After I expressed my opposition to Net Socialism:
Hehe, it's interesting that while Francois claims to be an anarchist I can predict his opinions on issues solely by asking myself "What would benefit the rich the most?"
He would like the government to be abolished so that the ruling power would exclusively be wealthy corporations who wouldn't have to worry about the possibility of the people getting some influence in their own lives.
And here we have one of the most widespread and ridiculous moral arguments in favour of the existence of the state - in fact, three related arguments.
1. Without the state, "the rich" would take over.
2. We need the state because the state protects "the poor" against "the rich".
3. In a market anarchy, we would be ruled by giant corporations.
The first argument is ridiculously easy to disprove : most successful politicians were professionals or businessmen of one kind or another. "The rich" have already taken over. And those who are not politicians have the loudest voice in the democratic system, and they get to exert domination indirectly through the law, while suffering no consequence to themselves. The state can pass corporatist laws, create corporate monopolies and trusts all it wants, and people like the one quoted above don't complain - in fact, they see this as a great achievement. But heavens forbid that we have codes of law that are actually accountable to the people!
In a democracy, the poor do not have a voice, apart from a rudimentary sense of decency from the masses. The people who have the loudest voices are those who can support the state - through ideas (demagogues, artists, politico-scientists, pseudo-intellectuals) and through money. Democracy maintains a gigantic ruling class of exploiters. CEOs of big companies are right up there with them, and "the poor" are part of the group that always loses - no matter what is decided. No matter what is decided, we, the "common people", those who are not in the ruling class, ALWAYS LOSE (and if you are in the ruling class, why the fuck are you reading this blog?). There are so few exceptions to this rule that it might as well be written in gold.
This brings another issue to mind. This guy believes that, if left to their own devices, people would trade with big megacorps instead of smaller corporations to get their services. And obviously he thinks that is a very bad thing. If that's true, then why does he expect it to happen anyway? Either he is the only moral person on Earth, which is rather laughable, or other people can make the conscious decision of trading with "the rich" - because they offer better services, because their prices are lower, or for whatever reason - and his whining is pointless.
The second kind of argument is even more ridiculous. I say it is ridiculous because anyone with any moral feeling at all can see that this cannot be the case at all. Someone who threatens others at the point of a gun, with no provocation whatsoever, has no intention of helping people. He is a criminal, who refuses to use reason when dealing with others and thus uses the power trip of the gun to get his will done. The same is true for the ruling class - be it a politician in his ivory tower voting more freedom away, or a cop working the streets looking for hookers and drug dealers. They are all morally corrupt, and have no real intention of helping anyone, except incidentally, when throwing money at a problem can get them more votes.
But apart from this fundamental issue, there is also the problem that states, in fact, do not help the poor. No measure has ever been established that could help the problem of poverty. From foreign aid programs that fatten dictators' wallets, to welfare systems that prevent savings and keep people entrapped, to minimum wage laws that keep the unemployed in poverty, states uniformly attack, first and foremost, the least fortunate.
The third argument is more subtle, but can be broken down to its basic meaning. What it boils down to is, who gets to dictate how you live your life? You, or someone else? In a market anarchy, the answer is "me". If I have the freedom to trade with anyone I want, including refusing to trade, how can a corporation "rule" me? The idea that corporations in a free market are my rulers is a complete ignorance of what a free market is. In a free market, I am free to trade with anyone I desire, big or small. If there is a demand for smaller agencies, then these agencies will be profitable. If people really preferred mom and pop stores over Wal-Mart, then they would survive. But they simply cannot trade enough value to the individual to be accepted.
Only states can force me to accept their rule, because states, as monopolies of force, are not accountable to anyone except their leaders' own basic sense of decency. But one person cannot rule over me, and not even corporations - which are after all just a group of people united by cooperation - because we acknowledge in a free society that such people are criminals, and must be dealt accordingly. Thus, corporatism has no place in a market anarchy. If a "corporation" tries to use violence to crush its competition or force people to buy its products, the people coerced will seek justice against the responsible individuals.
The root cause of these errors is the belief that power is a constant in human relations, and that we are simply arguing over who gets to hold that power. This is a statist mode of reasoning, made to marginalize all criticism of the state as a human construct. They desperately want you totake the state as a given, because their legitimacy depends on it, and without legitimacy - without the important-sounding names and the uniforms and the rituals - it is quite easy to realize that they are nothing more than a parasitical gang of thugs. And class warfare is just a smokescreen designed to hide that fact. Right or left, liberal or conservative - their leaders all partake of the benefits of the monopoly of force.
As long as there is a ruling class, as long as there is a concentration of power that exists for powerful people to exploit, there will be class warfare and social warfare. People like the anonymous coward quoted above think that politicians, financed by big corporations and activist organizations, who can raise as much money and manpower as they want, even send people to be killed in foreign countries, with little impunity (as long as they can build a propaganda campaign the months before), are somehow interested in the well-being of people who can contribute absolutely nothing to their success, apart from a captive audience.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of a "sucker".