Somewhat painful Bruce Johnston interview in a Dutch magazine

[hypehat]

Aren't conservatives rampant liberals when it comes to gun rights??

I'd rather trust the fraction of a second it takes to stop someone breaking into my house than the ten minutes for the police to arrive. That's not liberal or conservative...that's called self-defense.

I would just like you to know that, from the perspective of a society where guns are an alien concept, talk like this sounds absolutely insane.

So...in your society you favor criminals over those who abide by the law.

I don't favour killing anybody. There are many ways to deal with criminals in your house rather than shooting them, and when I got robbed I didn't think the way to deal with the dude rooting around my kitchen was to pull out my .44 and blast him away. And I got rid of him, nothing was stolen, and because I didn't have a pistol and he didn't have an automatic weapon, no-one is dead! I must love criminals, right?


It really does make it SO much easier to live in an impoverished inner city area without the worry that everyone could walk into a supermarket and buy a gun. Did you ever think about that?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Aren't conservatives rampant liberals when it comes to gun rights??

I'd rather trust the fraction of a second it takes to stop someone breaking into my house than the ten minutes for the police to arrive. That's not liberal or conservative...that's called self-defense.

I would just like you to know that, from the perspective of a society where guns are an alien concept, talk like this sounds absolutely insane.

So...in your society you favor criminals over those who abide by the law.

I don't favour killing anybody. There are many ways to deal with criminals in your house rather than shooting them, and when I got robbed I didn't think the way to deal with the dude rooting around my kitchen was to pull out my .44 and blast him away. And I got rid of him, nothing was stolen, and because I didn't have a pistol and he didn't have an automatic weapon, no-one is dead! I must love criminals, right?


It really does make it SO much easier to live in an impoverished inner city area without the worry that everyone could walk into a supermarket and buy a gun. Did you ever think about that?

Yep. A society with less access to guns makes it far less likely that that criminal in your house is armed.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Well, here's  the thing. Posters here have insinuated, through their remarks, that conservatives/Republicans are naive, arrogant jerks.  Very clearly.

Republicans aren't conservatives.

True that.

You guys are nuts!

Even if that's true: there are no Liberal conservatives or Liberal Republicans, so what's the difference? 

[hypehat]

Also, TRBB, I think you're a swell guy and all but every time a politics thread rolls along and you say stuff like that it makes me wonder whether you have ever seriously considered running for office, what with such wildly varying and borderline hypocritical views. Then I think you're just f***ing with everybody.

[rab2591]

Aren't conservatives rampant liberals when it comes to gun rights??

I'd rather trust the fraction of a second it takes to stop someone breaking into my house than the ten minutes for the police to arrive. That's not liberal or conservative...that's called self-defense.

Right!?

Switzerland trains its citizens to use guns, gives them ammo, etc. Their yearly homicide rate is an average of 90 people. The city of Chicago alone (since the beginning of this year) has had 280+ killings. I think this speaks for itself.

Well, but in fact, Switzerland has a fairly high firearm-related death rate in comparison to other European countries. Finland is another exception but they too have a larger access to guns than most countries in Europe. The fact is there is a pretty strong correlation between access to guns and deaths related to firearms.

In a nation where nearly everyone owns a gun this doesn't surprise me. However the death rate is incredibly low for a country with nearly 8,000,000 citizens (whom all have the means to defend themselves, their families, and property).

[hypehat]

Aren't conservatives rampant liberals when it comes to gun rights??

I'd rather trust the fraction of a second it takes to stop someone breaking into my house than the ten minutes for the police to arrive. That's not liberal or conservative...that's called self-defense.

Right!?

Switzerland trains its citizens to use guns, gives them ammo, etc. Their yearly homicide rate is an average of 90 people. The city of Chicago alone (since the beginning of this year) has had 280+ killings. I think this speaks for itself.

Well, but in fact, Switzerland has a fairly high firearm-related death rate in comparison to other European countries. Finland is another exception but they too have a larger access to guns than most countries in Europe. The fact is there is a pretty strong correlation between access to guns and deaths related to firearms.

