Why?

[Guest]

This has probably been many times but as an anarchocapitalist i would like to know the following?

Why not simply advocate anarchocapitalism and start an own "legal-system" that follows syndicalist teachings. There would be two advantages in your favour. 1) Because syndicalism is so great for the worker, every worker would be lining up to join your syndicate to leave the greedy capitalist-opressors. 2) Noone would have to be in a syndicate if he didnt want to.

Really, why just not start a syndicalist legal system? If its paradise on earth then everyone would see it and join you!

[tsihcrana laicos]

the Legal system just seems like another gov't to me.

The advantages you talked about would be there in an anarchist society.

[Guest]

The advantages you talked about would be there in an anarchist society

Yes, but everyone wouldnt see them as advantages, therefore it would be wrong to force someone to live there.

the Legal system just seems like another gov't to me

Except the fact that it isn't. For one, legal systems aren't necessarily territorial monopolies. Everyone can choose which legal-system he is under. And don't forget that all legal-systems wouldn't be "ultracapitalistic", there would probalby be communist, anarchist, nazist, etc. legal-systems.

[tsihcrana laicos]

Yes, but everyone wouldnt see them as advantages, therefore it would be wrong to force someone to live there.

I know. It would be wrong. Which is why i advocate anarchy and not capitalism.

Everyone can choose which legal-system he is under.

Well, then, i would choose none.

I am ok with legal systems, so long as there is no authority.

[jacobhaller]

Why don't ancaps simply form propertarian communities within anarchist societies?

This isn't about law, this is about power. The anarchist approach (breaking both the state and the monopolies) seems more viable than the ancap approach (dismantling the state alone, not targetting the monopolies with any action, but leaving the monopolies to wither).

The classic anarchist response: property itself is illegitimate. The alternatives (broadly speaking, market anarchism and communist anarchism) all reject property systems. (imposed ones, not necc. consensual ones).

The classic ancap response: syndicalism is authoritarian (which misinterprets syndicalist tactics) and/or wages will fall to the marginal value of labor. in any market system (which presupposes some bottleneck, e.g. near monopolies on property, finance, etc.)

[Guest]

Why don't ancaps simply form propertarian communities within anarchist societies?

I have to say that i aint that familiar with syndicalism but i thought you guys didn't "approve" private property

Well, then, i would choose none.

I am ok with legal systems, so long as there is no authority.

Then form a legal system that has no authority. I have no problem with people who want to live in anarcho-syndicalism, i have a problem with people imposing it on others.

There seems to be a big misunderstanding of anarchocapitalism amongst other anarchists. Every legal-system wouldnt be "capitalist" in the sense that people think of it. There would probably exist communist, nazist, conservative, syndicalist etc. legal systems with the only/main difference to governments being that people could themselves choose wich one to be part of.

[Guest]

Ah, that wonderful "freedom to oppress" argument...

[Coconut Man]

Because under "anarcho"-capitalism, the rich would still own all the property. So, although people could form communes, they wouldnt have any land or factories.