An caps are insane

[Revolution starts with U]

I was just in a debate with an an-cap who tried to make the argument that strikes are theft, and exploitation of capitalists.
I've also had them say they prefer feudalism and monarchy to democracy.
Nut jobs?

[Skooma Addict]

Strikes are viewed as "theft" if the strikes are on a persons private property without the owners consent. Some prefer monarchy to democracy, and others don't. Although none of them support either.

I wouldn't say they are nut jobs at all. I think they just don't fully understand the fact that they don't know what statelessness would look like, and that there is no reason to assume PDA's that would enforce private property to a greater extent than the state currently does. Also, in many cases where government intervention would lead to better outcomes in most peoples minds, often times ancaps resort to the claim that there is "aggression" by the state rather than defend the actual consequences of their proposed social order.

[Broletariat]

The idea of them preferring monarchy is not too surprising considering that's basically what goes on on a piece of private property. Although it's more of an absolutist monarchy than just any old monarchy when we're talking private property. I think it's funny how ancaps would go ballistic if the government required us to wear uniforms yet many workplaces force you to do the same thing and it's A-okay.

[Skooma Addict]

Well that actually isn't why they support monarchy at all. They support Monarchy generally because they believe that generally fewer violations of private property occur. But again, to be clear, not all prefer monarchy to Democracy. Also, I could be wrong, but isn't Swaziland your typical classical absolute Monarchy?

[Broletariat]

Well that actually isn't why they support monarchy at all. They support Monarchy generally because they believe that generally fewer violations of private property occur. But again, to be clear, not all prefer monarchy to Democracy. Also, I could be wrong, but isn't Swaziland your typical classical absolute Monarchy?
I didn't necessarily say that's WHY they support monarchy, I was just saying that its not much of a stretch for them to do so.

[Revolution starts with U]

Theory before evidence always leads to bad conclusions. Monarchy has, historically, been infamous for violation of property rights, especially feudal monarchy.
They even tried to say that unions only exist because of the state. The lengths these people go to to justify themselves is astounding.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Strikes arent neccessarily theft but the workers who choose to strike should be fired.

[Broletariat]

Strikes arent neccessarily theft but the workers who choose to strike should be fired.
Agreed, at which point the workers should remove their boss from his position of social power by occupying their workplace.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, yes. Labor is a commodity. Why do you think workers need to strike in the first place?

[IcarusAngel]

I'm arguing with anarcho-capitalists who say that Mises wasn't really a racist because everybody is actually racist to some extent. So I'm asking them to prove that I'm a racist.

[Revolution starts with U]

You want to make white-black relations equal. That means you support artificially propping up blacks at the expense of whites. You racist :laugh:

[Broletariat]

I'm arguing with anarcho-capitalists who say that Mises wasn't really a racist because everybody is actually racist to some extent. So I'm asking them to prove that I'm a racist.
This is kind of a foolish argument to make.

1. Everyone is a racist to some extent
2. Mises wasn't a racist

was Mises not a person or something?

[IcarusAngel]

Well, nobody ever accused Austrian economics of being logical. :laugh:

They're using the "values" argument. They say it's not racist because it's just a matter of values - rather than saying blacks are inherently inferior.

[Broletariat]

Well, nobody ever accused Austrian economics of being logical. :laugh:

They're using the "values" argument. They say it's not racist because it's just a matter of values - rather than saying blacks are inherently inferior.
Wait what? Like, a person values black people less than white people so it's not racist because it's just personal opinion? Or am I misunderstanding something here.

[Jazzhands]

Strikes are viewed as "theft" if the strikes are on a persons private property without the owners consent. Some prefer monarchy to democracy, and others don't. Although none of them support either.

In an undemocratic society, armed rebellion is a political expression of the kind of system you live in. If the workers choose to strike, it's the capitalist's own damn fault. It's the fault of the whole system.

[#FF0000]

Strikes arent neccessarily theft but the workers who choose to strike should be fired.

Hey have you ever worked in your life? Just once. Any job counts.

You always seem to avoid this question.

[IcarusAngel]

Note: An anarcho-capitalist just attacked a left libertarian on Youtube:

h0g0kaTtgRM

I don't really care - but the guy (the guy whose account was deleted) - had like tons of videos. He also made some rather poignant points about capitalism and the tyranny of private property. It's sad to see someone who could perhaps bring more people over to the "left side" of the spectrum be taken down by an anarcho-capitalist.

[GreenCommunism]

video doesn't work. i wanna see :(

[Ovi]

Strikes arent neccessarily theft but the workers who choose to strike should be fired.
And the boss should be fired with a bullet in his skull.

[RGacky3]

Strikes arent neccessarily theft but the workers who choose to strike should be fired.


Then when the workers are fired, they should just stay in the factory and run it for themselves, and when the boss comes down with his document of ownership for hte factory they should tell him to put it up his ass, because after all, its anarcho-capitalism, no government.

Now MAYBE, if he asks nicely, the workers might let him stay on as a consultant for a modest salery, because it would be mean to put the former Boss on the streets.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Anarcho-Capitalists aren't even worth debating with. Their ideology is so bat-shit ridiculous, that it's completely inconceivable to expect anybody (other than a select few upper-middle class theoreticians) will ever consider it as being a legitimately viable political system.