In a nation where nearly everyone owns a gun this doesn't surprise me. However the death rate is incredibly low for a country with nearly 8,000,000 citizens (whom all have the means to defend themselves, their families, and property).

I'm almost sorry to bring it up, but do I really need to point out the problems of a nation where almost everyone owns a gun? As in, did you see Batman this weekend and keep looking over your shoulder?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Well, here's  the thing. Posters here have insinuated, through their remarks, that conservatives/Republicans are naive, arrogant jerks.  Very clearly.

Republicans aren't conservatives.

True that.

You guys are nuts!

Even if that's true: there are no Liberal conservatives or Liberal Republicans, so what's the difference?  

Well, really, Republicans are a lot more liberal than conservative in many ways. And the difference is that the more people realize the policies they are voting for rather than the party name, the faster change will actually happen. But most people who are fervent Democrats and Republicans don't really know for sure what those parties represent. So we end up with a conservative who votes Republican because he or she believes they are the party who represent his or her values, when in fact, they don't. So knowing these things are important.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

In a nation where nearly everyone owns a gun this doesn't surprise me. However the death rate is incredibly low for a country with nearly 8,000,000 citizens (whom all have the means to defend themselves, their families, and property).

Nearly everyone does not own a gun in Switzerland. There's about 45 guns per 100 residents, which is nearly half the amount of guns, per capita, in the United States.

[Zach95]

Well, here's  the thing. Posters here have insinuated, through their remarks, that conservatives/Republicans are naive, arrogant jerks.  Very clearly.

Republicans aren't conservatives.

True that.

You guys are nuts!

Even if that's true: there are no Liberal conservatives or Liberal Republicans, so what's the difference?  

Well, really, Republicans are a lot more liberal than conservative in many ways. And the difference is that the more people realize the policies they are voting for rather than the party name, the faster change will actually happen. But most people who are fervent Democrats and Republicans don't really know for sure what those parties represent. So we end up with a conservative who votes Republican because he or she believes they are the party who represent his or her values, when in fact, they don't. So knowing these things are important.

I agree with you here, wholeheartedly.  My statement was generalizing, thus the slash, I wasn't necessarily saying that Republicans and conservatives are the same.  However, many times, those two labels go hand in hand, though not all the time.

[runnersdialzero]

WHOEVER MOVE THIS AWAY FROM BB FORUM PUTS THE PENIS IN MY EAR OK

[Jason]

Also, TRBB, I think you're a swell guy and all but every time a politics thread rolls along and you say stuff like that it makes me wonder whether you have ever seriously considered running for office, what with such wildly varying and borderline hypocritical views. Then I think you're just f***ing with everybody.

My views polarize liberals and conservatives alike - both sides would agree with half of my positions, and the halves would be different. I support freedom of speech almost to a fault (Chick-fil-A, Westboro Baptist Church, neo-Nazi groups, Nation of Islam, Holocaust deniers), the right to bear arms (including self-defense and castle doctrine), free markets, limited government (no government would be preferable), gold standards, legalization and deregulation of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol, free market private health care and education (no one has a right to those; you don't pay, you don't play), private marriage/civil unions, elimination of taxes...

Now you know why I'd polarize people. Liberals and conservatives can only go so far. I prefer liberty.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Now you know why I'd polarize people. Liberals and conservatives can only go so far. I prefer liberty.

Here's the thing though, liberals and conservatives would likewise say the same thing - that they prefer liberty. And as far as I'm concerned, the faux-libertarianism of Ron Paul and his ilk is about as convincing on this matter as the liberals and conservatives are.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Also, TRBB, I think you're a swell guy and all but every time a politics thread rolls along and you say stuff like that it makes me wonder whether you have ever seriously considered running for office, what with such wildly varying and borderline hypocritical views. Then I think you're just f***ing with everybody.

My views polarize liberals and conservatives alike - both sides would agree with half of my positions, and the halves would be different. I support freedom of speech almost to a fault (Chick-fil-A, Westboro Baptist Church, neo-Nazi groups, Nation of Islam, Holocaust deniers), the right to bear arms (including self-defense and castle doctrine), free markets, limited government (no government would be preferable), gold standards, legalization and deregulation of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol, free market private health care and education (no one has a right to those; you don't pay, you don't play), private marriage/civil unions, elimination of taxes...

