Question to Free Market Anarchists

[Weezer]

I haven't come here to complain about your bogus and bourgeois "theories", that's for another day. But I have one question for you:

Where is the anarcho-capitalist/agorist/mutualist revolution? I have yet to hear or see of any free market anarchists movements in the modern day. Your ideology only exists on the Internet, like National Maoism.

[thriller]

Now I gotta look up National Maoism. The fuck is that?
Maybe the tea-party could be considered free market anarchist. Look at there rhetoric. End government, uphold capitalism.

[PilesOfDeadNazis]

Now I gotta look up National Maoism. The fuck is that?
Maybe the tea-party could be considered free market anarchist. Look at there rhetoric. End government, uphold capitalism.
I would assume it's like National Bolshevism with a Maoist twist?

And it's true that the Tea Parties are similar to Anarcho-Capitalists, but they don't believe in no government at all. They just believe in a small government whose only job is to protect private property and keep out the immigrants.

I'm not sure which one is worse: Anarcho-Cappies or Tea Parties. Not that it really matters since they are both abhorrent.:scared:

[Revolution starts with U]

Ancaps are NAP'ers... tho it would be better said pacifists unless you try to take their (actually someone else's. most ancaps are broke, and most rich aren't ancaps) property.
There would be no revolution from them, except to call out their PDA dogs to murder strikers.

[Revolutionair]

The anarchist schools of thought are all part of the single idea of anarchism. Just like when talking about Marxism you have: Freudo-Marxists, Marxist theoreticians, Communist parties, etc etc... They all need each other.

Genuine anarchist movements existed in Spain, Ukraine, Brazil, Palestine (Jewish anarchist-collectives). And there are also some small pseudo-anarchist societies in the US, and in the UK. I heard Iceland was also anarchist, although it had some capitalist leanings.

Also I would like to add that the general attitude of the creator of this topic is silly. Saying that because a movement was never able to develop itself it does not exist outside of the Internet, does not make sense. The reason why anarchism never flourished was because of violent intervention.


Excuse me for my bad English, I hope I got my point across.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The anarchist schools of thought are all part of the single idea of anarchism. Just like when talking about Marxism you have: Freudo-Marxists, Marxist theoreticians, Communist parties, etc etc... They all need each other.

Genuine anarchist movements existed in Spain, Ukraine, Brazil, Palestine (Jewish anarchist-collectives). And there are also some small pseudo-anarchist societies in the US, and in the UK. I heard Iceland was also anarchist, although it had some capitalist leanings.

Also I would like to add that the general attitude of the creator of this topic is silly. Saying that because a movement was never able to develop itself it does not exist outside of the Internet, does not make sense. The reason why anarchism never flourished was because of violent intervention.


Excuse me for my bad English, I hope I got my point across.

I don't think you can compare modern day anarcho capitalism with classical anarchism, who despite having the same name and the same professed aims, had radically different ideas about what was anarchistic, and what wasn't.

[Revolutionair]

Was this thread about "anarcho"-capitalism? Oh shit my bad.

edit:
Ah now I see.
There is a HUGE difference between mutualist and free market anarchism and other other side "anarcho"-capitalism. Mutualism and free market anarchism are actually real anarchist schools of thought. "Anarcho"-capitalism is a silly apology for the status-quo. While mutualists and free market anarchists actually fight against the government and big business, the "anarcho"-capitalist" aim is to privatize the state.

So on the one hand:
Socialism, mutualism, anarchism, free market anarchism, agree with Marxists on the final stage of human development: higher stage communism.
"Anarcho"-capitalists, hate unions, want to privatize violence, apologize for the way things are done now.

[Skooma Addict]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is a silly apology for the status-quo.

?

[Cirno(9)]

And it's true that the Tea Parties are similar to Anarcho-Capitalists, but they don't believe in no government at all. They just believe in a small government whose only job is to protect private property and keep out the immigrants.


Well that and supporting our troops by starting and staying in wars

[Budguy68]

I haven't come here to complain about your bogus and bourgeois "theories", that's for another day. But I have one question for you:

Where is the anarcho-capitalist/agorist/mutualist revolution? I have yet to hear or see of any free market anarchists movements in the modern day. Your ideology only exists on the Internet, like National Maoism.

You're right about that one. I just try to associate with larger groups IE Tea partiers.

But anywho I haven't seen any commie revolutions in the states. And the ones in Latin America just end up making things 10times worst for everyone which is really funny lol.

[PoliticalNightmare]

All of this being said I don't know that we should bury our heads in the sand and treat anarcho-capitalism as a non-existant ideology as this could be fairly dangerous to our own movement if they were to secretely come out of nowhere. Ancap does exist:Somalia.

Also I'm pretty sure mutualism and free-market anarchism are socialist/communist ideologies.

