"Every anarchist must be, to begin with, a socialist"
--Mikhail Bakunin
"Anarchism is the no-government form of socialism, in opposition to state-socialism"
--Peter Kropotkin
"There are two forms of socialism: anarchism and state-socialism. One the tradition of liberty, the other authoritarianism"
--Benjamin Tucker
""Anarcho"-capitalism can only ever be considered a form of anarchism based on a complete ignorance and misunderstanding of what anarchism is"
--Murray Bookchin.
I rest my case.
Excuse me?
No, excuse me. I should have said "may it rest in peace." As in your case, not you -
Are you an anarcho-capitalist?
Are you trying to tell people here that they agree with you now? Because all the other posts indicated that YOU didn't agree with US. You can't have it both ways.
I considered myself one before your post, but given the overwhelming evidence presented above I might just have to go back to calling myself a "liberal" and leave "anarchist" and "libertarian" to the socialists.
Well if they said it i guess it must be that way. Darn now what am i to do???
miss socialist here is so smart. I think that anarchists that favor capitalism arent really anarchists. They are just people that want government.. because capitalism is government and socailism is basicaly anarchistic right? miss socialist youre so smart, and btw i like your avocado.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I recommend writing to the Mises Institute to do a literature-wide Ctrl+F "anarcho-capitalism" and replacing it with something that has been pre-approved by the Left™.
OK, so call it socialism. Or just anarchism. They're just labels.
Sheesh.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.
Ahh, so that's us. But, what kind of moron are you?
Nitromoron. Like nitroglycerine - explosive.
At least we're OxiClean.
But fine, I will indulge you - anarchy means without a government. Surprise!
Wheylous: I considered myself one before your post, but given the overwhelming evidence presented above I might just have to go back to calling myself a "liberal" and leave "anarchist" and "libertarian" to the socialists.
How about 'autarchist' ;)
Before Rothbard decided anarcho-capitalism was a fine term after all, he wrote:
"Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."
Modern anarchism I think tends toward the opposite absurdity. You hear anarchism defined as 'anti-capitalism' so that is virtually identical to the rhetoric of state socialism. There is barey any difference. In fact, it just seems to only be socialism and not anything else. Rarely do you hear anti-statism that is any more radical than your average Democrat or state socialist. Mainly, complaints about how the police or military are helping capital. Rather than any foundational hatred of the state.
Can people practice free trade and accumulate capital without a state? If the answer yes, anarcho-capitalism is not an oxymoron.
Vitor; good response.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I was actually listening Noam Chomsky on YouTube this morning in the car (Roderick Long's videos were not loading).
He claims he is a socialist libertarian, and that the meaning of "libertarian" in US has been corrupted.
I think this is the flow of these people's logic:
1. Libertarian means pro-freedom. 2. You can't have freedom under free markets, because look: you have corporatist structure (detrimnetal to liberty) in the US, where (as everyone knows) there are free markets. 3. If you don't regulate free markets, people who have money will buy the government's favors. 4. So, we need to impose freedom from above, through totalitarian means.
So, since we tend to be slaves when we are a little free, we need to be a little bit slaves in order to be fully free. It's rather like a parent whose kids detest him because he hits them from time to time -- except he attributes it the fact that he gives them too much freedom. "I am too nice," he sighs dramatically, "and that's why my kids are not grateful."
There is a common gap of logic in all socialists' reasoning. It's like a logical equivalent of linguistic swallowing of the last syllable. For example, Chomsky's views:
In his 1973 book For Reasons of State, Chomsky argues that instead of a capitalist system in which people are "wage slaves" or an authoritarian system in which decisions are made by a centralized committee, a society could function with no paid labor. He argues that a nation's populace should be free to pursue jobs of their choosing. People will be free to do as they like, and the work they voluntarily choose will be both "rewarding in itself" and "socially useful." Society would be run under a system of peaceful anarchism, with no state or other authoritarian institutions. Work that was fundamentally distasteful to all, if any existed, would be distributed equally among everyone
The question is, of course: distributed by whom? And what if some refuse to perform it? And what if some share fruits of their labor with others to perform it for them? Etc., etc.
It's always the same story with totalitarian idealists. Lenin: "We will allow peasants to congregate into collective farms". Martin Luter: "If only we stop oppressing Jews, they will convert to Christianity by themselves." That's the first step. The second step is that the people politely say: "no, thanks". Third step is that the enlightened idealist is outraged and decides to impose his charity on the people by force and violence.
Here is another example:
Unlike many anarchists, Steinberg believed that it is possible and necessary to form a political party whose task would be the destruction of the state from within. He also noted, like some contemporary anarchists, that even an established syndicalist federation would not be completely free of elements or "crystals" of organized power. According to Steinberg, even a relatively free and stateless social system has to acknowledge the existence of some reminiscent government-like structures within itself, in order to decentralize or dismantle them and further "anarchize" the society. Steinberg viewed anarchism as an underlying principle, spirit, and drive of revolutionary socialism, rather than as a concrete political program with an ultimate goal. Therefore, he refrained from equating his syndicalist ideas with "anarchism", because such an equation, in his view, would have compromised the very subtle and perpetual nature of anarchist principles.
So, basically, in order for everyone to be free and equal, some need to be a little "more free", so that the wise few keep the society "truly free".
FlyingAxe: I was actually listening Noam Chomsky on YouTube this morning
I was actually listening Noam Chomsky on YouTube this morning
Well there's your first mistake ^_~
FlyingAxe: He claims he is a socialist libertarian, and that the meaning of "libertarian" in US has been corrupted. I think this is the flow of these people's logic: 1. Libertarian means pro-freedom. 2. You can't have freedom under free markets, because look: you have corporatist structure (detrimnetal to liberty) in the US, where (as everyone knows) there are free markets. 3. If you don't regulate free markets, people who have money will buy the government's favors. 4. So, we need to impose freedom from above, through totalitarian means.
You have to remember their commitment to egalitarianism. A truly free market would not create equal outcomes for everyone. Some may be very much worse off, at least initially in a free society.
They believe in power, and in using power to achieve any end desirable. Thus they cannot even question the premise that the gov should have the power to ally with the market or regulate it at all.