Do you think Anarcho Capitalism (1 Viewer)

[freedom-fighter]

Is actually Anarchism? I truly don't. Tell me why you do or don't

 

[Cephus]

No, it's not anarchism. It is idiotic though.

 

[Andalublue]

Is actually Anarchism? I truly don't. Tell me why you do or don't

Well, it's a branch of anarchism or libertarianism. Given that there is no such thing as a precise and definitive definition of what 'anarchism' or 'libertarianism' actually means, you could, and many do, apply the terms to all kinds of political attitudes.

The Oxford Companion to Philosophy says, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance." from Wiki.

 

[spud_meister]

It's an Anarchist theory, though it'll only stay Anarchist until someone gets the upper hand in the use of force.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

Well, it's a branch of anarchism or libertarianism. Given that there is no such thing as a precise and definitive definition of what 'anarchism' or 'libertarianism' actually means, you could, and many do, apply the terms to all kinds of political attitudes.

This.

I define anarchism using its Greek root: anarkhia, or "the lack of a leader, the state of people lacking a government". Leftist anarchists have always defined it by an opposition to all forms of authority, for some reason. I don't see how leftist anarchism is anarchism, myself; if the state collapsed, how would a leftist anarchist respond to an anarcho-capitalist society? Would they permit workers to be exploited by the bourgeoisie, even if the arrangement is voluntary?

 

[Andalublue]

This.

I define anarchism using its Greek root: anarkhia, or "the lack of a leader, the state of people lacking a government". Leftist anarchists have always defined it by an opposition to all forms of authority, for some reason. I don't see how leftist anarchism is anarchism, myself; if the state collapsed, how would a leftist anarchist respond to an anarcho-capitalist society? Would they permit workers to be exploited by the bourgeoisie, even if the arrangement is voluntary?

Left anarchism, or at least a thread of belief within it - no one can claim to speak for all libertarians on anything - holds that in order for the state to disappear it will need to be destroyed, or caused to self-destruct. With that revolution classes will be swept away. There would be no bourgeoisie because there would be no private property. There would be common property and unowned property and people working alone or in cooperation with one another to create the means by which they survive and prosper. The concept of anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with anti-capitalist anarchism. You have one, you cannot have the other. You want capitalism to remain, you cannot create an anarchist society. You want freedom and equality, you cannot have a capitalist class system preventing that liberty and freedom.

To quote a mongoose, "Simples".

 

[rathi]

Anarchism is a pretty loose term. Humans always form some sort of organizational structure. It starts at the family clan level and ends up with multi-national empires. Even in completely lawless areas like Somali, gangs have their own political structure. Anarchist political theories are never implemented in reality, so they remain mostly wishful thinking. The Spanish Anarcho-Communists simply had lower level organization that a traditional nation state, and quickly compromised their political beliefs due to the practical realities of fighting the Spanish civil war.

 

[Geo Patric]

Is actually Anarchism? I truly don't. Tell me why you do or don't

anarchoANYHINGism is a self refutation.... anarchism is a self refutation. anarchy is lack of imposed order. "isms" are the implied 'concretizing' through ordering of abstracts.

mostly it is just people making up fancy terms for being pricks.

geo.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

Left anarchism, or at least a thread of belief within it - no one can claim to speak for all libertarians on anything - holds that in order for the state to disappear it will need to be destroyed, or caused to self-destruct. With that revolution classes will be swept away. There would be no bourgeoisie because there would be no private property. There would be common property and unowned property and people working alone or in cooperation with one another to create the means by which they survive and prosper. The concept of anarcho-capitalism is incompatible with anti-capitalist anarchism. You have one, you cannot have the other. You want capitalism to remain, you cannot create an anarchist society. You want freedom and equality, you cannot have a capitalist class system preventing that liberty and freedom.

To quote a mongoose, "Simples".

I think the problem here is how we each defining freedom. I think of it as something inversely correlated with having to do something you didn't choose do to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to define it as "capability" or "power", as in, "I am not free to quit my job, even if nobody's stopping me from doing so, because I will starve to death if I do." Fair enough. Take this hypothetical, then: the state's gone. A group of people go off and form a capitalist society. They are soon visited by representatives of a leftist anarchist one. They present their model for a free society, but no one in the capitalist society seems to show much interest. What do you propose the leftist anarchists do? Do they permit the capitalists to live the way they desire (thus sacrificing your "freedom"), or do they alter the society by force (thus sacrificing my "freedom")?

anarchoANYHINGism is a self refutation.... anarchism is a self refutation. anarchy is lack of imposed order. "isms" are the implied 'concretizing' through ordering of abstracts.

mostly it is just people making up fancy terms for being pricks.

geo.

