Fighting "Anarcho" Capitalist Propaganda

[Wolf Larson]

Hopefully these people aren't infecting this forum as they are everywhere else I go online. I'm not sure if any of you have noticed but this school of Rothbardian revisionism is spreading like wildfire throughout the United States. Mostly the central fly over states, mostly white working class self hating fools who have been consumed by greed.

Anyway, my point is, are there any other anarchists on here having the same problem I'm having with these people? They seem to be multiplying online. I'm not sure how much of a real threat they pose to anarchism right now and I'm aware they've existed since Rothbards time but most of the right wing American capitalist libertarians these days are deciding to call themselves anarchists. They Cherry pick Tucker, Stirner and Spooner and somehow come away with the notion private property, wage slavery, rent, and interest are the greatest thing in the world. I could use some help from fellow anarchists in an effort to rhetorically purge these people from the anarchist community.

[Agnapostate]

"Anarcho"-capitalism doesn't really constitute much more than a silly marginal Internet fad. There are a few scattered economics professors of the affiliated Austrian school that's often tied in with "anarcho"-capitalist political ideology, just as there are a few scattered biology professors that endorse creationism or something similarly idiotic and based on blind faith. I'd never met a single "anarcho"-capitalist in real life before this past December, and that certainly wasn't random; I was at a political event that attracted them.

Their entire ideology is pretty much obliterated and exposed as non-anarchist in Section F (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF) of An Anarchist FAQ, with Appendix 1 (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQAppendix1) being devoted to rebuttal of "anarcho"-capitalist Bryan Caplan's opposing FAQ. The FAQ originated as a response to the emergent philosophy of "anarcho"-capitalism, which was probably unnecessary, just as there's no need to compile a lengthy critique of astrology. But as it is, they've never composed any full response to that work simply because of its magnitude and accuracy. This (http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=15261) represents the extent of their abilities, I'd say; floundering and confusion about the lack of a response and a threat to deal with anarchism Pinochet-style. How libertarian. :lol:

[Wolf Larson]

Yes thank you I'm fully aware of the absurdity and have read the faq years ago :) but these people are spreading like wildfire in online political forums, youtube, myspace, facebook etc and have started to show up at functions here in the Bay Area [I'm in Oakland but they come from the East Bay suburbs]. I hadn't seen any in person either until a few weeks ago.They've been grabbing the younger generation online...filling their heads with nonsense. I ignored them for a while as well but more and more have been popping up. :confused:

I've gone as far as to read [in their entirety] Tucker, Spooner and Stirner [the anarchists they cherry pick] and have refuted every last erroneous position they hold but they keep comming. Tucker, Spooner and Stirner are the 'individualist' anarchists they cherry pick, warp and mix with Rothbard to fit their capitalist agenda. I think at some point an organized online purging should be in order.
You may think they pose no threat to anarchism but I'm telling you...they're multiplying. There's a rather large group of them I'm targeting now who have been spreading all manner of racism & misogyny while advocating property, wage slavery, rent and interest under the banner of anarchism. It's bizarre and they are a minority right now but I see a scary trend poping up.

[Dimentio]

"Anarcho"-capitalism doesn't really constitute much more than a silly marginal Internet fad. There are a few scattered economics professors of the affiliated Austrian school that's often tied in with "anarcho"-capitalist political ideology, just as there are a few scattered biology professors that endorse creationism or something similarly idiotic and based on blind faith. I'd never met a single "anarcho"-capitalist in real life before this past December, and that certainly wasn't random; I was at a political event that attracted them.

Their entire ideology is pretty much obliterated and exposed as non-anarchist in Section F (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionF) of An Anarchist FAQ, with Appendix 1 (http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQAppendix1) being devoted to rebuttal of "anarcho"-capitalist Bryan Caplan's opposing FAQ. The FAQ originated as a response to the emergent philosophy of "anarcho"-capitalism, which was probably unnecessary, just as there's no need to compile a lengthy critique of astrology. But as it is, they've never composed any full response to that work simply because of its magnitude and accuracy. This (http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=15261) represents the extent of their abilities, I'd say; floundering and confusion about the lack of a response and a threat to deal with anarchism Pinochet-style. How libertarian. :lol:

Anarcho-capitalism is much like primitivism. It shouldn't really be necessary to compile an attack against it, but somehow it is turned necessary by the attraction effect such ideologies tend to have on a segment of intellectuals.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Discuss why anarchy and capitalism are antithetical.

