictionary quote are you looking for, again?
One that says ‘anarchism’ has something to with ‘anarchy’? One that says ‘anarchy’ doesn’t mean ‘market (or no-market) regulation’? Or what?
Google gives me:
noun: anarchist
A person who believes in or tries to bring about anarchy. noun: anarchy
A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
Similar:
lawlessness
absence of government
nihilism
mobocracy
revolution
insurrection
riot
rebellion
mutiny
disorder
disorganization
misrule
chaos
tumult
turmoil
mayhem
pandemonium
Opposite:
government
order
Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
Belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. [That sounds very practical and in accord with human nature! - GW]
a political force or movement based on belief in anarchism.
Cool cool, thanks. I PMd you some specific questions that may run too close to the “support may cause!” rule for open discussion, if you have a moment to indulge me.
In addition, some of the chemicals used on hair can be hazardous if mis-used. The hairdressers themselves may be most at risk, due to occupational exposure, but the people they’re working on can also wind up injured – not to mention the environment in cases of improper disposal.