[Budguy68]

All of this being said I don't know that we should bury our heads in the sand and treat anarcho-capitalism as a non-existant ideology as this could be fairly dangerous to our own movement if they were to secretely come out of nowhere. Ancap does exist:Somalia.

Also I'm pretty sure mutualism and free-market anarchism are socialist/communist ideologies.

The result of a collapse government is not anarcho Cap.

I don't think you commies even have a chance. There are many rightwingers win guns and they(we) know hwo to use them very well.

[ComradeMan]

The result of a collapse government is not anarcho Cap.

I don't think you commies even have a chance. There are many rightwingers win guns and they(we) know hwo to use them very well.

I think you're being provocative here (unnecessarily). Come on let's not lower the debate to the level of "you commies". :scared:

Do you think the oppressed masses don't? It isn't that hard either.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The result of a collapse government is not anarcho Cap.

Control of big businesses and piracy? Sounds like ancap to me.


I don't think you commies even have a chance. There are many rightwingers win guns and they(we) know hwo to use them very well.

What's to say that under social anarchism we wouldn't allow people to have guns? Also I doubt you'll be able to win the people over:

"Join the revolution! We'll get rid of free healthcare and make you pay a protection racket for basic services such as police and fire! Whoo!"

[Havet]

Where is the anarcho-capitalist/agorist/mutualist revolution? I have yet to hear or see of any free market anarchists movements in the modern day. Your ideology only exists on the Internet, like National Maoism.

I dont know about anarcho-capitalist revolution, but one of the real life examples of mutualism can be the Spanish Revolution that began during the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Much of Spain’s economy was put under worker control; Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. This example can be considered mutualist given that its contrary to state socialism (something mutualists oppose).

More contemporary forms of mutualism include the internet, like you mentioned (with its free association liberties and free software projects, like Linux), cooperative enterprises (like Mondragón’s federation of coops) and some fair trade movements.

[Budguy68]

Control of big businesses and piracy? Sounds like ancap to me. !"

The new system needs to be installed before you remove the old system. Just like in a house. If you are going to replace the Main Suppost beam You need to Install the New beam first before you remove the old........




What's to say that under social anarchism we wouldn't allow people to have guns? Also I doubt you'll be able to win the people over:

"Join the revolution! We'll get rid of free healthcare and make you pay a protection racket for basic services such as police and fire! Whoo!"


No such thing as a free shirt. And in fact "Free healthcare" is very expensive. My city spends hundreds of thousands on healthcare for druggies and bums alone. they are thinking of givign them free homes because they figure it be cheaper then letting them be out in the cold where they can get sick. meanwhile workign people like me have to pay for our own healthcare and own rent 550 rent.

70% of America's fire fighters are voluntary and many rich people fund these voluntary programs

My Home City in Laredo doesn't have them because they have a strong firefigthers union which probably would be against any voluntary program.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The new system needs to be installed before you remove the old system. Just like in a house. If you are going to replace the Main Suppost beam You need to Install the New beam first before you remove the old........

With social anarchism, perhaps but with ancap, I can't see the point really. Your essentially just surrendering society to the mercy of big businesses. The infrastructure for ancapis already there in the presence of monopolies.




No such thing as a free shirt. And in fact "Free healthcare" is very expensive. My city spends hundreds of thousands on healthcare for druggies and bums alone. they are thinking of givign them free homes because they figure it be cheaper then letting them be out in the cold where they can get sick. meanwhile workign people like me have to pay for our own healthcare and own rent 550 rent.

70% of America's fire fighters are voluntary and many rich people fund these voluntary programs

That's why we want to get rid of taxes and replace them with voluntary workers' communes which organise the distribution of labour.

As for voluntary firefighters, I can't really see that happening in a society where man has to pay rent just to walk down a street because it is owned by someone else and where he has to subject himself to torturous competition just to get a job in the first place and then compete with those who are unemployed to work for even less money. Firefighters have to eat as well you know.


My Home City in Laredo doesn't have them because they have a strong firefigthers union which probably would be against any voluntary program.

I'm not surprised: all the working men in your fire force would probably lose their jobs if people started doing their jobs for free. Your system is corrupt and exploitative.

[RGacky3]

The new system needs to be installed before you remove the old system. Just like in a house. If you are going to replace the Main Suppost beam You need to Install the New beam first before you remove the old........


Well thats the question, whats you plan.


No such thing as a free shirt. And in fact "Free healthcare" is very expensive. My city spends hundreds of thousands on healthcare for druggies and bums alone. they are thinking of givign them free homes because they figure it be cheaper then letting them be out in the cold where they can get sick.

Which is why we want public healthcare for everyone, but I guess you prefer to have your healthcare money go to CEOs rather than care.

Also the reason your city does things like that, is because believe it or not, you live in a community, where most people arn't dicks.