[Wolf Larson]

Could use help in a certain anarchist forum but I cant post links in here yet as I'm a new member in here. These capitalists have begun to flag our youtube videos and even had two anarchist accounts on youtube deleted somehow. They've started to post [about 30 of them] on myspace anarchist groups and over on facebook.

Most of them come from the Ludwig Von Mises forums and are fans of Ayn Rand. Objectivists. I cant begin to explain the frustration.....

[Agnapostate]

You know, you're exactly right about the FAQ. Section F in particular is well-known enough (since that was its point of origin, as were the Usenet exchanges between Iain McKay et al. and Caplan), but despite its reputation as an unchallenged demolition of "an"-cap ideology, there's been no substantive challenge to it. All of them know about it, but none of them really know it.

I'd be glad to help you on mises.org except for the fact that I was banned. Apparently, it's not the most "libertarian" of places.

[Red Commissar]

One away that I've often played with them is posing them a question over who would they call if someone tried to steal or take their property. More often then not they'll spout out "the police" but quickly take it bac. This only works if you're face-to-face with them, it won't be effective on the internet.

[Wolf Larson]

One away that I've often played with them is posing them a question over who would they call if someone tried to steal or take their property. More often then not they'll spout out "the police" but quickly take it bac. This only works if you're face-to-face with them, it won't be effective on the internet.

Been there done that. They actually believe in a private for profit state. Private police. Like the Pinkerton detective agency. The same sort of private tyranny used to subjugate actual anarchists during the industrial revolution. I call them "anarcho" statists! These people are quacks and they're reproducing like Gremlins.They also promote capital making capital ie wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. I've demolished every aspect of their strange philosophy but they deny the very fibers of reality and come up with all manner of Rothbardian revisionist doublethinking pseudo anarchist arguments and it's driving me insane. I've been at it with them for about a month straight now. Since they had some actual anarchists youtube accounts deleted I've been very angry. I'll post the anarchist group they're posting is now as soon as I can post links in here. I guess I need 27 posts in here before I can post web addresses.

[Red Commissar]

Been there done that. They actually believe in a private for profit state. Private police. Like the Pinkerton detective agency. The same sort of private tyranny used to subjugate actual anarchists during the industrial revolution. I call them "anarcho" statists! These people are quacks and they're reproducing like Gremlins.They also promote capital making capital ie wage slavery, rent, interest and usury. I've demolished every aspect of their strange philosophy but they deny the very fibers of reality and come up with all manner of Rothbardian revisionist doublethinking pseudo anarchist arguments and it's driving me insane. I've been at it with them for about a month straight now. Since they had some actual anarchists youtube accounts deleted I've been very angry. I'll post the anarchist group they're posting is now as soon as I can post links in here. I guess I need 27 posts in here before I can post web addresses.

I was referring more towards the more recent additions to their movement, the ones who focus more on free-market but aren't ready to give up guarantees of property protection completely to private interest.

As to your case, maybe it's best to ignore them? It's unlikely you'll change their minds as unlikely it'll be for them to change your minds. If anything they can take it to the point of trolling just to bother you.

As for youtube, that's youtube. It's a cesspool of retards and is hardly worth getting tied up over.

[Wolf Larson]

I was referring more towards the more recent additions to their movement, the ones who focus more on free-market but aren't ready to give up guarantees of property protection completely to private interest.

As to your case, maybe it's best to ignore them? It's unlikely you'll change their minds as unlikely it'll be for them to change your minds. If anything they can take it to the point of trolling just to bother you.

As for youtube, that's youtube. It's a cesspool of retards and is hardly worth getting tied up over.

