maybe capitalism not " anarcho" there is no anarcho in capitalism we already set that in our arguments . in fact thats the overall thing to this thread . All of us gone overboard and derived to other things . So There is no anarcho to capitalism . the end .

I'll respond later to the whole private property rights l8r today, my friend is begging me to kick it with him.

yeah that was my point no one guarantees property rights but a state ,

aight no problem

Sorry you didn't dive into his own works here is Proudhon's own book called What Is Property ?. In the book, Proudhon most famously declared that “property is theft”. Proudhon believed that the common conception of property conflated two distinct components which, once identified, demonstrated the difference between property used to further tyranny and property used to protect liberty. He argued that the result of an individual's labor which is currently occupied or used is a legitimate form of property. Thus, he opposed unused land being regarded as property, believing that land can only be rightfully possessed by use or occupation (which he called "possession"). Proudhon was an advocate of Mutualism . Mutualism is an anarchist school of thought which can be traced to the writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who envisioned a society where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Prodhon advocated the free market but he didn't advocate capitalist private property . Insofar as they ensure the workers right to the full product of their labor, mutualists support markets and private property in the product of labor. However, they argue for conditional titles to land (see also geolibertarianism), whose private ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon called "possession.") Proudhon's Mutualism supports labor-owned cooperative firms and associations. Unlike capitalist private-property supporters, Proudhon stressed equality. He thought all workers should own property and have access to capital. He stressed that in every cooperative "every worker employed in the association [must have] an undivided share in the property of the company" .

So overall Proudhon was against capitalist private property . We anarchists are for possession this possession is individually and limits itself to use and occupancy . The rest of the means of production are shared collectively by everyone in these worker cooperatives as Proudhon suggested .

Proudhon still accepted private property even if it's not to the extent of Anarcho-Capitalism. But frankly, do names matter all that much really? I don't care what I'm called. You can call me anything for all i care as long as you put me in a group that has the same ideas with people who conform with "Anarcho-Capitalism".

The French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first to employ the term libertarian in a political sense in May 1857, in an 11-page pamphlet De l'Etre Humain mâle et femelle . Also according to the anarchist historian Max Nettlau, the first use of the term libertarian was in November 1880, when a French anarchist congress employed it to more clearly identify its doctrines. So the term " libertarian" in a classical sense always is found in the anti-capitalist anti private property tradition latter in the 1970 the term was adopted largely in the US by certain groups . Also anarchists believe in no government at all the Big-Government Libertarianism / Small Government is theory is an oxymoron created by statists . Government is government doesn't matter how small or how big you consider it it fails and it must be abolished . Our both traditions are anti-statist are anti government if you want it to call it that . Libertarianism whit all her traditions is against government if there is a strain of Libertarianism that is for government then that strain is not libertarianism .

I already explained everything there if you consider " possession " that is for use and occupancy as private property then its something wrong . There is no non income labor in Proudhon's or any anarchists concept of property there is no right to private property in Proudhon's or any anarchists concept of property . Don't confuse possession whit private property . If you advocate Proudhon's Mutualism then leave the anarcho-capitalist term . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_ (economic_theory) . Check here to see the difference between Proudhon's concept and capitalism . Mutualism is often described by its proponents as advocating an "anti-capitalist free market". In Proudhon's view workers binded in these cooperatives and owning all the means of production can compete whit one another in a free market . Labor is in power not capital here you understand now ? its competition between these cooperatives not between common companies or corporations . The capitalist model of business is abolished .

And no, when did I ever state i was in favor of mutualism?

The French anarchist communist Joseph Déjacque was the first to employ the term libertarian in a political sense in May 1857. I know you hardly understand me most of the time LOL but i didn't meant that . I meant that the term libertarian in a political sense was used first by anti-capitalist anarchists . In the US especially the term libertarian is always associated whit capitalism and pro private property organizations thats why i said that .

I was used you as an example it was hypothetically LOL

Now, back to Standard. After some research, I have found that all of the companies that you mentioned that had knocked Standard out of it's monopolistic position that it held, eventually coming to it's peak at 90% of the market share in 1880, had elevated to the position they held for various reasons. First of all, Standard had been bound in legal problems since 1879, the year before it hit it's peak, so it already needed to begin being a bit more careful about it's business practices, which, in effect, made them lose some grounding. By 1890, though past their prime, still well ahead of the pack and, technically speaking, in a position of monopoly, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed. While only moderately successful until the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, and otherwise known as a failure in the eyes of the American public, it did at least knock Standard out of a monopolistic position, forcing them to start the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, a company that never held a share of the market that even came close to Standard of Ohio. This is exactly what would be expected with moderate regulation. Companies such as Texaco, Gulf and Sun were hardly bigger than local companies until 1901, 11 years after the Sherman Antitrust Act and, not at all coincidentally, the same year oil was found in Texas. If the oil hadn't been found in Texas, Standard may have held a much higher share by their 1911 break up. As for Shell and Chevron, Shell didn't exist until the early 1900's and Chevron is a direct descendant of Standard, so both of those are moot points. And btw, Gulf and Texaco were actually born in 1901. There are a handful of companies, including Sun, that predated 1901, one of which was started in 1882, but they were all small companies until 1901, hardly competitors for Standard at the time.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0