There is a lengthy critical rebuke of anarcho-capitalism at the anarchopedia.org site.
http://eng.anarchopedia.org/anarcho-capitalism
They didn't seem terribly opposed to free market anarchy or forms of agorism, but they despise, it seems, the term "capitalism". To them it entails more than just private property in the means of production, but requires also some public or private police force to defend that property. Also betraying a grudge and prejudice against property is the cartoon - Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people. Are we fighting over who owns and gets to define the word "Capitalism" and its implications, or are we disagreeing on the implications themselves?
Thanks
Basically the delusion is that you can have socialism without a state, that capitalism is wrong because, as Marx puts it, the rich are wealthy from abusing the poor. They deny that the individual can prosper in capitalism, regardless of finanacial standing, they are certain it is only the wealthy that remain wealthy in capitalism, this is probably caused by the idea that in capitalism you must work hard, sweat, achieve and compete for gain and many anarchists, like the one who contributed to this post, probably thinks that is being abused.
Long story short, he uses capitalism as a dirty word because he has no desire to put effort into his own success, he poses capitalism as bad for individual freedom, mainly because he has no idea what capitalism is, just the leftist claims that capitalism is bad, therefore he thinks it is bad...
My take on Anarcho-Capitalism is that a private police force is not Required, rather a decent suggestion, as you can easily defend your property yourself, if you would rather delegate your energy in this fashion, and is more a part of anarchy than capitalism.
Capitalism is a system of private property ownership, nothing else, I wish there was a way to rebutt to this article on the posting itself, but it seems that it is a closed to outside opinion site...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
I was reading this:
http://infoshop.org/faq/append11.html
It seems they're saying the exact opposite - that it's a delusion that you can have capitalism without the state.
Presumably, this is because it's in human nature to steal/take what you need. The distinction of moral/immoral theft, I think in Any Rand's view (*ducks*) is that a moral man will steal in case of emergency, but THEN pay whatever debt to the person he stole from. In contemporary society / state socialism/fascism, we have people stealing during life long emergencies with not a trace of guild or debt on their minds - only a "give back" mentality which means nothing of any substance.
I think the "socialists painted as lazy" spiel is less accurate than the "socialists painted as jealous of those who earn interest on capital" spiel. To abolish the interest rate seems a consistency between Keynes and The Anarchists... They, apparently, don't mind doing labor, they just want to make sure everybody is doing (what they consider) labor. Question is - once all the laborers own their own tools, how do laborers acquire and build new tools? Once a new tool is built, is it not immediately property=theft=confiscated and given to whatever laborer wants it? What's the incentive for building the machines which build the machines which build new types of tools and how are they voluntarily exchanged? Also referenced here is the idea that the "economy be controlled by 'the producers' (read: laborers)" - producers don't control the economy, consumers do, Mr Proudhon...
Another precarious point of view is that a family or group working an amount of land they can reasonably handle would not be expropriated by the anarchist revolution - but who decides what "enough" or "reasonable" etc is?
I think the question can be made as simply as what distinguishes, ultimately, capital from justified possession in their view? One shovel = possession, two shovels = potential for exploitation :. worker planning ahead for a broken shovel is endangering his "right" to keep his production if exchanged for a second shovel? And another worker wishes to rent the shovel must buy the shovel but has nothing to start with. Sure an old guy might give him an old shovel out of "charity" (or duty?!) but this doesn't work in the situation of a factory assembly line... you must first subject yourself to be exploited by union leadership through some sort of apprenticeship. I dunno.. it seems all roads lead to hell sometimes.
Saiphes:Any Rand's view (*ducks*)
You don't have to duck from me....
Saiphes:It seems they're saying the exact opposite - that it's a delusion that you can have capitalism without the state.
That is a gross misinterpretation of Capitalism, it is fueled by the belief that America was 100% capitalist, we would have to have no regulation to have capitalism, it is also based on the idea that the worker is abused into working for the "capitalist" and cannot be a capitalist himself selling his labor on a free market...
Saiphes:I think the "socialists painted as lazy" spiel is less accurate than the "socialists painted as jealous of those who earn interest on capital" spiel.