They're on various forums, they'd be here too if they weren't banned after spewing their capitalist tripe. Thank god for that. The thing is, you cant ignore them. They've begun a sort of propaganda campaign online and the term anarchism comes out of their mouths, or typed onto their key board I should say, in the same sentance with racism, misogyny and threats of violence all while advocating property, wage slavery, rent and interest. I don't want to change their minds concerning being capitalists I want them to stop perverting anarchism.

What if there was a large group of "communists" advocating racism, private property, wage slavery, rent, interest and usury? Besides being bizarre I'm sure communists would at least try to purge that element from their ranks would they not? I don't want to ignore it simply because of the fact they're trying to hooist the black flag of anarchism- the flag of workers struggle all while advocating the exact opposite of what we sand for. They're confused themselves but are confusing a great number of people concerning what anarchism is and is not.

[Wolf Larson]

I was referring more towards the more recent additions to their movement, the ones who focus more on free-market but aren't ready to give up guarantees of property protection completely to private interest.

As to your case, maybe it's best to ignore them? It's unlikely you'll change their minds as unlikely it'll be for them to change your minds. If anything they can take it to the point of trolling just to bother you.

As for youtube, that's youtube. It's a cesspool of retards and is hardly worth getting tied up over.

Ya that would be Konkin and his silly "New libertarian manifesto". Just six months ago I thought the same way you guys thought, as far as them being some online idiot fringe sect- still think they're a minority fringe but these Tea Party things have added A LOT of new faces to their "anarchist" movement. There was once a few hundred of them maybe and now thousands. You'll see what I'm talking about soon enough. It's a trojan horse philosophy and it's catching on. Ignoring subjective tripe is usually the best way to go because engaging them would ussually legitimize their cause [in their mind] but...it's not so much the capitalist rhetoric that bothers me, again, it's the fact they do it under the banner of anarchism. These Tea Party anti government rallies have fed their ranks big time. I'm not sure ignoring them would be the best thing. Most people are laredty confuses as to what anarchism is already, informing our fellow working class, especially white working class is that much harder with these people confusing things.

Maybe anarchists should start calling themselves NAZI's?

I'm beating a dead horse. I'll come back and post links to forums they've infiltrated and we can have some fun with them later.

[Wolf Larson]

http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupprofile&groupID=100001698

I can finally post links. Above is a bastion of "anarcho" capitalists who have began a rather aggressive online capitalist propaganda campaign in various revolutionary forums. If any fellow anarchists feel like helping define what anarchism is and is not you're more than welcome to help out. Just a heads up- they deny the very fibers of reality.

[IcarusAngel]

Where are the "anarcho-capitalists" on that myspace group? A quick viewing shows many leftist beliefs: property cause of slavery, mutual-aid better than self-interest, etc.

[Agnapostate]

Debating political issues on MySpace? I have to admit, in five years of presence on the site (with only periodic visits, thank God), the idea's never occurred to me...and for good reason, it seems.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Those are my posts. I'm kRud. Forgive my anger on that forum because it's been 6 months of back and forth between me and the capitalists. It started out civil but they began ad hom attacks and have ignored pretty much every point and there's only two actual anarchists with about 20 capitalists. There is another actual anarchist that goes by 'Pillz" and a Maoist 'Smash Heaven" but the rest are capitalists.

They've been calling people of color in various groups "n*ggers", threatening people with violence etc all while advocating capitalism under the banner of anarchism. They're in various forums but this is one of their favorite. The 'debate' has gone on for about 6 months and is almost a waist of time at this point- I just get angry when they advocate racism, sexism, property, wage slavery rent and interest while calling themselves anarchists. Average people already perceive anarchism in a subjective manner- these people are confusing more and more people.

Should us actual anarchists ignore people advocating such things under the banner of anarchism? Is that the right approach?

I agree with you, although there prescence is tiny in the real world, it seems you can't look up a political video on youtube without seeing a comment from one of those bastards. Although I spend far to much time online, and am unemployed, anyone with an actual real world existance probably wouldn't notice them very much.

But its still a dangerous thing really, considering how influential the internet will probably come to be in politics.