70% of America's fire fighters are voluntary and many rich people fund these voluntary programs



Do you have stats for that? Also yeah so what, rich people do nice things, but if you want a system based on the whims of rich people then your a little bit crazy.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I dont know about anarcho-capitalist revolution, but one of the real life examples of mutualism can be the Spanish Revolution that began during the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in 1936. Much of Spain’s economy was put under worker control; Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers. This example can be considered mutualist given that its contrary to state socialism (something mutualists oppose).

I'd have said anarcho-syndicalism was the dominant political ideology in Spain and it sure as hell worked.

[Revolution starts with U]

The new system needs to be installed before you remove the old system. Just like in a house. If you are going to replace the Main Suppost beam You need to Install the New beam first before you remove the old........

Somalia is a stateless warlord society. It is what many of us predict ancap would neccesarily be. But it is not based on NAP, so it's not theoretically ancap. It's not like the pirates are saying "Kinsella told us to!"






No such thing as a free shirt. And in fact "Free healthcare" is very expensive. My city spends hundreds of thousands on healthcare for druggies and bums alone. they are thinking of givign them free homes because they figure it be cheaper then letting them be out in the cold where they can get sick. meanwhile workign people like me have to pay for our own healthcare and own rent 550 rent.

Actually I have gotten many free shirts.
And in fact, socialism would provide healthcare for all, including you. And the evidence shows it is very relatively cheap (compared to other public programs), and effective.
Or you could let people die of easily treatable diseases because they can't pay. How morally righteous of you :rolleyes:
Of course those druggies and bums are there of their own volition. It is not the exclusionary nature of capitalism.. of course



70% of America's fire fighters are voluntary and many rich people fund these voluntary programs

I would like you to show me one wealthy community with a volunteer fire fighter department. Those only exit in poor and lower income rural towns. Rich people love to use their power to buy the state's services for things they can easily pay for.



My Home City in Laredo doesn't have them because they have a strong firefigthers union which probably would be against any voluntary program.

Your home city doesn't have them because it's a city. Why would need or want volunteers when you have plenty enough people to pull their resources together and fund it.

Regular people bad, rich people good. Feudalism is morally righteous. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Long live the glorious Rothbard! :sneaky:

[Budguy68]

Somalia is a stateless warlord society. It is what many of us predict ancap would neccesarily be. But it is not based on NAP, so it's not theoretically ancap. It's not like the pirates are saying "Kinsella told us to!"


Stateless or not things have always been crappy in that area. Ofcourse its all captilism's fault huh?

Many capitlist predicted Communism wouldnt work in Russia, Cuba, China or Vendezela..

Your home city doesn't have them because it's a city. Why would need or want volunteers when you have plenty enough people to pull their resources together and fund it.
Thats kinda like saying Why would I want free cell phone services when i can already pay 100 dolalrs a month for my current plan!!


Regular people bad, rich people good. Feudalism is morally righteous. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Long live the glorious Rothbard!
I dispise many rich people. Particularly those who run the federal reserve and who got bailout money. I wouldn't mind if peopel started voting from roof tops.

[ComradeMan]

Was that an explanation of an ideology I haven't heard or something? I am not sure what to make of it....

[Budguy68]

I think you're being provocative here (unnecessarily). Come on let's not lower the debate to the level of "you commies". :scared:

Do you think the oppressed masses don't? It isn't that hard either.

you can call me a cappie if you want lol.

Right Wingers are bigger fans of guns. The Feral reserve (centralize banking) oppresses us all.

Yeah I see gangsters with them too, but they don't even know how to shoot them and they dont have common sense.

[ComradeMan]

you can call me a cappie if you want lol.

Right Wingers are bigger fans of guns. The Feral reserve (centralize banking) oppresses us all.

Yeah I see gangsters with them too, but they don't even know how to shoot them and they dont have common sense.

I don't see your tendency- are you an anarcho-capitalist? I'm not sure what to make of your "policies". Could you elaborate further so we can debate and know where we stand.

[Revolution starts with U]

Somalia is a stateless warlord society. It is what many of us predict ancap would neccesarily be. But it is not based on NAP, so it's not theoretically ancap. It's not like the pirates are saying "Kinsella told us to!"


Stateless or not things have always been crappy in that area. Ofcourse its all captilism's fault huh?

Obviously capitalism isn't making it any better. It was actually colonialism that created the problems. You should learn a little more about real socialists, not those pop liberals you see on the news. We don't blame all the problems in the world on capitalism, just most ;)




Many capitlist predicted Communism wouldnt work in Russia, Cuba, China or Vendezela..

First, that's a straw man.
When was communism tried in any of those states? And define "didn't work..."



Your home city doesn't have them because it's a city. Why would need or want volunteers when you have plenty enough people to pull their resources together and fund it.
Thats kinda like saying Why would I want free cell phone services when i can already pay 100 dolalrs a month for my current plan!!

