Anarcho-Capitalism & Why Libertarians are statists.

[Arkolon]

Come on, Lib, even Marxists don't see violent revolution as peaceful.

Do note the difference between a Marxist and an Anarchist in Communist terms...anarchists can fit into a voluntary society. Marxists cannot.

Red-blacks aren't reds, I understand that. Marx and Bakunin, second Internationale, and all that.

[Liberaxia]

¬∀(¬Peaceful=Aggression)
On the other hand, many peaceful things are taken by libertarians to be aggressive.

Such as?

Trespassing.

[Arkolon]

Such as?

Trespassing.

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

[Maqo]

Trespassing.

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

What absolute bullshit. Walking on the ground near someone's magic flag is completely incomparable to violating someone's body. If the analogy fits perfectly your scope is wrong.

[Liberaxia]

Trespassing.

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

Which is exactly why your movement will forever flounder in useless definitions.

[Geilinor]

Trespassing.

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

People have control over their bodies, but your body isn't property of any form, even your own property.

[Maqo]

Could you give me a concrete, realistic example of what you mean there? By realistic I mean not everyone will be up in arms to the "you can't kill people" legislation, or something like that.

A few existing examples:

Abortion law. Some people legitimately believe that abortion is murder, and some people do not. If you allow abortions, to some people you are legalizing murder.

Intellectual property law. How is intellectual property protected? If I spend two years painstakingly using my labor to create a novel which is immediately appropriated by others and copied upon its release, in my view they have stolen from me (and society should attempt to protect my ability to profit from such labor, otherwise it will not be performed).

And some more which are definitely harmful while being of dubious aggressiveness, depending on how you define aggression.
Zoning laws. Many would think it is harmful to build a chemical factory on vacant land next to a school or residential area.

Drunk driving laws. If you are driving erratically under the influence of drugs, but don't actually hurt anyone, are you being aggressive? Empirically people do not care enough about their own or other's safety to stop this practice yet the lesser threat of a fine does reduce it. Similarly to hunting in residential areas - technically its not harmful until you actually hurt someone, but it carries a very high risk of harm and so is illegal.

Public nuisance laws. Playing loud music after midnight and disturbing your neighbors is illegal in most places because it is considered harmful.

Water rights laws. In many areas in the world it is illegal to collect rainwater that falls on your property, as other people are expecting to be able to use that water as it flows in to rivers and aquifers. In fact, just throw all of water rights in here. Ancaps/libertarians tend to say that rivers become common property, yet that is obviously coming from a consequentialist view. You can't arrive at the idea of common property, much less the much more complicated actual behavior of water rights laws, from a principle of non aggression.



Anarchists/libertarians/voluntarists tend to say that coercion and fraud would be illegal. Yet fraud is not 'aggression' (for any useful definition of the word aggression), though it is harmful. So is your principle actually against causing harm to others? Above are many other ways you can cause harm to other people that are at least as 'aggressive' as your all-encompassing term 'fraud'.

[Fanosolia]

"Nonarchism" is simply a rather ridiculous way of saying anarchism and essentially all anarchist ideologues propose some for of organization. There isn't a title that fits for "anarcho-capitalism" other than neo-feudalism. There is no form of capitalism that is "purer" than others. Capitalism is a term used to describe an economic system with many variations. State capitalism, Rhine Capitalism, the Nordic Model, and laissez-faire capitalism are all equally capitalist as all illustrate private ownership of the means of production controlled by a capitalist class and worked for the accumulation of capital.

Funny how you try to shift the word feudalism from the left and to the right because for me, and for the whole right-side of the spectrum, there's a Road To Serfdom, serfdom being interchangeable with feudalism. If there is a central authority that has to decide what is "from each..." and "to each...", you will end up with serfdom. It's hard talking to you because you sound like someone threw Das Kapital into the Gibberish Generator and you spout words out over and over again with a total inflexibility to adopt new ways of thinking or even new terms. Seriously, libertarian applies to all who see liberty as an end and not a means to another end. Times changed. I can't tell if I cringe more or if I laugh more when you try to pretend that times haven't changed. Regardless, capitalism is not feudalism, and feudalism was not capitalism, and this "neo-feudalism" is emotive and sensationalist, trying to cover up the true fates of all forms of communism. Capitalism refers to the private ownership of private property, not by the state ("abolition" of private property is just the change of hands in ownership). Capitalism means self-ownership and self-government, and it is almost synonymous with "voluntary exchange". If we separate capitalism from the state, the American business model would fail, and we would see business models prefer John Lewis models, co-operative models, and so on.

