New blog here: http://anarcho-mercantalist.blogspot.com

Words to avoid

Avoid many ambiguous words would help understanding.

Words to replace:

Etymology of the words:
Socialism originated from social system
Feudalism originated from feudal system
Mercantilism originated from mercantile system
Capitalism originated from capitalist system

A market system is a social system. Therefore, every market system is a social system. Every market system is socialism.

Replace these words with new ones:
Capitalism -> 1. free market system. 2. corporate capitalism
Socialism -> 1. social system, social systems include markets 2. collectivism, if describing the marxist term.
Industry -> 1. sector, if describing "the money industry" 2. manufacturing sector
Economy -> 1. catallactics, the free market system 2. managed economy, as opposite of "counter-economics"
Anarcho-capitalism -> 1. Free-market anarchism
Anarcho-collectivism -> 1. Collectivism, anarcho-collectivists are anti-totalitarian communists
anarcho-communism -> 1. anti-authoritarian Marxism 2. collectivism 3. gift economy
Libertarian socialism -> 1. anti-authoritarian Marxism
Social anarchism -> 1. anti-authoritarian Marxism 2. collectivism 3. Free-market anarchism
free-market libertarian -> 1. Vulgar libertarian 2. Minarchist 3. Free-market anarchist
Liberal -> 1. Democrat 2. classical liberal 3. neoliberal 4. cultural liberal 5. political progressive
Social liberal -> 1. political progressive 2. cultural liberal
Social conservative -> 1. Cultural conservative 2. Paleoconservatism
Constitutional republic -> 1. Paleoconservative 2. Constitutional conservative 3. Constutitionalist 4. Old American right
Anarcho-syndicalism -> 1. anti-authoritarian marxist 2. collectivist
Conservative -> 1. Cultural conservative 2. Fiscal conservative 3. Neoconservative 4. Paleoconservative
left-libertarian -> 1. agorist 2. anti-authoritarian marxist 3. collectivist
Paleolibertarian -> 1. Paleoconservative 2. anti-protectionist paleoconservative
Economic liberal -> 1. neoliberal
Market anarchist -> 1. Free-market anarchist 2. Mutualist
Libertarian -> 1. minarchist 2. free-market anarchist 3. civil libertarian
right-libertarian -> 1. paleoconservative 2. minarchist 3. constutionalist
left-anarchist -> 1. anti-authoritarian marxist 2. collectivist
multucultural -> 1. cultural liberal 2. integrationist
racist -> 1. white nationalist 2. collectivist
mutualism -> 1. free-market anarchist 2. market collectivist

Anarchism was defined as anti-authoritarian communism in the period of the 1st International, during which Bakunin and the majority of member sections of the organization laid the foundations of anarchist communist theory[1]

Thus, the later works of Bookchin places him in the semilibertarian left, a form of anti-authoritarian Marxism, on the economical-political map.[2]

The words left and right has become name-calling words that does not mean anything. Even Karl Hess' definition is wrong. Replace left and right with cultural liberal, integrationist and cultural conservative.

Anarchist semantics

Everyone should keep their full fruits of his labor. This means that no other individual can steal the products produced from labor. This also means that no individual can take his produce without the producer's consent, even if he compensated the theft with some other good. This should be prohibited because no one, except the producer, can estimate how much labor was involved in producing the product. Should the stealer underestimate the effort the producer labored, the stealer would compensate with an undervalued good. This causes the producer to lose some of his hard work because the compensation has lower value than the original, which ultimately contradicts the assumption that everyone should keep his full fruits of his labor. This unconsented transaction is called theft.

A solution to this problem is to use mutual consent. In an event that someone offers to take the producer's good with a compensation, the producer must agree to judge whether the compensation is acceptable. If the producer disagreed with the compensation, then the exchange must not take place. If this transaction actually took place even if the producer disagreed, then the producer would have lost some of his labor as theft.

Private property rights is a negative liberty, which is the freedom from interference from others. This is contrasted from positive liberty, which means an obligation for individuals to use their labor to help others. Individualism is the doctrine that every individual must have negative rights without any positive rights, even though positive rights may "benefit the majority."

