Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?  (Read 33078 times)

K. Darien Freeheart

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 760
    • K. Darien Freeheart's Facebook
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2010, 09:50:51 am »

Quote
Why do we need people from the left? The left are socialists who want MORE government NOT less. Even "anarchist" socialists want gov-run health care and gov-run schools [...]

I have to disagree there, or at least "redefine" what the "Left" is. On the authoritarian-libertarian scale, all anarchists (meaning, those who actually oppose violent and imposed government) are left.

I've got several friends who are interested in moving to New Hampshire who fit my definition of Voluntaryist, who agree with the FSP Statement of Intent, and who do not believe that capitalism is an effective means to organize people. Some disagree over the scope and extent of property rights, some have very different motivations for opposing the state, but all agree that as long as we're not using force as a general means to interacting with each other, we're on the same side. I tend to agree, I'd rather have a socialist who refuses to hurt me as a neighbor than a gun-toting, surface-government-hating conservative who thinks that government should "only" provide military services or cops.

Quote
[...] and they never stop complaining about capitalism (the same system that made their parents rich lol.)

You could say the same (or opposite, doesn't matter) about you and I. I'm pretty sure we both hate the state and yet, for our entire lifetime, the state has been so enmeshed with business, with transportation, with regulatory standards, telecommunication (Okay, I'll stop there... you get the point) that what we have (for good or bad) would be so radically different without it. Since we don't live in a totally state-run society, and since we don't actually live in a capitalist free market, that point is as equally invalid as it is moot.
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2010, 10:17:48 am »

libertarianism doesn't really fit anywhere on the typical left-right paradigm that is used today.  Thats why its a false choice, and I'm sure the statists like it that way.

Libertarianism has its roots in classical liberalism, which started on the left, right about the time when politics started putting itself in those kinds of terms.

Once the left was hijacked by the socialists, many classical liberals found themselves on the right despite not changing their position.  These anti-new deal people were called the Old Right.

Today, there are many short term issues where libertarians can find agreement with both the left and the right, however, at the same time, to call libertarians centrists or moderates wouldn't be correct either.  Some prefer to call libertarianism 'top of center' or above center, but I'm not such a big fan of that.  Saying you are socially liberal and fiscally conservative, makes you sound inconsistent, when in fact many libertarians (and especially anarcho-libertarians) have the most consistent principles based views on political issues.
Logged

10stateswithnh

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 659
  • Liberty Lover on New Hampshire seacoast
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2010, 10:39:43 am »

Anarcho-”Capitalism” is impossible
Posted by Anna Morgenstern on Sep 19, 2010 in Feature Articles

Many anarchists of various stripes have made the claim that anarcho-capitalists aren’t really anarchists because anarchism entails anti-capitalism.  I happen to think this is actually backwards.  If they genuinely wish to eliminate the state, they are anarchists, but they aren’t really capitalists, no matter how much they want to claim they are.

People calling themselves “anarcho-capitalists” usually want to define “capitalism” as the same thing as a free market, and “socialism” as state intervention against such.  But what then is a free market?  If you mean simply all voluntary transactions that occur without state interference, then it’s a circular and redundant definition.  In that case, all anarchists are “anarcho-capitalists”, even the most die-hard anarcho-syndicalist.

Defining capitalism as a system of private property is equally problematic, because where would you draw the line between private and public?  Under a state, state property is considered “public” but as an anarchist, you know that’s a sham.  It’s private property owned by a group that calls themselves the State.  Whether something is owned by 10 people or 10 million doesn’t make it more or less “private”.

Going a bit deeper, there may be issues about how property rights are defined, and the nature of ownership between different sorts of anarchists.  Obviously, anarcho-capitalists do not want the government to decide who owns what property.  So even at their hardest of hard-core propertarianism, they are still effectively anarchists; they just have a different idea of how an anarchist society will organize itself.

This whole discussion rests on the question, what is the definition of capitalism? I agree with those who say we should avoid using the word. The first definition given earlier is the only one compatible with anarchism, so obviously that is what is meant by those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists.

I think this author goes too far in assuming she has the right to tell others how they are allowed to define the word.

Anarcho-capitalism(1) is private property rights AND a free market.

Anti-capitalist anarchist socialism (I can't remember how it was worded earlier in the thread) is using definition 2 or 3 - means a free market and no private property rights.

I think we should focus on what the person means and not argue about which word they happen to use.


http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html

excerpt:

In every case, the good guys, the sacrificial victims of the Progressive State, are the rich and powerful. The bad guys are the consumer and the worker, acting to enrich themselves from the public treasury. As one of the most egregious examples of this tendency, consider Ayn Rand's characterization of big business as an "oppressed minority," and of the Military-Industrial Complex as a "myth or worse."
    The ideal "free market" society of such people, it seems, is simply actually existing capitalism, minus the regulatory and welfare state: a hyper-thyroidal version of nineteenth century robber baron capitalism, perhaps; or better yet, a society "reformed" by the likes of Pinochet, the Dionysius to whom Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys played Aristotle.


