Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?  (Read 33836 times)

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« on: September 16, 2010, 07:32:18 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g

Say what? Have any other liberty activists and free market anarchists encountered people making arguments like this kid?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2010, 09:11:10 pm »

He's correct. Anarchy would have both a peaceful and violent side... so most preference a voluntary society.
Voluntary and peaceful societies tend toward mutualism.
Logged

maxxoccupancy

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3659
  • Evil prevails when good men don't vote Libertarian
    • fija.org
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2010, 01:00:46 am »

I've heard two different versions of anarcho-cap:
1. Contracts and enforcement are handled privately.
2. Government exists as little more than a county registry of deeds and contracts.  Physical and/or intellectual property is simply registered in one place.

I've even heard a mention of the second variant in which public courts are maintained in order to interpret those deeds, patents, copyrights, and contracts.  To me, that borders on minarchy, but I'm cool with that.
Logged
If you are interested in putting together an IT-creative firm to help provide jobs for liberty folks in the future, send me a Personal Message.
"The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property."

FreeStyle

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2010, 09:27:39 am »

what we have here is. . . . failure to communicate.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2010, 09:43:05 am »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g

Say what? Have any other liberty activists and free market anarchists encountered people making arguments like this kid?

This argument is nothing new...

The synthesis of these poles (anarcho-capitalism vs. social anarchism) is left-libertarianism/mutualism or free market, anti-capitalism.
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2010, 12:37:22 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g

Say what? Have any other liberty activists and free market anarchists encountered people making arguments like this kid?

This argument is nothing new...

The synthesis of these poles (anarcho-capitalism vs. social anarchism) is left-libertarianism/mutualism or free market, anti-capitalism.

What's mutualism and how can there be a free market without capitalism?
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2010, 01:35:26 pm »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSIKYTzBQ2g

Say what? Have any other liberty activists and free market anarchists encountered people making arguments like this kid?

This argument is nothing new...

The synthesis of these poles (anarcho-capitalism vs. social anarchism) is left-libertarianism/mutualism or free market, anti-capitalism.

What's mutualism and how can there be a free market without capitalism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29

http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html

excerpt:

Manorialism, commonly, is recognized to have been founded by robbery and usurpation; a ruling class established itself by force, and then compelled the peasantry to work for the profit of their lords. But no system of exploitation,including capitalism, has ever been created by the action of a free market. Capitalism was founded on an act of robbery as massive as feudalism. It has been sustained to the present by continual state intervention to protect its system of privilege, without which its survival is unimaginable.

The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market. As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expro- priation of surplus value--i.e., capitalism--cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist. It was for this reason that the free market anarchist Benjamin Tucker--from whom right-libertarians selectively borrow--regarded himself as a libertarian socialist.

It is beyond my ability or purpose here to describe a world where a true market system could have developed without such state intervention. A world in which peasants had held onto their land and property was widely distributed, capital was freely available to laborers through mutual banks, productive technology was freely available in every country without patents, and every people was free to develop locally without colonial robbery, is beyond our imagination. But it would have been a world of decentralized, small-scale production for local use, owned and controlled by those who did the work--as different from our world as day from night, or freedom from slavery.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2010, 01:37:31 pm »

excerpt:

Every so often in the history of liberty a book or pamphlet has come along that has revolutionized libertarian thought and practice. One of these is Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” which was largely responsible for popularizing the ideals of the Enlightenment and the American Revolution. Another is Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason” which utterly demolishes the absurd “social contract” theory on which constitutionalist states are ostensibly based. Hans Hermann Hoppe’s recent work “Democracy: The God That Failed” thoroughly refutes the notion that modern democratic statism can be reconciled with liberty or even represents an improvement upon earlier monarchical states. Now comes Kevin Carson’s “The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand”.(1) Just as Hoppe has revolutionized modern political philosophy by drawing and expanding upon the work of the late Murray N. Rothbard and his teacher, Ludwig von Mises, Carson has, in the space of twenty-four pages, revolutionized political economy by expounding upon the work of Rothbard and another of his influences, the nineteenth century individualist-anarchist Benjamin R. Tucker.

Historically, anarchists have been divided on the question of markets. Traditional anarcho-socialists have typically rejected the market seeing it as nothing more than a source of predatory competition, concentration of economic power and exploitation. Most classical continental European anarchists, particularly the Kropotkinists, sought to abolish the market altogether in favor of a decentralized collection of autarchist communes based on production for subsistence, although some traditional anarcho-communists accepted the idea of free exchange or barter between independent communal units. Some American and British anarchists, such as Tucker or John Henry MacKay, preferred a lassez faire variation of anarchism consisting of small property owners operating on a stateless free market. Some of the differences between communist and individualist anarchists seem to be more of a cultural than economic nature. Anarcho-communists tended to be concentrated in nations, such as Russia or Spain, where industrial capitalism was far less advanced and the old feudal order remained largely intact. The anarcho-communist ideal was largely based on the concept of the peasant village community collectively operating its own agricultural economy minus the external exploitation of the feudal landlords. In nations where the Industrial Revolution had really taken root and the market economy had really begun to expand, such as England or America, anarchists were more likely to idealize the small merchant, craftsman or farmer, hence the individualist character of Anglo-American anarchism.