When you realize they are the same spiel you will be closer to understanding the reality of the situation...
Saiphes:Also referenced here is the idea that the "economy be controlled by 'the producers' (read: laborers)" - producers don't control the economy, consumers do, Mr Proudhon
That is Marx's Labor Value Theory, it has proven ultimately false....
Saiphes:Another precarious point of view is that a family or group working an amount of land they can reasonably handle would not be expropriated by the anarchist revolution - but who decides what "enough" or "reasonable" etc is?
An authority that will not call the state but will have the power of the state, this is an Anarcho-Communist notion, look up Kabutz (spelling may be wrong) in Israel, they do this, but they are finding it hard to keep people in when they can be in a market without such an authority....
I note and appreciate your expression of agreement on most things above.
"When you realize they are the same spiel you will be closer to understanding the reality of the situation..."
Yet, I don't equate envy with laziness - the lazy would stand, do nothing, and watch and bitch about the "greedy capitalist" enjoying his mojitos but otherwise, also sitting and doing nothing. These socialists' ideal is to work hard *while* bitching, and having no idea the complexity of the process which precipitated the tools they were using. Again, I understand the reality of the situation, but I'm not interested in battling and refuting the pedestrian arguments put forward; rather, I'm more interested in understanding the anti-capitalist criticisms of their "best and brightest" - regardless of whether it all boils down to one base thing. And what I'm seeing is a difference in the basic ownership and definition and connotation and even *denotation* of capitalism. If we can't agree on that, how do we even set up a context for debate? Private property in the means of production seems simple enough, yet even the extent that something is part of the "means of production" is up in the air: couldn't *anything* be considered means of production by some extension/abstraction?
My question to you - if the crux of the "socialist" spectre boiled down to one thing, and you couldn't choose both - would you choose laziness or jealousy? Many that i've met are proud to be laborers, ready to tout their "hard work" as a badge of accomplishment (nevermind if it was efficient or smart). Hard work means nothing; i can work awful hard cutting a lawn with my fingernails or even by swinging a 2x4. I think it's jealousy.
However, I also think that fear is at the center as it is at the center of our detest for statism.
I think it was identified that the Anarcho-capitalists and the others, and indeed the entire concept of class/caste struggle is really similar no matter whom you're talking to - the difference is how you generalize. Rothbard, I think, wrote of Political Class vs the Non- or the Governing vs the Governed. The socialists see the "Rich" as having power and thus governing. I think, at this early stage in my studies, that their failure is that they do not see that money is not the only type of Power capable of corrupting someone/something.
Saiphes: I was reading this: http://infoshop.org/faq/append11.html It seems they're saying the exact opposite - that it's a delusion that you can have capitalism without the state. Presumably, this is because it's in human nature to steal/take what you need. The distinction of moral/immoral theft, I think in Any Rand's view (*ducks*) is that a moral man will steal in case of emergency, but THEN pay whatever debt to the person he stole from. In contemporary society / state socialism/fascism, we have people stealing during life long emergencies with not a trace of guild or debt on their minds - only a "give back" mentality which means nothing of any substance.
Yeah, I'm arguing with somebody in another forum that seriously doesn't understand what "stealing" is. He is a huge marxist collectivists. He believes he doesn't even talk as an individual. He believes when he talks he is talking what the collective says. When I even say to him, "Aren't I talking to you and not somebody else." He says, "No you are talking to many many people." Now that's old style Communism Party talk when the communists would go around and say they speak for the, "Party".
It's whacky. He said my neighbor can take my land and nobody can stop him. I said I'll stop him. He said I'm not allowed to stop him and that there is no stealing. That's how far he goes. I call him a criminal and then he comes back and says I'm afraid of black helicopters and need to take my meds. They are crazy folks. I live in a very small house with 1 1/2 bedrooms. We get by and don't ask for much in life. It's quite a simple life. So it's not like I'm rich and he wants his share. He really denies that stealing is real and believes everybody should be able to go into everybody's house and do what they want with everybody's land. He says society should be like family and opening the refrigerator in anybody's home to get something to eat. It's nuts. I hope not too many think like this guy cause he's really off the hook. I just told him I better never see him on my property making threats or else. I don't know what else to say with these kind of people.
