FatherMcGruder



Offline



Activity: 322

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 322Merit: 250 The Anarchist Brewing Co. January 27, 2011, 03:23:49 AM #1 "The coercion-free beer for discerning anarchist!"



As a homebrewer, I understand beer. I do not completely understand anarchism though. If I can figure out how a brewery might function in an anarchist society I suppose I might learn some more about anarchism.



Apart from my own fascination with beer I would think that some aspects of a brewery might allow for some interesting discussion in the context of a hypothetical anarchy. For example, breweries require substantial amounts of grain, water, and hops. However, the inhabitants of said society would also desire grain and water, and farming hops also requires water and land that could otherwise produce grain. Breweries also generate lots of heat and require either fuel or electricity to do so. How would the society reconcile the competing demands for these resources without coercion, governmental or otherwise? Unless the population found itself particularly susceptible to alcoholism, I don't think the brewery could sell enough beer to significantly affect the prices of the resources I listed. Furthermore, if the resources became scarce, the demand for beer would decrease in the face of more pressing needs. Then again, in the absence of dependably safe drinking water, the society would come to view beer as a necessity. But, I digress.



I suspect that a brewery could function free of coercion if its workers had come together to build it and now own it as partners. But what if they sought to expand and bring on more workers? How might these new workers also come to own shares of the brewery and avoid mere wage labor? Would they simply own shares of each batch? How is that fair for the original owners, having already laid out the capital and effort to build the brewery? Would the newcomers have to buy in?



I guess I really want to know how anarchists expect to avoid economic coercion through wage labor. Bonus points if you can stick to the beer theme in your responses.







Check out



Shameless display of my bitcoin address:

1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple Shameless display of my bitcoin address:1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH

Cryptoman



Offline



Activity: 726

Merit: 500









Hero MemberActivity: 726Merit: 500 Re: The Anarchist Brewing Co. January 27, 2011, 03:45:42 AM #2 I've never understood how choosing to work for someone could be considered coercion. "A small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history." --Gandhi

em3rgentOrdr



Offline



Activity: 434

Merit: 250





youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin







Sr. MemberActivity: 434Merit: 250youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin Re: The Anarchist Brewing Co. January 27, 2011, 03:51:45 AM #3 Quote from: FatherMcGruder on January 27, 2011, 03:23:49 AM How would the society reconcile the competing demands for these resources without coercion, governmental or otherwise?



Answer: bitcoin



Quote from: FatherMcGruder on January 27, 2011, 03:23:49 AM I suspect that a brewery could function free of coercion if its workers had come together to build it and now own it as partners. But what if they sought to expand and bring on more workers? How might these new workers also come to own shares of the brewery and avoid mere wage labor?



Answer: contracts



Quote from: FatherMcGruder on January 27, 2011, 03:23:49 AM Would they simply own shares of each batch? How is that fair for the original owners, having already laid out the capital and effort to build the brewery? Would the newcomers have to buy in?



Answer: New workers would get paid by whatever means the current workers and the new workers agree on. I like the idea of new workers being paid partly with stock, so they gradually come to own a share of the brewery in proportion to the amount of effort they put in.



Quote from: FatherMcGruder on January 27, 2011, 03:23:49 AM I guess I really want to know how anarchists expect to avoid economic coercion through wage labor. Bonus points if you can stick to the beer theme in your responses.



Who says anarchists expect to avoid wage labor? I guess I need a more specific definition of "anarchist" and "wage labor". In order for humans to exist, they must consume resources. If they are unable to produce enough resources on their own or trade for them, then they starve to death. Some may say that humans are compelled to work for an employer. However, Stargazer gives a very good explication that so-called anarcho-communists do not actually solve the problem of wage slavery, but rather just shift the distribution of resources around so that you are compelled to work for a different employer (e.g. the commune's majority rule):