[Nolan]

I haven't had that much experience with them, but from what I can tell they're not that different from regular libertarians or those Paulite conservatives.

[Summerspeaker]

Some anarcho-capitalists and libertarians at least vehemently oppose the police and war machine. I'm happy to work with them on that basis.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Some anarcho-capitalists and libertarians at least vehemently oppose the police and war machine. I'm happy to work with them on that basis.

Yes, but only on the basis that a 'privatized defense force would be more cost efficient'. If they just want to replace one repressive regime with another one, then how can we collaborate with them?

[Lt. Ferret]

my wife is pretty much a minarchist and she hates the state, the military, violence, and eating meat.

[Bud Struggle]

my wife is pretty much a minarchist and she hates the state, the military, violence, and eating meat.

I think short women are pretty hot too. :D

[Lt. Ferret]

my wife is more like sarah conner from terminator. cept red headed and arab.

[Jazzhands]

my wife is more like sarah conner from terminator. cept red headed and arab.

:drool::drool::drool:

[ContrarianLemming]

Whole swathes of ancaps are rather pro monarchy, that's why there flag has a kings crown on it over the dollar sign.

[#FF0000]

Some anarcho-capitalists and libertarians at least vehemently oppose the police and war machine. I'm happy to work with them on that basis.

I hear a lot of Nazis don't like the banks too.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes, but only on the basis that a 'privatized defense force would be more cost efficient'. If they just want to replace one repressive regime with another one, then how can we collaborate with them?
This is an especially good point replacing the state military with corporate mercenaries isn't exactly my idea of progressive. And they oppose the police because they believe that the police protects the interests of the working class to some extent (eg: a boss can't shoot his worker's without facing repercussions) and they would like the police replaced by an army of Pinkerton's. So no they're not fighting for the working class or for equality in any way.

[Drace]

Oh yes, because the capitalist rightly owns his factory, his workers and their wages. And any opposition this autocratic economic system entails a moral infringement - on the part of the the oppressed. Totally bro.

[Summerspeaker]

I think y'all are making a bit of a caricature of anarcho-capitalists. I of course agree on the abhorrence of private police but I don't know of anyone exalting the Pinkertons and Blackwater. The anarcho-capitalists I've encountered considered war a problem of the state and don't want to recreate anything similar after the revolution. They're closer to mainstream liberals than fascists as far as I'm concerned. I agree with them enough to work together for common goals.

(Theoretically, anyways. I don't believe I've ever cooperated successfully with anarcho-capitalists on anything more than online discussions. I suspect cultural differences would hinder efforts in practice.)

[Die Rote Fahne]

I think y'all are making a bit of a caricature of anarcho-capitalists. I of course agree on the abhorrence of private police but I don't know of anyone exalting the Pinkertons and Blackwater. The anarcho-capitalists I've encountered considered war a problem of the state and don't want to recreate anything similar after the revolution. They're closer to mainstream liberals than fascists as far as I'm concerned. I agree with them enough to work together for common goals.

(Theoretically, anyways. I don't believe I've ever cooperated successfully with anarcho-capitalists on anything more than online discussions. I suspect cultural differences would hinder efforts in practice.)

Ancaps are either secret fascists, or blatant morons.

What do they expect to happen when workers have no rights and corporate and private security monopolizes and gain power, controlling prices and the people? The state returns in an undemocratic way with the wealthy at the reigns.

It's absolutley ridiculous to say that anarcho-capitalism is a serious ideology.

[#FF0000]

I think y'all are making a bit of a caricature of anarcho-capitalists. I of course agree on the abhorrence of private police but I don't know of anyone exalting the Pinkertons and Blackwater. The anarcho-capitalists I've encountered considered war a problem of the state and don't want to recreate anything similar after the revolution. They're closer to mainstream liberals than fascists as far as I'm concerned. I agree with them enough to work together for common goals.

(Theoretically, anyways. I don't believe I've ever cooperated successfully with anarcho-capitalists on anything more than online discussions. I suspect cultural differences would hinder efforts in practice.)

Except they hate the shit out of liberals and think that Fascists were the lesser of two evils and saved Europe from socialists.

[Klaatu]

I was just in a debate with an an-cap who tried to make the argument that strikes are theft, and exploitation of capitalists.

Bear in mind that, without the worker, the capitalist is nothing. Without the worker, he would have to do the lower-level work himself (manufacturing widgets, or providing services) and could not possibly acquire a high rate of wealth.

I use the "stranded on the uninhabited island" argument: No one, absolutely no one, can possibly be rich, when living by himself on a deserted island; as he must spend his entire day gathering the needs for his survival. Thus it is impossible to be "wealthy" while living on the island. Enter a thousand new inhabitants, however, and an exploitative-minded person can get those less-powerfully-minded to work for him, thus generating great wealth for him. While some may not see anything wrong with such a scenario, the very least the exploiter can do is to return most of his wealth back to the society which made it possible for him to acquire such enormous wealth in the first place. (This is a good argument for progressive income tax rates.) And ideally, there would be no exploiting entrepenuer capitalists at all anyway...

