What is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it so different then Communism? I mean, the two are just opposing ideals, however history has shown that Communism is ineffective, so what is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it more special then any other ideal?
I know the question is kind of broad, but I feel pretty sick, I'm not in the mood to type out an entire paragraph of my thought.
I mean isn't Capitalism just another philosophy as opposed to Socialism? Socialism seems really appealing, but its not very effective.
It seems like to say that Anarcho-Capitalism working the best is like saying Islam is a lot more factual then Christianity, and is the one true religion.
Democracy for Breakfast:What is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it so different then Communism? I mean, the two are just opposing ideals, however history has shown that Communism is ineffective, so what is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it more special then any other ideal?
Well if one is wrong, and the other is its opposite, then that might mean it is right.
Democracy for Breakfast:I mean isn't Capitalism just another philosophy as opposed to Socialism? Socialism seems really appealing, but its not very effective.
Capitalism and socialism are broad conceptions of property ownership.
Democracy for Breakfast:It seems like to say that Anarcho-Capitalism working the best is like saying Islam is a lot more factual then Christianity, and is the one true religion.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't profess to be a universal truth (although some may differ with me on this).
1. Marxism is based on an appealing but false premise, that the worker is always ripped off by his employer. An audio: http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/marxism/Ebeling.mp3 and a book: http://mises.org/books/karlmarx.pdf
Capitalism is based on an equally appealing but true [as shown by experience] premise: Just let everyone keep the money they make from their efforts and the whole world benefits.
2. As you said, history has shown Communism to be ineffective. It has also shown many times that the closer an economy approximates a free market [=Anarcho Capitalism] the more successful it is in almost every way. A few examples that come to mind even to a newbie like me:
When Russia wanted to bounce back from its total collapse it instituted one law: Anyone can buy and sell anything. You see any complaints from there? I see a Russian billionaire buying an NBA team.
China did the same thing, and look at them now.They own us, literally.
When the USA was less socialist, say before 1913, it was bursting at the seams with wealth and energy. Look at us now.
There are plenty of tapes and books and videos here to elaborate. Drink deeply and enjoy.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
But what it is about freedom and invidualism that makes it so different? Is it more directed to human nature?
Democracy for Breakfast: But what it is about freedom and invidualism that makes it so different? Is it more directed to human nature?
Well Marxism isn't about individualism or freedom [ necessarily ]. When Marx was in the second international workers organization, he wrote to Engels about happily trying to get rid this nonsense about 'rights' that his peers were trying to put in the organization's constitution. Marx is a materialist, so abstract things like individual freedom, property rights, things that we may call essences, these are really fictitious mental constructs that are a result of the distribution of the means of production. That is why Marx's theory of history is not one of ideas or rights realization, but of class conflict over production. Marx saw Man as a class species, not necessarily as individuals. He thought we were a kind of collective blob, being similar in all facets and likeness. Marx's collaborator, Engels, boosted that 5 workers can be switch with 5 other workers and it would be the same amount of production and quality.
Another point with Marx's historical interpretation, is that we as human beings are governed by our economical position. If we are bourgeois then we think like bourgeois, if we are proletarian then we think as such. Hence the perverse rise of polylogicism that Mises talks about and also why Marx's greatest defense of his theories was 'Oh well those who critique me are just bourgeois' Oddly enough one wonders how Marx, a bourgeois, was able to divine these concepts concerning the proletariat since he himself was not one and that has really been the problem of socialist thought. Many of their greatest theorists were bourgeois or came from bourgeois backgrounds. They were intellectuals. Few socialists were actually peasant proletariat.
Due to some lingering Hegelian thinking though, Marx doesn't really go into detail about what the future will look like under socialism. I think perhaps the best, and by best I mean most frightening, is the writings of Morelly who was an unknown French writer during the 18th century. He laid out a series of horrible living standards in which we all have to eat together, constantly labor, nobody owns anything, we all wear gray so there is no difference between individuals, there are no bedtime fairy tale stories in order to make sure there are no fanciful idealistic minds and that these laws will be set in stone, unchanging until the end of time and any transgression will result in the death penalty. Its his famous work called Code de la Nature [ The Code of Nature ] and I'm trying to find an English edition because I'm only starting to learn French but I can't find one so looks like I will have to translate it myself. French rosetta stone learning hoooo...
Anyways there is more delightful utopianism in the writings of Charles Fourier who thinks ocean's will turn into lemonade, roasted chickens will fly into our mouths and that the beasts of the world will be replaced by their passive antithesis. A lion will turn into an anti-lion, one in which coexists with man and whom man can consort with without fear of being eaten. Rather interesting fellow. Anyways for more information about what I just discussed here are some articles and books on the subject.