Short answer to the solution to wage-slavery: you need to own skills, resources, and/or capital that can produce things demand by society. For example, start your own home-brewery (as a sole-proprietorship or cooperative with friends). Answer: bitcoinAnswer: contractsAnswer: New workers would get paid by whatever means the current workers and the new workers agree on. I like the idea of new workers being paid partly with stock, so they gradually come to own a share of the brewery in proportion to the amount of effort they put in.Who says anarchists expect to avoid wage labor? I guess I need a more specific definition of "anarchist" and "wage labor". In order for humans to exist, they must consume resources. If they are unable to produce enough resources on their own or trade for them, then they starve to death. Some may say that humans are compelled to work for an employer. However, Stargazer gives a very good explication that so-called anarcho-communists do not actually solve the problem of wage slavery, but rather just shift the distribution of resources around so that you are compelled to work for a different employer (e.g. the commune's majority rule): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urASFJClhdI Short answer to the solution to wage-slavery: you need to own skills, resources, and/or capital that can produce things demand by society. For example, start your own home-brewery (as a sole-proprietorship or cooperative with friends). "We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.



Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."

FatherMcGruder



Offline



Activity: 322

Merit: 250









Sr. MemberActivity: 322Merit: 250 Re: The Anarchist Brewing Co. January 27, 2011, 04:57:49 AM #4



I've heard folks explain that an anarchist society would depend on contracts, with protecting one's reputation as the incentive to honor one. But what's to stop someone from enforcing a contract with blackmail or violence?



Back in the brewery, what's to stop the new workers from not honoring the original owners' investment on the grounds that they presently use and occupy the brewery? In coming to reject intellectual property laws, I found it helpful to imagine examples of life without them. Against Intellectual Monopoly , by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, really helped me out with that. However, I have trouble imagining life without coercion, the anarchist ideal.I've heard folks explain that an anarchist society would depend on contracts, with protecting one's reputation as the incentive to honor one. But what's to stop someone from enforcing a contract with blackmail or violence?Back in the brewery, what's to stop the new workers from not honoring the original owners' investment on the grounds that they presently use and occupy the brewery?



Check out



Shameless display of my bitcoin address:

1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH Use my Trade Hill referral code: TH-R11519Check out bitcoinity.org and Ripple Shameless display of my bitcoin address:1Hio4bqPUZnhr2SWi4WgsnVU1ph3EkusvH

MoonShadow



Offline



Activity: 1708

Merit: 1000









LegendaryActivity: 1708Merit: 1000 Re: The Anarchist Brewing Co. January 27, 2011, 06:23:33 AM #5 Quote from: FatherMcGruder on January 27, 2011, 04:57:49 AM



I've heard folks explain that an anarchist society would depend on contracts, with protecting one's reputation as the incentive to honor one. But what's to stop someone from enforcing a contract with blackmail or violence?



Back in the brewery, what's to stop the new workers from not honoring the original owners' investment on the grounds that they presently use and occupy the brewery?

In coming to reject intellectual property laws, I found it helpful to imagine examples of life without them. Against Intellectual Monopoly , by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, really helped me out with that. However, I have trouble imagining life without coercion, the anarchist ideal.I've heard folks explain that an anarchist society would depend on contracts, with protecting one's reputation as the incentive to honor one. But what's to stop someone from enforcing a contract with blackmail or violence?Back in the brewery, what's to stop the new workers from not honoring the original owners' investment on the grounds that they presently use and occupy the brewery?

Like so many things, the term 'anarchy' gets lost in the nuances of semantics.



When anarchists speak of an anarchist ideal, they are not speaking of lawlessness. What they really mean is a society without any persistent institution with a monopoly on the use of force. Asking how it would work out is asking for wild speculation. A better question would be, "has it ever worked before", for which the answer would be "yes and no". Yes, because we have numerous examples of societies that existed that functioned for generations without any persistent institution forming that filled such a role, but also formed such institution on an improve basis due to threat of invasion or internal conflict. The 'old west' is a somewhat recent example. Even though there was, literally, a federal government; the closest thing that most residents of the western territories ever encountered to a government was the county sheriff or the federal marshal. Judges were elected by the counties, and traveled from town to town to adjudicate crimes and civil disputes, but even judges were hired locally and their enforcement was as local as the sheriff's willingness to abide by the judge's decisions. Still, it was a far more peaceful and law abiding society than contemporary cities such as Detroit or Oakland. Disputes were rare, and more often than not negotiated between neighbors.



