Why not leave people alone?

[Guest]

I don't see why ancoms/ansyns try to monopolize the term anarchy. They criticize ancappers, but the truth is that all forms of anarchy could coexist in the world as long as you didn't come and kill/steal from ancappers.

If you would be okay with stealing from/ killing ancappers in a systematic way, then why do you call yourselves anarchists? That's just government.

If you would be fine to just leave people alone, why not just accept that ancappers could live peacefully with you?

Ancappers are fine with letting commies get together and share their stuff and w/e, we don't care. Just don't steal from us under the threat of violence.

(PS: why is the security to post a question so hard!! I don't know all the dog breeds, and I know nothing about soccer, oh okay, finally a football one, whew)

[Guest]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add: I put this in the "criticisms of anarchy" section because ancomms don't believe anything but ancomm is anarchy. Hence my anarchistic beliefs aren't good enough for you!! Hold your heads any higher and the rain would drown you!!!

[Infinite]

I kind of think that both ancap and ansyn and com divert from the original or at least literal definition of what anarchy is. The ancaps wanna have private police forces, courts, etc. and the ancoms wanna have majority rule democracy which is a hierarchy as well i.m.o.

[Guest]

what happens when the capitalists covet resources which are in use by anarchists? history shows they always turn to war in this situation. you can say cappies are anti-violence all you want, but history doesn't show that.

also, since capitalism depends on class hierarchy, the people who are chewed up and spit out by your system will inevitably leave you and join us, straining our resources since the rich will insist on monopolozing resources (as they always do) in the capitalist zones. there is nothing in "ancap"ism to stop monopolies and elites, thus war is inevitable.

btw, it works both ways. what happens when some anarchists decide some land isn't being used, but some capitalists who claim ownership to the land decide to kick the anarchists off? again, violence.

the idea of a medium of exchange ("money" or somesuch) might or might not be a necessity - i really dont know. i do know that capitalism doesn't make sense to me.

[Guest]

what happens when the capitalists covet resources which are in use by anarchists? history shows they always turn to war in this situation. you can say cappies are anti-violence all you want, but history doesn't show that.

You are partly right. History has not shown capitalism to be peaceful.This is true because capitalism has never existed at any significant level

People can't be chewed and spit up if only voluntary exchange is allowed. It's just too bad all you communists didn't learn a little economics before coming to the conclusion of hating the state. The difference is that we understand economics and we actually oppose ALL government. You don't get econ, and believe in a government by a name other than government, which is still government.

You are right, capitalism doesn't make sense to you. At least you admit you don't understand it. Maybe try picking up a book on the subject or at least some essays. I could make suggestions if you are interested.

I just can't accept that human beings voluntarily cooperating is unethical. This is utterly absurd.
As far as medium of exchange, in real capitalism there is no fiat money. Resources are traded based what people want. If you don't want a medium of exchange, then barter.

[Infinite]

what happens when the capitalists covet resources which are in use by anarchists? history shows they always turn to war in this situation. you can say cappies are anti-violence all you want, but history doesn't show that.

You are partly right. History has not shown capitalism to be peaceful.This is true because capitalism has never existed at any significant level

People can't be chewed and spit up if only voluntary exchange is allowed. It's just too bad all you communists didn't learn a little economics before coming to the conclusion of hating the state. The difference is that we understand economics and we actually oppose ALL government. You don't get econ, and believe in a government by a name other than government, which is still government.

Aren't anarcho-capitalists for private courts, private security forces, private prisons, etc.? Isn't that what Rothbard wrote about?

[Guest]

What types of security system people choose will be determined by the market. If I would rather not purhcase such community services then I don't have to. But for the people who do, yes, part of signing a contract with such agency would likely mean that there would be a dispute settlement mechanism for settling conlfict between members. When conflicts arise between members of different communities, the defense agencies negotiate some sort of agreement. The point is that this stuff is voluntary. If a defense agency is run by ruthless pigs, I will not choose them as my contractor. I don't want them to get into disputes with people recklessly.

[Guest]

This is true because capitalism has never existed at any significant level

Not only does it not exist, it's much further from existing than most think. Mostly, we have not left feudalism behind. The experiment in liberalism (which covers all of the anti-aristocratic tendencies, from capitalism to anarchism) is currently failing and the rulers are tired of listening to people whine incessantly. That's why a deflationary cycle has been setup which will suck most of what you call "wealth" into fewer and fewer hands.

People can't be chewed and spit up if only voluntary exchange is allowed.

caveat emptor.