The Socialist Tradition by Alexander Gray [ This deals with all the Socialist thought from Thomas Moore to Lenin, a very good book ]
Requiem for Marx edited by Yuri Maltsev [ A book containing well written articles on Marx. I particularly recommend the first one by David Gordon and the last one by Murray Rothbard ]
Marxism UnMasked by Ludwig von Mises [ A book containing a series of lectures by Mises in 1954, rather good in points but the framework of the book is disorganized obviously due to the fact it is direct from the lectures ]
History of Economic Thought vol. II by Murray Rothbard [ A book that deals with all of economic thought but also communists. Rothbard covers Graccus Babeuf, Gabriel Mably, Lassalle, Saint-Simon, Morelly, Marx, and I think Fourier. He doesn't go in depth though except for Marx. For a more in depth critique of these people's works then I would recommend the first book by Alexander Gray ]
if you need more sources, I have more but I think you will get a good helping of socialist thought by reading these.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I almost forgot.
Main Currents of Marxism by Leszek Kolakowski. It is a three volume set so I haven't read it all but it suppose to be one of the leading books on the history of Marxism.
1. It works, meaning experience shows that everyone is happier and more productive and generates more good for everyone, if they are free to do anything non violent they please.
2. If we appeal to a "common sense " sense of right and wrong and morality, it seems so right. To get a feel for this, ask yourself if you would rather do what you want, or what you are ordered to do. Would you rather keep your money, or work hard for it and then have it taken away?
Laughing Man, what a great informative resource filled post. Thank you.
Smiling Dave: Laughing Man, what a great informative resource filled post. Thank you.
Thank you, you're very kind to saying such a thing.
Laughing Man:Thank you, you're very kind to saying such a thing.
!!Linebreaks!!
I just realized that is is just one large block of info
I'll edited it up so it is easier on the eyes.
Democracy for Breakfast: What is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it so different then Communism? I mean, the two are just opposing ideals, however history has shown that Communism is ineffective, so what is it about Anarcho-Capitalism that makes it more special then any other ideal? I know the question is kind of broad, but I feel pretty sick, I'm not in the mood to type out an entire paragraph of my thought. I mean isn't Capitalism just another philosophy as opposed to Socialism? Socialism seems really appealing, but its not very effective. It seems like to say that Anarcho-Capitalism working the best is like saying Islam is a lot more factual then Christianity, and is the one true religion.
1. Anarcho-Capitalism is the ONLY ideology I have ever seen that isn't self contradictory. Any other ideology. All forms of statism are contradictory because if people need a state to protect them from themselves then people are weak, ignorant, and uncooperative and therefor aren't worth saving unless life itself is important not and not the type of life or the intellect of said life in which case humans must perish anyway becuase killing is a sin and we can't eat without killing.
2. All capitalism is, is voluntary exchange. Therefore anything that isn't voluntary exchange (AKA anything that has to do with teh governments) takes one thing and gives it to another, or merley restricts its exchange. In the case of wealth redistribution or heavy socialism it's giving from one group of people by force and giving to other people by force. There are two justifications for this. 1. Property rights don't exist 2. Democracy dictates what is right. Well you get whatever is taken for me and then me and then I and two others come to your house. Suddenly I'm in the majority, I not only take everything you own I also take the oppurtunity to cut your throat. The majority wished it and the majority has no restrictions, therefore it is good and no one can dictate otherwise from the actions of my three against his one. If property rights don't exist I can take everything you own anyway.... End Game. But in Captialism there is NO force required except for defence and things people agreed to because everything is voluntary. There is nothing contradictory about this, therefore voluntarism stands alone as totally un-self contradictory
3. Communism and A-Cap are totally different... I don't know how you could compare them. In an Anarcho-Captialist society everyone voluntarily exchanges everything, in a communist one they are forced to. In an Anarcho-Communist society you could make the case that it is in no way anarchist and that it is instead totally statist. It's just to the point that everyone is so brainwashed that the marginal (the part of the state that deals with force) has, or almost has, dissapeared.
4. Your religeous example is different. (Putting aside the fact that god doesn't exist) Unless you believe that you've talked to a supreme being you can't know everything about him. Unless you thought you heard him say "CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONLY TRUE RELIGEON" you don't know what religeon will bring you salvation and instead you believe only in your "feelings" and both religeons have those feelings so you can't say one is better than the other. Political ideology is driven by provable concepts of human nature and ethics.
5. If socialism is appealing you're pretty much advocating evil whether you know it or not.
Those are most of the reasons that Voluntarism is the best type of society. No force that's not deserved, only voluntary transactions, and totally non-self contradictory.
The Late Andrew Ryan: 1. Anarcho-Capitalism is the ONLY ideology I have ever seen that isn't self contradictory. Any other ideology. All forms of statism are contradictory because if people need a state to protect them from themselves then people are weak, ignorant, and uncooperative and therefor aren't worth saving unless life itself is important not and not the type of life or the intellect of said life in which case humans must perish anyway becuase killing is a sin and we can't eat without killing. So THAT'S the problem with statism. 5. If socialism is appealing you're pretty much evil whether you know it or not. Or naive
So THAT'S the problem with statism.