Another example is the 12 tribes of Israel of the old testament, prior to the establishment of the king. Another is the Swiss from their foundation without a monarch around 1250 A.D. to at least 1450 A.D. and arguably much longer.



No, because those examples no longer exist.



So the question needs to be updated. Can a society exist without a persistent institution developing with a de facto monopoly on force in a modern society with modern technologies, social interactions, and population densities that are common today. I'm inclined towards no due to intuitive reasoning, but no one can really say for certain because no one can really predict how such a society might develop. Like so many things, the term 'anarchy' gets lost in the nuances of semantics.When anarchists speak of an anarchist ideal, they are not speaking of lawlessness. What they really mean is a society without any persistent institution with a monopoly on the use of force. Asking how it would work out is asking for wild speculation. A better question would be, "has it ever worked before", for which the answer would be "yes and no". Yes, because we have numerous examples of societies that existed that functioned for generations without any persistent institution forming that filled such a role, but also formed such institution on an improve basis due to threat of invasion or internal conflict. The 'old west' is a somewhat recent example. Even though there was, literally, a federal government; the closest thing that most residents of the western territories ever encountered to a government was the county sheriff or the federal marshal. Judges were elected by the counties, and traveled from town to town to adjudicate crimes and civil disputes, but even judges were hired locally and their enforcement was as local as the sheriff's willingness to abide by the judge's decisions. Still, it was a far more peaceful and law abiding society than contemporary cities such as Detroit or Oakland. Disputes were rare, and more often than not negotiated between neighbors.Another example is the 12 tribes of Israel of the old testament, prior to the establishment of the king. Another is the Swiss from their foundation without a monarch around 1250 A.D. to at least 1450 A.D. and arguably much longer.No, because those examples no longer exist.So the question needs to be updated. Can a society exist without a persistent institution developing with a de facto monopoly on force in a modern society with modern technologies, social interactions, and population densities that are common today. I'm inclined towards no due to intuitive reasoning, but no one can really say for certain because no one can really predict how such a society might develop. "The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."



- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'

FreeMoney



Offline



Activity: 1246

Merit: 1011





Strength in numbers







LegendaryActivity: 1246Merit: 1011Strength in numbers Re: The Anarchist Brewing Co. January 28, 2011, 11:29:21 AM #7 Quote from: FatherMcGruder on January 27, 2011, 04:57:49 AM

I've heard folks explain that an anarchist society would depend on contracts, with protecting one's reputation as the incentive to honor one. But what's to stop someone from enforcing a contract with blackmail or violence?





Is that how you operate? Do you deal with people who would do those things?



We already have and use ethics that work in a voluntary society. We carve out special exceptions for a certain class of people and the areas they get control of end up sucking, to put it mildly. Is that how you operate? Do you deal with people who would do those things?We already have and use ethics that work in a voluntary society. We carve out special exceptions for a certain class of people and the areas they get control of end up sucking, to put it mildly. Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.

carp



Offline



Activity: 82

Merit: 10







MemberActivity: 82Merit: 10 Re: The Anarchist Brewing Co. February 02, 2011, 03:25:13 AM #8 Quote from: FreeMoney on January 28, 2011, 11:29:21 AM Quote from: FatherMcGruder on January 27, 2011, 04:57:49 AM

I've heard folks explain that an anarchist society would depend on contracts, with protecting one's reputation as the incentive to honor one. But what's to stop someone from enforcing a contract with blackmail or violence?





Is that how you operate? Do you deal with people who would do those things?



We already have and use ethics that work in a voluntary society. We carve out special exceptions for a certain class of people and the areas they get control of end up sucking, to put it mildly.

Is that how you operate? Do you deal with people who would do those things?We already have and use ethics that work in a voluntary society. We carve out special exceptions for a certain class of people and the areas they get control of end up sucking, to put it mildly.

Nice. But the answer for me is... No and yes, but, not because there is another choice right now.



There are all manner of problem people out there, from the violent hoods, to the scam artists, to the simply unreliable. Really the problem is that the world is large enough that, even without the internet, its easy to dissolve into the crowd. Reputation is only as good as the size of the network that knows you.... it quickly falls off for most of us. To the point that, for the most part, its not relevant for most transactions.