I share your frustration btw. I've tried "debating" with them as well, and it usually ends up with me feeling like we aren't even speaking the same language, or that the language they use is incapable of actually saying anything negative about capitalism (Starting with the fact that in their mind, capitalism is defined by "voluntarism" - anything involuntary is socialism, so as you can imagine its kinda hard for them to see how capitalism could be bad at all..)

I'd recommend that you try to stop debating with them (its a pointless exercise) and start outlaying your arguments that "demolish" them on here, in exacting form. I'm sure a lot of the local libertarian haters here (namely IcarusAngel, Kwitchz Hadreach, Demongorgon and...Well Genecosta, if he hasn't been banned yet again) would like to read over them, and add or critque them etc. I'd love to see the leftists on here make a dedicated site to refuting this nonsense from a leftist perspective, as it really has gone to far. It seems some of their ideas have been accepted into the mainstream to some degree. For instance, even in the media people, rather than claiming that socialism or communism "sounds nice if it would work, but won't work" are actually saying it is flat out *immoral.*, even if it did work.

[revolution inaction]

Those are my posts. I'm kRud. Forgive my anger on that forum because it's been 6 months of back and forth between me and the capitalists. It started out civil but they began ad hom attacks and have ignored pretty much every point and there's only two actual anarchists with about 20 capitalists. There is another actual anarchist that goes by 'Pillz" and a Maoist 'Smash Heaven" but the rest are capitalists.

They've been calling people of color in various groups "n*ggers", threatening people with violence etc all while advocating capitalism under the banner of anarchism. They're in various forums but this is one of their favorite. The 'debate' has gone on for about 6 months and is almost a waist of time at this point- I just get angry when they advocate racism, sexism, property, wage slavery rent and interest while calling themselves anarchists. Average people already perceive anarchism in a subjective manner- these people are confusing more and more people.

Should us actual anarchists ignore people advocating such things under the banner of anarchism? Is that the right approach?


does myspace have the option to report people for racism?

[Wolf Larson]

does myspace have the option to report people for racism?

Not really. I'd rather oppose them head on when confronted with it. It really bothered me when they started calling the people of color in that group "ni**ers". What can you do? It pretty much gives us a look into the mind of working class white males who promote capitalism. I try to ignore the racism when debating their warped economic fantasy land...both their economics and racism are somewhat inseparable though. I cant stand right wing American capitalist libertarians. A poster in a different thread here on RevLeft had a point though, liberals are the ones actually holding power.

[Wolf Larson]

Debating political issues on MySpace? I have to admit, in five years of presence on the site (with only periodic visits, thank God), the idea's never occurred to me...and for good reason, it seems.

There have been good groups on there- just not the ones where all of myspace has joined. The group in question here was once a great group for anarchists to come together and discuss things without the normal myspace clutter of ignorance. All in all you're right, I spent some time on the myspace political forums and, well, I feel we're doomed after reading the posts by average 18-30 year old suburban Americans. It's a good place to see how average consumer saturated monoculture Americans think. It's actually depressing being in the generic political forums online. RevLeft is a breath of fresh air. I'm glad I found it.

[Wolf Larson]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/huge-appeal-ayn-t128559/index.html?&p=1664628#post1664628 We have an "anarcho" capitalist here on RevLeft promoting Ayn Rand. Pfft.

[Nolan]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/huge-appeal-ayn-t128559/index.html?&p=1664628#post1664628 We have an "anarcho" capitalist here on RevLeft promoting Ayn Rand. Pfft.

About him, read my sig :laugh:

[Zanthorus]

http://groups.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=groups.groupprofile&groupID=100001698

I can finally post links. Above is a bastion of "anarcho" capitalists who have began a rather aggressive online capitalist propaganda campaign in various revolutionary forums. If any fellow anarchists feel like helping define what anarchism is and is not you're more than welcome to help out. Just a heads up- they deny the very fibers of reality.

