Why not leave people alone?

[Guest]

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

No one needs magic. I'm not suggesting a magic change in human nature where everyone will be perfect. This isn't going to happen in your "ancom" utopia either. I've already said this.

Similarly, anyone who is physically handicapped would be at a disadvantage unless someone was sympathetic.

You are right. Owning a damaged body is a disadvantage. You are not refuting anything.

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.

Oh no, the chaos argument, like I've never faced this before. This is what nation states already do. In a world where the people performing such actions actually bear the costs of their behavior, it will happen a lot less. I feel like I'm arguing with a statist right now. Are you really making the anarchy is chaos argument?

I won't waste the space quoting your whole last paragraph, because the response is basically the same. People COULD take your stuff. But right now, they DO take your stuff. The what if we end up with organized violence argument fails, because we already have that. This is the area we are supposed to agree upon, since you call yourself an anarchist.

Responses to more recent poster

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.

No, I don't only oppose government. I oppose the institutionalization of violence as a means of guiding human relationships, in any name, whether government or not. Your term hierarchy means nothing.

Next paragraphs.... Your post is long with absolutely no substance. Your whole argument is that property owning is unethical, which doesn't make sense. If that is the only objection you can raise then raise it. And I'll destroy it. Don't mumble on with your emotional BS about "exploitation," I've been there, defeated that.

[patrickhenry]

There is plenty of substance there. You just really can't argue the point can you?

As Kropotkin noted about a previous generation of free market capitalists, the "modern Individualism initiated by Herbert Spencer is, like the critical theory of Proudhon, a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution of the social problem is miserable -- so miserable as to lead us to inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination."

Much the same can be said for "anarcho"-capitalism. Anarchists would not bother themselves with it except that it calls itself anarchism. Yet, as shown, "anarcho"-capitalism makes as much sense as "anarcho-statism" -- an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. The idea that "anarcho"-capitalism warrants the name "anarchist" is simply false. Only someone ignorant of anarchism could maintain such a thing. While you expect anarchist theory to show this to be the case, the ironic thing is that "anarcho"-capitalism itself does the same.

Anarchism, as a political theory, was born when Proudhon wrote "What is Property?" specifically to refute the notion that workers are free when capitalist property forces them to seek employment by landlords and capitalists. He was well aware that in such circumstances workers sold their liberty and were exploited. His classic work is a lengthy critique of the kind of apologetics for landlord and capitalist power and property Rothbard espouses. It seems ironic, therefore, that "anarcho"-capitalism calls itself "anarchist" while basing itself on the arguments that anarchism was created in opposition to.

Ultimately, Rothbard himself proves the anarchist case that workers may be formally free under capitalism but their economic circumstances are such that freedom becomes little more than being "free" to pick a master. Capitalism, in other words, is based on economic power, which ensures that people "consent" to be subjected to authority structures identical to those created by the state. This means that a consistent anarchist, as Chomsky noted, must oppose both state and capitalism.

Opposing the latter does not mean opposing the market. Not all anarchists are communists (although most are). Capitalism is just one form of market system, one rooted in specific property rights and social relationships. For those "anarcho"-capitalists who genuinely seek a free society and still think that markets are the best way to organise an economy then the ideas of anarchist mutualism should be of interest. This is a socialist system based on "occupancy and use," where self-employed workers and co-operatives govern themselves and sell the product of their labour to their fellow workers. A society without hierarchy, exploitation and oppression -- a genuine anarchist society rather than a system of mini-states.

What will it be? Capitalism or Anarchism? As "anarcho"-capitalism itself proves, it cannot be both

[Guest]

There is plenty of substance there. You just really can't argue the point can you?

Look at how long this da** thread is. Until the last two posts, I had been annihilating every argument line by line, or paragraph by paragraph. Now when you just repeat arguments (in a very superfluous spacewasting manner) that I've already heard and refuted, I don't find it worth my time to go through and give these arguments a careful @$$kicking.

On top of that, no one has been able to attack and defeat any of my points, all of them have been returned back into your court. If I thought this discussion was going anywhere, I'd go back up and crystallize the entire argument up to this point, and show how many points are still standing for me, and how many for you, but it wouldn't do anything, because you dodge what you want to dodge, and continue to regurgitate the same argument that everything we've ever done and everything anyone ever will do is unethical. If you are actually interested in this discussion and are willing to take it seriously, then post on dailyanarchist forums. Otherwise, I'm out. It was good going for a while, but now it's worthless.

[raylene86]

I won't waste the space quoting your whole last paragraph, because the response is basically the same...since you call yourself an anarchist...Your post is long with absolutely no substance. Your whole argument is that property owning is unethical, which doesn't make sense. If that is the only objection you can raise then raise it. And I'll destroy it. Don't mumble on with your emotional BS about "exploitation," I've been there, defeated that.

Anyway, to quote you, "I won't waste space quoting" your whole redundant spiel. If you've seen my other posts, you know what I mean already. Besides, when did you even justify property ownership as ethical WITHOUT using value judgments? That is, you haven't made any better case than I have. My guess? You walked in thinking you'd come in with, say, 3 semesters of econ courses down and own everyone who's "stupid" and "doesn't read economics"; unfortunately, you failed to realize that YOU failed to grasp something, too. I think it's called ANTICIPATING THE COUNTERARGUMENT. Geez, get on Facebook if you just wanted to talk to people who have no clue about what they claim to stand for lol.

This is relevant here: http://digs.by/9IYyuV