I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Whatever, contractarian-propertarian capitalism; call it what you want. I don't have any desire to hold 'anarchism' like some game of 'King of the Hill'; you want the stupid word, use it, it's associated with more crackpots and imbeciles than anyone worth a damn. I'll take Henry Clay Frick over Emma Goldman any day of the week and any time of the day. I'd rather be owned by Rockefeller than live in a 'commune' that only recognizes 'occupancy' ownership, and I don't have a damn bit of problem with shooting any such crazies who try to 'homestead' my house because I'm an absentee landlord.
Erm, I thought you were a market anarchist mutualist?
Anarcho-collectivists would make more sense if their conclusions werent so full of marxist dogmas, there is a point when the "alienation of labor" argument becomes tiresome.
I agree with RJM and to further this point: even some recent anarchists recognize anarcho-capitalism as anarchy. this view on attacking anarcho-capitalism because it has different views than other strands of anarchy is becoming very outdated. In the words of Fred Woodworth, "Just plain anarchism (against government and authority) is what I'm for." And, Scott, you bet I'll be critiquing this
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Yeah. I mean, the strict libertarian or an-cap project from a legal-logical perspective is basically all about property, contract and tort; authority, class, equality, solidarity, etc. don't even enter into the equation. If the left-anarchists don't want us, fine, I have even less use for them. I hate the government because it gets in the way of capitalism and squanders resources on pointless fights and politicization; which is exactly what most left-anarchists have in mind, politicizing everyone. I'd just as soon people minded their own business and let people go to Hell in peace.
I don't have a damn bit of problem with shooting any such crazies who try to 'homestead' my house because I'm an absentee landlord.
LOL
You know, I find arguments about lables extremely annoying. Why not argue about the positions we hold? Rather than whether or not a particular lable applies to us?
"We're the orthodox ideology therefore we are right."
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I hate the government because it gets in the way of capitalism
oh Ricky you just opened a can of worms for more sloganing about the word "capitalism" and the word "free market", cause this stuff matters.
The funny thing is that they will wax and range about 'freed markets', but no, what I mean by 'capitalism' is pretty much what horrifies them: big industrial combines, single men worth 1% of the net GDP of the USA, mass production for the masses, entrepreneur-capitalists commanding vertically integrated firms. There were obviously all sorts of problems of interventionism during the 19th century, but the conclusions left-libertarians draw from this are crankish in the extreme; yes, screwballs, John D. Rockefeller is better than you, deal with it.
Altruism doesn't create any prosperity. Neither does government. The free market and capitalism does. The help an entrepreneur gives society is thousands of times better then any state.
That's Mises' point about capitalism, it is only the profitability of society that makes friendly feelings possible; and that profitability and advantage would exist even if everyone hated everyone else. And frankly, all this family-thinking, brotherhood, egalitarian nonsense is the cause of 90% of the problems we have. I'd rather live on a planet of Scrooges than with a bunch of left-anarchist nutters.
The basic point is private property leads to the formation of a State. It depends upon the rules governing property say if we are using Lockian principles then someone can own something regardless of whether they use it. I'm for active-use as a requirement for "owning" certain forms of property such as farm land.
I also think that people in Europe had a different conception of what property was to those in North America, when the ideologies were emerging. Many more people in North America had property that they could call their own while in Europe it was mostly in the hands of the political class and much more exclusive. By the latter point it was seen as a tool of the State, therefore needed to be abolished.
I'm not necessarily against any ideology to the extent it's proponents don't force it upon me. I wouldn't be against a bunch of traditional anarchists forming their own community along the principles they desire.
Hmm how does private property lead necessarily to the formation of a State? It seems to me that States need to break break private property rights. Anyways, how do you have anarchy when you need central control of resources for socialism?
We aren't hip enough for Scott F. Boo hoo.
Libertyandlife: We aren't hip enough for Scott F. Boo hoo. I know, I wish I could be part of a left-wing college kid fly-by-night philosophy. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
http://www.anarchico.net/2011/02/how-dare-those-evil-greedy-capitalists.html
How Dare Those Evil Greedy Capitalists Call Themselves Anarchists!
Intoduction
This is a critique/reply on this article: An Anarchist Critique on “Anarcho” Statism. Clearly, there is some debate whether the idea of capitalism can be in line with the idea of anarchy. I am obviously one of those people that say that it is completely compatible with anarchy and in this post I will defend this side of the argument.
What’s in a Name?
Most if, not all, of early anarchistic opposition against capitalism was dealing with state capitalism. The assumption that capitalism has to involve a state is clearly false. A State involves having some sort of public good/ service while capitalism is the complete opposite of that, it advocates private goods and services. A State is always practicing a mixture of socialism and capitalism, so if one thinks that a pro-capitalist anarchist is not compatible with anarchy because the State practices capitalism, then one can make the same claim against a pro-socialist anarchist because the State practices socialism. Like other anarchists, capitalist anarchists also criticize state capitalism. I would also like to refute the claim that all anarchists are against profit, rent, and interest. Modern economics whether it is Keynesian, Neoclassical, or Austrian, recognize that factors of production are land, labor, capital, and entrepreneur ability. What we get in return from the factors of production are rent, wages, interest, and profits. The great market anarchist Gustave de Molinari recognized this as well. Not only that but he used such economic principles to explain how society can achieve private defense in his “Production of Security”. (Note: The author has criticisms towards Molinari and anarchy, which I will talk about later in this post.)
