Anarcho-capitalism and feudalism are two shades of the same color

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Throughout history property rights have been used to violate one's individual sovereignty.

Feudalism and slavery were both based around absolute property rights. Lords owned estates, and instead of selling land they rented it out for a virtual monopoly. Worse still, if you came onto my land I exercised my "rights" as a landlord and I got to decide what to do with you. The system ancaps envision, especially of the non-Rothbardian type, would mean that these absolutist rights would return. Marxists are charged with being utopians when you have people saying the legalization (or rather, permission) of child porn would decrease demand. Hilariously they're picking up all the old-liners of 20th century Soviet socialism: Revolution! Theft! Brother-in-Arms!

For gawd's sake, they want to legitimize hitmen as proper workers.

The difference between an-capitalists and feudalists is that the former orient themselves around markets, the latter farming. Say your child falls into my yard, or better yet - he runs into it. Under anarcho-capitalism he's an intruder! I can shoot him dead, or make him my slave, or even get him to "consent" into sex and proceed to sell the tapes. What would occur? His parents' defense agency would either 1.) apprehend me or 2.) try to arbitrate some peace. But if they apprehend me, they're storming onto my land! And that's grounds for my defense agency shooting back! (Sounds eerily like the conflicts of feudalism)

Thankfully the support for such inane theories is diminishing. Rothbard and Von Mises (who inspired him) are dead and buried. David Friedman is a joke. And Lew Rockwell holds a monopoly on all pro-ancap websites.

Methinks this is what Marx meant by "communism or barbarianism." :thumbup:

[Azurite]

Oh, but of course we can trust an elite minority of land-owners not to do bad things like that...

:lol:

[Baconator]

Before I respond to all this dribble later , clearly it is passive aggressive behavior on Gene's part and a big F U to me, I'll just say this. Why not live your values? If you believe property rights are unjust and should not be valid , then deny yourself property rights. Open 'your' house to people , especially poor people, let them take whatever they need from 'your' resources. If you can send me your wallet that would be terrific. Just trust me , I need it.

I have no problem with the notion of property rights turning out to be invalid, I have no static conclusions. But if that is the case, then I want to see the people who advocate the abolishment of property rights to at least work empirically and apply this to their personal lives. I believe living what you preach adds integrity to your character.

[IcarusAngel]

GeneCoasta is right to point this out. Really, all leftist theories understand this. Even some liberals understand it, they just claim that capitalism is the best we can hope for, although they understand it is tyranny in the same way feudalism was.

Really, the idea that capitalism is "better" than all other systems to me seems to be suspicious anyway. Anarcho-capitalism would be a tyranny worse than most systems. And at least monarchies have an interest in the self-preservation of societies, unlike capitalist tyranny.

So, (right) libertarianism is just another tyranny, no better or worse than past tyrannies.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Baconator, you're not the only ancap on this forum, and I originally posted this for an audience at a different community. The thread asked if conservatism is equatable to feudalism, and I answered.


If you believe property rights are unjust Not all property rights are unjust. Use rights as exemplified by mutualists can be perfectly legitimate. Ancaps make the mistake of believing that acquisition of property does not affect others. Oftentimes capitalists (not just ancaps) equate land, labor, and capital as exactly the same thing without realizing that only two are a primary source of wealth, and that labor is dependent on the individual - not land. Capital is a product of labor and land.

Like all rights, property rights are determined by who carries the biggest stick. That doesn't necessarily indicate whether the norm is right or not, but it's self-evident. Capitalism, like feudalism, like slavery, is based around a particular notion of property that creates force for particular individuals. Force through restriction of resources, through a class system. That ownership over land and resources inevitably creates a rift between capital and labor that is not voluntary. I am not giving my boss the means of production.


I have no problem with the notion of property rights turning out to be invalid, I have no static conclusions. But if that is the case, then I want to see the people who advocate the abolishment of property rights to at least work empirically and apply this to their personal lives. I believe living what you preach adds integrity to your character.You have a very skewed perspective about leftists if you think we advocate communal homes, with communal showers and communal video game consoles. :laugh:

[Plagueround]

Before I respond to all this dribble later , clearly it is passive aggressive behavior on Gene's part and a big F U to me, I'll just say this. Why not live your values? If you believe property rights are unjust and should not be valid , then deny yourself property rights. Open 'your' house to people , especially poor people, let them take whatever they need from 'your' resources. If you can send me your wallet that would be terrific. Just trust me , I need it.