Collectivism, however, is the doctrine that everyone must have some positive obligations, usually for the benefit of the "majority." Collectivism is therefore the opposite of individualism.

The definition of a state, accepted both by the individualist anarchists and the collectivist anarchists, is associated with Max Weber's influential definition: the "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence." However, individualist and collectivist anarchists differ on the definition of the word "violence." Individualist anarchists define the word "violence" as the absence of positive obligations. Collectivist anarchists define the word "violence" as the absence of equality, regardless if "violence" is the absence of either a positive or negative right.

Their definition of violence differ significantly. Marxists usually associate "violence" and "coercion" with the ownership of property. Marxists also associate the words "violence" and "coercion" with selfishness. Individualist anarchists associate "violence" and "coercion" with the violation of private property.

In other words, individualist and collectivist anarchists believe in different definitions of a state. It is possible for collectivist anarchists to advocate a collectively-controlled monopolized army that can behave like a state. The collectively-controlled army can act like "majority rule" so it may prohibit voluntary free market societies, for example, which is a violation of private property. Collectivist anarchists that argue that free-market anarchism is not a form of anarchism must define what a state is prior to their argument.

Collectivist anarchism include anarcho-communism and collectivist anarchism (normative). They also include violent movements such as anarcho-syndicalism. Not all types of anarcho-communism is collectivist, but some people see anarcho-communism as bad.

Individualist anarchists often include free-market anarchists. However, Benjamin Tucker indentified his philosophy Anarchistic-Socialism. This is because socialism is any philosophy that would solve the labor problem. However the word "socialism" is monopolized by Marxists. Brad Sprangler even identified free-market anarchism as a kind of socialism. Many individuals such as Ludwig von Mises and Hayek often mistake the term "socialism" with a "planned economy," in their economic calculation argument. The economic calculation argument applies to planned economies, not necessary socialist economies such as mutualism™.

To equate the "free market" with "capitalism" is contradictory. Capitalism is historically defined as a system of exploitation. Capital means wealth. A capitalist is a holder of capital. Capitalism is a social arrangement in which the capitalists invest in robbers and murderers to reap more profit; while simutaneously funding media and state propaganda to delude the citizens that the robbers and murderers are helping "the common good." Therefore, the term anarcho-capitalism, coined by Murry N. Rothbard, is contradictory. Free-market anarchism should be used instead. Neoliberalism is derived from classical liberalism, which is a synonym of capitalism. These words should be avoided.

Definitions should be taken literally, or their historic definitions. Definitions should not be defined by the "majority." Even if 99.99% of people define socialism as state ownership of the means of production, the definition should not be taken. Individualist anarchism should be taken literally, it must include free-market anarchism and exclude the 19th-century "individualist" anarchists.

Some collectivist anarchists believe that voluntary free market communes in anarchy is incompatible with collectivist anarchism. This is because, possibly, according to Marxism, that the free market is often associated with imperialism, and that the free market communes would wage war with voluntary socialist communes and turn them into a free market one. Conversely, some free-market anarchists, such as Murray Rothbard, oppose voluntary communist communes because the communists may take over the free market societies and turn them to a communist one.

The term libertarian socialism is defined by collectivist anarchists to include collectivist anarchism other forms of anti-authoritarian communism such as council communism. However, free-market anarchism should be a form of libertarian socialism because it focuses on abolishing the oppressive nature of capitalism.

According to the historic definitions of "left" and "right", the right advocates elitism, social order, rule of law, cultural conservatism and aristocracy. The left is any philosophy that opposes the right. Therefore, arguably, all free-market anarchists are leftists. However, some argue that it is possible for free-market anarchists to oppose immigration and advocate traditional culture. These are right-libertarians. Paleolibertarians are a kind of right-libertarianism.

Left-libertarians, however advocate radical revolutionary anarchism and opposes aristocracy, social order, rule of law, cultural conservatism, etc. Agorists are a kind of left-libertarianism. Geoanarchism are sometimes considered a kind of left-libertarianism because of their egalitarian belief in land possession.