The title that best fits ancapism is "nonarchism". I know it's the first time you hear it, but everything sounds funny the first time. Rothbard preferred the term nonarchist but went with anarcho-capitalist in the end.

my knowledge of economics (never mind Americas), but how do you know that the models will change into models like the John Lewis model and the like?

[Soselo]

Trespassing.

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

People are not property.

[Arglorand]

No anarchist except for primitivists has ever proposed a vision of society that does not involve a state in anything but name.

Federations of communes are states in all but name. As your OP more or less correctly deduces, free interaction of capital results in a state in all but name. Intellectually honest anarchists usually differentiate between abolishing the state and abolishing government, but, imho, I don't see the difference at all.

[Adriopium]

In a free market stateless society the people who are wealthy will buy and own the land. Then they will rent out the land to tenants. Essentially, taxing them. Then to make sure the tenants pay, the landlord hires private security to enforce his rents. Thus you get an army. With these two institutions in place the landlord can then define regulations for the tenants to follow to maintain residency. Thus, you have legislation and laws and bingo the landlord effectively becomes a mini state all on his own and thus the "anarcho" capitalists will ALWAYS end up with a similar system to what we have now by removing the state but keeping the accumulation of capital you will always get inequality, then hierarchy, then a state.

Do you believe that libertarians are statists?

Does the existence of capital create a state or is it the fact that all capital is not distributed equally?
[Modedit]Fixed probably-intentional typo in topic title.[/edit]

I don't know if this has been stated, but that end result kind of sounds like feudalism. A rich landowner (noble) renting out his land to farmers/workers while at the mercy of their decrees and private security (knights).

I personally hold libertarian views, though I guess I am a statist if only that I believe that a state is necessary to protect our rights from being abused by other citizens. As much as many libertarians are wary of the government abusing its citizens, other more powerful citizens can do that also on their own without checks in place. It is definitely an intricate balance between preventing abuse by the government and giving it enough power to prevent abuse against each other.

[Liberaxia]

Trespassing.

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

I'm sure women will be glad to know that they are property.

[Occupied Deutschland]

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

I'm sure women will be glad to know that they are property.

And men.
Also blacks, hispanics, whites, Jews, Norwegians and Aborigines.

He didn't really specify anything about himself, and specified it was an analogy. But hey, why let facts get in the way of bad understanding of analogies?

[Death Metal]

I'm sure women will be glad to know that they are property.

And men.
Also blacks, hispanics, whites, Jews, Norwegians and Aborigines.

He didn't really specify anything about himself, and specified it was an analogy. But hey, why let facts get in the way of bad understanding of analogies?

And people wonder why people like me have a low opinion on "liber"tarian/minarchist/anarchist/etc theory.

[Soselo]

And men.
Also blacks, hispanics, whites, Jews, Norwegians and Aborigines.

He didn't really specify anything about himself, and specified it was an analogy. But hey, why let facts get in the way of bad understanding of analogies?

And people wonder why people like me have a low opinion on "liber"tarian/minarchist/anarchist/etc theory.

Their arguments are fun to read, easy to play with. If you don't respond seriously, the game stops. Don't reduce their arguments to jokes though.

[Soselo]

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

I'm sure women will be glad to know that they are property.

In fairness, they were before their rights were stolen.

[Soselo]

Anarcho-Capitalists identify as Libertarian.

All anarchists are libertarians but not all libertarians are anarchists.

They're not anarchists; they're fucking statists.

[New Aerios]

If you have sex with me without my consent, that is a form of trespassing, and the analogy fits perfectly in a propertarian scope.

I'm sure women will be glad to know that they are property.

I'm sure they will indeed be glad to know that they own their bodies and that no one has the right to violate that self-ownership. Would you have it another way?

[New Aerios]

All anarchists are libertarians but not all libertarians are anarchists.

They're not anarchists; they're fucking statists.

Ummm...

That's what he's saying. All anarchists are libertarians - they must be, freedom is the main goal of anarchism, and it is achieved by abolishing the state. However, all libertarians are not necessarily anarchists - many, such as minarchists, still believe in the existence of the state, and think that freedom within that state should be maximised.

[Soselo]

I'm sure women will be glad to know that they are property.

I'm sure they will indeed be glad to know that they own their bodies and that no one has the right to violate that self-ownership. Would you have it another way?