Now you know why I'd polarize people. Liberals and conservatives can only go so far. I prefer liberty.

I can respect your views TRBB but no government would be chaos! People like to talk about anarchy, anarchy, but there will never be such a thing because the minute anarchy becomes a reality it would be the police and the military beating the hell out of everyone because they "got the guns, man" AND they got the numbers. Just what is the concept behind a sovereign nation in the first place? Do people really go off and die in far off places for free markets, private health care with no rights whatsoever to anything? The concept behind education and health care is to produce smart, viable citizens to FEED the free markets! Sure, no one has a born right to anything, blah blah, no one is owed happiness or a living, but we certainly behave as though people are owed pain and suffering, so why not try and balance it a bit. It's like: a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged, while a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested   ...... There is only liberty under SOME sort of organization....

[hypehat]

Also, TRBB, I think you're a swell guy and all but every time a politics thread rolls along and you say stuff like that it makes me wonder whether you have ever seriously considered running for office, what with such wildly varying and borderline hypocritical views. Then I think you're just f***ing with everybody.

My views polarize liberals and conservatives alike - both sides would agree with half of my positions, and the halves would be different. I support freedom of speech almost to a fault (Chick-fil-A, Westboro Baptist Church, neo-Nazi groups, Nation of Islam, Holocaust deniers), the right to bear arms (including self-defense and castle doctrine), free markets, limited government (no government would be preferable), gold standards, legalization and deregulation of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol, free market private health care and education (no one has a right to those; you don't pay, you don't play), private marriage/civil unions, elimination of taxes...

Now you know why I'd polarize people. Liberals and conservatives can only go so far. I prefer liberty.

The thing with the bit I highlighted just seems unbelievably callous to me - it certainly sounds like you never had to worry about providing for your education or healthcare, tbh. And seeing as you've had one (either that, or you've spent too much time on 4chan where this sort of bedroom libertarianism is popular last time I checked), it seems remarkable that you would feel so cavalier about denying real human beings these things because of something so unimportant as money or 'ideology'.

 I mean, you wouldn't have 'free' people under your ideological constraints. You'd have a lot of dying, uneducated people who would have no hope for achieving a better life. That would barely be a society.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Also, TRBB, I think you're a swell guy and all but every time a politics thread rolls along and you say stuff like that it makes me wonder whether you have ever seriously considered running for office, what with such wildly varying and borderline hypocritical views. Then I think you're just f***ing with everybody.

My views polarize liberals and conservatives alike - both sides would agree with half of my positions, and the halves would be different. I support freedom of speech almost to a fault (Chick-fil-A, Westboro Baptist Church, neo-Nazi groups, Nation of Islam, Holocaust deniers), the right to bear arms (including self-defense and castle doctrine), free markets, limited government (no government would be preferable), gold standards, legalization and deregulation of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol, free market private health care and education (no one has a right to those; you don't pay, you don't play), private marriage/civil unions, elimination of taxes...

Now you know why I'd polarize people. Liberals and conservatives can only go so far. I prefer liberty.

I can respect your views TRBB but no government would be chaos! People like to talk about anarchy, anarchy, but there will never be such a thing because the minute anarchy becomes a reality it would be the police and the military beating the hell out of everyone because they "got the guns, man" AND they got the numbers. Just what is the concept behind a sovereign nation in the first place? Do people really go off and die in far off places for free markets, private health care with no rights whatsoever to anything? The concept behind education and health care is to produce smart, viable citizens to FEED the free markets! Sure, no one has a born right to anything, blah blah, no one is owed happiness or a living, but we certainly behave as though people are owed pain and suffering, so why not try and balance it a bit. It's like: a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged, while a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested   ...... There is only liberty under SOME sort of organization....