Harry Felker: An authority that will not call the state but will have the power of the state, this is an Anarcho-Communist notion, look up Kabutz (spelling may be wrong) in Israel, they do this, but they are finding it hard to keep people in when they can be in a market without such an authority....
I quickly browsed wiki on Kabutz. It hinted that they were falling apart and many have actually closed up. But then it says others have reformed themselves and do not follow the more traditional approach. Only a handful of tradition approaches are still in existence. It didn't say why they fell apart or what is better about the reformist versus the traditionalist. I don't know if they are fully isolated or depend more and more on the outside world like in Animal Farm where more and more the goods came from outside of the farm than from inside the farm. Until it also fell apart.
wilderness:It didn't say why they fell apart or what is better about the reformist versus the traditionalist. I don't know if they are fully isolated or depend more and more on the outside world like in Animal Farm where more and more the goods came from outside of the farm than from inside the farm. Until it also fell apart.
I know from Marquise, as she keeps tabs on Israel....
Basically the problem is if you want a new television, you have to wait until the community can afford a new television for everyone...
This does not jive with people who work hard for what they earn... they naturally see the violation of rights there and want out immediately...
wilderness:It's whacky. He said my neighbor can take my land and nobody can stop him. I said I'll stop him. He said I'm not allowed to stop him and that there is no stealing. That's how far he goes. I call him a criminal and then he comes back and says I'm afraid of black helicopters and need to take my meds. They are crazy folks. I live in a very small house with 1 1/2 bedrooms. We get by and don't ask for much in life. It's quite a simple life. So it's not like I'm rich and he wants his share. He really denies that stealing is real and believes everybody should be able to go into everybody's house and do what they want with everybody's land. He says society should be like family and opening the refrigerator in anybody's home to get something to eat. It's nuts. I hope not too many think like this guy cause he's really off the hook. I just told him I better never see him on my property making threats or else. I don't know what else to say with these kind of people.
Can one ever justify the right of property ownership without any arbitrary reasoning?
Total collectivism can be as rational as the freest society if you backtrack the chain of reasoning to the argument of the individuals right to own property. I, myself, had to turn to pure pragmatism to justify ownership at the end. Maybe your friend came to another conclusion
job86:Can one ever justify the right of property ownership without any arbitrary reasoning?
What do you mean by this? I
job86:Total collectivism can be as rational as the freest society if you backtrack the chain of reasoning to the argument of the individuals right to own property.
This can easily be refuted. You cannot at one time know every action that every individual is doing with every piece of capital. Therefore you cannot take-part of crop production in Iowa while dictating how logs are used in Washington. Therefore, a certain class will arise rationing out goods and take on the label of 'representatives of the workers.' Collectivism is utopian.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
wilderness:He said my neighbor can take my land and nobody can stop him. I said I'll stop him. He said I'm not allowed to stop him and that there is no stealing.
Welcome to the reductio of "occupancy and use". No one owns anything, all possession is temporary and transitory.
liberty student: wilderness:He said my neighbor can take my land and nobody can stop him. I said I'll stop him. He said I'm not allowed to stop him and that there is no stealing. Welcome to the reductio of "occupancy and use". No one owns anything, all possession is temporary and transitory.
I wonder if the neighbor guy has a "lady friend". If he has no claim to her via contract (such as marriage or an agreement to be monogamous), she is fair game, right?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I wonder if we can argue in almost a Sadian fashion, if we don't use our gentials...are they truly ours? If are not in a constant state of sexual intercourse, do we own our orifices? The ability to allow or deny what goes in them?
Perhaps I just formulated some ground breaking defense for self-ownership.
Sexual inclination...the new libertarian argument.
Daniel:I wonder if the neighbor guy has a "lady friend". If he has no claim to her via contract (such as marriage or an agreement to be monogamous), she is fair game, right?
