Political Theory

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

AnonLLF — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:20:40 GMT

Smiling Dave:

Scott,

"How is it a fact that Capitalism did not emerge via peace? Let us not forget that Capitalism just means people interacting voluntarily with each other, buying and sellling."

Is that really what 'Capitalism' is.As I've repeated numerous times Capitalism is conflated with a whole load of stuff + the Free market. I just believe in a free market with no conflation of that with a bunch of things.

"On the other hand, all govt actions [=Socialism] are never peaceful. Always violent or with threat of violence."

Socialism doesn't necessarily mean government.Not unless you stretch it to mean violence in general which is what Hoppe has done -ignoring corporatism as fascist.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

AnonLLF — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 18:14:58 GMT

LogisticEarth:

Scott is probably referring to things like the seizure of land and whatnot during the Enclosure Movements that preceeded the Industrial revolution in Europe.

That's part of what I was thinking of.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

LogisticEarth — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:22:55 GMT

Scott is probably referring to things like the seizure of land and whatnot during the Enclosure Movements that preceeded the Industrial revolution in Europe.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

Smiling Dave — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:57:05 GMT

Sure could

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

mahall — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:24:25 GMT

Dave,

Could it not be argued that the economic laws of Capitalism have always existed? Pre-capitalism is only conceptual and not confirmed.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

Smiling Dave — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:19:06 GMT

Scott,

How is it a fact that Capitalism did not emerge via peace? Let us not forget that Capitalism just means people interacting voluntarily with each other, buying and sellling. No wars needed.

On the other hand, all govt actions [=Socialism] are never peaceful. Always violent or with threat of violence.

Now you mention it, Marx eagerly wanted to see blood in the streets.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

mahall — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:14:31 GMT

4. Maybe the fact that 'Capitalism' did not emerge via peace should tell you something about it's nature.

This doesn't make sense to me. Could you elaborate?

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

AnonLLF — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:05:38 GMT

Rettoper:

The motivation for this thread is to challenge the pacifists on mises.org to adequately address the following paradox:

If capitalism is the most effective system for creating societal wealth (and empirical and logical evidence confirm that it is), then why does it continue to be marginalized and bastardized in contemporary society?

Moreover, if peace is the least costly and most effective means of change, then why is coercion so prevalent?

Hence, why hasn’t the most effective system known to man (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace)?

Since many contributors on this site have adopted a confrontational and unproductive approach to individuals and ideas that challenge their world view, I will refrain from offering any comments or critique.

Hence, in the interest of increasing my understanding of the ‘logic’ driving pacifist anarcho-capitalist thinking, this is my first and last post on this thread.

1. I'm not an An-cap so can't speak for them.But I'm not a pacifist and few An-caps are either.

2. I dispute 'capitalism' is the best system.

3. You ignore the ideological state apparatus and the advantages of coercion to the ruling and political classes.

4. Maybe the fact that 'Capitalism' did not emerge via peace should tell you something about it's nature.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

Capitalist_Pig — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 21:03:00 GMT

It also takes time to fully understand and get a good grasp of economics/free markets, especially if you've been hearing the complete opposite for so many years. A lot of thinking and reading is required, which again most people don't care to do because of time preference. Hell even if some people do understand free markets, they still might not advocate it.

Consider someone who's dad is a union leader. Finding out that his dad has been a thief this whole time, instead of the hard working man he's always claimed to be - is hard for a lot of people to accept. People don't want to hear shit from their peers, so they just decide to shut up. I do the same thing in my economics class now. It's not even worth arguing with my academic dishonest teacher, because she'll just play with words and appeal to emotions, which makes me look a complete asshole in front of the whole class. Anything I say she'll just outright deny anyway, so what's the point?

I'm beginning to think the best way to advocate libertarianism would be something like movies. Movies are something people can watch and enjoy even if its a topic their not familar with. Everybody watches gladiator movies, with no knowledge of Roman history. If we had a hollywood director who put libertarian themes in his movies, then I think it would catch on to much more people. The problem now, is thinking of a profitable movie that would not only be enternaing, but also spread the beauty of liberty aswell. We need a libertarian Michael Moore IMO.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

MrSchnapps — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:32:47 GMT

I think capitalist_pig summed it up nicely.

Why don't people want what is 'good' for them? Hell if I know, but you sure can't infer anything from that. Let that be clear.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

Capitalist_Pig — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:30:00 GMT

Rettoper:

If capitalism is the most effective system for creating societal wealth (and empirical and logical evidence confirm that it is), then why does it continue to be marginalized and bastardized in contemporary society?

Moreover, if peace is the least costly and most effective means of change, then why is coercion so prevalent?

Hence, why hasn’t the most effective system known to man (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace)?

Because people prefer present consumption over future consumption. People would rather steal, which in the short run may help them out, but in the long run ends up hurting them. The thing is, most people don't care or even think about the long run, they only live for the present.

Stealing is the easiest way to acquire wealth which is why so many people steal, including the biggest thieves of them all, your local government.

Sure they could all work and we'll all be wealthier in the long run, but they can't wait that long and/or they don't wanna have to work a real job period.

So lets just brainwash people about the evils of capitalism, considering the majority of the population dosen't take the time to research anything on their own anyway. They just take life as how it is, without any motivation to learn about how it got that way or how it can be changed.

The statist mindest can basically be summed up by Keynes : "In the long run we all are dead"

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

Ricky James Moore II — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:29:35 GMT

Rettoper,

You are mislabeling the majority of us as pacifist.

I suspect Rettoper is basically trolling the forum, and has been for months, so don't be surprised when he does this sort of thing.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

mahall — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:20:47 GMT

Rettoper,

You are mislabeling the majority of us as pacifist.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

Smiling Dave — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 18:13:29 GMT

Capitalism is the most effective system for creating societal wealth, butnobody cares about societal wealth. They care [quite rightly] about their individual wealth.

Now, even for an individual, capitalism will provide him with the best honest way to make a living. But certainly theft and extortion and violence require less work. Other people put in the labor all year round, and the thief puts in a few minutes to take it from them. Hence govts and taxes, the ultimate thieves. Once in power, the govt gives a few crumbs to those who will vote for them, aka welfare etc, and sets up propaganda machinary [ books, schools, TV, intellectuals] 24/7 to tell everyone God and justice insist politicians are saints to be worshiped.

Peace is a great means for change, but it doesn't change things in the direction a violent rapacious person wants. Peace leaves everyone with what property the own and the opportunity to get more honestly, and the rapacious person wants the change to be that he gets everything that belongs to others.

Re: Anarcho-capitalist view(s) needed.

Eric080 — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 16:58:09 GMT

"Unnecessary war" is only profitable because of Statism. People think "we good, them bad", and it only takes enough people to think like this. Don't quote me, but I assume only 70-75% of the American population fell for the Iraq War. As early as 2006, 20ish% continued to support the war. What power do these people have to change policy? Vote Democrat? Nothing worked, Democrats are in office and the Iraq War is continuing. A PDA would have to be much more responsive and couldn't afford to develop a "timetable" like the Obama administration has.

If you strip the veneer of patriotism, defensive war will seem like the only option that makes sense on a market. If megalomaniacs can wage war today, it is only because they can dip into the never-ending tax pool. The military-industrial complex arises because of the ease of generating contrived wars, it's not the MI-Complex that got big and then forced war on a population that didn't initially support it.

This isn't a guarantee that no war would occur in a complete free market, I just believe that once people get used to anarchy there won't be as much offensive war and there would certainly be no patriotism to fuel caveman-like thinking.