To put in a plug for anarchism (different from anarchy), I will say that you raise some very good points that I think are answered more convincingly by genuine libertarianism than the faux-libertarianism espoused above by The Real Beach Boy. Incidentally, I don't use the term "faux-libertarian" in order to disrespect TRBB. In fact, I highly respect TRBB for both his intelligence, and his opinions. I don't have that much respect for the libertarian movement in the United States, though, and I feel like highly intelligent people who could otherwise be very productive activists are being swayed by what is essential a right-wing pro-corporate organization.

You're right that under the faux-libertarian movement, you have a kind of unchecked and unbridled hegemony by what is already the overwhelming power authority in our society and Ron Paul's libertarians do nothing to account for this. Under a genuine libertarian movement, the focus would be on undermining precisely that overwhelming power authority so that people could exert some real control over their lives. Anarchism does not necessarily mean abolishing government. It may mean abolishing the government system as we know it, but if you want to look at aproposal for a truly organized society, you need to look no further than anarchism. This is because anarchism is not simply a social system but also a political and economic system and it is one that is far more complex than simply some chaotic lawless system. As I've said elsewhere on this site, anarchist societies would be highly organized, including socialist workers councils in industry and direct, full participatory democracy in communities. Socities would be federated, decentralized, and worked by means of free associations.

[Jason]

Also, TRBB, I think you're a swell guy and all but every time a politics thread rolls along and you say stuff like that it makes me wonder whether you have ever seriously considered running for office, what with such wildly varying and borderline hypocritical views. Then I think you're just f***ing with everybody.

My views polarize liberals and conservatives alike - both sides would agree with half of my positions, and the halves would be different. I support freedom of speech almost to a fault (Chick-fil-A, Westboro Baptist Church, neo-Nazi groups, Nation of Islam, Holocaust deniers), the right to bear arms (including self-defense and castle doctrine), free markets, limited government (no government would be preferable), gold standards, legalization and deregulation of tobacco, drugs, and alcohol, free market private health care and education (no one has a right to those; you don't pay, you don't play), private marriage/civil unions, elimination of taxes...

Now you know why I'd polarize people. Liberals and conservatives can only go so far. I prefer liberty.

I can respect your views TRBB but no government would be chaos! People like to talk about anarchy, anarchy, but there will never be such a thing because the minute anarchy becomes a reality it would be the police and the military beating the hell out of everyone because they "got the guns, man" AND they got the numbers. Just what is the concept behind a sovereign nation in the first place? Do people really go off and die in far off places for free markets, private health care with no rights whatsoever to anything? The concept behind education and health care is to produce smart, viable citizens to FEED the free markets! Sure, no one has a born right to anything, blah blah, no one is owed happiness or a living, but we certainly behave as though people are owed pain and suffering, so why not try and balance it a bit. It's like: a conservative is a liberal who just got mugged, while a liberal is a conservative who just got arrested   ...... There is only liberty under SOME sort of organization....

To put in a plug for anarchism (different from anarchy), I will say that you raise some very good points that I think are answered more convincingly by genuine libertarianism than the faux-libertarianism espoused above by The Real Beach Boy. Incidentally, I don't use the term "faux-libertarian" in order to disrespect TRBB. In fact, I highly respect TRBB for both his intelligence, and his opinions. I don't have that much respect for the libertarian movement in the United States, though, and I feel like highly intelligent people who could otherwise be very productive activists are being swayed by what is essential a right-wing pro-corporate organization.

You're right that under the faux-libertarian movement, you have a kind of unchecked and unbridled hegemony by what is already the overwhelming power authority in our society and Ron Paul's libertarians do nothing to account for this. Under a genuine libertarian movement, the focus would be on undermining precisely that overwhelming power authority so that people could exert some real control over their lives. Anarchism does not necessarily mean abolishing government. It may mean abolishing the government system as we know it, but if you want to look at aproposal for a truly organized society, you need to look no further than anarchism. This is because anarchism is not simply a social system but also a political and economic system and it is one that is far more complex than simply some chaotic lawless system. As I've said elsewhere on this site, anarchist societies would be highly organized, including socialist workers councils in industry and direct, full participatory democracy in communities. Socities would be federated, decentralized, and worked by means of free associations.