Bollocks, that's a non sequiter. It is like saying why would I volunteer to put my life at risk for fire protection for free when there is plenty enough disposable income to provide for my services.



Regular people bad, rich people good. Feudalism is morally righteous. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Long live the glorious Rothbard!
I dispise many rich people. Particularly those who run the federal reserve and who got bailout money. I wouldn't mind if peopel started voting from roof tops.
Good, so you're a left-Rothbardian. At least you can be worked with.
If we ended social security, welfare, unemployment insurance, healthcare, and the minimum wage (aid to the poor) would you still be against our government? I have my doubts.

[L.A.P.]

Now I gotta look up National Maoism. The fuck is that?
Maybe the tea-party could be considered free market anarchist. Look at there rhetoric. End government, uphold capitalism.

The only time I've seen National Maoism is on a YouTube channel and the theory is that Mao Zedong was a Nazi supporter.:laugh:

[Cirno(9)]

I can't post links because my post count isn't high enough but I found this on the mises forum

More likely, I think, is that it will come about as a thinly-spread underground economy ("agora") that eventually grows so pervasive that it is prohibitively expensive to tax or regulate it, and eventually the state dies by attrition. "What if they put on a government, and nobody came?"
I guess that's like, a type of answer... sorta in a way...

Seriously until ancaps can give a good explanation of how their society will be put into practice they aren't allowed to say other theories are "utopian" while theirs is more "realistic"

[#FF0000]

I can't post links because my post count isn't high enough but I found this on the mises forum

I guess that's like, a type of answer... sorta in a way...

Seriously until ancaps can give a good explanation of how their society will be put into practice they aren't allowed to say other theories are "utopian" while theirs is more "realistic"

Well then Africa is well on its way, since the underground economy in many of the worse off African nations is absolutely massive.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Many capitlist predicted Communism wouldnt work in Russia, Cuba, China or Vendezela..

I'm glad that you at least distinguished between Communism and communism, even if it was unwittingly so. ;)

[revolution inaction]

Somalia is a stateless warlord society. It is what many of us predict ancap would neccesarily be. But it is not based on NAP, so it's not theoretically ancap. It's not like the pirates are saying "Kinsella told us to!"

it's not stateless there are loads of states, ruled by those warlords you mention

[Revolution starts with U]

good point. I guess I got caught up in the rhetoric :blushing:

[blakskwrl]

I see you guy's are asking straight questions and no one is giving straight answers, so I will try.

How do we hope to bring about our ideal society?

Several methods, The first and most important is education. It is why I am here. The way mentioned above is called "Agorism." Agorist participate in black and gray(legal products were the state receives no cut) markets. (state controlled markets are called white markets) The idea is to remove the states tax base so it eventually will wither and die. Landing a job with a state education institution and teaching the dangers of government. (I believe that is also part of agorism but am not 100%) AnCap's use the system as well. The greater modern American libertarian movement is centered around Rothbardianism. These libertarianians who are not fully AnCap's lean that way and we ride that as far as we can.(Same thing with the "Free-Staters" and Tea Party's-we work with them, to an extent, to reduce taxes as much as possible and achieve other common goals. In other words we do what we can when we can to bring us as close as possible to Anarcho-capitalism) AnCap's believe in self defense and even retaliations, but never first strikes. Anarcho-Capitalist are not likely to start a violent revolution.

Anarcho-Capitalism is not some new internet fad. It was developed in the 60's by Murray Rothbard and has been expanding ever since. AnCap's do not wish to destroy society but rather kill the parasitic political class sucking it dry. The thing is in an AnCap society someone could set up the socialist garden of Eden, only they would have to let people come and go as they pleased and deal with people outside there city, or whatever, living differently. The problem with your so-called "free" health care is that it is not free and you can not opt out.(some agorist do not pay taxes or have a driver license but operate vehicles anyway.)

Every time I work money is forcible taken from me by the government. That money goes not only to pay for health care(mine, Even if I don't want it, and others) but to pay the lap dog's who enforce government rules, and wars. AnCap's hate war. Two or more state's fighting over land that neither have any right to it. A lot of the time these states force people who happen to live inside it's border to fight and die for it's continued existence. Taxes are raised and more money is stolen for the "War Effort." Sure some rich people make some peoples lives miserable, but that's small potato's compared to the suffering government has caused. There has never been an acount, troughout all of human history, of a company taking over a society without governmental support. AnCap's hate government because government assumes that it owns you. Anarcho-Capitalist believe in maximizing individual freedom. We believe in capitalism(free-market capitalism, not state or corporate capitalism)because it's a completely voluntary function that developed naturally.

