Leftist vs. Capitalist views of the state

[Nolan]

I was snooping around some ancap videos on YouTube and one of them said something along the lines of this:


The state (government) is any body that has a monopoly on legal force. Therefore left-wing irrationalist "anarchists" actually support a state!

Any critiques of the view of the state as simply "something that has a monopoly on force?"

[Zanthorus]

Any critiques of the view of the state as simply "something that has a monopoly on force?"

Private property owners have a monopoly on force. The only way to get around that would be to draw a line of demarcation between a "state" and lower forms of monopoly on force which was essentially arbitrary. But even that would basically be pissing in the wind. I'm sure, for example, that you could find someone who owns land which covers a wider area than the Vatican.

[Raúl Duke]

The state (government) is any body that has a monopoly on legal force. Therefore left-wing irrationalist "anarchists" actually support a state!

The issue about the state increasingly seems more about semantics/differences of definition.
For one, I don't think one can totally do away with "force" or "power" in a society. One may however reduce, limit, or perhaps eliminate any coercive or oppressive aspect of it.

The issue (which social anarchist have with the state) is that state allows one class to oppressed another class with force (although, this is of last recourse, the state has also used other measures to attempt pacify the working class).

Although, even the corporations in an an-cap society will have the ability to use force (and I'm guessing will have the "legal monopoly" on it. After all, how do you expect an an-cap society to deal with strikes?

[Os Cangaceiros]

How would the whole "monopoly on force" dilemma be resolved under anarcho-capitalism?

[Zanthorus]

How would the whole "monopoly on force" dilemma be resolved under anarcho-capitalism?

They would probably define the state more along the lines of an illegitimate monopoly on the use of force. But then of course they have the problem of showing that private property is morally justified.


The issue about the state increasingly seems more about semantics/differences of definition.

I think there is clearly an institution existing in society which we can pin down as constituting the "state". The problem is that no-one seems to be able to agree on the essential features of that institution, or what would constitute an abolition of the state. Most of it seems to be to do with different intellectual backgrounds. Marx's theory of the state, for example, is tied to his Hegelian roots.

[AK]

Wait, so right-libertarians are actually the stereotypical anarchists that want chaos and a world where if you don't sell something at a fair price your neighbours shoot you?

[BAM]

Wait, so right-libertarians are actually the stereotypical anarchists that want chaos and a world where if you don't sell something at a fair price your neighbours shoot you?

no, they want a world where someone could pay someone else(like a private police force) to shoot you. :D Of course, the chaos bit won't happen because we'll all be living in this magic world where everyone's pursuit of their own self-interest is at the same time exactly in the interests of the rest of society.

[Chambered Word]

Wait, so right-libertarians are actually the stereotypical anarchists that want chaos and a world where if you don't sell something at a fair price your neighbours shoot you?

Very little of what anarcho-capitalists say and think really matters in the real world anyway, it's obvious that a state is needed to enforce private property laws. No one in their right mind imagines that workers actually enjoy working for a boss (without the few rights that they would have under many contemporary capitalist states, may I add). They're completely divorced from reality, which is why you find so many of them on YouTube. :rolleyes:

[AK]

Both true, but having right-wingers perpetuate the stereotype is even funnier.