Anarchism

[Arkolon]

I think it's because Rothbard came up with the premise of voluntaryism (natural rights/law, the harm principle, etc) and used them to base his anarcho-capitalism. It's a shame people conflate the two, because it isn't true that all ancaps are voluntaryists, first of all, and neither is it true that all voluntaryists are ancaps. Rothbard also backed his voluntaryism up with the NAP, which protects property as well as individuals, which the Left might not have liked that much. But the harm principle is a more simplistic, all-encompassing basis for voluntaryism.

tl;dr it's mostly because there's Rothbard's signature on the philosophy, and people think that means voluntaryism = ancapism.

Okay, thanks for that explanation.

Anoter issue is the actual definitions and conflations of capitalism. I don't support the American business model (profits to shareholders, "cowboy"/"casino" capitalism, workers paid paltry wages), and myself prefer co-operatives, collectives, most of the anarcho-syndicalist arguments for the restructuring of business practices, and most importantly the John Lewis model (briefly put, the employees are the shareholders, and the harder they work the (lots) more money they make). The American business model hardly functions, and it is one of the key pathways to large inequality. Capitalism is, quite literally, the maximum freedom of voluntary exchange. Exchange is to societal progression what sex is to mammalian evolution. Anti-capitalism is pro-regression. Anti-capitalism is ludicrous-- when you use the correct definition of capitalism, at least. The "capitalism" we see today benefits no one but the rich, old, white men on the receiving end. And no anarcho-capitalist/libertarian is in favour of that.

So yeah, [true] capitalism has roots in voluntaryism anyway. Then comes the private property debate, which is a whole other issue..

[Liberaxia]

Hierarchy doesn't equal a state.

Furthermore, H. sapiens originally didn't have a hierarchy.

Hierarchy is natural. A state isn't. Just a little bit to add on.

Both are natural.

[Arkolon]

Hierarchy is natural. A state isn't. Just a little bit to add on.

Both are natural.

99.8%, man, 99.8%.

[Liberaxia]

Both are natural.

99.8%, man, 99.8%.

99.8% without private property, man, 99.%.

[Zottistan]

Both are natural.

99.8%, man, 99.8%.

97.25%.

And really, if hierarchy can be considered a natural development of human behaviour, so can states. There's no reason they should be any different.

[Arumdaum]

99.8%, man, 99.8%.

97.25%.

And really, if hierarchy can be considered a natural development of human behaviour, so can states. There's no reason they should be any different.

97.25% if you're going with Homo sapiens, 99.8% if you're going with the start of the genus Homo.

But yeah, I don't see why the past 7k years of history shouldn't be seen as natural.

[Arkolon]

99.8%, man, 99.8%.

99.8% without private property, man, 99.%.

There is a natural right to property. The state can enforce natural rights, property rights, but it's not like property rights arrived alongside the state.

[Arkolon]

99.8%, man, 99.8%.

97.25%.

And really, if hierarchy can be considered a natural development of human behaviour, so can states. There's no reason they should be any different.

Because hierarchy is natural but the modern state is coercive?

[Liberaxia]

97.25%.

And really, if hierarchy can be considered a natural development of human behaviour, so can states. There's no reason they should be any different.

Because hierarchy is natural but the modern state is coercive?

Hierarchy is coercive. The state is natural.

[Arkolon]

Because hierarchy is natural but the modern state is coercive?

Hierarchy is coercive. The state is natural.

Other way around, buddy. Hierarchy doesn't conflict with natural rights. The modern state does.

[Liberaxia]

Hierarchy is coercive. The state is natural.

Other way around, buddy. Hierarchy doesn't conflict with natural rights. The modern state does.

The state is a hierarchy.

[Arkolon]

Other way around, buddy. Hierarchy doesn't conflict with natural rights. The modern state does.

The state is a hierarchy.

The state is a hierarchy but not all hierarchies are states. A state is coercive as well as a coercively-imposed hierarchy. Any other hierarchies that come from employer-employee relationships, debtor-indebted relationships, and other forms of hierarchy that arise from voluntary exchange, come from just that: voluntary exchange, which isn't coercive.

[Liberaxia]

The state is a hierarchy.

The state is a hierarchy but not all hierarchies are states. A state is coercive as well as a coercively-imposed hierarchy. Any other hierarchies that come from employer-employee relationships, debtor-indebted relationships, and other forms of hierarchy that arise from voluntary exchange, come from just that: voluntary exchange, which isn't coercive.

