I am not an anarcho-capitalist or an anarcho-communist. I think both philosophies will serve us well for a long time, side by side, but in a world where liberal versus conservative can never agree to disagree, there is always conflict, and to achieve long term peace, absence of war is not good enough, you have to have absence of conflict. That means there will be a need to get rid of leadership, capitalism, and communism. But how do you do this?
Capitalism means the distribution of wealth is controlled by private institutions, with com\munism, it is controlled by the community, for now the state, but Proudhon redefined anarcho-communism as industrial democracies, where labor guilds run private firms and the public sector is privatized. Anarcho-capitalists are not real anarchists, because they tolerate hierarchies in firms. Marx said, “Exploitation is fair, but there is a better way”. Anarcho-communism may lead us to the end of exploitation, but industrial democracies, although you have more job security and they have less absenteeism, lose market share to ancap firms. While Proudhon refers to anarchy as “voluntary association”, and thinks you should tax and redistribute then immediately get rid of the government, the ancoms think more like Marx, tolerating collectivism for a long time, leading to bloodshed under Stalin and Mao, and mutually-shared poverty.
Hillary Clinton’s book, “It Takes a Village”, ultimately leads to “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”, in a world where satellite TV and the Internet makes us less diverse and individuality quashed. Ancoms are ignorant of Adam Smith and his assertion “Competition guarantees prosperity”, which is not necessarily about money. Competition means people work smarter and harder, creating a larger economic surplus, so even if you are not a good competitor, you will do better with charity and insurance, but you have to be more responsible, with intervention by good Samaritans. Socialism encourages people to be less responsible. The answer – peer-to-peer digital nihilism, where you not only get rid of the government, you get rid of institutions as well.
Vote monthly, as a network of businesses, for the disbursement method for the following month, with the understanding that there may be frustration over a winner-take-all voting mechanism.
Liberalism – all members get profit based on what percentage they spend on advertising, leads to mutually shared poverty.
Conservatism – keep what is yours, cut-throat and socially Darwinist.
Centrism – profit sharing based on compromise. Eg. if you earn 5% of the total profit, and pay 10% of the advertising expense, you get 7.5% after profit sharing. There is a work incentive while not discouraging new comers who fear failure.
The network of peer-to-peer businesses, who can only take away market share from big businesses by pooling labor and resources together, with a balance of the individual versus the team, should first vote on how to vote in order to allocate total revenue to each contributor. You can have a winner-take-all system, where if the plurality of votes favors one philosophy (conservatism vs. liberalism vs. centrism), but I suggest a “weighted-average democracy” where there is a compromise between the votes to prevent bad-blood. For example, if there are 10 people in your network, and they vote as shown below:
2/10 – liberalism – make money and re-distribute – 10% for each – 5% gets 10%, 15% gets 10%, etc. Mutually-shared poverty.
4/10 – conservatism – what you earn is what you get – 5% earns 15%, gets 15%, 15% earns 5%, gets 5%, etc. Dog-eat-dog, social Darwinism.
4/10 – centrism – 5% gets 15%, earns 10%, 15% gets 5%, earns 10%, etc. Work incentive with a “pick-me-up” for struggling self-employed businesses.
Weighted average: (Earned income – Advertising cost) x (scalar) = Gross income. And the scalar for the three philosophies is as follows:
liberalism: scalar = 0.0
conservatism: scalar = 1.0
centrism: scalar = 0.5
[(%libs) x 0.0 + (%cons) x 1.0 + (%cens) x 0.5]/3 = Scalar
[0.2 x 0.0 + 0.4 x 1.0 + 0.4 x 0.5]/3 = 0.6/3 = 0.2
10% ave for percentage of businesses, advertising cost, and earnings
So as arbitrary examples, the income re-distribution may look like this:
4% earns 10%, gets 5.2%
12% earns 9%, gets 11.4%
10% earns 10%, gets 10%
6% earns 8%, gets 6.4%
14% earns 17%, gets 14.6%
8% earns 7%, gets 7.8%
10% earns 15%, gets 11%
15% earns 3%, gets 12.6%
11% gets 11%, gets 11%
10% gets 10%, gets 10%
It is important to have high hopes and self-esteem as a network player and not feel intimidated. Big businesses are vulnerable because there are too many bureaucratic barriers where communication breaks down, middle-men and sycophants that cause counter-productive behavior and loss of income, and except for those who have corporate tax loop-holes, there is an opportunity to capitalize on tax advantages for smaller businesses.
The network can incorporate to sell stock, or sell stock in foreign countries.
Make everyone self-employed, and put the robots to work. We all work for commission like Jack Nicholson. If there are 20 people in a building (because institutions will go away, they are now names or concepts, but there will be no managers, the employees each pay a percentage of the rent, utilities, amenities, etc., and you get rid of psychological invoicing (“monopoly money” for inter-departmental charges) where good workers are worked to death and the Joe punch-clocks are rewarded with tolerance of dead wood. Now you can truly treat the job as a business. Each employee or “business” earns a percentage of total revenue (profit sharing) comparable to what they would earn dictated by the market for the same job with the same education and experience. Each employee can have their percentage go up or down commensurate with an exam to test their job skills (50% of the score) plus the other 50% based on customer service surveys. But inter-employee charges for peer-to-peer profit also occur to create competition, and this is good for start-up and struggling firms to minimize losses before you maximize your gains. There will be opportunities to wear many hats and integrate, so the lethargy of the assembly line goes away. Marx said, “To each according to his need, from each according to his talent”, and historically, a market-driven economy meant many people had to work jobs in menial assembly lines, well below their talent. But now the assembly lines practically run themselves, so the challenge for mankind is to prevent viruses from being uploaded where the world becomes a “Terminator” or “Matrix” movie. Capitalism and money (electronic point system) may never go away entirely, but becomes less important as goods and services are produced dirt-cheap (much like with 3D printers today, and teleporting, “Beam me up, Scotty” technology in the future) and people engage in charity and voluntary sharing (John Lennon, “Imagine”, “Imagine all the people, sharing all the world”), and the Gordon Gecko’s of the world are vanquished and permanently shamed. With digital anarchy, enforcement through encryption not trust (like BitCoin, de-centralize banking) you can eventually decentralize everything and eliminate the power-base of greedy humans who snicker at the 85% of the population who are conformists and waste money in counter-productive fashion, because they look at the 85% as pathetic Sambo-peons. Encryption is not perfect, but it is 99.999% perfect, and if there is a scandal with the programming, competition and arbitration will punish the evil-doers. And again, for those who cannot handle freedom, proactive non-violent high-tech vigilantism is the obligation of those who can, and must convert those who cannot, or social Darwinism, which is always with us, will render them non-existent.