The terms "radical," "liberal" and "conservative" do not have any correlation with the terms "left" and "right" outside of the United States. Liberalism outside of the United States is often associated with right-wing neoliberalism. The term "radical" can also mean fascist Germany. It is possible to have a "radical right-libertarian" that promotes racial inequality, for example.

The terms "left" and "right" should not be confused with the current corrupt definitions. Left and right is corrupted by the duo-party system caused from voting systems.

Some collectivist anarchists also identify themselves as left-libertarians. They are wrong. They are confused with the free market. Epistemological objectivists would feel frustrated at the collectivist anarchists who identify themselves as left-libertarians. These collectivist anarchists that identify themselves as left-libertarians are irrational.

Collectivist anarchists are highly irrational because they believe that a free market force the most productive to outcompete the less productive. They do not hold the idea that the profits made by the workers are proportional to the productivity or how hard they have worked. In a free market static economy, workers would be compensated approximately to how much labor they did, assuming perfect equalness in ability.

The labor theory of value, however, is not an approximation value in a free market, even if workers have perfect equalness in ability. The raw materials are seperate from the labor so produce is more expensive than labor. The raw materials, such as water and diamonds, are driven by marginal utility. The average cost of digging a diamond is much higher than average cost of buying a diamond. Even that the average amount of labor for digging diamonds is lower than the average amount of labor for digging gold, diamonds are much more expensive because of greater marginal utility.

The criteria that a philosophy falls under "individualism" or "collectivism" depends on the definition of "negative liberty" and "positive liberty." If the labor theory of property does not contradict negative liberty, then free-market anarchists are individualist anarchists. If the "possession" argument advocated by mutualism™ does not contradict negative liberty then mutualism™ is a kind of individualist anarchism. If it actually contradicts, then it would be collectivist anarchism. The range which the anarchist philosophies fall under individualism or collectivism requires the definition of individualism and collectivism.

Free-market anarchists believe in the non-aggression axiom plus the labor theory of property.
Geoanarchists believe in free-market anarchism, with the restriction of conditional titles on land called possession.
Tuckerites are geoanarchists but with the LTV and restriction on rent and interest.
Mutualism™ are Tuckerites with LTV that hold the "possession" idea on all property, not just land.

So how "possession" idea would be enforced in anarchism? The only way that they can be enforced is coercively by like a dictatorship by the proletariat. Even though the means of mutualism™ is theoretically different than free-market anarchism, their ends may be the same. Free-market anarchism and Mutualism™ have a lot similar if the "possession" idea was dropped out. Mutualism™ is an nothing but an extension of free-market anarchism that includes the homesteading theory on unused goods (not just unowned goods).

There is a problem with the use-right property theory. It disallows individuals to buy land for exclusive ownership of property so they can invest such as a football field or a private park. If individuals want to share unpossessed property, they would simply offer rents for using their property. If they do not want to share their unpossessed property by rent, then it implicitly suggests that the unpossessed property is possession. Therefore, claiming that one has the use-right of a function of an object is an act of theft unless consent from the owner. Both the possession theory and use-rights contradict negative liberty, so mutualism™ is not a kind of individualist anarchism. But all free-market anarchists are mutualists.

Also, Dmitry Chernikov's theory is irrelavant because it grants one person to own an entire continent because of his "plan." This causes monopoly and unfairness. The labor theory of property does not prohibit an individual to plan a peace of land to own a football field, it just a theory of original appropriation. If the person wants to own an entire continent, he must buy all his competitors. The labor theory of property is best.

The definition of "libertarianism" is normative, which differs from various anarchist ideologies. Epistemological objectivists may not consider collectivist anarchism a branch of libertarianism because of the flawed economics (by some) may result in authoritarianism.

Often, collectivist anarchists believe in aggression that can be equated to theft in some cases. They do not have any unified ideology, and its internal disagreements are much more intense and diverse than the disagreements between the free-market anarchists and the mutualists™.

