Anarcho-capitalism

[Folk The System]

is this one of the worst "isms" ever?

my understanding of anarcho-capitalists is that they advocate a stateless capitalist society with a 100% free market, even police being supplied by profiteers.

this sounds much like my idea of what an average person thinks when they hear "anarchism"

"oh it means theres complete chaos and people do whatever they want with no concern for anybody else!"

anyone else have thoughts on this?

[P.L.U.C.K.]

yeah i agree, its the most pointless system ive heard of so far

[phoenixoftime]

White collar wild west? Hillarious. And incredibly stupid.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Folk The [email protected] 07, 2006 05:21 pm
anyone els ehave thoughts on this?
I don't even consider anarcho-capitalism a true form of anarchism.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Anarcho capitalism doesn't exist. Thats like saying a "communist state." It's a contradiction in terms since there is hierarchy even in stateless capitalism.

[The Bitter Hippy]

and yet the concept of property is utterly impossible without a state. Without courts, no "objective" opinion and "independant" ruling is possible on who holds titles to what property.

Anarcho-capitalism would degenerate into a somalian dilemma: what is the point in producing anything if a child with an AK can take it all away by virtue of their clan affiliation?

anarcho capitalism would not last long: eventually one group would find a factor with which they can bring many people together into an economic and military force, which would destroy or incorporate the others and set itself up as a state. Much as the Union of Islamic Courts has in somalia.

[which doctor]

I consider minarcho capitalism to be a legit ideology, but anarcho-capitalism is contradictory since a hierarchal relationship automatically develops in capitalism regardless of the state.

[apathy maybe]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism at all (as pointed out by FoB and others). Anarchism is against all hierarchy, and where they can be unlimited wealth accumulation, you get hierarchy (again as pointed out by others). They (supports of the ideology) claim that anarchism is simply against government and while it is true that often the government was the main target (especially with in the individualist tradition), it is not the only target and never has been.

An actual society based around "anarcho"-capitalism would quickly gain a state or state like structure. A hypothetical situation was described in Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia, where a society in a "state of nature" brought about a state. The basic gist was the various "protection agencies" either merged, allied or were eliminated. Soon in a particular area there was a "dominant protection agency" that was a "proto-state", which then through other processes formed a minimal state. As I pointed out in my essay on the topic (removed for security reasons), there is nothing stopping this minimal state becoming significantly bigger.

This is the main problem with a minimal state as proposed by miniarchists (such as Nozick). And even if there was a minimal state, capitalism provides (potentially) alternative hierarchies, thus being not good anyway.

[Delta]

Anarcho-capitalism is certainly not a type of anarchism. Private security forces that are responsive only to money? At least a government army is told that their duty is to protect the "people", even if they don't.

In any case, you can't be against authority if you support capitalism. If someone is completely dependent upon others for their livelihood, they are not free.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Anarcho-capitalism is an interesting school of thought. I don't think it is particularly plausible. If I did, I might be inclined to support it. Theoretically, it is somewhat appealing. Too idealist, though.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
If I did, I might be inclined to support it. Theoretically, it is somewhat appealing.

On what grounds?

[apathy maybe]

Indeed. If anything you should be supporting individualist anarchism (or better still adjective free anarchism). All the ideals that might be found in "anarcho"-capitalism can be found in individualist capitalism, except for the ones that enable you to have lots and lots of power over others. However, as I have said else where, I don't think individualist anarchism would actually exist on its own.

Did I also mention that the Anarchist FAQ has lots of good stuff on all sorts of anarchism? Including why "anarcho"-capitalism is not really anarchistic? http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/ is the URL for the FAQ
http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/append1.html and http://geocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secFcon.html are the two main sections on "anarcho"-capitalism.

[RebelDog]

Anarcho-capitalism would be the freedom to exploit workers, environment, etc to what degree the bosses want and competition would drive it back to slavery. We have a type of quasi-socialism for the capitalist class at the moment, this would be anarchism for the capitalist class. I doubt such a society is possible as it would encourage the utmost class-consiousness in proletarians in an advanced technological society, a recipe for the perfect material conditions for revolution in anyones book. A mere spark would set that off.

[Demogorgon]

Anarcho capitalism would look a bit like the British Empire did in it's early days. It would end up with an extreme authoritarian state which was formally a company (like the Britsh Indian Company or the british African Company) rather than a state.

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by Demogorgon
It would end up with an extreme authoritarian state... rather than a state.

So it would end up with a state...

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+November 09, 2006 12:53 pm--> (Black Dagger @ November 09, 2006 12:53 pm)
Demogorgon
It would end up with an extreme authoritarian state... rather than a state.

So it would end up with a state... [/b]
Yes, of course, though it would never call itself such. Imagine a situation where the government decided to privatise everything includng authority to make law and administer it. That's what anarcho capitalism would look like. Of course the theory would be because so many companies would be competing nobody would have much power. Inparactice someone would gain a monopoly or perhaps cartels would form in order to achieve power.