It's just too bad all you communists didn't learn a little economics

Overgeneralization, and misdirected. Very few people here are anarcho-communists. I guess there were some who turned to authoritarian leftism, but they ain't here now.

You don't get econ, and believe in a government by a name other than government, which is still government.

Empty words. Anarchists say the exact same thing about "ancaps," with equal emptiness.

The fact remains. If you "own" land in California you are merely the titleholder - the sovereign is the owner. And if you research the title history it always ends in the exact same entity - the king of spain, who turned a non-property into a property. All land "property" on Earth was so created. Then the propertarians turn around and tell us that they "oppose ALL government" despite the fact that it was not only government, but feudal aristocratic government that created the very "property" that they go on and on about.

There are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who hold title to land within the entity currently known as "Israel." But people with guns came and killed them and raped them and bulldozed their homes. People who call themselves a "democracy" dedicated to "capitalism." But it's just bullshit words. The ideology of power trumps any ideas about fairness. Were the Palestinians given "fair compensation" for their land? No, they're stuffed into refugee camps. And what does "capitalist" USA do? Why, it sends "Israel" billions of free dollars every year so that it can maintain it's position over the Palestinians. None of these actions is even remotely connected to your version of cafe "capitalism" and yet we are talking about two "capitalist" countries.

You are right, capitalism doesn't make sense to you. At least you admit you don't understand it.

Nazism also does not make sense to me. Neither does Keynesian economics, nor Zorastrianism. Even though I've read books on all of them. But since you bring up books, have you read The Creature from Jekyll Island? It's definitely not an anarchist book - in fact it was written by a right wing member of the John Birch Society - but it's a truly great book which I honestly think you would enjoy, and which I think would edify you a bit.

Maybe try picking up a book on the subject or at least some essays.

Again, it's common for "ancaps" and authoritarian leftists to insist that disagreement is lack of knowledge.

I just can't accept that human beings voluntarily cooperating is unethical.

That's odd, because you live in a country and a society which bombs people to death for doing exactly that.

[Guest]

Not only does it not exist, it's much further from existing than most think. Mostly, we have not left feudalism behind. The experiment in liberalism (which covers all of the anti-aristocratic tendencies, from capitalism to anarchism) is currently failing and the rulers are tired of listening to people whine incessantly. That's why a deflationary cycle has been setup which will suck most of what you call "wealth" into fewer and fewer hands.

For a discussion of wealth, see this, because I'm not going to keep repeating myself to people who don't know the first thing about economics...sorry it just gets repetitive, and no, no one has been able to refute this stuff, they just talk around it.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=61743&p=3366141#p3366141

caveat emptor.

That's not really a response.

Overgeneralization, and misdirected. Very few people here are anarcho-communists. I guess there were some who turned to authoritarian leftism, but they ain't here now.

Regardless of what you label yourselves as, the generalization has proven true in all the posts I read here. No one understands what wealth is, yet you all talk about it like you do. Read the link posted above and you'll learn about wealth.

Then the propertarians turn around and tell us that they "oppose ALL government" despite the fact that it was not only government, but feudal aristocratic government that created the very "property" that they go on and on about.

So building my house on some land doesn't make it my property? I'm to be held responsible for someone's crimes from hundreds of years ago? The house property has been traded voluntarily many times since then. What are we supposed to do? Provide reparations for centuries old crimes that neither I nor my family are responsible for?
As for Israel vs Palestine, I agree with you. Except you fail to be able to separate the ideal of a free economic system from government. Government commits these crimes that we abhor.

Nazism also does not make sense to me.

There is a difference between understanding and accepting. If I can comprehend what someone is arguing, and then turn around and illustrate why it's foolish, then that person's point of view makes sense to me (in the sense that I know what they are saying), I simply reject it.

Again, it's common for "ancaps" and authoritarian leftists to insist that disagreement is lack of knowledge.

When you have an entire forum of people who don't actually comprehend what wealth is, and how it is created, and how division of labor has made our lives a heck of a lot easier, then yes, there is a fundamental lack of knowledge here. I don't care how common it is that people point this out.

That's odd, because you live in a country and a society which bombs people to death for doing exactly that.

Now I'm really not taking you seriously. So because I live in some arbitrarily defined "country" where a central government claims the right to own me, I must endorse the behavior of said government. Come on. Give me a break. You know I don't endorse government at all, especially my own. What if I just turned around and threw this same mud in your face. "You live under a government that does bad things, you are evil." It's just childish.