This dichotomy between communist and individualist anarchists continues to the present day. If anything, the differences have become even more pronounced. While the anarchists of old often argued fervently over ideological differences (Tucker and Johann Most refused to recognize one another as “true” anarchists), a mutual admiration frequently existed between the communist and individualist camps. Tucker was an admirer of the European anarchists Proudhon and Bakunin and translated their works into English and his anarchist journal, Liberty, published the writings not only of anarcho-socialists but also of outright Fabians or Marxists, such as George Bernard Shaw. Today, the two camps largely disavow one another. Most contemporary free market anarchists think of themselves as “anarcho-capitalists”, whereas Tucker regarded himself as a socialist, and most anarcho-socialists of today reject free market anarchists as mere apologists for corporate power.

Carson ably demonstrates that the division between contemporary anarchists on economic matters need not be as wide as it seems. Like the anarcho-capitalists, Carson favors a genuinely stateless free market. However, he argues effectively that the economic arrangements that an authentic free market economy would likely produce are remarkably similar to those typically advocated by anarcho-socialists.

to read more:

http://attackthesystem.com/capitalism-versus-free-enterprise-a-review-of-kevin-carsons-the-iron-fist-behind-the-invisible-hand/
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2010, 01:40:28 pm »


The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #9 on: September 17, 2010, 01:46:44 pm »


The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.

Owners of capital use the state to protect their privilege/subsidies, etc. AGAINST free market forces. In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply price would be driven to cost - there would be no room for "profit".

Without the privileges and subsidies to protect capital FROM market forces - the world would look more like what anarcho-socialist describe as their utopia.
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2010, 01:50:50 pm »


The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.

Owners of capital use the state to protect their privilege/subsidies, etc. AGAINST free market forces. In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply price would be driven to cost - there would be no room for "profit".

Without the privileges and subsidies to protect capital FROM market forces - the world would look more like what anarcho-socialist describe as their utopia.

The reason we've never had a truly free market is b/c the state props up monopolies and puts most hard-working capitalists out of business. If I run a business w/ 10 workers I can't make as much as Walmart does b/c of the state. Get rid of the state PERIOD and we'd be back to the free market.

What is wrong with capitalism? Capitalism brought us years of prosperity until 1913 when the gov. created the FED to end the free market forever.
Logged

WendellBerry

  • Guest
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2010, 02:01:00 pm »


The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.

Owners of capital use the state to protect their privilege/subsidies, etc. AGAINST free market forces. In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply price would be driven to cost - there would be no room for "profit".

Without the privileges and subsidies to protect capital FROM market forces - the world would look more like what anarcho-socialist describe as their utopia.

The reason we've never had a truly free market is b/c the state props up monopolies and puts most hard-working capitalists out of business. If I run a business w/ 10 workers I can't make as much as Walmart does b/c of the state. Get rid of the state PERIOD and we'd be back to the free market.

What is wrong with capitalism? Capitalism brought us years of prosperity until 1913 when the gov. created the FED to end the free market forever.

The state is used by capital to command labor.

I am a laborist not a capitalist.

I am also not a hard/"sound" money advocate

I advocate a mutualist credit clearing system of banking and land banks.
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2010, 02:06:58 pm »


The current structure of capital ownership and organization of production in our so-called "market" economy, reflects coercive state intervention prior to and extraneous to the market. From the outset of the industrial revolution, what is nostalgically called "laissez-faire" was in fact a system of continuing state intervention to subsidize accumulation, guarantee privilege, and maintain work discipline.

Most such intervention is tacitly assumed by mainstream right-libertarians as part of a "market" system. Although a few intellectually honest ones like Rothbard and Hess were willing to look into the role of coercion in creating capitalism, the Chicago school and Randroids take existing property relations and class power as a given. Their ideal "free market" is merely the current system minus the progressive regulatory and welfare state--i.e., nineteenth century robber baron capitalism.

But genuine markets have a value for the libertarian left, and we shouldn't concede the term to our enemies. In fact, capitalism--a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor--could not survive in a free market.

u lost me there. Capitalism is the only true free market ideology. Rothbard was right socialists are wrong.

Owners of capital use the state to protect their privilege/subsidies, etc. AGAINST free market forces. In a world of perfect competition and infinite supply price would be driven to cost - there would be no room for "profit".

Without the privileges and subsidies to protect capital FROM market forces - the world would look more like what anarcho-socialist describe as their utopia.

The reason we've never had a truly free market is b/c the state props up monopolies and puts most hard-working capitalists out of business. If I run a business w/ 10 workers I can't make as much as Walmart does b/c of the state. Get rid of the state PERIOD and we'd be back to the free market.

What is wrong with capitalism? Capitalism brought us years of prosperity until 1913 when the gov. created the FED to end the free market forever.

The state is used by capital to command labor.

I am a laborist not a capitalist.

I am also not a hard/"sound" money advocate

I advocate a mutualist credit clearing system of banking and land banks.

OK so ur a socialist then? Dont u know socialism destroys innovation and incentive? I looked up mutualism just know and have to ask do u believe in private property or not?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2010, 02:19:58 pm »

Property Rights (land) is a function of the collective. And the US didn't have a free market economy prior to 1913... it never had a free market economy.
As Wendell explained. A free market economy drives toward costs... leaving no room for profit.
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2010, 02:24:49 pm »

Property Rights (land) is a function of the collective. And the US didn't have a free market economy prior to 1913... it never had a free market economy.
As Wendell explained. A free market economy drives toward costs... leaving no room for profit.


So u also support a socialist market then? What's wrong w/ capitalism? I thought the whole idea of the Free State Project was to end all forms of socialism and move back to the same free market CAPITALISM (not mutualism) that the founding fathers intended for America.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 10   Go Up