Time to introduce myself... I'm a left libertarian

[LTKoblinsky]

Your little fantasy there is exactly the behavior demonstrated by the unions against the capitalists. Besides, I'm not an anarchist, and didn't advocate anarchy, but a good anarchist would tell you that corporations are products of the state and that its very difficult to put together the position of power without such instruments of the state...without the state.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Your little fantasy there is exactly the behavior demonstrated by the unions against the capitalists. Besides, I'm not an anarchist, and didn't advocate anarchy, but a good anarchist would tell you that corporations are products of the state and that its very difficult to put together the position of power without such instruments of the state...without the state.

That's not answering my question.

There are also many organizations similiar to corporations in Somalia, which has no effective state. (The best example I have are that of the telecoms in Somalia.)

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

I see no examples of Capitalists in those links. I see Mercantilists/Corporatists, not Capitalists. Try again.

[TimeLady Victorious]

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

I see no examples of Capitalists in those links. I see Mercantilists/Corporatists, not Capitalists. Try again.

Does your Scotsman eat porridge or kidney?

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

I see no examples of Capitalists in those links. I see Mercantilists/Corporatists, not Capitalists. Try again.

Does your Scotsman eat porridge or kidney?

No true Scotsman eats kidney porridge, oh wait. what were we talking about?

[Zhwazi]

Right, because capitalists using force to kill or grievously injure people who would strike against them is funny.

I see no examples of Capitalists in those links. I see Mercantilists/Corporatists, not Capitalists. Try again.

That's what capitalism is. A socioeconomic system where dominant power lies in the owners of capital.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

Does your Scotsman eat porridge or kidney?

Cute. Again, there is a difference between Capitalism and Mercantilism/Corporatism. Do not confuse/conflate one with the other.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

That's what capitalism is. A socioeconomic system where dominant power lies in the owners of capital.

Except those links are describing situations that wedded corporations and government. That ISN'T Capitalism.

[Zhwazi]

That's what capitalism is. A socioeconomic system where dominant power lies in the owners of capital.

Except those links are describing situations that wedded corporations and government. That ISN'T Capitalism.

Yes it is, political power is a form of power. And stop capitalizing capitalism, it's not a proper noun the way you're using it.

[dalebert]

What's stopping me from killing you with my superior firepower and taking your land? I have every reason to believe that that could happen in an anarcho-capitalist society.

It's a valid question, but what's stopping the powerful from taking advantage of the weak in any society?  I don't think there's an answer to this very difficult question.  We don't have solutions to a lot of problems (death, for instance) but we'll keep trying crazy shit in the meantime (like making up after lives).  Most of the attempts at solving this particular one are some flavor of "Use greater violence in the flavor of <blank> to counter the other violence (the bad violence)".  And of course, that's just right back to the powerful overcoming the weak, which was the stated problem in the first place.  Societies just go sideways back and forth with different groups attaining the positions of power and imposing their way and they never progress toward something more civilized.

[LTKoblinsky]

The Somali example is also laughable for two reasons. First, to say that Somalia is "stateless" is ludicrous. There are several states within Somalia. There is Puntland, the Transition government, and several others. These are governments that each hold a monopoly of force within their territory. The telecommunications companies and other private sector businesses do NOT hold this power.
Now, for the interesting part: while Somalia has no internationally recognized government due to the collapse of its socialist military dictatorship, it has not really collapsed into complete chaos without a central governor. What's interesting is that there are indications that the Somali private sector is flourishing under the lack of central control, especially areas that still adhere closely to  the system of common law, Xeer, which seems pretty close to voluntary arbitration to me.  
Still, I have no need to answer your question, as I am not an anarchist and do no believe the purist anarchist vision is a viable state of existence.
Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.



Sources:
Excellent Source on Xeer and Somali in General
Isaac DiIanni, economist
and of course...Wikipedia

[TimeLady Victorious]

It is the power of coercion if you have the power to deny someone something they need if they don't do what you want,.

Secondly, like it or not, Somalia is in the state (ahem) of de facto anarchy. Just because it's not the kind of anarchy you might want doesn't stop it from being anarchic.

[Zhwazi]

Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.

Sure it is. Power is exchangable and convertible. Offer goods and services, make money, use money to hire coercive people, or use money to woo and influence politicians, or use money to influence culture in ways that you want, power to do anything can be converted into power to do pretty much anything else that anyone else has power to do if you want it.

[LTKoblinsky]

It is the power of coercion if you have the power to deny someone something they need if they don't do what you want,.

Secondly, like it or not, Somalia is in the state (ahem) of de facto anarchy. Just because it's not the kind of anarchy you might want doesn't stop it from being anarchic.

Are you fucking kidding me? Do you not read?! While I clearly show that i believe some form of government will always exist, I clearly demonstrated that despite having no central government (your point!), Somalia is actually doing JUST FINE and have actually formed a rule of law without need of a central government. Also you are equivocating. If I truly own property, i have the right of exclusion. I cannot be morally forced to provide for others with my property.

[LTKoblinsky]

Also, the power to offer goods and services is NOT the same as the power of coercion. Please be careful of any equivocation between the two.

Sure it is. Power is exchangeable and convertible. Offer goods and services, make money, use money to hire coercive people, or use money to woo and influence politicians, or use money to influence culture in ways that you want, power to do anything can be converted into power to do pretty much anything else that anyone else has power to do if you want it.

The fact that a conversion must take place indicates that they are NOT the same thing. Choosing to initiate force and hiring someone else to initiate force on that person are the same. Now, initiating force is not the same thing as offering that person some of your productive capacity or property in exchange for theirs. I've written a whole paper on this subject if you'd like to read it sometime.