Real reputation systems that can scale up to the size of communities that already are somewhat of a gap now and really only exist in terms of criminal offender databases, credit ratings, and ebay... all of which rely on central authorities, and are subject to various sorts of pressure. (never mind whether they are meaningful)



It seems to me like a general solution there, would be useful. Knowing that you are who you are is nice, and easily solved. Knowing that you do business on the up and up and can generally be relied upon more often than not, that is actually very valuable data, to both of us.



Mixing it with authentication, say via openID, makes a lot of sense. My thought was it would be nice to have a protocol that defines an openid attribute that an application can request, that can return certificates from reputation providers that allow the site to then go get the current reputation information (or some particular portion of it that they are allowed to see... not everyone needs to know that you also carry a reputation for organizing protests)

Nice. But the answer for me is... No and yes, but, not because there is another choice right now.There are all manner of problem people out there, from the violent hoods, to the scam artists, to the simply unreliable. Really the problem is that the world is large enough that, even without the internet, its easy to dissolve into the crowd. Reputation is only as good as the size of the network that knows you.... it quickly falls off for most of us. To the point that, for the most part, its not relevant for most transactions.Real reputation systems that can scale up to the size of communities that already are somewhat of a gap now and really only exist in terms of criminal offender databases, credit ratings, and ebay... all of which rely on central authorities, and are subject to various sorts of pressure. (never mind whether they are meaningful)It seems to me like a general solution there, would be useful. Knowing that you are who you are is nice, and easily solved. Knowing that you do business on the up and up and can generally be relied upon more often than not, that is actually very valuable data, to both of us.Mixing it with authentication, say via openID, makes a lot of sense. My thought was it would be nice to have a protocol that defines an openid attribute that an application can request, that can return certificates from reputation providers that allow the site to then go get the current reputation information (or some particular portion of it that they are allowed to see... not everyone needs to know that you also carry a reputation for organizing protests)

Garrett Burgwardt



Offline



Activity: 476

Merit: 251







Sr. MemberActivity: 476Merit: 251 Re: The Anarchist Brewing Co. February 02, 2011, 04:26:42 AM #9 Quote from: creighto on January 27, 2011, 06:23:33 AM Quote from: FatherMcGruder on January 27, 2011, 04:57:49 AM



I've heard folks explain that an anarchist society would depend on contracts, with protecting one's reputation as the incentive to honor one. But what's to stop someone from enforcing a contract with blackmail or violence?



Back in the brewery, what's to stop the new workers from not honoring the original owners' investment on the grounds that they presently use and occupy the brewery?

In coming to reject intellectual property laws, I found it helpful to imagine examples of life without them. Against Intellectual Monopoly , by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, really helped me out with that. However, I have trouble imagining life without coercion, the anarchist ideal.I've heard folks explain that an anarchist society would depend on contracts, with protecting one's reputation as the incentive to honor one. But what's to stop someone from enforcing a contract with blackmail or violence?Back in the brewery, what's to stop the new workers from not honoring the original owners' investment on the grounds that they presently use and occupy the brewery?

Like so many things, the term 'anarchy' gets lost in the nuances of semantics.



When anarchists speak of an anarchist ideal, they are not speaking of lawlessness. What they really mean is a society without any persistent institution with a monopoly on the use of force. Asking how it would work out is asking for wild speculation. A better question would be, "has it ever worked before", for which the answer would be "yes and no". Yes, because we have numerous examples of societies that existed that functioned for generations without any persistent institution forming that filled such a role, but also formed such institution on an improve basis due to threat of invasion or internal conflict. The 'old west' is a somewhat recent example. Even though there was, literally, a federal government; the closest thing that most residents of the western territories ever encountered to a government was the county sheriff or the federal marshal. Judges were elected by the counties, and traveled from town to town to adjudicate crimes and civil disputes, but even judges were hired locally and their enforcement was as local as the sheriff's willingness to abide by the judge's decisions. Still, it was a far more peaceful and law abiding society than contemporary cities such as Detroit or Oakland. Disputes were rare, and more often than not negotiated between neighbors.



