The Fallacies of Anarcho-Capitalism

[OctoBoxeo]

#1 Non-Aggression
----although I agree with the phrasing (by definition) Rothbard allows for courts to handle non-contractual suits and decide verdict and force judgement; this violates the voluntarism law of all forms of "anarchy"

#2 Self-Ownership
----I do agree that one should be in total control of ones person -- "ownership" implies something once purchased (or traded for) and something that could be sold. If anything its a fallacious use of phrasing.

#3 Negative Rights
----All rights (every single one you name) was born in either Economic-Fuedalism (what Marx coined as "Capitalism") or under Economic-Fascism (what Mussolini called "Corporatism" -- Ron Paul says we live under Corporatism today). How can "rights" (which by definition is a claim which must further be backed by law) be availed in a voluntary society with voluntary courts? What's the point of even talking about them?
----In a free-society you must fend for yourself and help who you like. But you cannot "force" other's to comply. If your possession gets stolen then you deal with it -- there are no "cops" or "courts" who can help you.
----In fact one of the main axioms of Anarcho-Capitalism is "the right to fail" (buyer beware). This forces competition and consumer-sovereignty with no gov't middle-man. Thus you get the best products and best distribution possible -- according to An-Cap. How then can you "protect rights" -- are you not disallowing failure, are you not hindering self-defense innovation? Of course you are.

There are others but who's reading at this point, smile.

[Skooma Addict]

I am going to assume that this is a joke.

[IcarusAngel]

The principles of anarcho-capitalism above violate basic logic and common sense, such as self-ownership. Political divisions like "positive" and "negative" rights make no sense because private property would have to be a positive right, since it is a theft from everybody else to claim ownership of land.

[trivas7]

... Political divisions like "positive" and "negative" rights make no sense because private property would have to be a positive right, since it is a theft from everybody else to claim ownership of land.
Haven't a clue what this means. Even if there is no such distinction bt "positive" and "negative" rights, how is a claim to ownership of land "theft"?

[IcarusAngel]

By granting negative rights you do not take away anybody else's freedom and choices. If I rant, it doesn't affect anybody else's ability to rant. Only if I am physically suppressing them some how could I prevent their free-speech.

Property on the other hand is shared by everyone, like air. Any massive consolidation of property affects everybody, and even small ownership claims to property affect everybody.

If you claim property to be yours based on principles that people don't agree with it's a theft, which is why capitalism is always tyrannical, and anarcho-capitalism is even more tyrannical than current capitalism because there are no measures to protect against this theft of land from everybody.