As for capitalism itself, just who is being exploited? I really don't think that it is the owner... :crying:

[Robert]

You commies hate an caps so much that it makes me (your basic vanilla cap)
feel wubbed by comparison.:wub:

I wub you too.:wub::wub:

Dis is a wegula wub fest.

[Revolution starts with U]

You can't debate with them rationally, not for long anyway. They absolutely reject empiricism and if you don't believe what they do, you obviously don't understand. It is more accurately represented as feudal-capitalism, than anything resembling anarchy.

[Jazzhands]

It is more accurately represented as feudal-capitalism, than anything resembling anarchy.

That's a fairly accurate representation, except that the knights, soldiers, cops, etc. have all been replaced by Mafia-like protection rackets. That's seriously what their "private security" forces would look like.

[Robert]

That's seriously what their "private security" forces would look like.

What would your security forces look like?

[Revolution starts with U]

I've always thought small sheriff like voluntary neighborhood watch type programs would do fine.

[Skooma Addict]

You can't debate with them rationally, not for long anyway. They absolutely reject empiricism and if you don't believe what they do, you obviously don't understand. It is more accurately represented as feudal-capitalism, than anything resembling anarchy.

By "them" are you referring to Prychitko, David Friedman, Bryan Caplan, De Soto, Stringham, Murphy ect?

[Quail]

Sorry but an caps make me think "lol wut"? Like why would they have such a crazy ideology that makes so little sense...

[Die Rote Fahne]

What would your security forces look like?


An army made up of working class militias. Doing their duty to stop counter-revolution.

No profit.

A true army of the people.

[Imposter Marxist]

And the boss should be fired with a bullet in his skull.

I wish I could double thanks this

[Magón]

i was just in a debate with an an-cap...nut jobs?

duh!

[Summerspeaker]

Except they hate the shit out of liberals and think that Fascists were the lesser of two evils and saved Europe from socialists.

I've yet to encounter these variety this variety of anarcho-capitalist. (Y'all can keep them, thank you very much!) I should clarify my comment on liberals. I meant that I consider anarcho-capitalist as close to my views as I consider mainstream liberals. Both support capitalism. The former will have my back if go after the military or cops while the other might help me avoid starvation/poverty in the short-term. Hardly the best allies, but times are desperate.

[Bud Struggle]

I would consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, but I prefer to distance myself from alot of those who do. I don't believe in the power of the state to regulate the private sector, but if you let people join together to form corporations, then why can't you let people join together to form unions. Struggle and contestation is what anarchy is all about.

Thanks for mentioning me!

I suggest you consider carefully what you label yourself. Anything with the word "Capitalist" in it will get you restricted. Now that's fine if you actually are a Capitalist--but if you aren't and Anarcho-Capitalist is just a fuzzy term to you at this present time you will be causing youself needless bother if you do indeed decide to stay.

Either way, welcome to RevLeft.

[Revolution starts with U]

By "them" are you referring to Prychitko, David Friedman, Bryan Caplan, De Soto, Stringham, Murphy ect?u debatin

I didn't realize they were the only an-caps. When you talk about Marxism, are you debating Marx and Engels?

[Skooma Addict]

I was just pointing out Ancaps who can be debated with rationally.

[Revolution starts with U]

Idk. It just seems they start with "rich people are good for society (the best even)." And then build a logical theory from that conclusion to that conclusion. It's a circular argument, it begs the question.
Not all an-caps, just the ones sympathetic to so-called objectivism (what a perversion of that word)... which is most of them.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

What would your security forces look like?

http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/russian-partisan-bear-cavalry-view.jpg

[Demogorgon]

I have said a lot about ancaps over the years, none of it flattering, so I won't repeat myself too much, but many of them simply don't seem to have any idea what their society would look like. They don't seem to understand (or care) how those who cannot afford the best private security will protect themselves. I can answer that one for them, it would probably look like the "bastard feudalism" of the English War of the Roses, with individuals looking for powerful patrons for protection and in return being required to provide service (often violent in nature) for them.

There are a whole host of other problems too of course, particularly with their absurd notion of private courts. What if the parties want to use different courts operating under different legal systems? What if a party simply will not submit to a courts jurisdiction?

[Revolution starts with U]

I have asked that question many times. What if someone just refuses to submit to any court? I have never recieved a response.
Here's the rub; anti-statism is not anarchy per se, it is simply anti-statism. They have no problem with other heirarchical structures. Some even support monarchy, which means they have no problem with rulers.
And as we all kno, anarchy is translated as "no rulers."

[Dean]

Well that actually isn't why they support monarchy at all. They support Monarchy generally because they believe that generally fewer violations of private property occur. But again, to be clear, not all prefer monarchy to Democracy. Also, I could be wrong, but isn't Swaziland your typical classical absolute Monarchy?

That's because private property rights are inherently imbalanced toward the elite classes. In a monarchy the economic and political machinery are centered on the will of the royal family. Why would they violate the property rights of their own class?

This also proves how their propertarian ideology is ultimately just a different way of saying that they support centralized, dictatorial economic rule.