Another example is the 12 tribes of Israel of the old testament, prior to the establishment of the king. Another is the Swiss from their foundation without a monarch around 1250 A.D. to at least 1450 A.D. and arguably much longer.



No, because those examples no longer exist.



So the question needs to be updated. Can a society exist without a persistent institution developing with a de facto monopoly on force in a modern society with modern technologies, social interactions, and population densities that are common today. I'm inclined towards no due to intuitive reasoning, but no one can really say for certain because no one can really predict how such a society might develop.

Like so many things, the term 'anarchy' gets lost in the nuances of semantics.When anarchists speak of an anarchist ideal, they are not speaking of lawlessness. What they really mean is a society without any persistent institution with a monopoly on the use of force. Asking how it would work out is asking for wild speculation. A better question would be, "has it ever worked before", for which the answer would be "yes and no". Yes, because we have numerous examples of societies that existed that functioned for generations without any persistent institution forming that filled such a role, but also formed such institution on an improve basis due to threat of invasion or internal conflict. The 'old west' is a somewhat recent example. Even though there was, literally, a federal government; the closest thing that most residents of the western territories ever encountered to a government was the county sheriff or the federal marshal. Judges were elected by the counties, and traveled from town to town to adjudicate crimes and civil disputes, but even judges were hired locally and their enforcement was as local as the sheriff's willingness to abide by the judge's decisions. Still, it was a far more peaceful and law abiding society than contemporary cities such as Detroit or Oakland. Disputes were rare, and more often than not negotiated between neighbors.Another example is the 12 tribes of Israel of the old testament, prior to the establishment of the king. Another is the Swiss from their foundation without a monarch around 1250 A.D. to at least 1450 A.D. and arguably much longer.No, because those examples no longer exist.So the question needs to be updated. Can a society exist without a persistent institution developing with a de facto monopoly on force in a modern society with modern technologies, social interactions, and population densities that are common today. I'm inclined towards no due to intuitive reasoning, but no one can really say for certain because no one can really predict how such a society might develop.

For most of the American Old West's time period (around 1800-1900) there were no federal agents at all, or maybe one or two roving surveyors. But third party land claims administrations were set up to arbitrate disputes and it was a functioning anarcho-capitalist society for a while (until the government moved in and subsequently the crime rates spiked). For a more in depth discussion, you should read



Then there was also the Icelandic commonwealth, from 930-1262 A.D. Which worked very well for a long time until the church ruined it. Which is incredibly disappointing.



The most recent experiment in anarcho capitalism is Somalia, which I made my thoughts clear on in



I'm doing my thesis on Anarcho-capitalism - it's really interesting and theoretically my ideal government



Now, it seems like FatherMcGruder is talking about Anarcho-Communism, which isn't really anarchy as much as mob rule. Which in my opinion doesn't work and is unjust, but I'm not studied in historical examples of anarcho-communism



-Garrett For most of the American Old West's time period (around 1800-1900) there were no federal agents at all, or maybe one or two roving surveyors. But third party land claims administrations were set up to arbitrate disputes and it was a functioning anarcho-capitalist society for a while (until the government moved in and subsequently the crime rates spiked). For a more in depth discussion, you should read An American Experiment in Anarcho- Capitalism , it's a great read.Then there was also the Icelandic commonwealth, from 930-1262 A.D. Which worked very well for a long time until the church ruined it. Which is incredibly disappointing.The most recent experiment in anarcho capitalism is Somalia, which I made my thoughts clear on in this thread I'm doing my thesis on Anarcho-capitalism - it's really interesting and theoretically my ideal governmentNow, it seems like FatherMcGruder is talking about Anarcho-Communism, which isn't really anarchy as much as mob rule. Which in my opinion doesn't work and is unjust, but I'm not studied in historical examples of anarcho-communism-Garrett

genjix



Offline



Activity: 1232

Merit: 1000







LegendaryActivity: 1232Merit: 1000 Re: The Anarchist Brewing Co. February 02, 2011, 10:30:03 AM #11 I think the whole point is to allow people to experiment and build their own societies. If you don't like how one place is run then you move to another. Anarcho-communism, libertarian, democratic, ... all of these could be tried on city-size scale. The internet and technology is a great enabler in today's world.