PS: That post is epic win. XD
Harry Felker:this is an Anarcho-Communist notion
"Anarcho-Communist" is an oxymoron.
malgratloprekindle: Harry Felker:this is an Anarcho-Communist notion "Anarcho-Communist" is an oxymoron.
Ask the anarcho-commie: What if people are anti-state, but don't want to be communist?
Daniel: malgratloprekindle: Harry Felker:this is an Anarcho-Communist notion "Anarcho-Communist" is an oxymoron. Ask the anarcho-commie: What if people are anti-state, but don't want to be communist?
Surely they are a product of false consciousness.
I know it is an oxymoron, but the people who do not advocate the state but want essential need to determine what you have call themselves "anarchists" and they are inherently communist....
Harry Felker: malgratloprekindle: Harry Felker:this is an Anarcho-Communist notion "Anarcho-Communist" is an oxymoron. I know it is an oxymoron, but the people who do not advocate the state but want essential need to determine what you have call themselves "anarchists" and they are inherently communist....
Historically, the "anarchists" have anarcho-socialists and anarcho-commies.
Daniel:Historically, the "anarchists" have anarcho-socialists and anarcho-commies.
This statement makes me feel like a NeoCon inflitrating the Conservative movement. I feel so dastardly.
malgratloprekindle: Daniel:I wonder if the neighbor guy has a "lady friend". If he has no claim to her via contract (such as marriage or an agreement to be monogamous), she is fair game, right?This explains why so many Muslim nations are socialist.
Muslims are not socialist. They are more capitalist than western nations or Christians in general. There is this myth about Arabs being womanizers, but that is just western propaganda. After all, we are the ones that have a culture where some of the television shows are based on adultery, and they stone people to death for it in some of those middle eastern nations.
The etymology of the word "harem" was originally the group of women a man was responsible for, including his mother and sisters. The 4 wives deal is actually quite rare and very hard to pull off within the conditions of Islam. You are obligated to treat ALL of your wives equally, and cannot favour one over the other. You have to provide for them equally, spend time with them equally, and try to love all of them equally (in your heart, not just sex, but that too). As a matter of convention, you might need the permission of your existing wives in order to add another one.
The 4:1 rule was put in because so many married men and fathers, as well as men of marriagable age were being lost to violence, and rather than leave the women without a protector and bread winner, and the children without a father, polygamy was allowed.
Anarchist Cain: Daniel:Historically, the "anarchists" have anarcho-socialists and anarcho-commies. This statement makes me feel like a NeoCon inflitrating the Conservative movement. I feel so dastardly.
The anarchist protestors at the G20 conference in London a couple ago were anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists. They wanted to do away with the state, but also eliminate private property. In Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, there a tons of quotes from the socialists where they state that their goal is to remove the "capitalist" and have the "workers" "own" the factories. This implies that they disregard private property rights; actually, they openly even mock property rights in there speeches.
Daniel:The anarchist protestors at the G20 conference in London a couple ago were anarcho-commies and anarcho-socialists. They wanted to do away with the state, but also eliminate private property. In Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, there a tons of quotes from the socialists where they state that their goal is to remove the "capitalist" and have the "workers" "own" the factories. This implies that they disregard private property rights; actually, they openly even mock property rights in there speeches.
I'm guessing none of them actually talked about how they would ration goods in a scarce market. To intermix some words from Sir Alexander Gray, it is assumed, and always is assumed that there will be a great abundence during the reign of Socialism. As if bringing about Socialism will somehow magically produce more drinkable water then 1%
What are you talking about? The workers will produce what "workers want", instead of being at the whim of the "capitalist". The workers will tell the manager when to work, how to work, how long to work.
Daniel: The workers will produce what "workers want", instead of being at the whim of the "capitalist".
How about this?
The workers will produce what "workers want", instead of being at the whim of the "customer".
After all, a successful capitalist is one who pleases his customers.
liberty student:Muslims are not socialist. They are more capitalist than western nations or Christians in general.