Here is a example to show how an AnCap society could operate. Let's say that Anarcho-Capitalism has won out. We are now switching everything to the private sector. Police are gone. Because people crave security some people will fill this need by opening private defense firms. These firms are little more than glorified security guards. They have no power over anyone until someone has violated a clients person or property. At that moment the firms can use force, if necessary, to defend said client, his property, or to detain the offender for trial. Under Anarcho-Capitalism law's are based off of property rights(self/home) not some moral code being forced on people.

Anarcho-Capitalism has made huge strides in the last few decades. It's influence is everywhere and still growing. It is true that internet has really spread the AnCap word, but hasn't the internet done that with everything?

"left-wing anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and capitalism simultaneously. The nearest those anarchists have come to resolving the problem has been to uphold syndicalism as the ideal. In syndicalism, each group of workers and peasants is supposed to own its means of production in common and plan for itself, while cooperating with other collectives and communes. Logical analysis of these schemes would readily show that the whole program is nonsense. Either of two things would occur: one central agency would plan for and direct the various subgroups, or the collectives themselves would be really autonomous. But the crucial question is whether these agencies would be empowered to use force to put their decisions into effect. All of the left-wing anarchists have agreed that force is necessary against recalcitrants. But then the first possibility means nothing more nor less than Communism, while the second leads to a real chaos of diverse and clashing communisms, that would probably lead finally to some central Communism after a period of social war. Thus, leftwing anarchism must in practice signify either regular Communism or a true chaos of communistic syndics. In both cases, the actual result must be that the State is reestablished under another name. It is the tragic irony of left-wing anarchism that, despite the hopes of its supporters, it is not really anarchism at all. It is either Communism or chaos." Rothbard

[Amphictyonis]

Ancaps are NAP'ers

NAP =non aggression pact. Newsflash. Private property is aggression and cannot exist without state apparatus (coercion/aggression). They fail. They don't even realize they advocate a private state to secure the capitalists 'rights' to control the means of production and thus maintain a hierarchical class based society. They are not anarchists.

[Skooma Addict]

Blackskwrl, how do you know people wouldn't just form violent gangs? How do you knows PDA's would even remotely operate under the NAP? What about people who can't fend for themselves, are you sure charity will be enough to provide for them? You don't know. Nobody knows what statelessness would look like. However, I would rather not gamble the well being of the entire society on anarchists pipe dreams.

[Revolution starts with U]

Several methods, The first and most important is education. It is why I am here. The way mentioned above is called "Agorism." Agorist participate in black and gray(legal products were the state receives no cut) markets. (state controlled markets are called white markets) The idea is to remove the states tax base so it eventually will wither and die.
Won't happen. Wealthy capitalists will use their influence to establish ever stronger PDA's, reestablishing a new state with no accountability to the people. "Its not the state we must destroy, but the idea of the state."

The greater modern American libertarian movement is centered around Rothbardianism. These libertarianians who are not fully AnCap's lean that way and we ride that as far as we can.(Same thing with the "Free-Staters" and Tea Party's-we work with them, to an extent, to reduce taxes as much as possible and achieve other common goals. In other words we do what we can when we can to bring us as close as possible to Anarcho-capitalism) AnCap's believe in self defense and even retaliations, but never first strikes. Anarcho-Capitalist are not likely to start a violent revolution.
Why would the wealthy revolt against their own system? I always find it funny that ancaps cant see that theirs is the same as our current society sans Social Security and democratic accountablility.

Anarcho-Capitalism is not some new internet fad. It was developed in the 60's by Murray Rothbard and has been expanding ever since. AnCap's do not wish to destroy society but rather kill the parasitic political class sucking it dry.
You mean poor people, those worthless free loaders working 12 hrs a day? Or do you actually mean the wealthy corporations recieving tons of subsidies for commercialism and war efforts?

The thing is in an AnCap society someone could set up the socialist garden of Eden, only they would have to let people come and go as they pleased and deal with people outside there city, or whatever, living differently.
I cant predict the future. But all I see happening here is that city boycotting some large company, and it calling in a PDA to destroy the city. They would justify it as "boycotts are theft" (I know this because I have been told that numerous times on LvMI).


The problem with your so-called "free" health care is that it is not free and you can not opt out.(some agorist do not pay taxes or have a driver license but operate vehicles anyway.)

Only asshat right wingers call it "free healthcare." It's "universal" healthcare. We work so that rich people can have it, so it's time they pay for ours as well.

Every time I work money is forcible taken from me by the government. That money goes not only to pay for health care(mine, Even if I don't want it, and others) but to pay the lap dog's who enforce government rules, and wars.
You mean wealthy capitalists trying to protect their economic interests (like Halliburton in Iraq; see, Project for a New American Century)

AnCap's hate war. Two or more state's fighting over land that neither have any right to it. A lot of the time these states force people who happen to live inside it's border to fight and die for it's continued existence.
I agree.