Anarchy is the lack of imposed order by government. Political "isms" define who makes decisions and how.

Refutation? What?

EDIT: Oh, and besides the whole implied insult you've flung at me, can we argue solely about the ideology here? And not the people that hold it?

Please?

 

[Geo Patric]

Anarchy is the lack of imposed order by government. Political "isms" define who makes decisions and how.

Refutation? What?
EDIT: Oh, and besides the whole implied insult you've flung at me,

my apologies. I did not read your post closely enough to realize that you considered youreself an anarchist.

can we argue solely about the ideology here? And not the people that hold it?

Please?

sure. please state the premise of this supposed ideology or point me in a direction where i may educate myself. my point is that the prevailing view of anarchism (as a political 'ideology') is that it is opposed to defined order but ideologies ARE order. obviously, my defintion does not match up well with yours, so i am obliged to ask for yours.

what kind of government is NOT based on order extended (imposed in not necessarily the right word) by government?
geo.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

my apologies. I did not read your post closely enough to realize that you considered youreself an anarchist.

Apology accepted, but it wouldn't annoy me much less if I wasn't. There's no need to generalize about large groups of people like that. =/

sure. please state the premise of this supposed ideology or point me in a direction where i may educate myself. my point is that the prevailing view of anarchism (as a political 'ideology') is that it is opposed to defined order but ideologies ARE order. obviously, my defintion does not match up well with yours, so i am obliged to ask for yours.

what kind of government is NOT based on order extended (imposed in not necessarily the right word) by government?
geo.

That's the thing. Anarchists don't believe that government should exist.

 

[Geo Patric]

There's no need to generalize about large groups of people like that. =/

well, i don't NEED to eat potato chips, but that doesn't mean i shouldn't.

That's the thing. Anarchists don't believe that government should exist.

well, see, there ya go. what is there to discuss?

geo.

 

[SheWolf]

Is actually Anarchism? I truly don't. Tell me why you do or don't

What's up with the poetry?

I don't think it will work, because the elite class would have to enforce the status quo and protect their assets. Eventually they would just rule the poor like monarchs and all other tyrants in history...

 

[SheWolf]

I work too many hours... I can't comprehend some of these posts, because I am so worn out right now. However, it's kind of cool to see know there are so many libertarians here. I kind of wish there was an area in this forum to talk about anarchist ideas, because I like to learn how this works in theory...

Unfortunately, every thread I have seen created in this forum goes off topic really fast. People here tend to want to just tear apart anarchist perspectives instead of actually learn about them.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

well, i don't NEED to eat potato chips, but that doesn't mean i shouldn't.

Fine. One shouldn't generalize about large groups of people like that. Oh, and most liberals are gay commie terrorists who want to destroy America. /sarcasm

I take it you have no problems with me saying that?

well, see, there ya go. what is there to discuss?

geo.

Well, let's see...maybe the answer is in the OP...

 

[spud_meister]

Oh, and most liberals are gay commie terrorists who want to destroy America.

Goddamit, that's meant to be a secret.

 

[Geo Patric]

Fine. One shouldn't generalize about large groups of people like that. Oh, and most liberals are gay commie terrorists who want to destroy America. /sarcasm

I take it you have no problems with me saying that?

none at all.... say what you like, this is freedom hall.

now, lessee... anarcho-capitalists believe that there should be no government, that order is maintained by the 'natural inclination' to order (yeah.. uh, huh...) and that somehow, 'market forces' without any form of regulation provides the 'natural environment'. accumulation of riches is the single moral predicate behind socially responsible behavior.

AC is an example of extreme Australian School Economics first proposed by Murray Rothbard. so what does murray have to say?

There can be no truly moral choice unless that choice is made in freedom; similarly, there can be no really firmly grounded and consistent defense of freedom unless that defense is rooted in moral principle. In concentrating on the ends of choice, the conservative, by neglecting the conditions of choice, loses that very morality of conduct with which he is so concerned. And the libertarian, by concentrating only on the means, or conditions, of choice and ignoring the ends, throws away an essential moral defense of his own position.

a little convoluted, but yeah, sounds right. it sounds as if m. Rothbard thinks that any attempt to separate moral objectives from moral behavior is not only futile but dangerous. i would agree with that.