Not according to the Economic Freedom Index ( http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx ):
6th USA (80.7)
4th Ireland (82.2)
15th Luxembourg (75.2)
Canada --> 7th Canada (80.5)
17th Finland --> Finland 74.5
19th Japan --> Japan 72.8 -0.2
25th Germany --> Germany 70.5
26th Sweden --> Sweden 70.5
compared to:
Afghanistan (no reliable data)
Iraq (unranked because of war preventing reliable data)
59th Saudi Arabia --> Saudi Arabia 64.3
54th United Arab Emirates --> United Arab Emirates 64.7
50th Kuwait --> Kuwait 65.6
There was some overlap however between the above and countries like Romania, France and Italy, however most of the "Western" nations are generally more capitalistic than the Arab Nations.
liberty student:There is this myth about Arabs being womanizers, but that is just western propaganda.
So all the talk about them beating their wives, the oppression, legalized rape, and so on (all spoken of by their top priests and done commonly in their societies) and all the Sharia Law is all a lie, correct?
Can you provide some evidence of this, if that's what you mean?
malgratloprekindle: liberty student:Muslims are not socialist. They are more capitalist than western nations or Christians in general. Not according to the Economic Freedom Index ( http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx ):
I don't know what the standard is, but if you know anything about Islamic banking then it is very hard to say western nations are more capitalist.
malgratloprekindle:So all the talk about them beating their wives, the oppression, legalized rape, and so on (all spoken of by their top priests and done commonly in their societies) and all the Sharia Law is all a lie, correct?
People in the west beat their wives, priests diddle young boys, women get raped in college and so on. When I read about a man hiring a stranger off Craigslist to rape his wife at knife point while he watched, and the kids were sleeping, I'm not feeling the US or the west as being morally superior people.
Are there exceptions? There probably are. But I don't believe that's not an issue with Islam. Those are issues culturally or with the state.
malgratloprekindle:Can you provide some evidence of this, if that's what you mean?
Read the Koran.
Go to a mosque and introduce yourself to the Imam and ask him questions.
Seems to me the best way to find out about something is to go to primary sources.
liberty student: Daniel: The workers will produce what "workers want", instead of being at the whim of the "capitalist". How about this? The workers will produce what "workers want", instead of being at the whim of the "customer". After all, a successful capitalist is one who pleases his customers.
I was paraphrasing Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. I was also being somewhat sarcastic and mockingly (word?).
malgratloprekindle, you are conflating the Muslim religion with the "Muslim" governments.
liberty student:I don't know what the standard is, but if you know anything about Islamic banking then it is very hard to say western nations are more capitalist.
What do you mean?
Anarchist Cain:What do you mean by this? I
Anarchist Cain:This can easily be refuted. You cannot at one time know every action that every individual is doing with every piece of capital. Therefore you cannot take-part of crop production in Iowa while dictating how logs are used in Washington. Therefore, a certain class will arise rationing out goods and take on the label of 'representatives of the workers.' Collectivism is utopian.
scineram: liberty student:I don't know what the standard is, but if you know anything about Islamic banking then it is very hard to say western nations are more capitalist. What do you mean?
Do you know anything about Islamic banking?
I just gave you a source complete with a standard; with monetary and financial freedom.
liberty student:People in the west beat their wives, priests diddle young boys, women get raped in college and so on. When I read about a man hiring a stranger off Craigslist to rape his wife at knife point while he watched, and the kids were sleeping, I'm not feeling the US or the west as being morally superior people.
Yes, but it's considered socially acceptable there. Not in Western countries
liberty student:Read the Koran.
Cite an exact verse.
I've read parts of the Quran It's there.
I've seen the shit pulled in that part of the world: It's a theocratic hell hole.
Daniel:malgratloprekindle, you are conflating the Muslim religion with the "Muslim" governments.
Considering it's theocracy in those countries, the point still stands.
To be fair, a bit of it has to do with the US's shitty foreign policy. If we stopped supporting either side in dispute, selling them weapons via our government, and stopped with the aid, they'd have more incentive to improve into more effective capitalist free market system with a respect of human rights.
liberty student:Do you know anything about Islamic banking?
You can probably take that as a no from the people.