Well as for their denial of the existence of altruism in the "Mutual aid; stronger than self-interest" thread you could check out the work of Dan Batson (http://batson.socialpsychology.org/). His work provides strong empirical evidence in favour of the empathy-altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy-altruism) hypothesis :)

[Wolf Larson]

Well as for their denial of the existence of altruism in the "Mutual aid; stronger than self-interest" thread you could check out the work of Dan Batson (http://batson.socialpsychology.org/). His work provides strong empirical evidence in favour of the empathy-altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy-altruism) hypothesis :)

Thank you very much. I've ignored that group for a few days. I've been in there 'debating' [arguing] with them for months and it started out with my posting the anarchist faq and went on into detailed critiques of the 'individualist' anarchists who saw themselves as part of the broader socialist tradition- then I gave them a Marxist version of primitive accumulation and property on and on....and on....until they finally stated in with threats of violence and what not. It's an ugly correspondence at this point and probably not even worth anyone's time. I simply can't stand the fact racist right wing capitalist libertarians are trying to claim anarchism. It makes me want to vomit.

[Agnapostate]

It’s also a matter of standard etymological conflict between anarchism and the hierarchies of the capitalist labor market. The term "anarchy" does of course literally mean "no ruler/authority" or "without rulers/authority" (derived from the Greek ἀν-ἀρχός), which effectively means that anarchism is an ideology of opposition to hierarchical governance, as "hierarchy" is derived from the Greek term ἱεραρχία.

Now, ἀρχός and αρχία are parallel terms, so by its very nature, any ideology that has as its end the preservation of archy (namely hierarchy), as a normal condition is opposed to anarchism. This grows increasingly moronic in the case of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's "anarcho-monarchism," a flat-out etymological contradiction.

This is driven home in this attempt (http://mises.org/story/3304) to "rebut" Chomsky's criticism of the hierarchical nature of the capitalist labor market on mises.org, in which the author emphasizes that "there is nothing inherently wrong with private business entities with a hierarchical management structure." A debatable sentiment, if he wants to advance it, but one literally in conflict with the etymological nature of the term "anarchy."

The "anarcho"-capitalist response to this will be some mumbling about the evolution of words and a comical comparison to the debate over whether Catholicism or Protestantism was "true" Christianity. That line is regurgitated based on a claim made by Bryan Caplan in his "anarchist" theory FAQ. There's an obvious fallacy there; Protestantism evolved as a derivative of previously existing Christianity, Catholicism. "Anarcho"-capitalism emerged in explicit opposition to the underlying tenets and moral foundations of actual anarchism, though attempting to selectively misappropriate individualist anarchism despite its socialist nature.

[Wolf Larson]

does myspace have the option to report people for racism?

And it's not just limited to myspace. These same type of people are on RevLeft as well. I've only been in here for a week and have sniffed out about ten of them. Myspace is absurd or the level of intelligent correspondence is lacking in 99% of the groups on there but this isn't limited to any one forum online. I was in their Mises forum but was banned after I gave a detailed account of the actual capitalist accumulation process and the dependence it had on the state. They don't want to admit capitalism has and always will depend on a state. You cannot have a society of concentrated wealth without a state to subjugate those who do not have access to the means of production. You can not have a capitalist concentrating wealth unless millions are excluded from the meas of production. Hobbes and later Locke knew this as did the founding fathers. The " anarcho " capitalist as a rule must ignore empirical reality. Everything is based in theory, unscientific theory, opinion and baseless assumption. Where they show the most doublethinking disconnect with reality is when they claim property, wage labor for a boss, interest and rent are " free association ". These things, in reality, have never been voluntary free association but have always been the offspring of exclusion from equal access to the means of life. In reality workers have accepted wage slavery, rent, interest and usury under threat of exposure and starvation. That is not "free association". If given the choice workers would not choose wage labor for a boos, to rent a home or to take on interest bearing loans. In the colonial US workers did actually have a choice and most poor white Europeans chose to homestead in lieu of work for a boss which is why the capitalistic land owners kidnapped and imported 6 million chattel slaves. Chattel slavery took place in the colonial US specifically because white European wage slaves were given a choice to not work for a boss, rent from a landlord or take on interest bearing loans. The people over at Mises didn't like it when I put that argument forward[ in greater detail] either.

[Agnapostate]

Yeah, mises.org gave me the boot too, in true "libertarian" spirit. They're really more of a silly little cult than anything else. Still registered at Anti-State, but I hate the format.

