Pardon my newness (novelty?), but it seems to be popular (at least on these boards) to call everything anarcho-X. From AnCap to AnCom, to AnSomething. All these different denominations differ from each other by one fundamental principle. For example AnCap has NAP and private property, while AnCom simply has public property. Easily enough, we can build up the case for AnStatism by simply smudging the NAP and property rights: "Oh, it's anarchy, but we are guided by a few moral principles which lead us to the state"
I ask this because I ran into a friend of mine who was like "I'm anarchist and I support Obamacare." Since Obamacare is obviously statist, either
1) My friend is simply liberal and also likes Slipknot
2) Anarchy with a few changes to the fundamentals can lead to annnnything!
By the way, what exactly is anarchism? Is it no rules whatsoever, including NAP and property? So can people just dance around and kill each other? If not, then is it some sort of NAP with some sort of inclusion/exclusion of property? Does AnCap = anarchy? If not, why not just stop calling ourselves ancaps and use something more fitting? I do not find "voluntaryism" to be a morally appealing name, since it is describing what we would like to happen (people cooperating) and not the system in general. But for a lack of a better term, voluntaryist over ancap.
Your friend sounds like a Chomskyite anarchist who believes that big government programs will pave the way for stateless communism. It's not necessarily non-anarchistic, for an anarchist might choose the state as a means of bringing about anarchy, but from an Austrolibertarian perspective, it's still very objectionable.
Wheylous: Does AnCap = anarchy?
Does AnCap = anarchy?
"The state happened to be invented before economic science could reveal the superiority of capitalism. Therefore, people in some societies thought erroneously that supporting a state apparatus was the most effective means to their ends. Thus the first states formed.
And given the fact that at the time non-state societies had not YET developed economic calculation and the division of labor sufficiently to become supremely wealthy (keep in mind that anarchism is not synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, and a society can be slow to develop private property rights even without a state), state societies were able to produce the means of war to a superior degree, so the latter were able to over-run the former." - Daniel James Sanchez in his debate with Rettoper
@Sphairon
From AnCap, yes, I agree.
But my friend seemed to not just want the state to cease to exist, but also afterward also have Obamacare (contradictory, I know).
@ Anarcho-libertarian:
I like that argument. But isn't the idea of anarchy that there is nothing? So saying AnCap and having a bunch of guiding rules is contradictory.
It is very hard to define anarchy here since most(if not all) of the anarchist's main influence here are from indivdual anarchists.
To me, I do not try to justify my claims based on moral grounds ( even though I might accept some moral claims) but I think the bigger picture is just by justifying anarchy via market means. As Mises stated in Planned Chaos:
""The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution."
I, obviously, choose the market 100% of the time
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Ah, so you take the practical stand.
But again, I ask, does anarchy = AnCap (for you, Anarcho-libertarian already answered that for himself)
Wheylous: I like that argument. But isn't the idea of anarchy that there is nothing? So saying AnCap and having a bunch of guiding rules is contradictory.
In anarchy there is no State, and in anarcho-capitalism there is no State. However anarcho-capitalism has no State and yet has private property rights. If you are wondering about laws in An-cap, check out Clayton's explanation here and here. And these videos here and here.
I really dont know what you mean by anarchy. For example, your post above mine you say,"isnt the idea of anarchy that there is nothing?" I do not know what that exactly means... But I do not think that anarchy just means 'lack of rules,' because I do not view anarchy as some chaotic thing...
Wheylous: I ask this because I ran into a friend of mine who was like "I'm anarchist and I support Obamacare." Since Obamacare is obviously statist, either 1) My friend is simply liberal and also likes Slipknot 2) Anarchy with a few changes to the fundamentals can lead to annnnything!
false dichotomy. Most likely your friend is just stupid :D
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
My only definition for "anarchy" is, no state. So no territorial monopoly on the use of violence with the power to levy taxes. You could have anarcho-capitalism or you could have anarcho-communism; there would be no guarantee. The anarchists that whine about Ancaps "stealing" their word would do better just to drop the entire subject. An-archy = Without rulers. Ancaps believe that capitalists do not classify as "rulers", communists do. Fine, so let's have that debate instead of saying that supporting capitalism automatically means you support overlords and thus are not a "true anarchist."
Anyway, most anarchists on the left are statists at heart. Ok, that may be a bit of a strawman, but I believe it to be generally true. Ask any rioter in Greece if they would prefer getting handouts from the government or working for a living. Their distaste for the private sector is not equal to that of the government. They love the idea of people getting together and deciding the law and how welfare is doled out collectively, so naturally they are sympathetic to state welfarism.
check out libertarianmonarchy.com
Lawrence: check out libertarianmonarchy.com
It says, "The Libertarian King's descendent will not be his children but rather someone will be chosen by the king who clearly has strong beliefs in private property."
Being that you are a minarchist, what happens to me if I believe he misjudges and I don't want to be ruled by the new king?
"If instead there was a libertarian monarchy a process of successors starting with George Washington as the Monarch..."
You mean this George Washington?
"...then perhaps Jefferson as the king."
You mean this Jefferson?
"He may have appointed Andrew Jackson..."
You mean the guy who signed the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and ethnically cleansed the Cherokee, Seminole, Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw, resulting in numerous deaths along the Trail of Tears?
"...who would have appointed Mises, who would have appointed Rothbard, etc. A long line of libertarian monarchs would have ruled."
Mises's answer when asked what the first thing he would do if he became dictator: "Resign!"
"Only an austro-libertarian monarchy, equipped with a powerful army, can stand up for private property rights and liberty."
What happens to me if I don't want to pay for this powerful army because I believe that guerrilla warfare is vastly more effective?
Anyone who claims to be an anarchist and supports Obamacare is, bluntly, a confused idiot most likely of the aforementioned Slipknot-listening variety. The US Left is still under a residual degree of New Left "anti-authoritarian" influence, so their rhetoric may match up with genuine left-anarchists like Roderick Long or Keith Preston, but their actual plans are red-quadrant to the core.
Chomsky is not an anarchist, and I'm not even sure if he ever was. He claims to be a "libertarian socialist" ( a label so broad as to encompass Trotskyites and hippies). He believes Social Security and Medicare to be benefits clamored for and won by working people, supports the enlargement of the federal government, opposes the right to keep and bear arms, thinks Rothbard's worldview is one "so full of hate no human being would want to live in it" on the basis that his worldview envisions people coming together to build their own roads and highways. Not to mention his apologia for regimes that made Pinochet, Franco and Mussolini look like saints. And his support for the UN.
He's the same species of crank who rants on about "neoliberal orthodoxy" and thinks the IMF/World Bank/EU is run by crypto-anarcho capitalists. I still can't stop laughing at the Political Compass's description of the (2008) Greek, UK and French governments as more right wing than Estonia or Italy as more left wing than Denmark.