There are plenty of self-described anarcho-capitalists who totally disagree with Ayn Rand and do not defend big businesses. Perhaps the term is also used by the other side, I don't know. I don't know why anyone would call themself anarcho-capitalist if they wanted government handouts to big businesses - the government handout contradicts the anarcho- part.

"Robber baron capitalism"? What does that mean? Yes, there was some of this going on, but the history of this is much misunderstood - The true entrepreneurs tended to outcompete their rivals despite govt meddling, until the anti-trust laws were used against them.

Some companies were getting political favors and handouts before the regulatory and welfare state started, in the late 1800's, but it was my understanding that most of the companies labeled as robber barons were actually maligned entrepreneurs who innovated and served customers so well that other companies could not compete. Then they were successfully attacked by their would-be competitors through the new anti-trust laws (if they had political influence they would not have lost their anti-trust hearings so it seems likely they were not using govt to get rich, at least not at the time).

See this article on mises.org about robber barons (it distinguishes, as most histories do not, between market entrepreneurs, such as James Hill with the Great Northern Railroad, and "political entrepreneurs", the real robber barons, such as Leland Stanford, who used govt to ban competition with Central Pacific). Two other market entrepreneurs described in the article are John D Rockefeller, with Standard Oil, and Cornelius Vanderbilt, with steamboats.

http://mises.org/daily/2317

One other important point - Rockefeller's reduction in the cost of kerosene made it so, for the first time, poor people had an affordable way to light their homes at night (just think what an effect that had on the education and literacy of society). Yet most people call him a robber baron, someone who helped the poor so much!
Logged
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2010, 11:56:10 am »

Private property rights do not exist in an anarchy.
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2010, 12:18:29 pm »

that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!

Why do we need people from the left? The left are socialists who want MORE government NOT less. Even "anarchist" socialists want gov-run health care and gov-run schools and they never stop complaining about capitalism (the same system that made their parents rich lol.)

Yes mutualism is socialism. Proudhon was not a nice guy. He inspired Karl Marx to become a socialist if I remember correctly meaning his works were the basis of the anti-capitalist "movements" you see today. Socialism is the opposite of freedom even "libertarian socialism". Socialism means democracy which automatically equates to mob rule of the 51% taking everything away from the 49%. u complain about capitalists taking "capital" from workers but try working in a workplace where 51% of your coworkers take everything from you. That's socialism that's democracy that's mutualism. No individual rights.
Marx wasn't a socialist. And Proudhon's works were also the basis of capitalism. The Founders indoctrinated public schooling in the various State constitutions. Proudhon determined that there could be no 'private land holdings' without the benefit of the collective (government).
« Last Edit: September 21, 2010, 12:21:08 pm by John Edward Mercier »
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2010, 03:08:07 pm »

that they have earned by their own ingenuity and labor, then we have capitalism--and all of the abundance that goes with it.

capitalism is a system of privilege via the state that allows capital to command labor.

take away the privilege and you have a "freed market" not capitalism.

now we are just talking semantics.

Trust me...it is important to draw the distinction if the FSP ever wants to draw folks from the left!

Why do we need people from the left? The left are socialists who want MORE government NOT less. Even "anarchist" socialists want gov-run health care and gov-run schools and they never stop complaining about capitalism (the same system that made their parents rich lol.)

Yes mutualism is socialism. Proudhon was not a nice guy. He inspired Karl Marx to become a socialist if I remember correctly meaning his works were the basis of the anti-capitalist "movements" you see today. Socialism is the opposite of freedom even "libertarian socialism". Socialism means democracy which automatically equates to mob rule of the 51% taking everything away from the 49%. u complain about capitalists taking "capital" from workers but try working in a workplace where 51% of your coworkers take everything from you. That's socialism that's democracy that's mutualism. No individual rights.
Marx wasn't a socialist. And Proudhon's works were also the basis of capitalism. The Founders indoctrinated public schooling in the various State constitutions. Proudhon determined that there could be no 'private land holdings' without the benefit of the collective (government).

Proudhon wasn't even born until 1809 when capitalism was already in effect and didnt write anything until after 1840 when the founding fathers were long dead. He was friends w/ Marx and Marx took many of his ideas from the guy.
Logged

10stateswithnh

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 659
  • Liberty Lover on New Hampshire seacoast
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #51 on: September 28, 2010, 09:11:04 am »

Private property rights do not exist in an anarchy.


They did in the "wild" west. It came pretty close to anarchy, before the army established posts there and the people formed new states. There were voluntary governing systems developed as well as voluntary courts and property systems, so maybe it doesn't fit your definition of anarchy, but it's pretty close and provides a good case study for what a more anarchistic society would be like.

