The trend of Anarcho-Capitalism

[Lei Feng]

Hello.

This article is to pose a few questions regarding the new trend amongst many Americans toward Anarcho-Capitalism as a supposed "remedy" to our economic woes.

It seems like Americans are either ignorant to history or they are just plain stupid. The free market capitalism that they hope to achieve HAS existed in america before. Mostly in the 19th century, post-civil war, there was little to no governemnt "interference" in the market. The result...wait for it...Monopolies! Oh, no! Competition between companies for consumers and profits actually leads to one company rising above the rest? No, but thats not REAL capitalism because there are no monopolies in REAL capitalism, there is just unbridled competition to help "better" society. :laugh:

Give me a fuking break. You anarcho-capitalist mises lovers want a market free from government "interference"? You'll get 19th century America(or better yet, Somalia!) where workers had no rights, companies virtually owned their workers(er, i mean slaves) in company towns, monopolies formed and could sell half-assed products and charge whatever they wanted, the police put down worker's uprisings and were paid off by capitalists and bourgeois politicians, and the urban cities were virtual hell holes filled with widespread crime, filthy streets, and poverty around every corner. THAT is your capitlalist free market "paradise" in reality.

Anyways, there was my rant for the day. But the point is, why are so many smart, young(er, 20s early 30s) Americans flocking toward this bogus ideology? I just dont get it. Other than their whole pro0-capitalist rhetoric, in terms of intelligence, most seem fairly smart. But why do they find themselves on this side of the socio-economic/political spectrum?:confused:

I brought this up because my Calculus teacher had brought up something about that phony anti-communist argument "oh well uhhh communism is like making everybodys grade the same, duhhhh". To which he tried to sympathize with us who had leftist leanings, but he called us "idealists" for wanting "somebody else to do something for us". And this guy was dirt poor growing up, his parents would have been classified as Lumpenproletariat in Marxist terms, and somehow he ignores the blatant exploitive properties of capitalism and support anarcho-capitalism because "everybody can start their own business and be rich, and those that do deserve all of those profits". Its just a bit sad that somebody as smart as him who has lived through the expoitation brought on by capitalism can so openly support that very system and just learn to shut up and be what the capitalist want him to be.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Hello.

This article is to pose a few questions regarding the new trend amongst many Americans toward Anarcho-Capitalism as a supposed "remedy" to our economic woes.

It seems like Americans are either ignorant to history or they are just plain stupid. The free market capitalism that they hope to achieve HAS existed in america before. Mostly in the 19th century, post-civil war, there was little to no governemnt "interference" in the market. The result...wait for it...Monopolies! Oh, no! Competition between companies for consumers and profits actually leads to one company rising above the rest? No, but thats not REAL capitalism because there are no monopolies in REAL capitalism, there is just unbridled competition to help "better" society. :laugh:

Give me a fuking break. You anarcho-capitalist mises lovers want a market free from government "interference"? You'll get 19th century America(or better yet, Somalia!) where workers had no rights, companies virtually owned their workers(er, i mean slaves) in company towns, monopolies formed and could sell half-assed products and charge whatever they wanted, the police put down worker's uprisings and were paid off by capitalists and bourgeois politicians, and the urban cities were virtual hell holes filled with widespread crime, filthy streets, and poverty around every corner. THAT is your capitlalist free market "paradise" in reality.

Anyways, there was my rant for the day. But the point is, why are so many smart, young(er, 20s early 30s) Americans flocking toward this bogus ideology? I just dont get it. Other than their whole pro0-capitalist rhetoric, in terms of intelligence, most seem fairly smart. But why do they find themselves on this side of the socio-economic/political spectrum?:confused:

I brought this up because my Calculus teacher had brought up something about that phony anti-communist argument "oh well uhhh communism is like making everybodys grade the same, duhhhh". To which he tried to sympathize with us who had leftist leanings, but he called us "idealists" for wanting "somebody else to do something for us". And this guy was dirt poor growing up, his parents would have been classified as Lumpenproletariat in Marxist terms, and somehow he ignores the blatant exploitive properties of capitalism and support anarcho-capitalism because "everybody can start their own business and be rich, and those that do deserve all of those profits". Its just a bit sad that somebody as smart as him who has lived through the expoitation brought on by capitalism can so openly support that very system and just learn to shut up and be what the capitalist want him to be.
Ron Paul is the reason for a lot of people embracing Austrian economics. He appeals to a few basic positions that sound appealing to those who are new to politics. They research his beliefs and fall for the rhetoric.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

The American educational system pretty much teaches that capitalism is the only right system and that social mobility under it is completely perfect and that socialism is inherently tyrannical. Because of that, Americans react very negatively to pretty much anything left-wing and end up believing bogus ultracapitalist ideologies like that of Ron Paul.

