Debunking statist arguments : "Anarchy is exploitative!" part 2

Anarchists argue that the free market will prevent owners from abusing their power. Mistreat your underlings, they claim, and your underlings will simply move elsewhere.

And so we continue with the rhetoric. But the most important part is the introduction of the notion of "power" and the abuse of that "power". How can individuals in an anarchy "abuse their power" when they don't have any ? At least, no political power. They certainly have economic power, but that power can't be "abused" - it is simply the fact of having more resources than someone else. The word "mistreat" implies coercion, and the legitimization of this coercion could only be the result of a state. Will there still be criminals ? Sure. But that is true of any system.

Also, ironically, the "your underlings can just move" argument was used BY KANGAS HIMSELF to defend the state.

Unfortunately, market failures, monopolies, flukes in supply and demand and other external factors may lead to a far different result.

Here we get two of the boogey men of socialists, "market failure" and "monopolies". I could equally say that leprechauns will implant hatred in people's heart and force them to fight each other. So what ?

We may decide to join a firm even though we disagree with every rule in it, because we don’t want to starve to death by being jobless. In this case, the boss’s absolute power allows him to exploit the situation, by forcing us to work for sub-poverty wages.

First of all, that kind of scenario can exist in any system - and in communism, you don't even get to decide ! So his little criticism of market anarchy here doesn't work at all. The only means by which a "boss" - corporate boss or union boss - can exploit people is through the agency of the state. In a market anarchy, agencies and unions (legitimate, voluntary unions, that is) would prevent such states of affairs from happening.

And once again we come back to the fallacy of power. How did this individual acquire "absolute power" without a state to back him up, and what the hell is "sub-poverty" ? This is just a mish-mash of statist bullshit coupled with weird terms he made up.

This type of exploitation would be impossible in a democratic workplace, where an elected supervisor who exploited workers would be voted out of power. Thus, anarchy risks the abuses of dictatorship in a way that democracy inherently cannot.

And thus ends this symphony of crap. Let's examine what's wrong with this rosy little scenario, shall we...

First, what we have here is a workplace government. Now please raise your hand, those of you who would like to have a government in your own workplace ? Seriously, how retarded is this whole syndicalist concept ? Do thse morons love "office politics" so much that they actually want their co-workers to rule over them and make their life miserable for real ?

What's democracy's track record in keeping exploitation and abuse out of society ? Wars and drafts, the War on Drugs, gun control on innocent people while policemen and criminals are having their fun, people dying waiting for organs that the state won't allow you to sell, the FDA and other drug tzars murdering people by regulation, 50%+ taxation, socialized health care and education, people stuck on welfare, people sleeping in the streets... yea, I'd say that's working, all right ! It's working out just peachy fine for the rich and powerful, and the gullible morons like Kangas who adore their "democratic model".

If you want exploitation to get up close and personal, transpose all the evil and twisted incentives of the state into your personal life, into your workplace. The second you introduce an accessible center of power, people will constantly fight for it, and try to make everyone else's lives miserable - because they will try to get their value system enforced instead of yours. People will fight each other constantly over the style of management, over firing people they don't like, over regulations and policies which you probably don't even care about right now. Is that the kind of life anyone wants to lead ?

But beyond the utter drudgery and impracticality of the syndicalist system, it is immoral, just like any other state is immoral by the simple fact that all states are coercive. It doesn't matter how big or small it is, a workplace state is coercive, and leads to evil incentives, violence and social warfare. Only the market anarchic model leaves people free to choose to support their own value system and deal with other people on equal grounds and on peaceful grounds. Syndicalism, like any other collectivist worldview, is pragmatically and morally bankrupt.