PS: no one has illustrated how voluntary exchange is unethical, and since that is the foundation of capitalism, you fail.

[raylene86]

PS: no one has illustrated how voluntary exchange is unethical, and since that is the foundation of capitalism, you fail.

The problem is that you are going to have a hard time convincing people that you can truly remove coercive, non-consensual interactions simply by removing government. People coerce those who lack some kind of information on the regular. What makes you think people wouldn't still go coercing each other by deception? Is deception acceptable for personal gain in capitalism? I think it must be seeing as involuntary exchange cannot be completely eliminated. What, you will imprison those who engage in coercion? And, what, the form of prison depends on the market? What if you have an undiverse geographic location and "the market" dictates that imprisonment of Blacks is worth the money? Or what if "the market" OK's the imprisonment of women who refuse to have babies? What makes you think that "the market" will even act in its own interests 100% of the time???

[Guest]

The problem is that you are going to have a hard time convincing people that you can truly remove coercive, non-consensual interactions simply by removing government.

We plan on removing the institutionalization of coercion. But no, no one can ever establish a world that is 100% free from coercion. No utopia here. Just as close as possible.

People coerce those who lack some kind of information on the regular. What makes you think people wouldn't still go coercing each other by deception? Is deception acceptable for personal gain in capitalism?

Deception isn't a very good place to make a stand. Every voluntary exchange could be seen as having some element of "deception." I don't know the complete physical past of every object that I trade for. But incomplete information cannot make voluntary exchange illegitimate, because if that was true then no exchange would be legitimate. Incomplete information is just a fact of the universe, not something to be judged as good or bad. It's like gravity. Engaging in an exchange where you have severe lack of information is a risk that you can tell whether it was necessary to make by whether or not someone chose to do so (revealed preference).

I think it must be seeing as involuntary exchange cannot be completely eliminated.

As previously pointed out, incomplete information does not make exchange involuntary. I stand firm on this. But even if I were to entertain the idea that it was involuntary, then the conclusion would be that it's unavoidable, since it's a fact of the universe, and hence you wouldn't have any business passing normative judgment anyhow.

What, you will imprison those who engage in coercion? And, what, the form of prison depends on the market? What if you have an undiverse geographic location and "the market" dictates that imprisonment of Blacks is worth the money? Or what if "the market" OK's the imprisonment of women who refuse to have babies?

What I want to do to someone who engages in coercion against me is up to me, unless I am part of a mutual defense agreement of some sort. Then I would abide by the rules of said contract. If my group imprisons anyone (whites, blacks, women who have abortions) who has not initiated force against us, then we have crossed the line into becoming government. But anyone who fears that by not having government we might end up with government isn't really making a valid point. It's like saying Don't fight for justice because you might lose.

What makes you think that "the market" will even act in its own interests 100% of the time???

I wouldn't say the market has "interests". I don't think it's really an entity in this sense. I do know that it's the collection of individual voluntary exchanges. And since those voluntary exchanges take place, each person who does so must be acting in his or her interest due to revealed preference (action is purposive).

[Infinite]

I.M.O. 'individualist anarchism' of the non-capitalist variety is the closest to 'real' anarchism, as in keeping w/the original concept of no rulers. The ideal police/security force is individual people owning guns and settling their own disputes without hierarchy. Anything that involves people running around in uniforms with guns, 'policing' everybody is not anarchy. & just b/c you have a contract that says you own such and such doesn't necessarily make it so. If it's outside the boundaries of reason, such as people owning acres upon acres of inhabitable land while other people go homeless and starve, it should be challenged.

[Guest]

I.M.O. 'individualist anarchism' of the non-capitalist variety is the closest to 'real' anarchism, as in keeping w/the original concept of no rulers. The ideal police/security force is individual people owning guns and settling their own disputes without hierarchy. Anything that involves people running around in uniforms with guns, 'policing' everybody is not anarchy. & just b/c you have a contract that says you own such and such doesn't necessarily make it so. If it's outside the boundaries of reason, such as people owning acres upon acres of inhabitable land while other people go homeless and starve, it should be challenged.

Notice still the hostility to the word capitalism despite the fact that no one has been able to defeat it here, or in any of my posts. But I suppose I'll respond anyways.....