[Grenzer]

When I first started learning about politics, which was back in 2007 I was initially drawn to libertarianism. Its rhetoric of liberty and freedom is very appealing, particularly to those that aren't liberal, but reject the insane level of social conservatism from the traditional right wing. As soon as the the market crash of 2008 occurred, it didn't take long to realize that it was just a bunch of bullshit rhetoric.

There is zero substance to right wing libertarianism, and it's entirely hypocritical. They claim that it's "unfair" that the rich are taxed to pay for benefits to the working class because the rich don't benefit from that arrangement. Without even going into all the things that are wrong with that statement, they also support "limited government" with things like a police force. In bourgeois society, the police exist almost entirely for the benefit of the ruling class; and big surprise: they want the working class to pay for it. The only aspects of government they are for are the aspects that solely benefit the bourgeoisie, but are paid for almost entirely by the workers.

So yeah, pretty fucking inconsistent when they claim social programs are "unfair." Ron Paul is just an idiot. Even when I was a libertarian I didn't like him.

[Grenzer]

The American educational system pretty much teaches that capitalism is the only right system and that social mobility under it is completely perfect and that socialism is inherently tyrannical. Because of that, Americans react very negatively to pretty much anything left-wing and end up believing bogus ultracapitalist ideologies like that of Ron Paul.

That's pretty much dead on.

Hell, I even remember in one of my secondary school history classes one of the vocal terms was "Socialism in one country" but there was never any sort of discussion as what the concept behind any of it was. Even at the University level, one of my political science professors assumed that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" necessarily involved an undemocratic oligarchy.

When I was in high school, they even put on a documentary of Stalin's "Genocide" of the Ukrainians, which any right minded person knows is complete bullshit.

It's more than than just the educational system though, pretty much the entire culture is inundated with anti-socialist rhetoric.

[Night Ripper]

The result...wait for it...Monopolies! Oh, no! Competition between companies for consumers and profits actually leads to one company rising above the rest?

So what? The fact that there's one company selling shoes doesn't mean they get to charge $1,000 for a pair of shoes. They have to keep their prices down and their quality up in order to keep others from entering the market. Even if they have an economy of scale they can't raise prices too high. Maybe a competitor can't enter the market at $20 but they can at $40, therefore the monopolist keeps their prices at $39. Is that a problem for consumers? No, we've just established that the only other shoes you could buy, even if they existed, would be at $40 a pair, you're still saving $1.



You anarcho-capitalist mises lovers want a market free from government "interference"? You'll get 19th century America(or better yet, Somalia!) where workers had no rights, companies virtually owned their workers(er, i mean slaves) in company towns, monopolies formed and could sell half-assed products and charge whatever they wanted, the police put down worker's uprisings and were paid off by capitalists and bourgeois politicians, and the urban cities were virtual hell holes filled with widespread crime, filthy streets, and poverty around every corner. THAT is your capitlalist free market "paradise" in reality.

Trying to paint all anarcho-capitalist societies as Somalia or the Old West is about as idiotic as trying to paint all communist societies as Soviet Russia or all state-run societies as Iran. There are differences and nobody is going to fall for such bullshit arguments based on ignorant stereotypes.

[Conscript]

Lol monopolies and private courts. What a fucking nightmare for the working class. You realize nobody but the petty-bourgeois 'rugged individualist' has any interest in this, and it's not even a material, but a naive idealist interest.

Why don't you become a libertarian? At least that has a sense of logic to it.

[Tim Cornelis]

I wouldn't say "anarcho-"capitalism/nonarchism is a "trend" really. Have you ever seen a nonarchist demonstration? March? Distributing flyers?

[Night Ripper]

Lol monopolies and private courts. What a fucking nightmare for the working class. You realize nobody but the petty-bourgeois 'rugged individualist' has any interest in this, and it's not even a material, but a naive idealist interest.

Why don't you become a libertarian? At least that has a sense of logic to it.

Anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

[Leftsolidarity]

Anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

lulz :lol:

By the way, who was the "Rugged Individualist" that America had such a great experience with? Oh yeah, Hoover. How'd that turn out again?...

[Revolution starts with U]

But you can price gouge. If a competitor enters the market and succeeds you can just buy them out. ...surprise! That's what actually happened/s.

[Revolutionair]

Anarchism is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

Except when libertarianism means companies crushing 3rd world countries a la CATO. Because in that case, it is 'anarcho'-capitalism that is libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

[Dean]

So what? The fact that there's one company selling shoes doesn't mean they get to charge $1,000 for a pair of shoes. They have to keep their prices down and their quality up in order to keep others from entering the market. Even if they have an economy of scale they can't raise prices too high. Maybe a competitor can't enter the market at $20 but they can at $40, therefore the monopolist keeps their prices at $39. Is that a problem for consumers? No, we've just established that the only other shoes you could buy, even if they existed, would be at $40 a pair, you're still saving $1.