5. If socialism is appealing you're pretty much evil whether you know it or not.
Or naive
Smiling Dave: The Late Andrew Ryan: 1. Anarcho-Capitalism is the ONLY ideology I have ever seen that isn't self contradictory. Any other ideology. All forms of statism are contradictory because if people need a state to protect them from themselves then people are weak, ignorant, and uncooperative and therefor aren't worth saving unless life itself is important not and not the type of life or the intellect of said life in which case humans must perish anyway becuase killing is a sin and we can't eat without killing. So THAT'S the problem with statism.
The Late Andrew Ryan: 1. Anarcho-Capitalism is the ONLY ideology I have ever seen that isn't self contradictory. Any other ideology. All forms of statism are contradictory because if people need a state to protect them from themselves then people are weak, ignorant, and uncooperative and therefor aren't worth saving unless life itself is important not and not the type of life or the intellect of said life in which case humans must perish anyway becuase killing is a sin and we can't eat without killing. So THAT'S the problem with statism.
One of the inherint logical ones certiantly. The ones I listed are just a few. You could right a book on the contradictions. In fact people have. Read Stefan Molyneux's book Universally Preferable Behavior
Its pretty simple, pure capitalism embraces economic laws, whereas socialism constantly tries to break/ignore them. Its obvious which one would work better.
Angurse: Its pretty simple, pure capitalism embraces economic laws, whereas socialism constantly tries to break/ignore them. Its obvious which one would work better.
I agree with the statement because I agree with you on the correct laws of economics.
But I think socialism and capitalism disagree about the very laws. For example, a marxist would tell you that the value of a thing depends on the labor hours used to make it. he considers that a law. A capitalist has a different law for value. The value depends on how badly people want it.
So that each claims the other is trying to break/ignore economic laws.
Smiling Dave: I agree with the statement because I agree with you on the correct laws of economics. But I think socialism and capitalism disagree about the very laws. For example, a marxist would tell you that the value of a thing depends on the labor hours used to make it. he considers that a law. A capitalist has a different law for value. The value depends on how badly people want it. So that each claims the other is trying to break/ignore economic laws.
Thats not exactly true, as even Marx pointed out some of the inherent problems with the LTV. That is why an egalitarian social theory is also needed to salvage a any economic theory based on an obvious inconsistency. Contemporary Marxists like G.A. Cohen and Jon Elster have admitted that the LTV needs to be completely dropped just to save remnants of Marxian thought. Elster has gone as far as to say that the LTV is "useless at its best, dangerous at its not infrequent worst" and that "Marxian economics is dead." Basically, the Marxists (and socialists and some mutualists) say this is how it ought to be and say damn the laws.
libertystudent:Anarcho-capitalism doesn't profess to be a universal truth (although some may differ with me on this).
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan: Are you boldly asserting the truth that anarcho-capitalism is not 'true' ?
Explain.
Juan: libertystudent:Anarcho-capitalism doesn't profess to be a universal truth (although some may differ with me on this). LOLOLOL.Are you boldly asserting the truth that anarcho-capitalism is not 'true' ?
It isn't "True" the very term "true" in this context and in this thread is a misnomer. You can't say that democracy is "true" because it's not fact, its a proposed social structure. You can say that the logic behind it is rational, it follows economic laws, it deals the best with reality, ECT.
I can't say using a computer is "True". Using a computer may be the best way to surf teh internetz, play Civilization, or best way to use somthing that is computing, or is indeed possible to do. But the statement "Anarcho-Capitalism is true" means NOTHING and in a way is even improper english
Juan:my sloppy assertion "ancap is true/not true" is similar to the sloppy assertion LS made "Anarcho-capitalism doesn't profess to be a universal truth".
No, it isn't.
Juan:I tried to clarify that I was talking about the underlying ethical position of libertarianism and that position can be true or false.
Ethics are subjective.
Juan:Whatever the king of the subjectivist 'philosophers' declares to be true shall be accepted as truth!
That's better.
Angurse:ontemporary Marxists like G.A. Cohen and Jon Elster have admitted that the LTV needs to be completely dropped just to save remnants of Marxian thought. Elster has gone as far as to say that the LTV is "useless at its best, dangerous at its not infrequent worst" and that "Marxian economics is dead." Basically, the Marxists (and socialists and some mutualists) say this is how it ought to be and say damn the laws.
This is very true. Cohen still thinks that the philosophy of historical materialism is still acceptable though which is strange because the class conflict is supposed to be synthesized through the LTV.
liberty student:Ethics are subjective.