I have no problem with the notion of property rights turning out to be invalid, I have no static conclusions. But if that is the case, then I want to see the people who advocate the abolishment of property rights to at least work empirically and apply this to their personal lives. I believe living what you preach adds integrity to your character.

Clearly it would be impossible to completely breakdown one's property rights in a society where they are so heavily guarded by the state, nor would many people have the means to be able to support themselves if they got rid of their property rights in the manner you suggest if no one else did...just like how if you followed through on the Anarcho-Capitalist vision 100% all the time, you'd likely end up in jail. Right now, we all have to play the game to some extent, do we not?

You've also ignored the difference between personal property and private property that has been brought up time and time again, but if I recall by reading your posts, you don't believe there is a difference. The way I see it, breaking down private property rights doesn't mean people are going to walk into your house and start taking things as it is your personal property.

People have and do set up small communes, but that usually requires a withdrawal from society and usually results in primitivism, something most of us around here don't advocate. (I've met some people that live in a commune in the Oregon forests...very interesting people nonetheless.)



You have a very skewed perspective about leftists if you think we advocate communal homes, with communal showers and communal video game consoles. :laugh:


No communal showers? That's it, I'm out. Restrict me. :lol:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

All property rights are based around the protection they receive against heterodox opinions, but for an anarchist they can never create force. This is why "anarchism without adjectives," when it encompasses even right-variants of anarchism (anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-statist - yes the latter does exist) is a sham. Technically a society could establish a community where landlords shoot anybody that falls onto their land, but that doesn't make it legitimate. Similarly, if I threaten your life over a matter of choice (say you're Christian or I shoot you), I technically am not intruding on your "property" (person/body), but I have created force.

The simple fact land predates civilization by billions of years makes the labor theory of acquisition irrelevant. If I take a family cow and milk it, I have expended my labor, but the milk isn't mine. It still belongs to the family. Capitalists took/take land and negotiate(d) afterwards. In reality, 1.) the reverse needs to be true (negotiate, then take) and 2.) succeeding generations need to have the same opportunities to negotiate before acquisition. Yes, some people move up. But they just perpetuate the relationship. Some blacks owned slaves. Some merchants became lords.

Hierarchies from labor are acceptable - if I know more than you, and you become my pupil, that is not wrong. If you withhold your knowledge about the proper way to parry bastard swords unless I give you my watch, that is not wrong. However, hierarchies from the natural world are a different matter. If you build a fence around the only lake with Chemical X in it (and Chemical X cures acne), you've just created a hierarchy by manipulating the natural world.

[Sendo]

some differences. At least serfs were self-sufficient and were taxed and levied rather than given wages.

It's also worth pointing out the supremacist mentality of property rights. Not every culture has embraced property rights the way Modern Euros and their descendants have (post 1450-ish). To assume there is something natural or universal about current property relations is ignorant at best and delusional racism at worst.

[RGacky3]

then deny yourself property rights. Open 'your' house to people , especially poor people, let them take whatever they need from 'your' resources. If you can send me your wallet that would be terrific. Just trust me , I need it.


Thats the dumbest argument I've ever heard, and I've heard it more than once. We live in a Capitalist Society stupid, we need things to live and if we give them up we won't be able to get them back, unfortunately we live in a world where property rights are protected by law so if we give up everything then we have nothing. Its like saying if you don't agree with nation-states then just give up your citizenship and don't pay taxes, well guess what, right now the world does'nt work that way, but we're trying to change it.


To assume there is something natural or universal about current property relations is ignorant at best and delusional racism at worst.

Its not racist, its ignorant at best and at worst.


I have no problem with the notion of property rights turning out to be invalid, I have no static conclusions. But if that is the case, then I want to see the people who advocate the abolishment of property rights to at least work empirically and apply this to their personal lives. I believe living what you preach adds integrity to your character.

Its a Social system, not individual morals, its social, we don't preach every one giving up their property, we advocate workers taking control over whats theirs.