Collectivist anarchists are ignorant about the free market. They have many internal contradictions. Free-market anarchism presents a much more unified ideology.

1. Each and every individual should enjoy the full product of his labor. No one else other than the individual can accurately estimate cost of labor that he has worked to produce a good. Therefore, no one else can exchange his good with another good or take his good without the individual's permission because the cost labor he has put into producing the good may be more than others may have perceived. Exchanging  a good without consent should be forbidden because the individual may lose some fruits of his labor due to the fact that others may underestimate how much labor one worked to produce that good.
2. If both parties agree to exchange, the exchange is voluntary. Each individual can accurately estimate how much labor he has worked to produce his respective good. Each individual can also estimate the usability of his traders' goods. Therefore, both would maintain their full products of their labor, plus the value each benefited from the exchange.

Real Economic Freedom

Ranking	Country	2008 Score	Business Freedom	Investment Freedom	Freedom from Corruption	Labor Freedom	Real Ranking	Real Business Freedom	Ranking Change
11	Denmark	60.6	99.9	90	95	99.9	1	115.0	-10
2	Singapore	59.4	97.8	80	94	99.0	2	110.6	0
6	New Zealand	56.7	99.9	70	96	85.5	3	107.9	-3
10	United Kingdom	55.7	90.8	90	86	80.7	4	105.8	-6
27	Sweden	52.2	94.8	80	92	62.0	5	104.9	-22
1	Hong Kong	57.5	88.2	90	83	93.3	6	104.8	5
4	Australia	56.8	89.3	80	87	94.2	7	103.9	3
13	Netherlands, The	53.5	88.0	90	87	60.5	8	103.1	-5
16	Finland	51.7	95.2	70	96	48.8	9	102.4	-7
7	Canada	55.2	96.7	70	85	82.9	10	102.0	3
14	Iceland	53.7	94.5	60	96	75.0	11	101.7	-3
3	Ireland	56.1	92.2	90	74	80.4	12	101.5	9
20	Belgium	53.4	93.7	90	73	69.9	13	100.7	-7
9	Switzerland	54.4	83.9	70	91	82.0	14	99.2	5
5	United States	56.0	91.7	80	73	92.3	15	99.1	10
15	Luxembourg	51.8	76.9	90	86	53.1	16	97.5	1
23	Germany	50.6	88.9	80	80	52.8	17	96.8	-6
34	Norway	48.1	89.1	60	88	53.9	18	94.2	-16
30	Austria	49.1	80.6	70	86	59.2	19	93.6	-11
12	Estonia	50.5	84.5	90	67	50.3	20	92.6	8
17	Japan	51.2	88.1	60	76	79.8	21	91.6	4
8	Chile	52.5	67.5	80	73	90.0	22	89.2	14
48	France	46.1	87.1	60	74	63.8	23	88.8	-25
21	Barbados	50.2	90.0	60	67	80.0	24	88.8	3
31	Spain	46.1	77.5	70	68	56.7	25	84.9	-6
53	Portugal	43.1	79.6	70	66	48.0	26	84.1	-27
46	Israel	44.2	68.4	80	59	64.0	27	81.4	-19
18	Mauritius	47.3	81.6	70	51	70.6	28	81.1	10
43	Hungary	45.0	73.9	80	52	66.8	29	81.1	-14
24	Bahamas, The	46.6	80.0	40	70	80.0	30	80.0	6
41	Korea, South	43.5	84.0	70	51	49.0	31	79.9	-10
26	Lithuania	45.5	83.2	70	48	57.6	32	79.2	6
45	Jamaica	45.1	82.0	80	37	73.3	33	78.9	-12
64	Italy	43.1	76.8	70	49	73.5	34	78.7	-30
25	Taiwan	45.9	70.7	70	59	56.9	35	78.6	10
36	Botswana	46.3	68.7	70	56	75.9	36	78.5	0
22	Cyprus	47.5	70.0	70	56	70.0	37	78.4	15
75	Slovenia	40.1	73.0	60	64	47.7	38	77.6	-37
19	Bahrain	45.0	80.0	60	57	40.0	39	76.8	20
32	Georgia	48.3	85.0	70	28	99.9	40	76.2	8
38	Latvia	45.2	74.3	70	47	64.6	41	76.0	3

There are two groups of people. One group of people is group A. Group A is a group that is always free traded. Therefore, their wages stay consttant, at iA.