[Wolf Larson]

I like using Rothbards own words. Especially when he addressed the question are libertarian capitalists anarchists: " Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." -Murray N. Rothbard- If you ever find yourself debating these frauds use this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

[Agnapostate]

This (http://struggle.ws/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/libcap/refuteAC.html) (Kevin Carson's work, I believe) is a helpful piece. Rothbard noted in The Ethics of Liberty that after the czar's decree abolishing serfdom was issued, the "bodies of the oppressed were freed, but the property which they had worked and eminently deserved to own, remained in the hands of their former oppressors. With economic power thus remaining in their hands, the former lords soon found themselves virtual masters once more of what were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs and slaves had tasted freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its fruits."

That is exactly what capitalism entails, as our inheritance from the phase of primitive accumulation and its openly authoritarian nature is an unnaturally inequitable distribution of productive resources, and the consequent demand for wage labor.

[revolution inaction]

@Wolf Larson (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=27781)
I don't think you will have any success going on to a website dedecated to any political ideology and telling them that they are wrong, and out side of these sites they are a tiny minority, and your really wasting your time if your spend any significant amount of energy trying to refute the arguments of people who have no interest in logic or reason and are considered a joke by almost everyone who has heard of there obscure ideology.

The "anarcho"-caps on revleft are all restricted as far as i can tell.

And use paragraphs, some of your posts are hard to read.

[Uppercut]

There's a libertarian at my school that argues for anarcho-capitalism, as well. It's gets annoying...

"Well, if the corporation tries to screw over the people, then they won't buy their products." etc., etc.. What he doesn't realize is that capitalism, if left totally unregulated, will be to cartelization and monopolization. These guys will hire private armies and wipe out any opposition. It's madness!

But he's a Ron Paul loving douchebag, so I can't expect too much of him. :rolleyes:

[Zanthorus]

Kevin Carson's work, I believe

Nah, it's definitely Ian McKay.

[Agnapostate]

Nah, it's definitely Ian McKay.

Right. I'd gotten confused because I'd seen it posted here (http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2008/12/conflation-conflict-continued.html) on Kevin's blog, and didn't see that it was Iain McKay posting a comment because I didn't look closely enough.

[Os Cangaceiros]

99.9% of Americans don't even know what anarcho-capitalism is.

I'm not concerned about it gaining traction anytime soon.

[Wolf Larson]

99.9% of Americans don't even know what anarcho-capitalism is.

I'm not concerned about it gaining traction anytime soon.

You should go to a Tea Party event. I did [not to support it] and was confronted with Rothbardian Ludig Von anarcho capitalists as far as the eye could see. They are all Ron Paul fans/fans of Austrian economics and are the dominant voice at these tea Party rallies. This isn't going to be shown on FOX news of course. Why do you think Ron Paul just won the CPAC thing? Main stream conservatives are trying to marginalize them because of there supposed anti war views BUT they are having an impact on conservative political culture and thus our overall political climate. They're also online and unless each one of them has 100 profiles I'd say there's umpteen thousands of them popping up.

[Physicist]

99.9% of Americans don't even know what anarcho-capitalism is.

I'm not concerned about it gaining traction anytime soon.

Whether or not anarcho-capitalism as an abstract philosophy ever allures public attention is mostly irrelevant as it systematically marginalizes adherents into a corner where exercising violence or coercion in any situation is "government." For anarcho-capitalism to exist, bar scuffles must be abolished.

[Gravediggers]

You might like to look at the ECA Working Group site recently set up to attack the pernicious rubbish put out by the followers of von Mises.

Their Links should provide plenty of ammunition.

[HEAD ICE]

I was talking to my 'anarcho'-capitalist friend the other day, and I tried to avoid getting into an argument that will never end about how every country on the earth is "socialist", free markets are defined by "voluntary" agreements and so forth. I instead asked my friend how he proposes to transition to an 'anarcho'-capitalist society. I explained to him that if he wants his theory to have any wide acceptance, he has to do more than explain how such a society should function and more on how to get there.