You would have what would be in every respect except name an extremely powerful state. Hence I compare it to the early British Empire.

[A New Twist]

How could this exist? Capitalism involves possessing power through capital, which causes hierarchy to form. Anarchy is defined as without hierarchy.

But I suppose in an entirely economically free society, you could choose to not take part in the capitalism just as easily as you could now. Maybe easier, because there may be less limits on where and how you could live......

[apathy maybe]

OK so I'm pimping a book. But if you have not yet read Jennifer Government I suggest you hunt it down and give a quick going over. http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/

In the book lots of things have been privitised (except for the Government it self), so while it is not a compleatly accurate description of an "anarcho"-capitalist system, it does give you some idea of what such a system might look like.

[Global_Justice]

anarcho-capitalism is surely impossible? the whole idea of capitalism is that you need an establishment, one group to rule and one to be ruled. :blink:

[sav]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2006 02:23 am
anarcho-capitalism is surely impossible? the whole idea of capitalism is that you need an establishment, one group to rule and one to be ruled. :blink:
In capitalism, the ruling class rules via the government. In anarcho-capitalim, they would rule via their own personal militias.

Either way, they both rest on a barrel of a gun, but in anarcho-capitalism they're free to pull the trigger as often as they like.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Black Dagger+November 09, 2006 02:02 am--> (Black Dagger @ November 09, 2006 02:02 am)
Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
If I did, I might be inclined to support it. Theoretically, it is somewhat appealing.

On what grounds? [/b]
It allows the elite to get benefits at the expense of the poor by virtue of being born or raised superior. In other words, I get a free ride because I was born smarter than the guy next door. In modern capitalist society, we are encouraged to want more so this is probably where the appeal of anarcho-capitalist comes from.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by A New [email protected] 09, 2006 11:33 pm
How could this exist? Capitalism involves possessing power through capital, which causes hierarchy to form. Anarchy is defined as without hierarchy.
It doesn't. Capitalism can exist without a state much in the same way a man can exist without breathing oxygen.

[YSR]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 09, 2006 05:39 pm
OK so I'm pimping a book. But if you have not yet read Jennifer Government I suggest you hunt it down and give a quick going over. http://www.maxbarry.com/jennifergovernment/

In the book lots of things have been privitised (except for the Government it self), so while it is not a compleatly accurate description of an "anarcho"-capitalist system, it does give you some idea of what such a system might look like.
Very good book. I think if it were slightly better written (not that it's terrible, it's reasonably decent writing actually) it would be the next 1984.

[Dimentio]

Anarcho-capitalism is probably one of the most despisable ideologies ever envisioned, especially as it's rests on a mixture between the two most unappealing tendencies of the time period prior to 1848, namely the unrestricted belief in markets [laissez-faire] mixed with the luddite and reactionary ideologies of that time. That accounts for most forms of right-wing libertarianism as well.

The worst case is www.mises.org, which I define as a dinosauric relic. It is the only website I have seen which advocates wage slavery and the gold standard [with the motivation that there is an inherent scarcity in gold which is good since it prevents abundance].

[Clarksist]

As if the cops aren't already owned by companies. :rolleyes:

[Sean]

Considering the only reason that capitalism still exists is because of the massive subsidies, trade restrictions etc (which go against capitalism in the Adam Smith sense) provided by massive militaries and nuclear detterants, I can't see how this would work alongside anarchy in any way, unless you individually went around people homes and rammed your particular wares down their throat at gunpoint. And I'm sure mugging is much more efficient (saves giving wares, for one)!

Its the political equivelent of the inflatable dartboard.

[Zero]

Haha we had a Anarcho-Capitalist on here about a month ago. He decided to use Microsoft and Wal*Mart as the two best examples of industries using every avenue available to them, and why we should have no restrictions on massive conglomerates.

At one point he was arguing that gangs can take over the jobs that police currently hold because "Who would beat someone up or steal from someone in a rival gang?"

[Folk The System]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 09:47 pm
Haha we had a Anarcho-Capitalist on here about a month ago. He decided to use Microsoft and Wal*Mart as the two best examples of industries using every avenue available to them, and why we should have no restrictions on massive conglomerates.

At one point he was arguing that gangs can take over the jobs that police currently hold because "Who would beat someone up or steal from someone in a rival gang?"
bahahaha "oh, i never thought about it that way! i always thought the whole world should be run similar to walmart :rolleyes:

[Zero]

Every time I read one of his long ass posts I would end up thinking of Blade Runner. >.>

[Nusocialist]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is pretty much corporate feudalism.
Each firm that could stay around long enough would be like a private fuedal state,with the rich feudal lords or executives,their lackeys(knights etc.) as managers and the workers as the serfs.