Re: Number 4

4) It seems, based on recent discussion, that some pro-capitalist people on this board want to see the elimination of the state within the context of the capitalist system. That brings up several problems, and I would like the pro-capitalists on this board to explain how essential services would be provided to workers under a capitalist system if no iteration of the state existed, what would be done for workers whom the now greatly empowered capitalists chose not to hire, and how order would be preserved, since crime, war, and poverty would be worse than ever with no state relief agencies of any kind. If you believe these problems would actually be reduced in the absence of a state, then please explain (though I have learned not to assume, I would like to presume that you actually care about these things).

We know that you're tired of people presuming that you're talking about Statist Communism. I don't. However do me the similar favor of assuming that I'm in favor of Free-Markets; not ones protected by states in the interest of "Free-Markets."

However in your argument you have the advantage of positing untested theory against reality. And of course reality comes up short against Utopia. But in RL all we have are realities. And the unfortunate reality is that no system has succeeded in delivering essential services ( and we might differ on how essential is essential, but I get your drift,) to everyone. ( Though I'm baffled by your classist assumption that non-workers don't deserve essential services.)

If you exclude all implemented forms of Communism and Socialism from comparison, then the version left hasn't had a chance to fail. But in practice, Statist interference has done more to keep services which are real ( ones actually available and being offered ) from those who want them, than has any other system.

Remember in a free-market, collectives are a choice people can freely engage in if they want to. As is barter, or anything else which a group voluntarily wants. All practiced versions of communism need the state to suppress the flow of laborers fleeing their conditions in search of essential services. And since no state can truly prevent the desperate from making the attempt; illegal immigration is a pretty good indication of what people are willing to give up to escape awful conditions. And once again, practiced communism has a pretty bad track record on this. Idealized communism has no track record whatsoever and therefore must not see itself as a factor in RL discussions. ( Though one wonders how it will prevent itself from devolving into the fate of every other theoretical version when it came into practice? )

What would be done for workers who aren't currently hired? They would be free to move to any sort of labor which needs them. State monopolization tends to suppress competition. Competitors need labor.

Though we should also look towards the conditions of recent immigrants to Capitalist countries. There are reasons why immigrant populations tend to be hated. Their willingness to generally work harder, pool resources and create new business opportunities for themselves and their communities doesn't flatter those who believe that the market must cater to them by readopting outmoded technologies they're skilled in or by immunizing the value of their labor from the value of its product in a changing market that they're part of when they become a consumer.

As for all the services provided by the State and paid for by you in taxes; are there any reasons why you would choose to forgo them when those performing those services no longer have immunity from responsibility for their actions? Do you need your police and soldiers to have a greater authority to take a life than yourself? Or aren't they just an agent acting on your behalf to do what you could do for yourself? And it would still make sense for free individuals to pool their resources together to support a police station rather than an individual bodyguard. People would be free to try it otherwise, but I believe that quality-of-life issues would tend to make the communities who pool more successful than those where individuals isolate their spending power.

Of course I care. I would like to believe that nobody should slip through the cracks. And I would like to see it mitigated despite the fact that every practiced system has always had its poor, and its criminals. But we can't presume to weigh the promise of food shelter and safety against the actual delivering of the goods. Promises cost nothing and feed nobody. So long as you define yourself by opposition to everything which has ever fed anyone ( communist, capitalist, what have you,) then its easy to pretend that you care about more people than those systems which actually fed many ( even if to see a few starve.) When you're ready to talk about improving from a basis of what is. And when you're ready to claim some historical example ( flaws and all ) to back up your argument, then we'll be talking about systems in practice. And if we aren't willing to practice our care for one another, then it exists purely in theory.

Dante