Hi deepflows,

I am not sure it's a valid question--what makes something a "rare commodity" is its relative lack of availability in a market. The very sign that makes work a "rare commodity" is that workers of a particular skillset are NOT easily replaced. In our market (U.S.), for example, we have a large population of low- and medium-skilled labor leftover from demographic shifts toward a highly skilled tech economy. That level of work may be common, while tech/STEM/trade skills may be less so. In such an instance, wages for low-skilled employees will drop as they fight for fewer jobs (since automation is reducing the manpower needed to complete any task) while wages for highly skilled employees rise as employers fight to adapt to a new economic model.

If the workers are easily replaced, that skillset is prevalent, and the employer will gain pricing pressure to decrease wages until enough workers move into other fields to make replacement difficult. After that, the work will become rare, wages for that skillset will rise, and companies will have to pay more to attract labor.

And then the cycle will repeat.

Hi deepflows,

That's a tricky question. First off, no, I can't offer empirical evidence to support my view that capitalism is inherently moral. I believe that morality is a subjective measure (as evidenced by things being 'amoral' in one society and lauded in another), and I don't think that any outcome or evidence can prove one action to be truly more or less moral than another.

I would describe my moral views as "self-righteous" in that I believe that each of us are truly responsible for determining what is moral and what isn't, since there is no external source of true morality. I, for example, don't believe that financial inequality is, in and of itself, a "bad" thing (and this is coming from a guy who's just barely middle class--I'm certainly not a 1%er or anywhere near that). You, however, may, in which case I could understand why you potentially would not be in favor of anarcho-capitalism.

And yes, I definitely believe that utopia would involve corporations. I believe the publicly traded corporate structure has done more to allow the worker to own the means of production than any economic innovation in history.

However, I'm not a true anarchist--I'm a minarchist. I believe that government should exist to: -retaliate for violence committed outside of self-defense -punish theft and breach of violence -provide objective judgment and detention services -provide large-scale public works (roads)

These objective services (akin to legal insurance) would serve as a check against the power of corporations to create serfdoms. For example, I think the ability of labor to organize is absolutely vital to free markets. Oppressing unions was monstrous because it allowed one side of the equation (capital) to have pricing power, but the other side (labor) was not allowed to do so. At the same time, I think the labor's organization should be the end in itself. The government should in no way step in to support unions other than to protect them from violence at the hands of the corporation.

*sorry, that other purpose of government is to:

-punish theft and breach of CONTRACT, not violence.

Sorry, but that isn't always true. Lots of forms of anarchy. I'm a minarchist/anarcho-capitalist, and I believe in both the heavy reduction in government (the 'night-watcher state') and the inherent morality of capitalism. Also, I believe that capitalism is "voluntary hierarchy" rather than forced, which is why I think anarchy and capitalism not only can, but should coexist.

Not to say there aren't lots of anarcho-socialists, but it definitely isn't a direct, 100% correlation.