There is more than just price-gouging to why monopolies are a problem.

Here in Richmond VA, there are few to no used music shops. The reason is because one of them, Plan 9, habitually bought out the stock of other shops to maintain a monopoly on the market. They stored most of the stock away, since they were just trying to get rid of their competitors. Their pricing was pretty bad - something like 80% of what a new CD would cost, sometimes even higher than MSRP.

But they went out of business. I guess the business model didn't work out. The propertarians might say "let there be justice, though the heaven's fall," and yet, just before then, the same folks would be apologizing for Plan 9's actions - it was all "free market, non-coercive" activity after all.

But the fact is that this accumulation of capital meant the complete annihilation of the used music business in an area where it is hard for new businesses to gain a foothold. Many independent dealers were ruined. And consumers have less choice, efficiency and competition is down, etc.

The problem is that you will only care about one variable: the presence of "coercive" activity. But you don't accept that disproportionate economic influence is coercive. So these particular market dynamics shouldn't matter to you. You trip over yourself trying to prove how unrestrained markets are best, but why bother? You will always revert to it as a moral a priori, there is no technical or material reason for it.

So this massive market failure, much like those of the housing market, will never be meaningful to your propertarian dogma. Why even approach the issue of market efficiency? It's not what you are looking for, anyways.

[Doflamingo]

It's an annoying trend that is occurring in America. Especially how these "anarcho-capitalists" are supporting authoritarian figures such as Ron Paul. Anarcho-capitalism makes no sense to me at all, especially considering that it would be impossible for a direct democracy to occur in anarchism as long as the market is based on competition.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's an annoying trend that is occurring in America. Especially how these "anarcho-capitalists" are supporting authoritarian figures such as Ron Paul. Anarcho-capitalism makes no sense to me at all, especially considering that it would be impossible for a direct democracy to occur in anarchism as long as the market is based on competition.

:confused: "Anarcho-"capitalists are some of the most anti-democratic ideologues out there. They don't want any form of democracy. Some even argue that absolute monarchy is preferable to any form of democracy.

[Revolution starts with U]

There's a thread right now on the mises forums about limiting suffrage, and everyone there is slobbering over what a great idea it is.

[Raúl Duke]

:confused: "Anarcho-"capitalists are some of the most anti-democratic ideologues out there. They don't want any form of democracy. Some even argue that absolute monarchy is preferable to any form of democracy.

Their committed ideologues/theoreticians (such as Hans Herman Hoppe) argue that. At least they're smart and know what they're committed to, I can at least give them credit for that even though I'm against what they stand for.

The run-of-the-mill American (usually) anarcho-capitalist don't see the anti-democratic nature of capitalism. They're a misguided lot, they think they're clever (and tend to be smug about it; although they're less smug, etc than the Paultards who act idiotically kinda thuggish, i.e. they tend to insult and ironically call you sheep, when you criticize their "Dear redeeming Leader" ) but always miss an elemental part(s) of the "big picture" and/or have idealistic (and not based on reality) views on capitalism.

[Night Ripper]

There is more than just price-gouging to why monopolies are a problem.

Here in Richmond VA, there are few to no used music shops. The reason is because one of them, Plan 9, habitually bought out the stock of other shops to maintain a monopoly on the market. They stored most of the stock away, since they were just trying to get rid of their competitors. Their pricing was pretty bad - something like 80% of what a new CD would cost, sometimes even higher than MSRP.

But they went out of business. I guess the business model didn't work out. The propertarians might say "let there be justice, though the heaven's fall," and yet, just before then, the same folks would be apologizing for Plan 9's actions - it was all "free market, non-coercive" activity after all.

But the fact is that this accumulation of capital meant the complete annihilation of the used music business in an area where it is hard for new businesses to gain a foothold. Many independent dealers were ruined. And consumers have less choice, efficiency and competition is down, etc.

That's because you want to pretend that local shops are the only place you can buy goods. Welcome to the internet age. It doesn't matter what you are selling. If it's in a brick-and-mortar store then you're facing tough competition. Circuit City recently shutdown everything but its online store.

For your complaint to make any sense at all you would have to not be able to buy used music at all. Guess what, sites like half.com, secondspin, alibris, etc are doing millions of dollars in used CD sales. There's only one reason why you're buying CD's new, you're not doing any research. There's no market failure. The failure is yours.

[Ele'ill]

nevermind

[Renegade Saint]

Night Ripper, have you ever heard of "barriers to entry"? I assume you haven't, or you would say things as stupid as

So what? The fact that there's one company selling shoes doesn't mean they get to charge $1,000 for a pair of shoes. They have to keep their prices down and their quality up in order to keep others from entering the market.

