The Amish appear to be anarcho-capitalist. They have an unregulated market and don't appear to have a state. Theres a reason their always being raided by the FDA and feds.
It really depends how you view and define an-cap. What's not regulated by the state is directed by religion and culture.
Amish are more contestably a socialist economy. Google it.
what do you mean they don't have a state? Their state is the same one all americans live under.
They have regulations. The Bible and certain restrictions on technology.
If everyone agrees to them then they are not regulations. Regulation means a gun to the head and coercion.
Also most technology is statist in nature.
I'm pretty sure it falls under the definition of regulation. The Amish, due to religious/cultural customs, are not allowed to do certain things. I suspect this varies due to modern influence on their way of life, but if there's a group of people and due to whatever reason they are not allowed to use electricity, then that's a regulation. They have to abide by it. The "gun to the head" is eternal damnation in hell, which in their case is a pretty big gun. They just so happen to voluntarily believe so because simply put it's their beliefs.
Such as the computer and internet you are using to use the LvMI forum.
The Amish are socialists, man.
Production and development are limited by cultural walls (either leave or be expelled), trade is limited, division of labor is controlled, etc.
I had to argue with a friend not to long ago that the Amish were an example of a successfulsocialist community. I argued that because of the above reasons, they cannot be called "successful" by our standards. They may perhaps be called "workable" form of socialism and in fact the Amish lifestyle seems to be written into Marx's German Ideology
"“do one thing to-day and another to-morrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner”" Notice his examples are all working for sustenance...and bitching about the world.
The Amish are not an example of anarch-capitalism...the case for so is preposterous.
"
Also most technology is statist in nature."
The collective, rather than the individual, agrees. If you don't like it, they tell you to leave.
The regulations are called 'Ordnung'. They do not participate in government, but the idea of restricting technology is so to limit dependence on the rest of the society. Instead of saying they are anarcho-capitalist, it is more likely to say they don't see the state as the only problem. Whereas anarcho-capitalists tend to think anything is good as long as there is private property, contracts, and no state. The Amish may not like the state, but they take it beyond that to other institutions. There is in fact no capitalist or competition in the Amish community.
Butler Shaffer wrote an article 'A Cost Benefit Analysis of the Human Soul' that is relevant.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer39.html
More than anything the questions goes to show the limitation of the term "anarcho-capitalists". I don't know about the Amish specifically, but some of these communal people are perfectly good examples of 'voluntarysts' and 'Rothbardian anarchists'. But when you want to call them 'anarcho-capitalists' it gets a little strange since they don't care for capitalism much and certainly aren't capitalists.
Every business, culture, house hold or whatever will have restrictions and regulations - it's unavoidable. It's called custom.
I think it could be looked at, without being too radical a perspective on what at least a decent amount of Ancaps are trying to say, if you don't like living in Amish country or working at Wal Mart you can leave - they won't kill you for doing so.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
It's funny that you make an analogy between the Amish and a single business.
Imagine if a country or culture was like one business or one household... that would be like totalitarian communism or fascism. Rather than a free market.
A free market is when they are multiple businesses and households, because there is definable private property. There can even be multiple customs: it allows one culture to trade and more or less depend on other cultures. And these individual units are competing to deliver goods. Whether they have monetary or cultural restrictions self-imposed or not. In the free market you are allowed to follow the Bible or not; no such choice is offered for those who would like to work within in the Amish community.
On the other hand, we can see the amish as part of the American and global economy, because they sell goods outside their communities. In which case they are not different than other businesses or neighborhoods. But they are also not anarcho-capitalists. since their similarity to those things doesn't at all make them anarcho-capitalist.
1) I'm not calling the Amish style of life effecient, probable to catch on, or able to support 6 billion people I don't think it can.
2) This shouldn't be contraversial: A Wal MART, or any type of community will have monetary restrictions , etc - this is just a consequnce of life. As for the Amish believing in the Bible - I think that's just tautological, like "hearts pump blood". Even still, who cares - in the community of Shady Lanes I probably have to keep my volume at a certain level to meet up with noise expectations.
3) The Amish may not be A-caps - as that's a silly term to label a community, culture, custom, etc. Neither are the English, the suburbians, or any other functioning custom we pick out. All I can say is, I don't think there is anything in the Amish custom that allows for you not to move out - it still competes with other models and allows free movement to get away from it.
And Frankly concerning yourself with the Amish being or not being A Caps is a red herring, it's mental masturbation to subsidize ones aesthetic - there's no "real" answer, as the speculation is empty.
4) Judging from your previous posts and the topics you choose to comment on, I think you have an ax to grind - I don't think you are capable of taking a name like "Amish" or "Bible" and subsituting "Widget", so I don't see a point in discussing any further with you - as I suspect you'll pontificat endlessly to confirm your own bias.
The question was 'are the amish ancap?' and the answer is no. Not whether it will work or not.
Walmart is not a community. And not all communities are ancap communities.
If you agree they aren't ancap, there is no need to argue in this thread. All geographical areas allow one to move away from them. And again not all of them are ancap. The US is not ancap. The moon is not ancap.
I'm not arguing whether it is right or wrong. Only that it is a separate category than ancap. Whether something is ancap or not is not an aesthetic, even if it was true that a preference for it is (which isn't technically true). As one could very well reject ancap all together; as they should if they support something else. Ancap is defined by individualism, absence of state, private property, competition, markets, and capitalists owning the means of production. And not vague ideas like 'freedom' or 'no rules'.
I don't know which posts you mean. I don't mean to be confrontational.