To be honest, my views are more in line with anarchism than libertarianism. I'm basically a free-market anarchist.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

To be honest, my views are more in line with anarchism than libertarianism. I'm basically a free-market anarchist.

Fair enough. My question at this point, then, (and again, this comes out of genuine curiosity and concern) is what does this mean? I ask the question because it seems to me that the notion of freedom that has been at the core of anarchist thought from Proudhon to Bakunin has held that man cannot truly be free as long as the means of production are privately controlled. Even the individualist strain of anarchism (which I disagree with and consider it ultimately quite dangerous) typically opposes rights to private property.  More over, anarchism is very much about social organization rather than merely economic structure. It seems to me that a free market anarchism, whatever that might be, doesn't take into account how society can organize itself free from institutional constraints and, rather, simply protects the interests of business owners to do whatever they want without government intervention - something, in my opinion, that has nothing to do with anarchism or what anarchists stand for. In that sense, it seems to me that free market principles don't jive with anarchism but perhaps I don't know enough about it.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

"Free market anarchist" sounds like a virus to me. A virus kills it's host, thus itself, simply because that's what it does.......

My feelings, and thank you RocknRoll for articulating anarchy beyond the cliched version I "know" from my days as a young stupid punker, are.... why can't this be a capitalist system as far as free markets are concerned yet there be room for more socialist-like institutions as well. Like, this apartment building can be run as a co-op if that's what it's owners/managers want? Same thing with hospitals and schools. Why does EVERYTHING have to conform to a system that simply does not feed or nurture it's well being and functionality? Would this sort of free for all ideology, structure be a form of anarchism?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

"Free market anarchist" sounds like a virus to me. A virus kills it's host, thus itself, simply because that's what it does.......

My feelings, and thank you RocknRoll for articulating anarchy beyond the cliched version I "know" from my days as a young stupid punker, are.... why can't this be a capitalist system as far as free markets are concerned yet there be room for more socialist-like institutions as well. Like, this apartment building can be run as a co-op if that's what it's owners/managers want? Same thing with hospitals and schools. Why does EVERYTHING have to conform to a system that simply does not feed or nurture it's well being and functionality? Would this sort of free for all ideology, structure be a form of anarchism?

Good questions.

I don't think I would necessary describe what you propose as "anarchism" though I will say that "anarchism" as a political/economic/social philosophy is a bit more open than other philosophies in that it doesn't have an over-arching well-defined theory, and that's by design. Anarchism wouldn't be anarchism if there was some overarching authority telling you how to "properly" run your anarchist society.

With that in mind, it seems to me that you do not have a society free from constraints if there are some people who are subordinates to a power system, and it seems to me that that's what you have with a free-market system, as I understand it. Also, an organization in which "owners/managers" decide that the organization will be run co-operatively still presupposes a power structure. In an anarchist society, those decisions are not made by owners/managers but by the people within the organization.

I should say that in principle, I don't entirely oppose the kind of system that you are outlining here. In practice though, I am unconvinced that entirely free market societies can be at all successful. Capitalist success stories are not free-market success stories - they are stories of massive intervention and protectionism.

[Jason]

I think we need to differentiate between capitalism and cronyism, as rockandroll and Erik seem to be describing the latter with the name of the former. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Free-market anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism, as Murray Rothbard called it) is basically what it says it is. It's a society based upon mutual agreement and voluntary transactions; this is known as the free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, every good or service (as opposed to some, which is where we are now) would be offered by the free market. In the absence of government, individuals are responsible for enforcing their own rights. Their behavior must not infringe upon the rights of others - the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Some on the left have claimed that free-market anarchists are merely CEO types who would rather see the rich become richer and the poor poorer, but nothing could be further from the truth. The current system of mixed economics, or "socialism with American characteristics" (in a little play on what China does), is responsible for the current plight of society, as the rich become richer and the poor poorer. The government has become a tool of these crony corporatists (they aren't capitalists, so let's get that out in the open right away) to enact laws based on what is beneficial to their corporate interests. In essence, the state and the corporations end up making all of the money and everyone else is stuck scraping along. In the 1930s, this was called fascism. The United States, Canada, almost all of Europe, Israel, Australia, and Southeast Asia are DEEP into fascism.