I wouldn't worry too much about anarcho-capitalism OP. It's just an internet trend. No actual capitalists will ever embrace it, because it doesn't serve the needs of capital. It seems like the one "ideology" guaranteed to piss off everyone from anarchists to capitalists.

[Night Ripper]

Night Ripper, have you ever heard of "barriers to entry"?

Yes I have. I mentioned one in my post where I mentioned the current monopolist possibly having a market of scale. There are several strategies for combating an abusive monopoly. The conclusion one reaches after examining these strategies is that extremely abusive monopolies can't exist for very long. Bill Gates or some random billionaire could buy up all the XYZ and refuse to sell it to you at a resonable price but he won't make any profit from it long term which means it isn't stable. Eventually, prices will approach levels before the billionaire pissed away his money, which almost never happens because they typically get to be billionaires by not pissing money away.

[Night Ripper]

lulz :lol:

By the way, who was the "Rugged Individualist" that America had such a great experience with? Oh yeah, Hoover. How'd that turn out again?...

Let me show you how you sound to me:

"What was that country that had such great experience with communism? Oh yeah, Soviet Russia."

See how fucking idiotic shit like that is? Your ideology had the biggest failure imaginable yet I'm not going to be dumb enough to write it off because of one failed experiment. I actually take the time to understand what's fundamentally wrong with your ideology. I don't just go HERP DERP STALIN unlike you HERP DERP HOOVER!

Oh fuck, you mentioned Hoover. I'm a communist now because of one vague troll comment. Comrade!

[Leftsolidarity]

Let me show you how you sound to me:

"What was that country that had such great experience with communism? Oh yeah, Soviet Russia."

See how fucking idiotic shit like that is? Your ideology had the biggest failure imaginable yet I'm not going to be dumb enough to write it off because of one failed experiment. I actually take the time to understand what's fundamentally wrong with your ideology. I don't just go HERP DERP STALIN unlike you HERP DERP HOOVER!

Oh fuck, you mentioned Hoover. I'm a communist now because of one vague troll comment. Comrade!

U mad bro?

http://s-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2011/3/18/1/enhanced-buzz-15854-1300424464-1.jpg

[l'Enfermé]

Let me show you how you sound to me:

"What was that country that had such great experience with communism? Oh yeah, Soviet Russia."

See how fucking idiotic shit like that is? Your ideology had the biggest failure imaginable yet I'm not going to be dumb enough to write it off because of one failed experiment. I actually take the time to understand what's fundamentally wrong with your ideology. I don't just go HERP DERP STALIN unlike you HERP DERP HOOVER!

Oh fuck, you mentioned Hoover. I'm a communist now because of one vague troll comment. Comrade!
Soviet Russia also had a great experience with being economically destroyed by capitalists and right-wingers during the First World War, the Civil War and the Foreign Intervention and had 27 million of her citizens killed by Capitalist Germany in World War 2. There's also the issue of the re-introduction of Capitalism since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which lead to about 15 million excessive deaths, the most catastrophic demographic crisis in recent history that is pretty much killing off the population of the Russian Federation, a complete decline in health care, education and industry, and all that jazz. So don't even try to mention the Soviet Union, as big a disaster as it was, it was still nothing compared to capitalism.

[Night Ripper]

Soviet Russia also had a great experience with being economically destroyed by capitalists and right-wingers during the First World War, the Civil War and the Foreign Intervention and had 27 million of her citizens killed by Capitalist Germany in World War 2. There's also the issue of the re-introduction of Capitalism since the collapse of the Soviet Union, which lead to about 15 million excessive deaths, the most catastrophic demographic crisis in recent history that is pretty much killing off the population of the Russian Federation, a complete decline in health care, education and industry, and all that jazz. So don't even try to mention the Soviet Union, as big a disaster as it was, it was still nothing compared to capitalism.

Good job completely missing the point.

[Ostrinski]

Doesn't serve any class interest, therefore irrelevant.

[Dean]

That's because you want to pretend that local shops are the only place you can buy goods. Welcome to the internet age. It doesn't matter what you are selling. If it's in a brick-and-mortar store then you're facing tough competition. Circuit City recently shutdown everything but its online store.

For your complaint to make any sense at all you would have to not be able to buy used music at all. Guess what, sites like half.com, secondspin, alibris, etc are doing millions of dollars in used CD sales. There's only one reason why you're buying CD's new, you're not doing any research. There's no market failure. The failure is yours.


So the massive number of boarded up former businesses - where no businesses are cropping up - isn't a market failure?

I didn't know that the most efficient use of brick buildings was disrepair to the effect of driving adjacent property values down.

[Deicide]

The most apparent trend in Anarcho-Capitalism, once its ideology is viewed from a sane perspective, is its insanity.