There is one good thing about Marx: he was not a Keynesian.

dunno how true it is... damn clever though.

but, no, HE did not define himself as an anarchist (he actually used the term 'nonarchist'). real anarcho-capitalists are deluded as to the nature of social order. people act in concert for the well being of the group. if the group were not the issue, those fine individualists would simply go away and get rich all by themselves and piss on the rest of us.

but they cannot. it does not work that way. you need a population to bleed white.

geo.

 

[Andalublue]

I think the problem here is how we each defining freedom. I think of it as something inversely correlated with having to do something you didn't choose do to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to define it as "capability" or "power", as in, "I am not free to quit my job, even if nobody's stopping me from doing so, because I will starve to death if I do." Fair enough. Take this hypothetical, then: the state's gone. A group of people go off and form a capitalist society. They are soon visited by representatives of a leftist anarchist one. They present their model for a free society, but no one in the capitalist society seems to show much interest. What do you propose the leftist anarchists do? Do they permit the capitalists to live the way they desire (thus sacrificing your "freedom"), or do they alter the society by force (thus sacrificing my "freedom")?

I define liberty as the absence of coercion or the threat of it. There is coercion in the application of the power of wealth and in the denial of it. I am coerced into sticking with a s****y job because of the real threat of the physical consequences of being without an income in a society where I have no ability to apply my labour to providing for myself and my family.

As for your hypothetical, my advice would be to make as much distance between themselves and the ACs in order to avoid the temptation for either side to apply coercion against the other. They can then continue to argue peacefully for the adoption of a stateless society, while avoiding being sucked into the tyrany of capital. Allowing others to live the way they decide, providing they do the same to me, is not sacrificing my freedom.

I don't think it will work, because the elite class would have to enforce the status quo and protect their assets. Eventually they would just rule the poor like monarchs and all other tyrants in history...

That's right. With capitalism there can be no equality. Without equality there can be no freedom.

Not everyone who, under capitalism, sells their labour to another automatically loses their freedom. Of course not, if you have a number of options and your freely choose one, you are taking a decision of self-ownership. If however your options are restricted to one - a situation the Austrians seem unable to contemplate - then that purchaser of your labour, that employer has considerable power to coerce you. Extra unpaid overtime? Check. "Do you want the job or don't you?" Wage cuts when orders fall? Check. "Well, it's that or we close down." These are not fantasy scenarios. We're hearing and reading about them every day at the moment. This IS the coercive power of capitalism.

now, lessee... anarcho-capitalists believe that there should be no government, that order is maintained by the 'natural inclination' to order (yeah.. uh, huh...) and that somehow, 'market forces' without any form of regulation provides the 'natural environment'. accumulation of riches is the single moral predicate behind socially responsible behavior.

AC is an example of extreme Australian (I think you mean, Austrian - Anda) School Economics first proposed by Murray Rothbard. so what does murray have to say?

a little convoluted, but yeah, sounds right. it sounds as if m. Rothbard thinks that any attempt to separate moral objectives from moral behavior is not only futile but dangerous. i would agree with that.

but, no, HE did not define himself as an anarchist (he actually used the term 'nonarchist'). real anarcho-capitalists are deluded as to the nature of social order. people act in concert for the well being of the group. if the group were not the issue, those fine individualists would simply go away and get rich all by themselves and piss on the rest of us.

Yes, I can't disagree with that last part. I do disagree with natural inclinations to order and with the Smithian hidden hand of the market. Permitting private property guarantees the existence of a capital-driven economy, Capitalism. As I've stated above, Capitalism guarantees the existence of coercion and the absence of freedom.

 

[Goshin]

Is actually Anarchism? I truly don't. Tell me why you do or don't

My unicorn can be any color I wish it to be. :mrgreen:

 

[cpgrad08]

My unicorn can be any color I wish it to be. :mrgreen:

Mine came in Black only.. Darn Henry Ford and his Model T unicorns.

 

[Patrickt]

I'm an atheist. I subscribe to no faith.

 

[Andalublue]

My unicorn can be any color I wish it to be. :mrgreen:

I have no idea what that means.

