Anarcho-Capitalism

[cowslayer]

This makes absolutely no sense to me.

A state is needed to defend and enforce the rights of property owners, to make sure that private property is defended.


How can there Capitalism with no State to enforce private property laws without society turning into wars between companies instead of nations?

How can the workers have any rights at all, if there is no police force to stand up for them?

[Widerstand]

Anarcho-Capitalism includes a privatized state.

[cowslayer]

Wow that sounds pretty horrible

[Widerstand]

Of course. It also has nothing in common with Anarchism despite the name.

[Diello]

Of course. It also has nothing in common with Anarchism despite the name.

How'd it pick up the name?

[Widerstand]

How'd it pick up the name?

Because the "anarcho-" prefix merely means there is no ruler, and indeed there is no formal ruler in Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Savage]

Anarcho-Capitalism is to Anarchism what National Socialism is to Socialism; Nothing more than a pathetic misuse of terminology.

[Iraultzaile Ezkerreko]

How'd it pick up the name?

People with no conception of what anarchism actually is. They think they're in opposition to the state because they oppose economic regulation and so tacked on the "anarcho-" to be different and feel special.

[Savage]

People with no conception of what anarchism actually is. They think they're in opposition to the state because they oppose economic regulation and so tacked on the "anarcho-" to be different and feel special.
This is certainly true, the 'Libertarian' Right laughs at the idea of Libertarian Socialism, their idea of Libertarian government is one that does not regulate its home market, even if it brutally represses those opposing it's business interests abroad. To the mainstream Libertarian Right, Anarcho-Capitalists must just be a bunch of people that took the 'Big Government' concept a bit too far.

[Amphictyonis]

How can the workers have any rights at all, if there is no police force to stand up for them?

Who do you think has/would show/shown up with SWAT teams and tanks when/if workers took over factories?

[ed miliband]

Because the "anarcho-" prefix merely means there is no ruler, and indeed there is no formal ruler in Anarcho-Capitalism.


Most an-caps don't actually use that definition though, they simply say anarchism means no government or state.

I think Murray Rothbard was the first to use the term. He was also the first to realise that it didn't really make sense and wrote an article telling people to stop using it. They didn't listen.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Most of the "anarcho"-capitalists argue that capitalism comes naturally to humanity and needs no state defense. The state in fact impedes the natural course of capitalism with all its silly and misguided attempts at regulating it. If we removed the state, businesses would create alternative means of protecting property such as private security forces. This raises an obvious problem, of course, when we consider that most people would not own substantial amounts of property or have the money to hire private security businesses. They would have to live and work under people who can afford such things and submit to their will.


How can the workers have any rights at all, if there is no police force to stand up for them?

Apparently the free market will ensure that capitalists respect the rights of workers, because workers can just get a different job if they don't like the one they currently have. :lol: I have yet to come across one who really addresses the notoriously atrocious conditions that existed in the 1800s before capitalism faced modern regulation.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well, essentially, you sign contracts in buying and selling, selling labour-power, and so on. In order to enforce these contracts, you hire private contract enforcers, by signing a contract. In order to make sure that these serve their purpose, you hire a private army, by signing a contract. In order to make sure that these serve their terms, you hire a private judge and jury, by signing a contract. In order to make sure that these behave themselves, you sign a Divine Covenant.

That, by the way, is the plot of the Book of Genesis, written by Murray Rothbard.

[The Man]

Anarcho-Capitalism is a childish idiocy created by the American Libertarian Movement.

[Thirsty Crow]

How can the workers have any rights at all, if there is no police force to stand up for them?
I don't think this would be a problem for anarcho-cappies.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The ancappies (anarcho-capitalists) call for PPAs (private protection agencies). The idea is that you "vote" with your wallet; you wouldn't pay insurance for PPAs that would harm you. It is too expensive, apparently, without being able to tax people for individual PPAs to start wars. - That's the typical AnCap argument. The problem, of course, is that the wealthy will have a larger say in how PPAs operate, if you vote with your wallet. Most ancappies I have debated with call for reforms, rather than a revolution, and a gradual transition phase, slowly privatising nationalised businesses overtime, "to see how things go" and then finally the armed forces and judicial services until we are in a state of "anarchy". I can't think what an ancap revolution could possibly entail.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Apparently the free market will ensure that capitalists respect the rights of workers, because workers can just get a different job if they don't like the one they currently have. :lol: I have yet to come across one who really addresses the notoriously atrocious conditions that existed in the 1800s before capitalism faced modern regulation.

Mercantilism and "vulgar" capitalism apparently - most blame the circumstances on state intervention (taxing the poor and so forth).

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

From what I can tell, those who pursue anarcho-capitalism, especially in the US, want to make things the way that they were during the late 1800s and early 1900s... And considering that not too long ago that libertarians were laughing at a man who lost his home to a fire because he didn't pay the "required" fee to the fire department in a nearby town that he didn't even live in, these people are cruel, heartless bastards who embrace social-darwinism and don't give a shit for those "below" them.

[HEAD ICE]

For however small the left maybe in America anarcho-capitalists are even smaller. It is better to not waste your time with them.

[The Fighting_Crusnik]

^ True, but many Libertarians are not far off from being anarcho-capitalists. In fact, if (capitalistic) libertarianism were to gain power in the US, many libertarians would probably evolve into anarcho-capitalists for the sake of eliminating any and all regulation of business.

[PoliticalNightmare]

For however small the left maybe in America anarcho-capitalists are even smaller. It is better to not waste your time with them.

Their arguments are often fairly typical arguments that any laissez-faire candidate would hold, therefore it is good to debate with them so you can refute these arguments when arguing with the more mainstream political opponents and to expand your knowledge about the capitalistic free market in its most extreme form. Certainly I have learned a lot about, say the Austrian school of economics, cartels, the stock market and so forth.

[DuracellBunny97]

Anarcho-Capitalism is a joke in the fist place, in fact, I refer to it as stateless capitalism, it isn't worthy of the Anarcho prefix. But read Practical Anarchy by Stefan Molyneux. It's available for free on his website, free domain radio, in PDF or audiobook format. It shows how an anarcho-capitalist society would work in his eyes, however, many of his arguments against communism and for capitalism are pretty flimsy, and he assumes the only real evil is the state, corporations would never do anything to hurt us if they were completely un-regulated. But seriously check it out, stateless capitalism may be ridiculous, but Stefan Molyneux is actually a fairly smart guy, and if nothing else you'll understand how sateless capitalists justify their beliefs, and he does make some decent arguments for stateless society in general.

[jinx92]

and he assumes the only real evil is the state, corporations would never do anything to hurt us if they were completely un-regulated.

That's hilarious, as well as completely untrue. Corporations, in my opinion, are worse than the government. I suggest watching the documentary (or reading the book, which the documentary is based on) Shock Doctrine. It shows the evil marriage between the state and corporations, and how capitalism makes use of disaster to tighten it's hold on nations.

[IllicitPopsicle]

See also: Ayn Rand, Objectivism.

[ZeroNowhere]

See also: Ayn Rand, Objectivism.Rand is not an ancap.

[Garret]

Their arguments are often fairly typical arguments that any laissez-faire candidate would hold,
Yes, they almost always get them from the Mises "Institute" website (Where they are pro-child labour and maybe a bit pro-Somalia :laugh:). In fact, there presence on the internet is nowhere near in proportion to their presence in any movement whatsoever, which is practically microscopic. They are the keyboard warriors of the Free-Market.