Taxes are raised and more money is stolen for the "War Effort." Sure some rich people make some peoples lives miserable, but that's small potato's compared to the suffering government has caused.
And who do you think controls the government?!?! "This country wasw bought and paid for long ago," ~ George Carlin

There has never been an acount, troughout all of human history, of a company taking over a society without governmental support. AnCap's hate government because government assumes that it owns you.
There have been countless accounts of companies taking over government without society's support tho. This cannot be denied. Poor people do not control government.

Anarcho-Capitalist believe in maximizing individual freedom. We believe in capitalism(free-market capitalism, not state or corporate capitalism)because it's a completely voluntary function that developed naturally.
If I have the choice, but not the means to, how is that "maximizing individual freedom?"


Here is a example to show how an AnCap society could operate. Let's say that Anarcho-Capitalism has won out. We are now switching everything to the private sector. Police are gone. Because people crave security some people will fill this need by opening private defense firms. These firms are little more than glorified security guards. They have no power over anyone until someone has violated a clients person or property. At that moment the firms can use force, if necessary, to defend said client, his property, or to detain the offender for trial.
So... like a warlord, rich people will make up every offense as theft of their property, and a new state will be set up, totally unaccountable to the people at large. In a society where purchasing power is king (not a 1man 1vote phenomenon), wealth is despotism.



"left-wing anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and capitalism simultaneously. The nearest those anarchists have come to resolving the problem has been to uphold syndicalism as the ideal. In syndicalism, each group of workers and peasants is supposed to own its means of production in common and plan for itself, while cooperating with other collectives and communes. Logical analysis of these schemes would readily show that the whole program is nonsense. Either of two things would occur: one central agency would plan for and direct the various subgroups, or the collectives themselves would be really autonomous. But the crucial question is whether these agencies would be empowered to use force to put their decisions into effect. All of the left-wing anarchists have agreed that force is necessary against recalcitrants. But then the first possibility means nothing more nor less than Communism, while the second leads to a real chaos of diverse and clashing communisms, that would probably lead finally to some central Communism after a period of social war. Thus, leftwing anarchism must in practice signify either regular Communism or a true chaos of communistic syndics. In both cases, the actual result must be that the State is reestablished under another name. It is the tragic irony of left-wing anarchism that, despite the hopes of its supporters, it is not really anarchism at all. It is either Communism or chaos." Rothbard
There goes Rothbard hijacking leftist rhetoric in support of the power structure again. This is nothing new. Hegemony is all it is. :thumbdown:

[blakskwrl]

Won't happen. Wealthy capitalists will use their influence to establish ever stronger PDA's, reestablishing a new state with no accountability to the people. "Its not the state we must destroy, but the idea of the state."

OK first this is that that could not happen. They have no real power. PDA's can not DO anything but defend. You misunderstand AnCap. It is not this invisible government controlling people but making every distinct agency in society acountable to individuals. All these things(Schools, PDA, whatever) compete with each other for individual customers. They do something people don't like they lose money or go to jail.

Why would the wealthy revolt against their own system? I always find it funny that ancaps cant see that theirs is the same as our current society sans Social Security and democratic accountablility.

Fuck the wealthy. Really I don't mind rich people but no one should get special treatment. Why do you think that this revolt relies on rich people. It's about the people revolting against a system that is forced on them. AnCap is nowhere near the present system. Everything an individual does requires governmental approvement(fishing, hunting, driving, marrying), it's as much about putting an end to that as it is financial freedom. That is why some rich people are AnCap's, because they believe in individual freedom.

You mean poor people, those worthless free loaders working 12 hrs a day? Or do you actually mean the wealthy corporations recieving tons of subsidies for commercialism and war efforts?
If by the poor, you mean politicians, then yea totally. They are worthless free loaders. I really don't know why you try to make it sound like I support corporations and subsidies when AnCaps hate government subsidies. Government takes money by force and gives it to some business. The business is now in that governments pocket and has an unfair advantage in the market. AnCap's believe in free-markets, that means we are against any interference.

I cant predict the future. But all I see happening here is that city boycotting some large company, and it calling in a PDA to destroy the city. They would justify it as "boycotts are theft" (I know this because I have been told that numerous times on LvMI).
How in god's name would a PDA get that powerful? Thats just retarded. What do you think that these large company's can make up there own laws. How would a company get so large that it could do something like that and what would be it's reasons for doing so? Why would a PDA follow such an absurd order? I have a hard time believing that anyone at LvMI would say something as statist as "boycotts are theft." Free-market, hello, people decide what product and when to buy it. Anyway LvMI is based around austrian economics, not AnCap.

Only asshat right wingers call it "free healthcare." It's "universal" healthcare. We work so that rich people can have it, so it's time they pay for ours as well.