If the bodies of women are property, and women have complete rights of use and control over their bodies, then women have the right to transfer ownership of their body though a voluntary contract, just as anyone can do so with something they own as property, a chair, for example. That would mean that a woman has the right to voluntarily transfer the ownership of her body to others, and choose to become owned as private property by other people. A slave is a person who is owned as property by another person. Self-ownership, not the denial of such, justifies slavery.

[New Aerios]

I'm sure they will indeed be glad to know that they own their bodies and that no one has the right to violate that self-ownership. Would you have it another way?

If the bodies of women are property, and women have complete rights of use and control over their bodies, then women have the right to transfer ownership of their body though a voluntary contract, just as anyone can do so with something they own as property, a chair, for example. That would mean that a woman has the right to voluntarily transfer the ownership of her body to others, and choose to become owned as private property by other people. A slave is a person who is owned as property by another person. Self-ownership, not the denial of such, justifies slavery.

So what would you propose instead of self-ownership, where people have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies? Who else would have that right? The state? Do you want a state that owns its citizens? Or something else?

[Soselo]

They're not anarchists; they're fucking statists.

Ummm...

That's what he's saying. All anarchists are libertarians - they must be, freedom is the main goal of anarchism, and it is achieved by abolishing the state. However, all libertarians are not necessarily anarchists - many, such as minarchists, still believe in the existence of the state, and think that freedom within that state should be maximised.

Anarchism is not just anti-statism. Anarchy is about questioning hierarchy, the basis of authority in all aspects of any given society. There's nothing contradictory about an anti-statist sexist or racist. There's nothing in the terms of anti-statism that leads one to reject sexism, or racism. A consistent anarchist cannot be racist or sexist because doing so would be supporting an illegitimate hierarchy while a consistent anti-statist can be such grim things as long as they only don't support the state.

[New Aerios]

Ummm...

That's what he's saying. All anarchists are libertarians - they must be, freedom is the main goal of anarchism, and it is achieved by abolishing the state. However, all libertarians are not necessarily anarchists - many, such as minarchists, still believe in the existence of the state, and think that freedom within that state should be maximised.

Anarchism is not just anti-statism. Anarchy is about questioning hierarchy, the basis of authority in all aspects of any given society. There's nothing contradictory about an anti-statist sexist or racist. There's nothing in the terms of anti-statism that leads one to reject sexism, or racism. A consistent anarchist cannot be racist or sexist because doing so would be supporting an illegitimate hierarchy while a consistent anti-statist can be such grim things as long as they only don't support the state

What are you suggesting? That all libertarians are racist and sexist? Because if you meant anything other than that, I can't see how you would have a problem with the logic that anarchists must be libertarians because their end goal is maximum freedom.

[Soselo]

Anarchism is not just anti-statism. Anarchy is about questioning hierarchy, the basis of authority in all aspects of any given society. There's nothing contradictory about an anti-statist sexist or racist. There's nothing in the terms of anti-statism that leads one to reject sexism, or racism. A consistent anarchist cannot be racist or sexist because doing so would be supporting an illegitimate hierarchy while a consistent anti-statist can be such grim things as long as they only don't support the state

What are you suggesting? That all libertarians are racist and sexist? Because if you meant anything other than that, I can't see how you would have a problem with the logic that anarchists must be libertarians because their end goal is maximum freedom.

I'm suggesting that a consistent libertarian & anarcho-capitalist can be racist and sexist while a consistent anarchist cannot because anarchists are definitionally opposed to hierarchical authority, the antithesis of maximum freedom while libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are not, their criticism is only limited to the state while supporting state institutions via privatized proxy.

[New Aerios]

What are you suggesting? That all libertarians are racist and sexist? Because if you meant anything other than that, I can't see how you would have a problem with the logic that anarchists must be libertarians because their end goal is maximum freedom.

I'm suggesting that a consistent libertarian & anarcho-capitalist can be racist and sexist while a consistent anarchist cannot because anarchists are definitionally opposed to hierarchical authority, the antithesis of maximum freedom while libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are not, their criticism is only limited to the state while supporting state institutions via privatized proxy.

I'm sure you can find someone of any ideology who holds racist or sexist beliefs, and I don't like your insinuation that it is particularly prevalent within anarcho-capitalism. And if you could be bothered to see past your own rhetoric, you would realise that private enterprise is not a state institution.