I ask because, from what I've heard, Anarcho Capitalism is a subset of Market Anarchy. What is it that makes Anarcho Capitalism different?
Anarcho-capitalism is a subdivision of market anarchism.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
For example, I heard that "market anarchists don't reject the labor theory of value, while Anarcho Capitalists do."
They neither accept nor reject it of necessity, as market anarchism is simply voluntaryism. Most do reject it, due to an education in economics. Mutualists don't reject it completely - and they are about as accepting as one can be of the LTV without really holding to it. There aren't so much differences between market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism as there are overlapping features and additional features which an-cap has (e.g. society where there is a division between capital & labour, traditional firms &c.)
I don't think there is any technical difference
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
It seems anarcho-capitalism is the idea that things will be much the same accept for with more freedom, sound money, and overall stability without the fed interfering with business. It sees technology and improved living standards as things which are to be expected to come from capitalism. It seems to be logical extension of what should have been Objectivism.
Market anarchism pretty much refers to any number of preferences to living in a free exchange and non-violent world -- including mutualism (and mutual aid and co-ops), paradigmatic voluntary socialism (like friendly societies, families, churches, non-profits, etc.), smaller business that does not revolve around capital intensive operation, opposition to corporate legal privilege (and positing alternatives that may arise in a free society), devotion to black market activities as in the "agorists" in dissolving the state, Proudhonian anarchism (which is sort of socialism traded on the market), or even just people who want more choice in the current market, etc. People like Karl Hess even were for what is now called "green living" or alternative technology that he assumed would arrive as a paradigm in the absence of state-based systems of disposal and city-planning.
Both are devoted to free exchange/trade, the market method of determining prices and production, money backed by commodities, self-ownership and property, opposition to the state, and many other things.
John Ess:It seems anarcho-capitalism is the idea that things will be much the same accept for with more freedom, sound money, and overall stability without the fed interfering with business.
I agree some hold this conception, but I'm not sure what it is founded upon. I don't know any ancaps personally (and I know a lot online at least) that make the claim that things will be the same.
Market anarchism IMO is just a way to rebrand anarcho-capitalism, as several anarcho-capitalists like Hoppe or Block may be unattractive to groups like Proudhonian mutualists and other cultural/economic leftists.
I personally identify ancap, because capitalism is a system of property and I think that a conception of individual property ownership is necessary in a world of scarce resources.
They are the same thing.
Any system with no coercive government is the same.
John Ess: It seems anarcho-capitalism is the idea that things will be much the same
It seems anarcho-capitalism is the idea that things will be much the same
By "the same", I'm thinking you just mean "generally stable prosperity", rather than the chaos and lawnessness that people think of when they hear "anarch-", right?
OK, that's what I should have figured, it seems like it was just semantics.
liberty student: John Ess:It seems anarcho-capitalism is the idea that things will be much the same accept for with more freedom, sound money, and overall stability without the fed interfering with business. I agree some hold this conception, but I'm not sure what it is founded upon. I don't know any ancaps personally (and I know a lot online at least) that make the claim that things will be the same.
What I'd like to know is what exactly would be the same. Our situation would be far better than it is now, I know that much. Having about 75% of your income's purchasing power being taken by the state (taxes, inflation, regulation) does tend to make one feel poorer, and less off. A very good video on this idea:
Also, at the risk of going off on a rather odd tangent, even before I went into Austrian Economics, I had felt of all the different kinds of Anarchy, Anarcho Capitalism made the most sense, especially compared to Anarcho Communism, the latter of which seems to just say that, "when we use the state to kill all freedom and liberty, a miracle will happen, causing it to reappear into upotia". After reading a mises article on Noam Chomsky, I'm convinced that Anarcho Syndaclism is about a feasible as Stalinism. That is, I would think, "Well, at least the Anarcho Capitalists are proposing a system instead of just saying "a miracle will happen".
malgratloprekindle:What I'd like to know is what exactly would be the same.
That's impossible to know. We'd have to know the outcomes of unfettered human creativity, all of the environmental changes coming, and the disposition and preferences of every person.
I suspect our own preferences and preoccupations would dramatically change. In the west, we're living off the future, consuming debt others are obligated to pay. I think we're the ones who will have to be ready to work harder and compete for resources against a world much hungrier than us.
If most everyone from Asia decides to work a 6 day week, we'd be at a pretty big disadvantage if we didn't work 6 days. We wouldn't be able to live beyond our means so easily, borrowing under threat of a gun and political shenanigans to have our own homes or cars before we could afford them.
I suspect in a free market, which would experience more creative destruction and less stability, extending credit would be very risky business. We wouldn't accept that because you have a job and career today, you will be doing the same thing 10 years from now.
liberty student: malgratloprekindle:What I'd like to know is what exactly would be the same.That's impossible to know. We'd have to know the outcomes of unfettered human creativity, all of the environmental changes coming, and the disposition and preferences of every person. I suspect our own preferences and preoccupations would dramatically change. In the west, we're living off the future, consuming debt others are obligated to pay. I think we're the ones who will have to be ready to work harder and compete for resources against a world much hungrier than us. If most everyone from Asia decides to work a 6 day week, we'd be at a pretty big disadvantage if we didn't work 6 days. We wouldn't be able to live beyond our means so easily, borrowing under threat of a gun and political shenanigans to have our own homes or cars before we could afford them. I suspect in a free market, which would experience more creative destruction and less stability, extending credit would be very risky business. We wouldn't accept that because you have a job and career today, you will be doing the same thing 10 years from now.
As for the debt to other nations, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought what happened was: when we have a trade deficit with China, instead of just sitting on the dollars, they use them to buy bonds from our government. These bonds are debt to China, and are what are funding the war in Iraq, along with the rest of our interventionist foreign policy.
The fact that we'd be producing more would probably help offset this scarcity problem.
Jon Irenicus:Anarcho-capitalism is a subdivision of market anarchism.
Oh, I figured that. But what I'd like to know is what is it tha makes them both different.
I could be wrong though.
malgratloprekindle: Jon Irenicus:Anarcho-capitalism is a subdivision of market anarchism. Oh, I figured that. But what I'd like to know is what is it tha makes them both different. For example, I heard that "market anarchists don't reject the labor theory of value, while Anarcho Capitalists do." I could be wrong though.
I don't think you could say it's a subdivision, certainly not that it implies anything about the labor theory of value. It seems to me they are synonymous, just a preference I think for people who don't like the term 'anarcho-capitalism' as liberty student pointed out. If anyone wants to use them as different terms, you'll need to explain yourself more completely if you expect to be understood.
Jon Irenicus:There aren't so much differences between market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism as there are overlapping features and additional features which an-cap has (e.g. society where there is a division between capital & labour, traditional firms &c.)
Thank you.
May you explain what you mean by Anarcho Capitalism having the addition features of "division between capital and labour" and "traditional firms"?
I don't know what you mean by the two quoted terms in this context.