Here is the thing, it is a product payed for by stealing from others. So you advocate putting me in jail if I don't wish to work to pay for your healthcare. I go to jail so you can go to the doctor. That is really kind of you. You make it sound like I want people to die but it's OK for you to lock me up. If you are so worried about the pore and starving masses then do something about it. Do not steal my wallet and hand it to a homeless man and act like you have comited some form of charity on my behalf. You robed me.

You mean wealthy capitalists trying to protect their economic interests (like Halliburton in Iraq; see, Project for a New American Century)
Halliburton is most definitely government backed/

I agree.

And who do you think controls the government?!?! "This country wasw bought and paid for long ago," ~ George Carlin

That's just it, government. With no government who would the rich bastards have to buy out. In today's society someone wants the government to do something so they bribe someone. The person the fulfills the bribe using tax payer money. With no tax payer money if someone were to try and bribe someone the dollar amount of the bribe will have to be much higher, incorporating both the cost of the action as well as the personal bribe to whoever. So instead of a bribe being like 10k it would have to be something like $1,010,000. In this system the rich would have far less power.

There have been countless accounts of companies taking over government without society's support tho. This cannot be denied. Poor people do not control government.

That's why we must get rid of government, because it is used against people. In an AnCap society all unfair advantages placed by government are lifted. Governments control people and that's why they must go.

If I have the choice, but not the means to, how is that "maximizing individual freedom?"
Not everyone is going to have the same advantages. The world has been spinning for a long time and we are being born right in the middle of it. Without freedom of choice there is no freedom. King Henry VIII still had to piss in a bucket and trow it out a window. Even the pore today have color tv's. A human's means are what happen to be available to him at the time of his existence and location. Some people are born rich, others die of aids when they are four months old. If everyone had everything that everyone else had there would be no innovations of any kind. Invintors without any incentive will not invent. Freedom and equality are two completely different words.


So... like a warlord, rich people will make up every offense as theft of their property, and a new state will be set up, totally unaccountable to the people at large. In a society where purchasing power is king (not a 1man 1vote phenomenon), wealth is despotism.

AnCap's don't think voting does shit. The rich can not claim or create a new law. AnCap's law is based off the non-aggression principle. For someone rich to have someone put away for theft then that person would had to have actually taken something tangible from the rich guy. It would have to be proven and them regular people would have to convict him. It's not going to happen. Rich people only make the rules when there is something making rules.


There goes Rothbard hijacking leftist rhetoric in support of the power structure again. This is nothing new. Hegemony is all it is. :thumbdown:
Rothbard is in a weird place. People on the right put him on the left and people on the left put him on the right. I posted the quote because I wanted to know what people think of it? Is it wrong? How?

[blakskwrl]

"The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, "I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence." Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can."

[Revolutionair]

Or you get the violence one and start going mafia style on the local city. Everyone must buy your products, everyone must pay monthly rent etc. Combine that with the private army and you have a privatized state, or like Chomsky would say: an unaccountable private tyranny.
"Anarcho"-capitalism is based on the fact that people will not do everything that is necessary to survive. People will be kind to each other, even if there is a clear power system. People will stay pacifist, even if you can only go up the hierarchy through violence. It gives people all of the means necessary to form private armies, yet they will not to.

[WeAreReborn]

I see you guy's are asking straight questions and no one is giving straight answers, so I will try.

How do we hope to bring about our ideal society?

Several methods, The first and most important is education. It is why I am here. The way mentioned above is called "Agorism." Agorist participate in black and gray(legal products were the state receives no cut) markets. (state controlled markets are called white markets) The idea is to remove the states tax base so it eventually will wither and die. Landing a job with a state education institution and teaching the dangers of government. (I believe that is also part of agorism but am not 100%) AnCap's use the system as well. The greater modern American libertarian movement is centered around Rothbardianism. These libertarianians who are not fully AnCap's lean that way and we ride that as far as we can.(Same thing with the "Free-Staters" and Tea Party's-we work with them, to an extent, to reduce taxes as much as possible and achieve other common goals. In other words we do what we can when we can to bring us as close as possible to Anarcho-capitalism) AnCap's believe in self defense and even retaliations, but never first strikes. Anarcho-Capitalist are not likely to start a violent revolution.

Anarcho-Capitalism is not some new internet fad. It was developed in the 60's by Murray Rothbard and has been expanding ever since. AnCap's do not wish to destroy society but rather kill the parasitic political class sucking it dry. The thing is in an AnCap society someone could set up the socialist garden of Eden, only they would have to let people come and go as they pleased and deal with people outside there city, or whatever, living differently. The problem with your so-called "free" health care is that it is not free and you can not opt out.(some agorist do not pay taxes or have a driver license but operate vehicles anyway.)