The other problem is that an individual entity sets the monetary policy. This is counteractive to the free market. The value of currency is determined based on supply and demand. With current fiat currencies, there is no standard (like gold or silver) to back up those pieces of paper. Combine central banking with bankrupt governments, and you have yet another explanation as to why money is nearly worthless and gold is over a thousand dollars an ounce. Free-market anarchists believe in competing currencies; we would NEVER accept "paper" as a means of payment unless that paper was backed by some means like gold or silver payable to the bearer of the note. We would also accept a barter or free trade system as well, with your goods worth the current market value. Individuals can also choose to accept a personal method of currency in their transactions.

You'd probably ask how this is productive towards social organization; the answer is simple. Mutual transactions mean people get what they want in a timely fashion at a fair price and everybody's happy. There is room for charity in such a society. If people wish to provide their goods or services at no charge, then that is on them. A system like this would be across the board - education, health care, human services, infrastructure...you name it. In this society, if people wish to organize into socialist or communist groups, that is their right as long as they do not force others into it.

Everything is based on mutual agreement. Nothing would be prohibited as long as it does not infringe upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of other individuals. Murder would not be condoned; self-defense that may result in the death of another would be - everyone has the right to defend his or her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by any means necessary, even if it means the assailant's death. Education and health care will be at a price because no one has a "right" to the liberty and pursuit of happiness of others unless they wish to provide those services for free. Any form of marriage would be condoned. Any form of religious belief would be condoned. Alcohol, tobacco and drugs would be completely unregulated - no amount of laws have stopped people from using them, so if people want to dope themselves up, let them do it.

But if the means of production are publicly controlled, who pays for it? How is it paid for, and with what? Social anarchists have never come up with a workable answer to that question.

[Jason]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YfgKOnYx5A

This explanation by David Friedman is about the best you'll ever find.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

VERY VERY well put TheRealBeachBoy!!!!

Now how about them Moodies? How come they won't come anywhere near Cali??

Take a look at their website. How much do you wanna bet they all live in Florida? 

[SMiLE Brian]

VERY VERY well put TheRealBeachBoy!!!!

Now how about them Moodies? How come they won't come anywhere near Cali??

Take a look at their website. How much do you wanna bet they all live in Florida? 

Doesn't a certain Mr. Pinder live in California?

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Yes, he does and he has framed pictures of the various collage components from U2's: Actung Baby all over the walls of this studio for some reason!!!!

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I think we need to differentiate between capitalism and cronyism, as rockandroll and Erik seem to be describing the latter with the name of the former.

I’m doing nothing of the sort. I’m explaining capitalism as it was understood by the very framers of the philosophy and have barely touched on the “special relationship” between government and corporate power.

Free-market anarchism (or anarcho-capitalism, as Murray Rothbard called it) is basically what it says it is. It's a society based upon mutual agreement and voluntary transactions; this is known as the free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, every good or service (as opposed to some, which is where we are now) would be offered by the free market.

But you are drawing the connection between the free-market and capitalism. In other words, I am assuming (as I have been assuming all along) that you don’t mean the kind of free-market system that was discussed by figures like Proudhon with publicly-owned enterprises entering into some sort of free market system. Since you use the term anarcho-capitalism which, in my opinion, is a contradiction of terms, I believe you don’t mean this system and will continue to operate with that in mind.

In the absence of government, individuals are responsible for enforcing their own rights. Their behavior must not infringe upon the rights of others - the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Except that not every individual gets the same rights in an anarcho-capitalist society. After all, in this society there are still owners that require a subordinate and subservient class and there is still an unequal distribution of wealth as a result of this relationship between owners and labor. Now, what follows from this, obviously, is a power dynamic wherein there remains a small class of people who not only control what the larger population does, but also have the ability to make purchases that others can’t, and make decisions about what the population at large will or won’t pay for. Theoretically, these are decisions that everybody in the society could make – that is, if they somehow manage to get into the privileged class of owners – but this, of course, would be highly rare in a society that depends on a large subordinate labor class. Now, this shouldn’t be surprising, but none of this resembles an anarchist society, namely because of the very distinct power relationships that is an inherent consequence of the system.