The author claims that anarcho capitalists hold the dictionary as a source of explaining anarchy. I don’t, so his claim is false. In the article, the author also claims, “As it stands, anarchists have rarely, if ever, argued that they were simply aiming to abolish the state. From Proudhon onward, they have stressed social and economic goals along with political ones. It is no coincidence that the first self-proclaimed anarchist book was "What is Property?" rather than "What is Government?" But Pierre Joseph Proudhon’s book “What is Property?” as a much fuller title, “An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government”. Nevertheless, we advocate something more than just to abolish government, and that is to advocate free markets. As I said before, the ideas of early anarchists towards capitalism deal with state capitalism and their false assumption that capitalism needs State.
Who cares what they thought?
If Gustave de Molinari was not an anarchist in practice, he sure was an anarchist in theory. Even Left Libertarians recognize this, like Roderick Long, going as far as calling Molinari the “originator of the theory of market anarchism.” Even if I hold the author’s claim as valid, then the whole theory of market anarchism would not be valid because the originator of such a theory was not anarchist. But a person doesn’t need to directly say, “I am an anarchist” in order to be an anarchist, does he/she? If so, where are the rules in order to become an anarchist? Do we need to fill out an “application of anarchy” in order to get accepted as an anarchist?
Let’s stray away from this subject for a minute and talk about the philosophy of Existentialism. Arguably, the father of Existentialism was the great Soren Kierkegaard, if we apply Kierkegaard’s philosophy, then we can imply that Kierkegaard would be quick to reject the Existentialist label. It still does not change the fact that Kierkegaard’s philosophy is very Existential. Albert Camus had this exact mindset that his philosophy was not Existentialist and he would reject the label, yet his philosophy is very Existentialist. The reason for this existentialist example is to point out that one could be something in theory, but not in practice.
Free to Choose… A Master
The way this section sounds to me is as follows, “Capitalism is nothing more than slavery, but at least the bright side is that one can choose their own master!” But, for the most part, slavery involves a zero-sum game. In other words, one side wins, while the other loses. Capitalism is not a zero sum game though. When two parties trade, they both benefit in the psych because in trade, and we trade because we value something MORE. Also, this ignores the advantage of the entrepreneur. If one is so “paranoid” with “choosing their master” then start a business of your own! Daniel Sanchez, from the Mises Community, has a great post how capitalism is more than what is implied in this anti-capitalistic article, here.
“Through the market process, the consumers tend to reward each producer according his contribution to consumer satisfaction: (1) the worker, through wages, according to the contribution of his labor, (2) the capitalist, through interest, according to the contribution of his providence, and to (3) the entrepreneur, through profit, according to the contribution of his judgment.”
The author’s whole view on capitalism is invalid and he clearly misunderstands capitalism as I, or fellow anarchists, view capitalism. That’s all I have to say…. Evil greedy capitalistic anarchist out--
The entire article revolved around word play and semantics. It is pretty telling that they completely ignored praxeology and logical derivations from first principles. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
I really don't care what they call us or what we call ourselves, i like voluntaryist. However, if Ancap really bugs them, I'll be sure to use it in their presence.
What an incredibly disgruntled leftist. (referring to OP)
I could care less as to what few internet pseudo-intellectuals deem my views to be. At the end of the day I'll still refer to myself as a libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, market anarchist, ect...
This is perfect. "Libertarian" is up for the taking too.
>> "Libertarian" is up for the taking too.
Its all up for the taking, hell, have 'Human' too !
New world dictionary...
Human : A member of the Homo sapiens species that leans to the left
Pig/Ape: A member of the Homo sapiens species that is not Human(see above.)
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
Its all up for the taking, hell, have 'Human' too ! New world dictionary... Human : A member of the Homo sapiens species that leans to the left Pig/Ape: A member of the Homo sapiens species that is not Human(see above.)
I love it! "All too human" will become a fun insult to hurl.
The only grounds on which I would oppose the terms 'anarcho-capitalist' and 'market anarchism' is that they cause major confusion for most people new to the concept of the ideology (they will tend to confuse anarcho-capitalism for social anarchism and individualist anarchism, three completely different ideologies - though individualist anarchism is closer to anarcho-capitalism - falsely identifying all anarchist ideologies as the same). This is why I think Rothbard was wise in his decision to later refer to AnCap as Voluntaryism instead. This also has a clear advantage, being that 'anarchy' is a word associated with 'chaos', 'violence', 'lawlessness', etc.: not many people can associate something so negative with the word 'voluntary' which for me only has peaceful connotations.
However, this does not excuse the extremely annoying stance certain social anarchists take in playing nothing more than the "semantics game" when they try to attack AnCap: "but capitalism is a hierarchy", "but exploitation theory", "but AnCap is an oxymoron", blah, blah, blah. *picks up rifle to load and fire*
@Phaedros I think he says private property and a State are not mutually exclusive concepts. The distintion between the two don't exist for him.
It is precisely the futility of these discussions that leads me to reject the label "anarchist" completely, even if I am a "free-market capitalist," or a close approximation thereof. The other half of that is that it's not "government" I have a problem with, per se, but methods employed by pretty much every government that has ever existed. If a government could exist without employing morally suspect methods, I would have no basis upon which to denounce it.
So I say, you don't like people like me calling myself "anarchist?" Fine. I won't. What other petty thing can we find to bicker about? :)
It is precisely the futility of these discussions that leads me to reject the label "anarchist" completely, even if I am a "free-market capitalist," or a close approximation thereof.
Aye. I also think it is a pretentious / semi-ignorant misuse of the word.:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/21846/387661.aspx
There is also the brilliant George Orwell artcile on political language linked in that thread which further illustrates my point, if you are interested