I personally agree that I probably would not purchase security forces because I would view them with much suspicion. I might arrange some really small security agreement with my immediate neighbors, but nothing else. As far as people who would choose otherwise, they wouldn't be "policing everybody." It wouldn't be likely to actually have "patrols" because it doesn't take a genius to figure out that that's wasteful. If people a) don't commit crimes in front of police, then I conclude b) police are never there when you need them. Also, with most property being strictly private, it would be hard to "go around policing." However, if you are part of a security compact, and you call for someone, you can't say there's anything wrong with that.

As far as owning acres and acres of inhabitable land, my question would be how was the land acquired. If it was stolen and then given to someone by government, then go ahead, take it. No one will want to defend the thug anyways. If he purchased the land with his own income, then he is the rightful owner of the land, yes.
No one's going to starve if labor markets are completely free, because their is no true unemployment in a free society. It's not possible. Only people who feel too high and mighty to accept certain jobs can be "unemployed," and in that case it's a status that is chosen. There is no limit to human wants, and as a result, there is always something you can do for someone else. We can't "run out" of things to do in the realm of voluntary exchange. Unemployment is a creation of the state alone.

[raylene86]

If my group imprisons anyone (whites, blacks, women who have abortions) who has not initiated force against us, then we have crossed the line into becoming government. But anyone who fears that by not having government we might end up with government isn't really making a valid point. It's like saying Don't fight for justice because you might lose.

I think it's easy to say that if a person is not in some marginalized group that has had experience with that sort of exploitation. If everyone were the same and there was no way to excuse discrimination against one group, I think what you're saying would be more sensible, although I'd probably still disagree on the basis of the fact that "zero unemployment" would come as a result of people being encouraged to commodify anything they can in order to make a living (which goes right back to my issue of marginalized groups). I didn't realize I was commenting to the same person in both threads, but in light of that, there's no need for me to re-write what I wrote about being an anti-capitalist in one of the other threads lol. Heck, even if people were ethnically homogeneous and homogeneous in terms of sexuality, the inevitable physical differences would exist and women would likely be inherently disadvantaged in the face of things like sexual coercion unless for SOME magic reason all men opposed rape (which is unlikely when you subtract out the practice of men "owning" women in marriage and women being married as a means of built-in protection against male predators); the exact same thing holds if you wanna talk about the raping of men and children. Similarly, anyone who is physically handicapped would be at a disadvantage unless someone was sympathetic.

The only way you could rule that out is just have everyone running around putting bullets in each other as a deterrent, in which case, I'd ask why KILLING A PERSON (a form of force/assumption of authority) would be practiced in some "ethical" way seeing as if I shot you for "exploiting" me, I could easily have just made up a story just because I wanted to nab your wallet when you hit the ground. Similarly, if I'm more wealthy than you, I might just get myself a tank to crush you and your friends who realize you can take what's "mine" by simply outnumbering me; yet, on the other hand, if I'm not well-off enough to have a militia or something, I'm at the mercy of any aggregate that can outpower me unless I'm REALLY good with a gun lol.

And, right on back to my discrimination aspect: suppose I, an African-American woman who hasn't made a "voluntary trade" for male protection (marriage) yet lol, have been really enterprising and I've become moderately wealthy as a result. What if my neighbors get really jealous and don't like it. Suppose those same neighbors recognize that they're all bigger than me and all of them AREN'T African-American or women and come to an agreement that they will collaborate to make sure they don't have competition from African-Americans or women anymore. As a result, they raze my home and take everything that's "mine" by the simple fact that I just wasn't prepared to handle an attack from 50 people. Why should I believe that those 50 non-woman, non-African-American people don't exist in my neighborhood? Why should I believe that all those people should be aware that their approval of use of force could backfire and be used against them? Why should I believe that those people won't recognize the potential backlash and then offer non-African American women the opportunity to split the financial benefits with them if they agree to be peaceful? Why should I believe that the non-African American women wouldn't agree to that offer, seeing as people love to get what they want for the least effort possible? Heck, maybe those women would be pro-marriage just to solidify those benefits. Hmm. Sounds like something that ACTUALLY has happened in history, to me...

[patrickhenry]

It is no coincidence that "anarcho"-capitalists try to limit the definition of anarchy or anarchism purely to opposition to the state or government. This is because capitalist property produces authoritarian structures (and so social relations) exactly like the state. By focusing on "government" rather than "authority," they hide the basic contradiction within their ideology namely that the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of private property is remarkably close to its definition of the state.