Some on the left have claimed that free-market anarchists are merely CEO types who would rather see the rich become richer and the poor poorer, but nothing could be further from the truth.

I don’t know if they are “CEO types” and I’m sure they would not “rather see the rich become richer and the poor poorer” but that doesn’t change the fact that that is an inevitable consequence of the system you are describing.

The current system of mixed economics, or "socialism with American characteristics" (in a little play on what China does), is responsible for the current plight of society, as the rich become richer and the poor poorer.

First of all, America’s economic system is not “socialism with American characteristics” unless the “American characteristics” are so pervasive that they void anything that resembles socialism.

Second, obviously whatever economic system the US has had is responsible “for the current plight of [their] society” but this does not mean that government intervention is responsible for “the current plight” – in fact, quite the opposite. Now, the United States has never been a free market society. Ever. There has always been a fairly high level of government intervention and protectionism. Consequently, it is impossible to say exactly how the state would be without what amounts to an enormous welfare state for the rich and powerful but given the general economic history, it’s pretty safe to assume that it wouldn’t be good. We know, for example, that the economic boom in the US really beginning at the end of the 19th century but hitting unparalleled levels post-WWII is pretty much a consequence of publicly funded industrial development. And, in fact, this is the typical story of the first world nation – enormous wealth was typically generated as a result of a strong interventionist government.

Now, if you look at the third world, you get a different story. There, free market capitalism has been violently shoved down their throats. These countries, like Nicaragua and Haiti, don’t have the luxury of protectionism because they are the third world, typically producing for the interests of the first world and therefore have little say about how their economy operates. Consequently countries like Nicaragua and Haiti have become the poorest countries in the hemisphere. Other countries have been luckier – so, for example, South Korea managed to pull themselves out of economic crisis by reversing course on the Western-imposed free market system and upon refusing the advice of the IMF and the World Bank, incorporated a state-oriented Japan-inspired model which led to the creation of their highly efficient and successful steel industry and saved the South Korean economy from the brink of disaster. Free-market systems have typically been disastrous which is why no first world country has ever allowed them. So, it seems to me, that if we are genuinely concerned about the plight of our society, then economic history tells us that the last thing we should do is embrace free-market capitalist system because it has been an abhorrent disaster just about everywhere it has been put into practice.

In essence, the state and the corporations end up making all of the money and everyone else is stuck scraping along.

Well, in fact, it’s mostly the corporations, not the state.

In the 1930s, this was called fascism.

Not really – I mean, there’s a bit of truth to that but it’s overall incorrect because you’re missing a vital aspect of “fascism” and that is the undercurrent of “mass mobilization” that is always there. Fascists see the nation, including many of the people in it, as representing some kind of ideal. This is why no genuine fascist government would ever accept globalization, NAFTA, or any other policies widely accepted by the countries that you claim to be “DEEP into fascism.” It seems that you are using words like “socialism” and “fascism” for their pejorative value rather than to accurately describe what you see as happening in the world. It’s unfortunate because I think that it’s a real roadblock in your thinking through the political situation, as I’ve followed your political posts.

The other problem is that an individual entity sets the monetary policy. This is counteractive to the free market. The value of currency is determined based on supply and demand.

Value can’t ever really be “determined based on supply and demand.” Supply and demand can cause prices to fluctuate around value but what gives a product value is the necessary labor time that went into it. This confusion between price and value is a consequence of capitalism and, in fact, conceals the very nature of how we create things and why. If we truly understood what made an item valuable, we would recognize the inherent exploitative nature of the capitalist economy.

You'd probably ask how this is productive towards social organization; the answer is simple. Mutual transactions mean people get what they want in a timely fashion at a fair price and everybody's happy. There is room for charity in such a society. If people wish to provide their goods or services at no charge, then that is on them.

But, of course, nobody would because to do so would mean risk losing their privileged place in the power dynamic.

But if the means of production are publicly controlled, who pays for it? How is it paid for, and with what? Social anarchists have never come up with a workable answer to that question.

Who pays for what? I really don’t understand the question.