Every time I work money is forcible taken from me by the government. That money goes not only to pay for health care(mine, Even if I don't want it, and others) but to pay the lap dog's who enforce government rules, and wars. AnCap's hate war. Two or more state's fighting over land that neither have any right to it. A lot of the time these states force people who happen to live inside it's border to fight and die for it's continued existence. Taxes are raised and more money is stolen for the "War Effort." Sure some rich people make some peoples lives miserable, but that's small potato's compared to the suffering government has caused. There has never been an acount, troughout all of human history, of a company taking over a society without governmental support. AnCap's hate government because government assumes that it owns you. Anarcho-Capitalist believe in maximizing individual freedom. We believe in capitalism(free-market capitalism, not state or corporate capitalism)because it's a completely voluntary function that developed naturally.

Here is a example to show how an AnCap society could operate. Let's say that Anarcho-Capitalism has won out. We are now switching everything to the private sector. Police are gone. Because people crave security some people will fill this need by opening private defense firms. These firms are little more than glorified security guards. They have no power over anyone until someone has violated a clients person or property. At that moment the firms can use force, if necessary, to defend said client, his property, or to detain the offender for trial. Under Anarcho-Capitalism law's are based off of property rights(self/home) not some moral code being forced on people.

Anarcho-Capitalism has made huge strides in the last few decades. It's influence is everywhere and still growing. It is true that internet has really spread the AnCap word, but hasn't the internet done that with everything?

"left-wing anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and capitalism simultaneously. The nearest those anarchists have come to resolving the problem has been to uphold syndicalism as the ideal. In syndicalism, each group of workers and peasants is supposed to own its means of production in common and plan for itself, while cooperating with other collectives and communes. Logical analysis of these schemes would readily show that the whole program is nonsense. Either of two things would occur: one central agency would plan for and direct the various subgroups, or the collectives themselves would be really autonomous. But the crucial question is whether these agencies would be empowered to use force to put their decisions into effect. All of the left-wing anarchists have agreed that force is necessary against recalcitrants. But then the first possibility means nothing more nor less than Communism, while the second leads to a real chaos of diverse and clashing communisms, that would probably lead finally to some central Communism after a period of social war. Thus, leftwing anarchism must in practice signify either regular Communism or a true chaos of communistic syndics. In both cases, the actual result must be that the State is reestablished under another name. It is the tragic irony of left-wing anarchism that, despite the hopes of its supporters, it is not really anarchism at all. It is either Communism or chaos." Rothbard
Your metaphysics assuming a system which is set up for Capitalists to take power just simply won't amuses me. Capitalism creates a divide between the rich and poor by making those classes. In doing so there is no way to live peacefully without suppression by either the government or some large business. With that said large business or rather corporations would take over and rule the nation thus creating a government within a few days or weeks. Doesn't really seem sustainable.

And wow that quote is soooooo foolish it is laughable. A greedy Capitalist in the 60's can go ahead and define what Anarchism, an already established political theory is? Really? He has no idea what true Communism is.


"Anarcho"-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognize that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist -- you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As "anarcho"-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists. -Anarchist FAQ

[Revolution starts with U]

"The question is: what’s likely? Which is likelier to settle its disputes through violence: a government or a private protection agency? Well, the difference is that private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive. If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now, you might be so committed to the Viking mentality that you’re willing to pay for it; but still, it is more expensive. A lot of customers are going to say, "I want to go to one that doesn’t charge all this extra amount for the violence." Whereas, governments – first of all, they’ve got captive customers, they can’t go anywhere else – but since they’re taxing the customers anyway, and so the customers don’t have the option to switch to a different agency. And so, governments can externalize the costs of their going to war much more effectively than private agencies can."

Quoting influential thinkers is cool and all but whenever you want to start thinking for yourself would be great :cool:
It is much easier to bear your costs for the fight against the other PDA's when you pillage the wealth of smaller rural areas :D
And the question isn't government v private defense. That is simply right wing revisionism. The anarchist community would support neither of those. We support self-defense, local defense, democratic defense. Defense must be accountable to the people on a 1man 1vote basis. Military authority based on purchasing power is tyranny. :thumbdown: (feudal europe/china anyone?)
... also, that last sentence is idealism really. As I said above, much like the Mongol hordes, private agencies can easily externalize the costs thru plunder.

[Dean]

Blackskwrl, how do you know people wouldn't just form violent gangs? How do you knows PDA's would even remotely operate under the NAP? What about people who can't fend for themselves, are you sure charity will be enough to provide for them? You don't know. Nobody knows what statelessness would look like. However, I would rather not gamble the well being of the entire society on anarchists pipe dreams.

Where was this logic when I was asking these exact questions of you?

Weren't you one of the ones who said you "weren't interested" in the question so it wasn't a valid criticism of anarcho-capital?