 

[Black_Zawisza]

AC is an example of extreme Australian School Economics first proposed by Murray Rothbard. so what does murray have to say?

lol austria ≠ australia

but, no, HE did not define himself as an anarchist (he actually used the term 'nonarchist'). real anarcho-capitalists are deluded as to the nature of social order. people act in concert for the well being of the group. if the group were not the issue, those fine individualists would simply go away and get rich all by themselves and piss on the rest of us.

but they cannot. it does not work that way. you need a population to bleed white.

geo.

I'm not certain of what you're meaning to say here. Can you elaborate?

If you're saying what I think you are, I disagree. Rich individualists don't migrate to far corners of the earth and become hermits because they are dependent on the work of others in society. Before you and Andalublue and agree with me, I also maintain that the poor in society depend on the wealth the rich produce as well. Societal specialization has caused rise of the global standard of living, but as long as one guy is an expert on computer hardware and another guy is an expert on computer software, they're going to need to cooperate if they want to play some Black Ops. Each guy (as a general rule regarding humanity) cares about his own well-being much more than that of his companion, but his own interests depend on satisfying the interests of his companion. Thus they both act for the well-being of the group because they desire their own well-being.

I define liberty as the absence of coercion or the threat of it. There is coercion in the application of the power of wealth and in the denial of it. I am coerced into sticking with a s****y job because of the real threat of the physical consequences of being without an income in a society where I have no ability to apply my labour to providing for myself and my family.

Can you help me understand why capitalism requires coercion? I don't understand how one can initiate force by denying a worker employment because he demands a salary more valuable than his labor, resulting in his starvation, just as much as by shooting him to death.

 

[Goshin]

I have no idea what that means.

It means that since anarchism, as a viable system by which a nation-state-sized region may have a functional society, is approximately as real as unicorns: then, arguing about which flavor of anarchism is "true" anarchism is equivalent to arguing about the color of "true" unicorns. :mrgreen:

 

[Geo Patric]

lol austria ≠ australia

tch.... my fingers think they know better than my brain... of course, Austria.

I'm not certain of what you're meaning to say here. Can you elaborate?

i can try. you have supplied much already, so it won't be that difficult.

If you're saying what I think you are, I disagree. .....

i am going to set this aside for now. we can always return to it.

Societal specialization has caused rise of the global standard of living.....

i would think that interdependence has deeper roots than you suggest, but again, we can thresh that out separately.

Each guy cares about his own well-being much more than that of his companion, but his own interests depend on satisfying the interests of his companion. Thus they both act for the well-being of the group because they desire their own well-being.

this is the nut, i think. for a Libertarian type, this is very well put. and mostly, true, the last sentence in particular.

we form groups, firstly, because we are social animals... we evolved as social animals because it is an efficient model. we do not form groups because groups (of any description) have value in themselves - we ascribe what value the group has to it, the group derives its values from those that comprise it. that is to say, the group exists for the express purpose of benefiting the individuals that comprise it.

what this means to me is that we cannot set the merits of the group (nation) above the merits of the individual, as i am sure you will agree. But NOR can we set the the merits of the individual above that of the group - that is we cannot set the merits of this or these individuals above that or those individuals. This not some airy nairy fanciful, squishy, happy face, ideal. groups may be seen as things in themselves just as individuals are with the same prime directive. the underlying mechanism (variation) of evolution operates in the individual. but that mechanism is the core of a second, adaptation, that operates at the group level. Adaptarion depends in random variation - which variation will prove valuable is impossible to foresee, making each individual of equal value as all the others.

the group does in fact exist for the benefit of the individual, but not this one or that one, but each one. No, not equally, but universally. not everyone needs to have the same amount of stuff, but the resources available to the group belong to the group and to deprive any is to deprive the group.

Can you help me understand why capitalism requires coercion?

I don't believe that it does. Capitalism is a mechanism. It is not a thing in itself with its own self definition - WE make it what it is. If it is coercive (and it tends to be) it is because we shaped it that way.

But... i don't think we are finding the evil in the same place. A worker who claims a certain value for his work is coercing? are you really sure that it how it works? or the employer who demands work from a worker at a specific wage? which one more often has the greater option to say "no thanks, i will look elsewhere". only those in power can coerce. Only those who have can coerce those that have not. that should be readily plain.

if your acquiring of what you do not need obliges that i work for less than the value of the work, as deternined by value the work produces, that is immoral.

if your accumulation of excess obliges my lack of the necessary, that is immoral.

and i will go further, if my attainment of what i need obliges my subjugation to you in your pursuit of excess, that too, immoral; THAT is coercion.

allow me to thank you for a very civil and rational argument,

geo.