This is easy to prove. For example, leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murray Rothbard thundered against the evil of the state, stressing that it "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area." Then, in the chapter's endnote, he quietly admitted that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." [6]

Opps. How did the editor not pick up that one? But it shows the magical power of the expression "private property" - it can turn the bad ("ultimate decision-making power" over a given area) into the good ("ultimate decision-making power" over a given area). For anarchists, "[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst." [7] It should also be stressed that capitalist authoritarianism is dictatorial in nature, with significantly less freedom than that in a democratic state.

Anarchists, obviously, wonder what the difference actually is. Why is the authority of the state considered anti-anarchist while that of the property owner is not? Rothbard did provide an answer: the state has got its land "unjustly." Thus the answer lies in whether the state legitimately owns its territory or not. If it did, then "it is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in that area . . . So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property." [8]

So if the state were a legitimate landlord or capitalist then its authoritarianism would be fine? Sorry? This is an anarchist analysis? The question is, ultimately, one of liberty. Anarchists simply note that Rothbard himself shows that capitalism and the state are based on the same authority structures and, consequently, neither can be considered as anarchist.

But then again, anarchists are not surprised. The liberal tradition "anarcho"-capitalism happily places itself in has a long history of sophisticated defences for autocracy based on consent. Anarchists, in contrast, have always stressed that the internal regime of an association which is the key.

That is why anarchists support workplace co-operatives as the alternative to capitalist hierarchy. Proudhon, for example, argued that employees are "subordinated, exploited" and their "permanent condition is one of obedience." Capitalist companies "plunder the bodies and souls of wage workers" and are "an outrage upon human dignity and personality." However, in a co-operative the situation changes and the worker is an "associate" and "forms a part of the producing organisation . . . [and] forms a part of the sovereign power, of which he was before but the subject." Without co-operation and association, "the workers . . . would remain related as subordinates and superiors, and there would ensue two industrial castes of masters and wage-workers, which is repugnant to a free and democratic society." [9]

The contrast between anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism could not be clearer.


The final defence of "anarcho"-capitalism is that authority associated with capitalism is voluntary, that workers consent to it. Of course, the same can be said of any democratic state. No one forces a citizen to remain within its borders. A defence of capitalist hierarchies in terms of consent logically means a defence of the state in the same terms -- particularly as capitalist property is as much the product of coercion as the state is. Moreover, given that Somalia is touted by some "anarcho"-capitalists as an example of their system, they have the same choice they usually give striking workers - if you don't like your current master, find a new one.

Yet there is a deeper objection to the "consent" argument, namely that it ignores the social circumstances of capitalism which limit the choice of the many. Anarchists have long argued that, as a class, workers have little choice but to "consent" to capitalist hierarchy. The alternative is either dire poverty or starvation. "Anarcho"-capitalists dismiss such claims by denying that there is such a thing as economic power. Rather, it is simply freedom of contract. [10]

Anarchists consider such claims as a joke. To show why, we need only quote Murray Rothbard on the abolition of slavery and serfdom in the 19th century. He argued, correctly, that the "bodies of the oppressed were freed, but the property which they had worked and eminently deserved to own, remained in the hands of their former oppressors. With economic power thus remaining in their hands, the former lords soon found themselves virtual masters once more of what were now free tenants or farm labourers. The serfs and slaves had tasted freedom, but had been cruelly derived of its fruits." [11]

To say the least, anarchists fail to see the logic in this position. Contrast this with the standard "anarcho"-capitalist claim that if market forces ("voluntary exchanges") result in the creation of "free tenants or farm labourers" then they are free. Yet labourers dispossessed by market forces are in exactly the same social and economic situation as the ex-serfs and ex-slaves. If the latter do not have the fruits of freedom, neither do the former. Rothbard sees the obvious "economic power" in the latter case, but denies it in the former.

Rothbard's position is untenable. A simple analogy shows why. Let us assume that someone kidnaps you and places you down a deep (naturally formed) pit, miles from anyway, which is impossible to climb up. No one would deny that you are unfree. Let us further assume that another person walks by and accidentally falls into the pit with you. According to Rothbard's logic, while you are unfree (i.e. subject to coercion) your fellow pit-dweller is perfectly free for they have subject to the "facts of nature" and not coercion.

It is only Rothbard's ideology that stops him from drawing the obvious conclusion -- identical economic conditions produce identical social relationships and so capitalism is marked by "economic power" and "virtual masters." The only solution is for "anarcho"-capitalists to simply say the ex-serfs and ex-slaves were actually free to choose and, consequently, Rothbard was wrong. It might be inhuman, but at least it would be consistent!