KPJ wrote:
>
> It appears a if Billy Brown <bbrown@transcient.com> wrote:
> |
> |If your analysis is correct, the very concept of anarcho-capitalism is
> |fundamentally flawed. Any society based on personal freedom must be built on
> |the presumption that individuals are largely capable of making their own
> |decisions, and that leaving them free to do so is the best available
> |approach to running an economy. If, OTOH, individuals are fools and informed
> |experts can make better decisions than the markets, then the technocratic
> |socialists are right to demand control of the economy.
>
> Anarcho-capitalism seems to require a society based on personal freedom.
> However, since the current societies do not fall into that cathegory.
> A company actually creates a mini-state with its own hierarchical dictatorship.
>
> Since companies buy and sell the stuff, it seems only natural to me that
> anarcho-capitalism will not work too well in that environment.
Employees dont' get bought or sold. They get rented, or else they are
shareholders in the company, and therefore partners. Organizational heirarchy is
necessary for some industries, for example complex manufacturing. Medicine is
another. Would you want to be on the operating table and have the staff get into
a debate on how you are going to be operated on?
Companies are evolving toward a far more delegated structure of authority, so
the claims of 'corporate dictatorship' are from people stuck in the 50's, if not
in the 19th century.
Of course, for some industries, anarcho-capitalism isn't the answer,
anarcho-monarchism is! ;-P
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:44 MDT