Reddit mentions of IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation

There was an entire book about that.
http://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/091415303X

>I don't subscribe to this concept. That gives a parent the moral right to hit and even abuse their children, to force them to live under involuntary conditions, and worse. I believe children are our equals, and deserve the same treatment under the NAP as I do.

Okay. At what point do people have self-ownership? The problem here is people like Rothbard say children do not have self-ownership until they are older. He even believes that a parent could allow their children to starve to death with no consequences for the parent. He's also written pretty extensively to maintain that children are private property. If children aren't private property, how do you prevent them from being treated as such?

>We actually seem to believe in a similar method of teaching children as far as I can tell.

I've never read this and I'm pretty familiar with ancap material. As far as I can tell, schools would still have the teacher/student relationship. There would certainly be more diverse schools but they pretty much fall in line with today's private schools (although not totally since they are influenced by the state).

>They do have self-ownership, and anyone who claims otherwise does not follow consistent AnCap ideals.

Well, if Rothbard is not an ancap I'm not sure what to tell you. He states that "For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature - in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home." From that time, the parent has property rights over the child. Rothbard goes even further and claims that parents don't "have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children" and that "the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die." Kinsella makes similar arguments and claims that a parent homesteads their children. It's hard to take seriously especially when he uses natural rights ethics which is easy to debunk. If you want, I could try and find the quote by Block on why parents should allow parents to give their kids over to people who beat them.

>I also think we are having fundamental disagreements over the definition of warlords, which I believe are immorally acting and no better than the state, seeing as they for all intents and purposes are a state.

Most of the warlordism in Somalia doesn't work this way. They aren't threatening people and most of them don't collect taxes. They are basically gangs that help run the area and have protection. They tend to own the roads. Either way, i don't really care. You made it clear you don't support them so we agree.

>But we still know of the negatives of these societies as we see them everyday in the media. This good news is something we can really look at gain the smallest bit of hope from.

I guess I don't see the hope. I think Somalia is a good reason against ancapism. All the theories seem to fall apart. But getting back to my point, here is an article showing that the major business players are helping to erect the state. Notice they are at the center of helping with the new government. This is the incentive system I'm talking about.

>I never heard of IBM and Coke working with the Nazis, can you provide a source for this info?

Sure. Here is IBM working with them. [Coke and the nazis.](http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola)

>And what's wrong with sweatshops in a free society? No one is forced or coerced to work, and it's voluntary.

Saying "it's voluntary" doesn't really mean much to me. Again, I'm more concerned whether it's authoritarian or not. If it's not authoritarian, it won't be involuntary. Again, this is the big difference between anarchism and ancapism. Voluntarism has a number of flaws in my opinion. For instance, you could still have racism, sexism, homophobia, religious oppression and some have even argued for voluntary chattel slavery. Again, just because something is voluntary doesn't make it right. As for sweat shops, I don't think ancaps have read much on the subject. In many cases, people are locked inside shops without being told. People are threatened with all sorts of fucked up option like, "Have sex with me or get another job." Ancaps also assume there are only two option: work in a sweatshop or die of hunger. This isn't the case. Private property and enclosures mean people don't have other options. In many cases, factory owners work closely with the state to make sure people don't have other options. Basically, ancaps become vulgar libertarians the second sweatshops come up. Without enclosures and state interference, sweatshops wouldn't exist.

>Yeah, any AnCap saying children are private property must have some sort of chemical imbalance in my opinion.

Agree.

>But who enforces the contracts in an Anarcho-Communist society?

The parties that agree to them.

>Right, no incentive for profits, but the incentive is to keep one's own town alive, not the neighboring one.

I don't know what this means. These societies are like markets because they are highly intertwined in a decentralized way.

If you haven't already checked out Mutualism, it's a much better option with many similarities to ancapism. They have free markets but they are also anti-authoritarian. BlazingTruth who is one of the moderators here just went from being an ancap to mutualist recently. While I'm not a Mutualist, they have lots of interesting ideas.