Group B is a group that is affected by free trade and protectionist laws. Their wages are effected. The protected income iBp and free trade income iBf.

The ratio of the quantity of goods the groups buy that can be protected g by the total goods T bought is R. The goods affected by the laws that protect a group is g. gp is the average protected cost of good and gf is the average free trade cost of goods. N is the average cost of other goods.

Therefore, group A would buy (iA * R * gf + iA * (1-R) * N).[1] Under a regime that protects group B, group A would buy (iA * R * gp + iA * (1-R) * N).[2]

Group A would always allow free trade because the cheaper cost of (gf-gp) would save them (iA * R * (gf - gp)).[5]

Therefore, group B would buy (iBf * R * gf + iBf * (1-R) * N).[3] Under a regime that protects group B, group B would buy (iBp * R * gp + iBp * (1-R) * N).[4]

Notice that the protected wage is greater than the free market wage for group B. The difference is (iBp - iBf).

Group B would only allow free trade only if [3] > [4].

This would happen if only ((iBf * gf - iBp * gp) * R + (iBf - iBp) * (1-R) * N) > 0.

If wealth redistribution of the extra income of [5] is redistributed to the workers, then the workers would allow free trade only if [3] + [5] > [4].

This would happen if only ((iBf * gf - iBp * gp) * R + (iBf - iBp) * (1-R) * N + iA * R * (gf - gp)) > 0.

Centralization

The market is a self-organizing system. Spontaneous order and voluntary centralization would appear.

State centralization is forced centralization. State centralization limits competition because it sets constraints on every entity within the state. It limits creative arrangements of patterns and limits innovation.

An example of a decentralized system is evolution. Organisms that innovate, or adapt creative traits, are the only ones that may survive.

Decentralization would result in spontaneous centralization. The evolution of the bottom-up processes encourage the most successful bottom-up process to spread on a top-down fashion.

For example, entrepreneurs are competing in a bottom-up process in parallel. If one entrepreneur innovates, the idea would spread on a top-down fashion, where all bottom-up entrepreneurs competing would get the knowledge, in a fast top-down way.

Contrary to the popular belief, decentralization is not anti-centralization. It is pro-centralization. It only opposes the coercive types of centralization. In fact, the more decentralized a system is, the more centralized the system is. This is because decentralization would let the bottom-up processes to compete evolve the best plan for centralization in parallel. Centralization is then voluntary. If the centrlization is ineffective, then the bottom-up agents would voluntarily opt-out. State-enforced monopoly centralization, however, would hinder competition of the optimal centralization standard.

Centralization cannot exist without decentralization. Without decentralization, there would be no innovation, since it hinders parallel bottom-up process to compete and innovate.

State-centralization not just inhibits innovation, but also prohibits the adaptation of already-known innovations. It inhibits efficiency increases that would be adapted by companies. For example, the barriers to entry and patents, products of state-monopoly centralization inhibits the efficiency increases which ultimately lowers the purchasing power of its citizens.

State-communist societies are highly coercively centralized. They inhibit certain kinds of knowledge to be applied. These decrease efficiency, which reduces productivity.

Coercive centralization inhibits the innovation and the application of technology. Agorism is more efficient because it decentralizes which would let entrepreneurs exploit the effieiencies and technologies that are prohibited by the state.

Many economists such as Thomas Malthus argued that humans would eventually be living in subsistence. His argument is flawed, because he avoid the consequences of how technology would improve living. In fact, the lack of efficient technological application is the main reason of how socialism failed. Technology and innovation are very important aspects of living in society, and decentralization makes entrepreneurs to have the incentive to exploit efficiency.