Ancap is total failure. It's a mafia's paradise.
Results 21 to 40 of 41
Anarcho-Capitalism is the complete application of the the NAP (Non Aggression Principle) and resulting from that, 100% protection of private property rights.
It's essentially the vision of a society without coercion of any kind.
Ancap is total failure. It's a mafia's paradise.
Because a society where corporations and private security firms are left unchecked and unregulated and the idea of workers rights become non-existant always means no-coercion.
Ancaps are capitalists who want to rebel against the goverment, but lack any understanding of what anarchy is or how free market capitalism actually works.
Anyone who thinks anarchy, or even lack of government for that matter, is compatable with capitalism is an idiot.
If an ancap revolution were to occur we would see this:
- end of government temporarily.
- end of organized labour and labour laws.
- the establishment of private security firms that serve as police and military for the wealthy
- an increase in organized crime
- an great increase in the gap between the rich and poor.
- monopolization
- cooperation among private security and corporations due to corporations hiring of private security.
- the reformation of a government at the hands of the powerful corporations who command a private army with their capital
- the end of so called anarco-capitalism
- the beginning of a corporate police state.
That should give you an idea. I could add much more to that.
Last edited by Die Rote Fahne; 23rd September 2010 at 13:51.
You're right, free markets arent compatible with no government.
That's because free marketsare no government. The instant you have any government whatsoever, you have the end of a totally free market.
This is such a basic and critical point to understand. When an-caps say "free market" it's really just a short form of saying "a free from government market".
You don't have to agree of course, but to make such blithe, sweeping comments on what an-cap is, and then to get it so wrong is, well.....indicative.
He said "capitalism", not "free markets".
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
100% protection of property rights is coercion
I consider them to be one and the same.
If people here don't, I am perfectly willing to claim to not be a capitalist, but a free marketeer instead; I'm not particularly attached to any specific definitions.
You must be delusional if you think such a thing as the "free market" has ever existed or will ever exist. What is a free market when corporations are free to monopolise and drive competition away? Besides, a market implies competition between traders - and as in every competition, there must be someone who comes out above the rest. But in the case of capitalism of any sort, that involves the complete negation of the notion of a "free market".
Eh it's semantics but what we oppose it he capitalist mode of production which can exist in different kinds of societies. Liberal democracies, fascist states, social democracies...etc.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
This.
Private property can be instituted either by force or by agreement. In either case it must be maintained by force (given that someone will inevitably disagree). It is an aggressive imposition on those opposed, initiated by those in favor. Private property violates the NAP.
Free your mind, and your ass will follow. --George Clinton
Free your ass, and your mind will follow. --Karl Marx
THe thing about anarco-capitalism and libertarianism, there is no revolution, they don't have the plan, their whole agenda, is nothing more than getting rid of any public oversight or control over capitalist power.
if anarcho-capitalists and libertarians were REALLY serious, their number one campain would be getting rid of corporate personhood, but its not, thier number one campains are things that HELP corporations, they don't want a revolution, their actions speak louder than their words, they exist to help the rich, they are suckers.
Yeah, great idealist bullshit there chief. Go fuck around with the other hippies, we'll be here in the real world where supply, demand, economic leverage and the use of force all coalesce to form the same power structures you pretend to rebel against (though endorse with your childish notions of property rights).
Incorrect. Free markets, in the Rothbardian/an-cap tradition are no institutionalized coercion. Nothing says you can't have a regulatory power in a free market, not according to any literature I'm familiar with, it just can't have a monopoly on violence. There is nothing anti-free market about a consumer/labor-union that says "you must abide be these standards or our members will not patronize your businesses."
That is what you and your rightist friends wish it said, even Rothbard to a large degree. In reality you're disconnecting the logical framework from itself when you advocate that it says you cannot regulate business. And even more when you, I'm not sure if you specifically, try to connect objectivist drivle to it.
[/QUOTE]
What does an-cap specifically advocate, as a matter of principle, other than no state/taxes? As long as there are neither of these, society can do what it wants from there. Your theory doesn't match your practice, in other words.
THe real question is how do you get to this free market utopia, usually its like this.
CUT TAXES, we'll start with a flat tax (which means cut for the rich),
No capital gains tax (mainly applies to the rich)
CUT SPENDING (we'll start with welfare, social security, unemployment and other stuff that applies to the poor)
CUT PROGRAMS (Such as the the public works, the post office, day care programs, whatever, but not the military, we'll techincally we're against that but first things first, cut whatever helps the poor first)
NO MORE REGULATIONS (we don't like democracy getting in the way of our control, oh, buisinesses and land lords can make all the regulations they want, but they arn't democratically accountable so its ok)
Oh and we'll get to corporate personhood later, I guess, and lawsuits against rich people are frivelous, but you damn well better respect property rights.
They don't have a revolution, they just want to push through stuff to help the rich.
We already know what it will look like. Look at the 19th century American West, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo today. Roaming bands of privately hired thugs protecting those with money, and everyone else fighting over the scraps.
A DDOS attack.
"The people, always generous, and the enemy of revenge, will break bread with all who have stayed in its bosom, expropriators and expropriated. In this way, when work begins again, former combatants will be together in the same workshop."
Libertarias
COMMUNISM-IT'S WHAT'S FOR DINNER!
fka Commissarusa
I know that, although they do say they want a revolution, what they get will not be a revolution in any sense, hence why I put quotation marks around "revolution" in the thread title.
Schiestklaff! The same "Non-aggressive" system that requires capitalist to produce influx for themselves and determine output and production based on what the ruling class's demand is?
what the fuck do the ruling classes demand in our society that isnt overshadowed by the wants of the middle and lower classes? yacht production doesn't dwarf canned food production, or iphone production, or any of that shit. youre talking out your ass.
you do realize that the ruling class is about 1% of the population right?
What the ruling class wants is control and wealth, and that they have, and they get more and more of it.