A state is not necessarily coercive.

[Arkolon]

The state is a hierarchy but not all hierarchies are states. A state is coercive as well as a coercively-imposed hierarchy. Any other hierarchies that come from employer-employee relationships, debtor-indebted relationships, and other forms of hierarchy that arise from voluntary exchange, come from just that: voluntary exchange, which isn't coercive.

A state is not necessarily coercive.

A state with a coercive monopoly on violence is coercive. A voluntary state isn't coercive.

[Liberaxia]

A state is not necessarily coercive.

A state with a coercive monopoly on violence is coercive. A voluntary state isn't coercive.

A voluntaryist is coercive when it needs enforcement.

[Arkolon]

A state with a coercive monopoly on violence is coercive. A voluntary state isn't coercive.

A voluntaryist is coercive when it needs enforcement.

Ah, so when, say, a rapist rapes a victim and the state enforces natural rights, that state is automatically coercive? Are you for real?

[Liberaxia]

A voluntaryist is coercive when it needs enforcement.

Ah, so when, say, a rapist rapes a victim and the state enforces natural rights, that state is automatically coercive? Are you for real?

Yeah. How hard is it to call that coercion? Grow a pair and call a spade a goddamn spade.

[Arkolon]

Ah, so when, say, a rapist rapes a victim and the state enforces natural rights, that state is automatically coercive? Are you for real?

Yeah. How hard is it to call that coercion? Grow a pair and call a spade a goddamn spade.

Because the key word in "initiation of force" is "initiation". If force hasn't been initiated, then what you're doing is coercive. If force has been initiated, then it's justice/self-defense.

Trying to justify coercion.. it's a slippery slope from here on, Lib.

[Zottistan]

97.25%.

And really, if hierarchy can be considered a natural development of human behaviour, so can states. There's no reason they should be any different.

Because hierarchy is natural but the modern state is coercive?

Hierarchy is natural because humans naturally behave that way?

[Liberaxia]

Yeah. How hard is it to call that coercion? Grow a pair and call a spade a goddamn spade.

Because the key word in "initiation of force" is "initiation". If force hasn't been initiated, then what you're doing is coercive. If force has been initiated, then it's justice/self-defense.

Trying to justify coercion.. it's a slippery slope from here on, Lib.

Boo freaking hoo. Like there is anything wrong with it.

[Arkolon]

Because the key word in "initiation of force" is "initiation". If force hasn't been initiated, then what you're doing is coercive. If force has been initiated, then it's justice/self-defense.

Trying to justify coercion.. it's a slippery slope from here on, Lib.

Boo freaking hoo. Like there is anything wrong with it.

Rape, murder, and theft are understood when you say "coercion", so I'm going to assume your remark wasn't totally serious, there.

[Zottistan]

Hierarchy is coercive. The state is natural.

Other way around, buddy. Hierarchy doesn't conflict with natural rights. The modern state does.

Conflicting with natural rights doesn't make something unnatural. It makes it a violation of natural law. There are people who naturally engage in coercive behaviour, that's how states came to be in the first instance.

[Arkolon]

Because hierarchy is natural but the modern state is coercive?

Hierarchy is natural because humans naturally behave that way?

Hierarchy-- well, a natural hierarchy-- is developed as soon as there is private property. If there is private property, there is no equality of material position. It wouldn't conflict with natural law.

[Arkolon]

Other way around, buddy. Hierarchy doesn't conflict with natural rights. The modern state does.

Conflicting with natural rights doesn't make something unnatural. It makes it a violation of natural law. There are people who naturally engage in coercive behaviour, that's how states came to be in the first instance.

Yes, that's what I must have meant, sorry. Coercive behaviour through the initiation of force needn't be tackled by a state apparatus necessarily, you know.

[Zottistan]

Yeah. How hard is it to call that coercion? Grow a pair and call a spade a goddamn spade.

Because the key word in "initiation of force" is "initiation". If force hasn't been initiated, then what you're doing is coercive. If force has been initiated, then it's justice/self-defense.

Trying to justify coercion.. it's a slippery slope from here on, Lib.

It's fairly easy to not do messed up things without believing in natural law and objective moral good. I manage it all the time, along with the majority of moral nihilists. Just because coercion is justified (or requires no justification, to be precise) doesn't mean coercion is effective or desirable.