Since you brought it up, I'm still a bit confused about whether or not there are obligations under 'ethical subjectivism'. If we were to enact this theory would I be obligated to follow the NAP? Not a question of will I or wouldn't I, but should I? And also do you realize that you are being an emotivist by stating that ethical propositions are incapable of being true or false and only show a individual preference?
Juan:Under so called 'ethical subjectivism' you have the universal obligation to parrot that murder, among other crimes, is just a subjective preference and that there's nothing 'intrinsically' wrong with it. Just an example - hope that helps.
That's pretty funny Juan. I think you have a career in comedy. You certainly crack me up with your jokes.
Laughing Man:Since you brought it up, I'm still a bit confused about whether or not there are obligations under 'ethical subjectivism'. If we were to enact this theory would I be obligated to follow the NAP?
You make it sound like a formal system. It's not.
Are you obligated to follow the NAP? By what or who?
Laughing Man:Not a question of will I or wouldn't I, but should I?
That is a question only you can answer.
Laughing Man:And also do you realize that you are being an emotivist by stating that ethical propositions are incapable of being true or false and only show a individual preference?
No, I didn't realize that. Fascinating.
Juan:You know I am not joking.
It's always hard to tell when a joker is joking and when he is serious.
Juan:So, don't pretend otherwise.
On the contrary my friend, I struggle each day to be as "real" as I can be.
Juan:Maybe I should add that the internet is serious business.
Very true. You should add that.
liberty student:Are you obligated to follow the NAP? By what or who?
Natural law, utilitarian principles, legal 'public choice'. I personally like the first one.
liberty student:That is a question only you can answer.
Well I proposed it to you specifically in the hope that you would answer it.
liberty student:No, I didn't realize that. Fascinating.
Yes, it is a system of thought utilized by logical positivists in order to marginalize ethical meta-physical beliefs and theory. Not saying that you are a positivist, but if you are then I'm not going to worry about it.
Laughing Man: liberty student:Are you obligated to follow the NAP? By what or who? Natural law, utilitarian principles, legal 'public choice'. I personally like the first one.
But which one obligates you? Or do they all obligate you? If more than one obligates you, can you list them all for us?
Laughing Man: liberty student:That is a question only you can answer. Well I proposed it to you specifically in the hope that you would answer it.
You also asked me for a pony for your birthday, and that ain't happenin!
Laughing Man:Yes, it is a system of thought utilized by logical positivists in order to marginalize ethical meta-physical beliefs and theory.
I think you guys do a good job marginalizing yourselves.
Laughing Man:Not saying that you are a positivist, but if you are then I'm not going to worry about it.
So if you're not saying I am a positivist, what are you saying? Or should we both not worry about it?
Juan:On the contrary my friend, I struggle each day to be as "real" as I can be. Really ?
Really.
Juan:Okay, let's assume I'm sarcasm-challenged.
I don't have to assume that.
Juan:Are you calling me a joker ?
That depends. If I was calling you a joker, how would that make you feel?
liberty student:But which one obligates you? Or do they all obligate you? If more than one obligates you, can you list them all for us?
I think natural law does. Utilitarianism really only matters if all agree on what the social wealth that is to be achieved is and public choice under Buchanan is rather silly.
liberty student:You also asked me for a pony for your birthday, and that ain't happenin!
Well hey, I'm just trying to see if you still believe that the NAP is obligatory.
liberty student:I think you guys do a good job marginalizing yourselves.
Who is, 'you guys'?
liberty student:So if you're not saying I am a positivist, what are you saying? Or should we both not worry about it?
Trying to be friendly and not give you a title that you don't actually practice.
Laughing Man:I think natural law does.
You think, or you know? In order to be objective, you have to know. If you're just thinkin' 'bout it, mulling it over, picking and choosing, then that sounds like subjectivism to me.
Laughing Man:Utilitarianism really only matters if all agree on what the social wealth that is to be achieved is and public choice under Buchanan is rather silly.
Ah. But doesn't objectivism have a utilitarian aspect? What more is utilitarianism than preferences expressed as absolutes?
Laughing Man:I'm just trying to see if you still believe that the NAP is obligatory.
You still haven't made clear that something (or someone) objective must drive me to embrace the NAP.
Laughing Man:Who is, 'you guys'?
Never mind that.
Laughing Man:Trying to be friendly and not give you a title that you don't actually practice.
Bit late for flowers and fruit baskets, isn't it?
Laughing Man: Yes, it is a system of thought utilized by logical positivists in order to marginalize ethical meta-physical beliefs and theory. Not saying that you are a positivist, but if you are then I'm not going to worry about it.
You could use non-cognitivism to simply bypass that proof problem that natural-righters and moral absolutists can't seem to overcome.
Laughing Man: I think natural law does. Utilitarianism really only matters if all agree on what the social wealth that is to be achieved is and public choice under Buchanan is rather silly.
Natural law only matters if people agree on what the rules actually are.