'Anarcho'-capitalists have absolutely no real world strategy for bringing about their fantasy utopia. The closest that they have come to to putting forth means is participating in a black market - essentially living as capitalist drop outs to "out compete" the state. Here is an interview by who I guess is a major proponent of this, Brad Spangler (an anarcho-capitalist who is - you guess it - overweight, stereotypes are fun sometimes):

5Ob2f5arcUI

[Meridian]

These people don't seem to understand that the Capitalists (that is, the economical upper class) and the State leaders (that is, the political upper class) either:
A) are the same people, B) have the same interests or C) need each other in order to keep their economical/political position in society.

However, there is common ground between us in the philosophy outlined in the video above: "The makers can live without the takers". Now, the anarcho-capitalist application of this philosophy is clearly wrong.

[A.R.Amistad]

What it all comes down to is the question of "property." The only reason that states exist is to protect ruling-class property from all other classes. feudal states were there to protect and perpetuate feudal property, bourgeois states today are set up to protect property from "the mob" and a proletarian state is supposed to defend proletarian property from the bourgeoisie. To abolish the state, one must abolish all forms of property of any class, because only then will there be no need for a state. But capitalism without private bourgeois property is inconceivable.

[Chambered Word]

Speaking of ancaps, I do remember that when I went to an anti-censorship protest there was a right-libertarian speaker who mentioned von Hayek and was trying to get support for the 'Liberal Democratic Party'. I've never heard of them in Australia.

The bloke was there with his bourgeois-looking family and it was strangely amusing to see his face when fascists turned up unexpectedly and I yelled at them to fuck off repeatedly.

I really hope this cancer doesn't spread to Australia.

[Agnapostate]

I had an amusing exchange with Stephan Kinsella, a relatively well-known (among their circles) "anarcho"-capitalist about the legitimacy of rightists' appropriation of the terms "libertarian" and "anarchist." It was funny because the guy's supposed to be a heavy hitter, and he basically just threw a little fit when I showed up.

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/06/19/the-new-libertarianism-anti-capitalist-and-socialist/

And he wasn't the only one; his little sidekick there was also having a tantrum. :lol:

[thomasludd]

That guy's well-known in their circles? Based on his replies to you, he's not even good in arguing. How is he that "popular"?

[∞]

Anarcho-capitalism is much like primitivism. It shouldn't really be necessary to compile an attack against it, but somehow it is turned necessary by the attraction effect such ideologies tend to have on a segment of intellectuals.

Am I the only person here, who is unhostile to the primitivists? Anyway...http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2005/10/criticisms-of-anarcho-capitalism.html

[Dimentio]

Am I the only person here, who is unhostile to the primitivists? Anyway...http://critiquesoflibertarianism.blogspot.com/2005/10/criticisms-of-anarcho-capitalism.html

No, Mari3l and More fire for the people also have a fetisch for them.

[∞]

No, Mari3l and More fire for the people also have a fetisch for them.

I wouldn't say I have a 'fetish' I'm just "cool" with them.

[Ele'ill]

No, Mari3l and More fire for the people also have a fetisch for them.


I'm more post-civ and if we look backwards in time correctly I've successfully defended my position a dozen times.

[AK]

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/06/19/the-new-libertarianism-anti-capitalist-and-socialist/
You know that East German postcard on that page (http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/socialismus-german-postcard-1990.jpg) is full of shit when you see Lenin with a swastika on his collar.

[Tablo]

You know that East German postcard on that page (http://www.stephankinsella.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/socialismus-german-postcard-1990.jpg) is full of shit when you see Lenin with a swastika on his collar.
This.

[Bilan]

I had an amusing exchange with Stephan Kinsella, a relatively well-known (among their circles) "anarcho"-capitalist about the legitimacy of rightists' appropriation of the terms "libertarian" and "anarchist." It was funny because the guy's supposed to be a heavy hitter, and he basically just threw a little fit when I showed up.

http://www.stephankinsella.com/2009/06/19/the-new-libertarianism-anti-capitalist-and-socialist/

And he wasn't the only one; his little sidekick there was also having a tantrum. :lol:

That was the most boring debate I've ever read. I didn't even finish it.

[Agnapostate]

I don't disagree, actually.