See this article about the real history of the west. They describe some of the voluntary governing systems, such as land clubs or claims associations, cattlemen's associations, mining camps, and wagon trains. By the way, when we "anarcho-capitalists" or private-property anarchists advocate anarchy, we do not mean, chaos, society completely disorganized, etc - but rather that all organization be voluntary, as it was in this place and time.
http://mises.org/daily/4108

Just one quote:

"The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.

These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect."
« Last Edit: September 28, 2010, 09:18:29 am by 10stateswithnh »
Logged
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!

Ed

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 728
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #52 on: September 28, 2010, 09:47:50 am »

yes but they don't work as well or consistently. It tends to be might makes right. Property rights can be pretty consistent with appropriate amounts personal property, but things like real estate and larger amounts of personal property, and the various details as to what rights exactly people have, tends to lose its consistency. These things are pretty important if you want a resilient, modern economy. Even problems that only pop up like 5% of the time or for 5% of all the property can cause systemic problems that add up to big problems that prevents an economy from moving forward well.

Of course, there's the other side of the coin that as there are more laws, doing business tends to be more complicated and thus harder. But the original concept still matters.
We are of course, with the endless federal codes, on the business-choking side of the scale. But if you're talking about anarchy I'd be worried about the other side of the scale (again, mentioned above).
Logged

10stateswithnh

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 659
  • Liberty Lover on New Hampshire seacoast
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #53 on: September 28, 2010, 11:20:29 am »

Ed, as you point out, both approaches, anarchy and govt, are imperfect. No one who is rational claims that a society without coercive govt will not have any problems. But perfection is not an option. The question is what approach gives us the least problems. I prefer the one where people are not prevented by force from trying new ways to settle things peacefully, the one where they have more choices to the one where an out-of-control govt seizes more power over time and uses its force to reward the problematic behavior.

The two situations in the article I linked to where the private voluntary organizations didn't solve problems well both had coercive govts getting involved and not making any better resolution.

The might makes right claim I thought was pretty thoroughly disproved by my article. Did you read it?
Logged
Bryce in Rochester
States I have lived in:
PA, DE, WA, ME, SC, NY, GA, UT, CO, NH as of Sep 2011!

Dreepa

  • First 1000
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5124
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #54 on: September 28, 2010, 03:38:09 pm »

Private property rights do not exist in an anarchy.


wrong
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #55 on: September 28, 2010, 03:42:27 pm »

Explain. Whom/what is to stop someone from making declaration on what you consider your property?
Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #56 on: September 28, 2010, 09:38:51 pm »

Explain. Whom/what is to stop someone from making declaration on what you consider your property?


OK I don't care what Proudhon (Marx's buddy-buddy) said about property. The fact is if I PURCHASE property its mine no ands ifs or buts. I have the LEGAL RIGHT to own as much property as I can afford because I WORKED HARD FOR IT. There is no such thing as unjust property. If we don't have the right to own property regardless whether we "use" it or not then what other rights do we have??? What else holds capitalism together then the right to own private property?
Logged

John Edward Mercier

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6534
  • Native
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #57 on: September 29, 2010, 04:26:11 am »

If I take your property by force... how many times does it need to change hands before its no longer stolen goods?
By what authority does a crown grant land that it has never set foot upon?

If I make a deal with you to trade my land for services rendered, and you don't provide those services... is the land still yours?

Logged

antistate1190

  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1053
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #58 on: September 29, 2010, 02:43:39 pm »

If I take your property by force... how many times does it need to change hands before its no longer stolen goods?
By what authority does a crown grant land that it has never set foot upon?

If I make a deal with you to trade my land for services rendered, and you don't provide those services... is the land still yours?



OK first there's no force in an anarcho-capitalist society. Ever heard of the non-agression principle?

Second if you VOLUNTARILY gave me your land then yes the land is mine. Why should not using the land mean I'm not allowed to own it if I purchased it VOLUNTARILY. No one is forcing anyone else to do anything in an anarcho-capitalist system. The only force comes w/ mutualism and socialism where the 51% forcefuly controls the 49%.
Logged

BigJoe

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 363
Re: Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism?
« Reply #59 on: September 29, 2010, 04:30:38 pm »

If I take your property by force... how many times does it need to change hands before its no longer stolen goods?
By what authority does a crown grant land that it has never set foot upon?

If I make a deal with you to trade my land for services rendered, and you don't provide those services... is the land still yours?



OK first there's no force in an anarcho-capitalist society. Ever heard of the non-agression principle?


what??  Anarcho-capitalists do not make this claim.


as to the original question about changing hands.  That has no affect, but at some point it becomes impossible to PROVE the rightful owner.  But if such proof were presented, then yes anyone that recognizes property rights would say that a rightful heir to property that was illegitimately obtained by someone else should be granted to the rightful owner.  But keep in mind, we are talking about actual property rights, and actual heritages, not the vague notion of all the native peoples of the americas owning the entire continent.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10   Go Up