Care to enlighten us, my Liberty loving admin? :3
malgratloprekindle:I just gave you a source complete with a standard; with monetary and financial freedom.
Right, and I think that the capacity for private property rights is what freedom is about, not lower tax rates.
malgratloprekindle:Yes, but it's considered socially acceptable there. Not in Western countries
In western countries, it is acceptable to torture and carpet bomb civilians. To starve children to death with sanctions. Please, you don't want to go there.
The issue is not the religion, or the race, it is the state. It is always statism and the statist mentality that bring these things.
malgratloprekindle: Cite an exact verse. I've read parts of the Quran It's there.
I'm telling you to read the Koran, not to read selected internet translations of verses which taken out of context of the entire book, can be made to mean anything.
malgratloprekindle:I've seen the shit pulled in that part of the world: It's a theocratic hell hole.
Again, there are over 1 billion muslims in the world. They are doing far less killing and stealing than the secular scientific west.
The "theocracy" you speak of, is not Islam. It is statism.
But I digress, back on topic:
Saiphes:They didn't seem terribly opposed to free market anarchy or forms of agorism, but they despise, it seems, the term "capitalism".
Ever since it's been co-opted by the NeoCons to mean what Corporatism does as a colloquial, it's no surprise.
Saiphes:the cartoon - Libertarianism is just anarchy for rich people.
I've seen that on Encyclopedia Dramatica.
As for private property, I know the Austrian School considers private property to important, but as a human right, and as part of a civil society.
Marxists on the other hand...well, I think we all know what their opinion is on this.
malgratloprekindle:Considering it's theocracy in those countries, the point still stands.
malgratloprekindle:To be fair, a bit of it has to do with the US's shitty foreign policy. If we stopped supporting either side in dispute, selling them weapons via our government, and stopped with the aid, they'd have more incentive to improve into more effective capitalist free market system with a respect of human rights.
Islam was giving rights to women when the Christian west would not allow them to own property or vote, and burned them at the stake as witches.
The Islamic countries were not hit hard by the credit crisis, why? Because they have a concept of sound banking, and reject the western ponzi schemes that the Heritage Institute likes to think makes us wealthy and free. Real wealth is property ownership.
liberty student:Where is it a theocracy? Where do the priests run things? Islam was giving rights to women when the Christian west would not allow them to own property or vote, and burned them at the stake as witches.
Google "Sharia Law".
liberty student:The Islamic countries were not hit hard by the credit crisis, why? Because they have a concept of sound banking, and reject the western ponzi schemes that the Heritage Institute likes to think makes us wealthy and free. Real wealth is property ownership.
So what separates their banking from ours? Do they use a full reserve system?
If so, does anyone know how I can (legally) get my money into one of their banks? And of the different countries, which ones are the best run; such that the money isn't stolen from me (it never hurts to be safe...)
From the article: "Anarcho-capitalism is a social darwinistic ideology"
I stopped reading as soon as I read the first bit above. Anyone with even a redimentary knowledge of biology can (or at least should) tell you that Captialism is the exact OPPOSITE of social darwinism. Socialism in more like social darwinism because the two are a top down process, as opposed to the bottom up design/function of both evolution by natural selection and the free market. Both systems, despite their imperfections, create amazing results that no single human designer (or central economic planner) could concieve.
Granted, I looked at their definition of "Anarchy" and it seemed to be pretty spot on.
job86:I mean that one can't carve out premises in morality or ethics (such as rights to own property) without having it founded in arbitrary reasoning. I can say that I think that every individual has the right to own property but I can’t prove it in a deductive chain of reasoning unless I start out with a totally subjective premise.
So you are claiming that one cannot study and evalutate human interaction without starting on a false premise?
job86:Question is if there’s an inherent fault or wrong with the stance against private property.
I have yet to be presented one.
job86:Much like that a State that can accurately calculate every human action in detail in a society probably is a utopia but if we ever would have the technology to do so, the pragmatic argument against the state would be gone.
The fact is there can never be such an environment. We would cease to be humans. I am a big fan of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction.