Anarcho-Capitalism

[bruce]

I'd never seen this term before, but I assume it's not looked highly upon here. On the poker message board I read, there is a politics subforum where a lot of the posters claim to be capitalists but they use the label anarchocapitalist. There isn't many leftist posters there, and the ones that lean left seem closer to capitalists than socialists. Lately I've tried to follow some of the threads and it's difficult to imagine some of situations being put out there.

I've browsed the wiki entry and it's very confusing, I think I understand the idea of free markets but some of the conclusions that are reached don't make much sense. Things like private courts seem to have such obvious problems but maybe I'm missing something.

As there are a number of anarchists and leftists of all different stripes here, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Should I continue reading through the wiki page and links?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/41/politics/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

I wasn't sure where to post this so feel free to move to the proper area. Thanks

[Kassad]

If you want an in-depth description, read anything by Murray Rothbard. If you're smart, it should make your eyes bleed. If you're rich and don't care about poor people, you'll love it.

Basically, it is totally contradictory. Capitalism creates profit and profit is held by someone, usually through surplus value. Eventually, someone has more wealth than other people. He commands more wealth and he and his wealthy counterparts form a wealth oligarchy that takes control of a nation. Thus, there is still a hierarchy of wealth and classes, thus there is still a very distinct state. Completely contradictory and ridiculous.

[GPDP]

Ancaps pretty much only exist on the internet. In real life, they're even more irrelevant than the most irrelevant of socialist parties.

Also, be prepared to hear "in a TRUE free market, this would not happen" about twice per post.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Anarcho-capitalists - sorry, I forgot my quotation remarks at the bar - abuse the history of market anarchism to support a rather contradictory position. Socialist theorists like Proudhon, Tucker, and Spooner put forward ideas that a market could, hypothetically, exist in harmony under anarchism if the laborer did away with the state and revolutionized the market. From the first stipulation a picturesque genesis was crafted by Rothbard to support capitalism. The state was changed from being a sovereign over a geographical area to a sovereign who does not conform to Rothbard's natural rights theory - which is just as oppressive as a state.

The measure of idiocy is measured by this simple fact: a landlord is a sovereign. A landlord claims ultimate sovereignty over a geographical area. Any "libertarian" who complains about the state but then justifies a different form of hierarchy is not a libertarian.

[bruce]

From the first stipulation a picturesque genesis was crafted by Rothbard to support capitalism. The state was changed from being a sovereign over a geographical area to a sovereign who does not conform to Rothbard's natural rights theory - which is just as oppressive as a state.

I'm not clear on this, mostly due to about zero comprehension of natural rights. Are you saying landowners are equivalent to many smaller states?

Are there any anarcho-capitalists on RevLeft? I'm likely to agree with a majority of leftist criticisms and observations, but I'd like to hear what an anarchocapitalist would say in response.

[GPDP]

Ancaps and "libertarians" seem to make up the majority of OIers, or at least around half of them.

[Pogue]

They don't exist. You cannot be a Anarchist and a Capitalist. Its contradictory, or at the very least relies on a primitive and incorrect definition of anarchism. Anarchism is not simply opposition to government. Its an specific part of the wider socialist movement. The Anarchist FAQ explaisn it in detail. But they don't exist, they just hijack the word anarchist.

[lombas]

Also, be prepared to hear "in a TRUE free market, this would not happen" about twice per post.

Lol. And true.

:laugh:

[MadMoney]

I think the confusion comes from improper terms for the "movement." "Anarcho-Capitalism" means neither Anarchy nor Capitalism (talk amongst yourselves). What I assume someone means when they claim to subscribe to this ideology is that they want a free market system without a government/monopolization of force. Calling this "Anarcho-Capitalism" is a major issue because contracts between individuals could be deemed to be heirarchical (boss-employee, landlord-tenant) which goes against the traditional notion of Anarchism and "Capitalism" is a term that ought to just be used by the Left, I am about 99.99% sure Marx was the first person to use the term. A lot of people who support or think they support free-market principles want to take it back or don't know any better.

If anything state-less free market...ism is closer.... but it doesn't sound as radical.

[Bilan]

Do you mean Marx was the first to use the term Capitalism?
I find that highly unlikely considering Capitalism was born before Marx was.

[apathy maybe]

"Anarcho"-capitalism has been raised a number of times before (search both OI and Learning). Basically, anarchism is against hierarchy, and capitalism is for hierarchy, therefore, there can be no such thing as "anarcho"-capitalism.

Generally such capitalists try and claim that anarchism is only against the state, as opposed to all oppression. However, this very narrow definition of anarchism is at odds with the entire history of the anarchist movement otherwise, so it's best to ignore.

See Section F of An Anarchist FAQ http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html and the first Appendix http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.html which cover the topic in lots of detail.

[Jazzratt]

Do you mean Marx was the first to use the term Capitalism?
I find that highly unlikely considering Capitalism was born before Marx was.

Well he wrote the seminal analysis of it. I don't know if that means, necessarily, that he named it too but it's not that huge a leap.

[lombas]

Also, I think too much effort is put in rebuking "anarcho-capitalism". It's the ideology of a bunch of students with too much money (to buy dozens of "TRUE" books) and time (to organize self-help groups). It' really not worth the effort.

Instead of discussing with these people and trying to refute their "theories" (which basically come down to "but in a TRUE free market", as said above) we could spend time drinking, socializing, reading the newspaper or making love.

[534634634265]

i actually went to a meeting organized by "anarcho-capitalists".
after talking with them for like 15 min. i was just like
"waaaaaaaiii- your just a libertarian."
OHOOHOHONONNO they reply.
so i asked them what they saw as a realistic model of their beliefs. this led to a 30 minute description of what i can only call a pipe dream. floating, self-sufficient communities based on a design similar to oil rigs. in international waters, so they don't step on any ickle laws.anyway yeah, what a bunch of crackpots.

[GPDP]

See, that's what gets me. Do they even want to change society? Are they just escapists? Or if they do have the fundamental transformation of society along capitalist free market lines as a goal, what do they want to do to achieve it? Who will form the organization necessary to carry this about? Or do they just expect people to awaken some dormant individualist spirit?

[534634634265]

i describe "anarcho-capitalism" and "libertarians" the same way.
you're grabbing your ideological ass cheeks and pulling them apart so capitalism and the "free market" can more thoroughly ream you. libertarians prefer the conceptual lubrication that a government can provide minimal oversight and adjustment, to prevent any anal bleeding or tearing.

[GPDP]

It's kind of funny that we're criticized for being utopians chasing an impossible dream, but hey, at least we go out and fight for progress and for our beliefs. What do libertarians and ancaps do? That's why I ask what their strategy is. What do they do today, and what are they planning to do tomorrow, to bring about "true" capitalism?

[#FF0000]

i actually went to a meeting organized by "anarcho-capitalists".
after talking with them for like 15 min. i was just like
"waaaaaaaiii- your just a libertarian."
OHOOHOHONONNO they reply.
so i asked them what they saw as a realistic model of their beliefs. this led to a 30 minute description of what i can only call a pipe dream. floating, self-sufficient communities based on a design similar to oil rigs. in international waters, so they don't step on any ickle laws.anyway yeah, what a bunch of crackpots.

And we shall call it, RAPTURE.

Ancaps tend to be ridiculous. They also tend to be strict Rationalists, which is a headache in itself.

[Pogue]

And we shall call it, RAPTURE.

Ancaps tend to be ridiculous. They also tend to be strict Rationalists, which is a headache in itself.

I've experienced this.

[534634634265]

And we shall call it, RAPTURE.

Ancaps tend to be ridiculous. They also tend to be strict Rationalists, which is a headache in itself.

yeah this guy kept stressing to me how completely logical his system was, and how in "an ideal free-market situation" blahdeblah. he was anti LTV, which also BEGS the question:
who will actually work on this ex-oil rig full of ancaps? everyone is looking to gain capital from their investments and posessions, and then re-invest that capital. where does the original labor/capital come from, and without anything to exploit what do you market? your labor? but your labor has no set value, you silly ancap!:rolleyes:

[lombas]

What do they do today, and what are they planning to do tomorrow, to bring about "true" capitalism?

They're doing the Ron Paul Revolution baby, and swingin' it...





(:lol:)

[deLarge]

One justification used to reconcile 'anarchism' with 'capitalism' is borrowed from the Objectivist handbook; Basically, the state is seen as having to, by definition, initiate force. The initiation of force is assumed to be inherently immoral, and thus the state is immoral. On the flip side, it is argued that free-association and mutual consent between two or more people (e.g. in a business deal) is moral (as it does not include initiation of force), and thus "capitalism" is put forward as a solution (because, of course, initiation of force NEVER happens under capitalism).

One glaring problem with that argument is that situations where workers 'consent' to working can very easily be un-beneficial--a child worker 'consents' to making nike shoes for 15 cents an hour, and thus under that thinking sweatshops are perfectly moral.

[apathy maybe]

One justification used to reconcile 'anarchism' with 'capitalism' is borrowed from the Objectivist handbook; Basically, the state is seen as having to, by definition, initiate force. The initiation of force is assumed to be inherently immoral, and thus the state is immoral. On the flip side, it is argued that free-association and mutual consent between two or more people (e.g. in a business deal) is moral (as it does not include initiation of force), and thus "capitalism" is put forward as a solution (because, of course, initiation of force NEVER happens under capitalism).

One glaring problem with that argument is that situations where workers 'consent' to working can very easily be un-beneficial--a child worker 'consents' to making nike shoes for 15 cents an hour, and thus under that thinking sweatshops are perfectly moral.

Most folks think that the "initiation of force" generally is immoral.

The difference is that real anarchists want to also abolish hierarchy, and thus certainly reject the notion that you can hold onto "property" that you don't use personally (wealth and capital) (the individualist anarchist tradition has, always I think, been in a minority, but it is still valid, and provides a counterpoint to the capitalists who try and claim anarchism).

[deLarge]

The difference is that real anarchists want to also abolish hierarchy, and thus certainly reject the notion that you can hold onto "property" that you don't use personally

The counter point would be that in order to abolish 'consensual' hierarchy (i.e. business) would require the initiation of force, and that the same goes for abolishing property in the way you specified.

Of course, even if this logic worked, I don't understand how they could enforce someone's ownership over large amounts of land, when they don't occupy it. It seems likely that someone could say "I own this continent", and if their private court/private contract-enforcer was strong enough, they could do so. Then there is the problem with conflicting land-ownership..

[Qwerty Dvorak]

bruce, you're in luck. Anarcho-capitalism is all that's ever discussed here.

[bruce]

Thanks for all the links and comments. Now I'm in the middle of confusing myself with all the different memes surrounding the handful of definitions for *libertarian*. Ugh


Ancaps and "libertarians" seem to make up the majority of OIers, or at least around half of them.

So where are they? Wouldn't they want to defend their ideas, you guys have been quite critical. In the past, I've learned more about other topics when both sides can directly respond to each other so I'd like to hear the other side here.

If anyone has the inclination, it'd be interesting to see someone go to that politics forum I linked in the OP and engage the ancaps.

[trivas7]

Most folks think that the "initiation of force" generally is immoral.

Also known as the non-aggression principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle).

[ZeroNowhere]

The non-aggression principle is simple.
No, really.
:D
Anyways, most 'anarcho-capitalists' (if not all) are statist anyways, other than supporting a hierarchal system which is incompatible with anarchism.