Anarcho-Capitalism & Why Libertarians are statists.

[Liberaxia]

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.

Why can't it be. Ever heard of the concept of corporate republics?

[New Aerios]

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.

Why can't it be. Ever heard of the concept of corporate republics?

Those things which only exist in works of fiction written by people who want to portray a future of "capitalism gone wrong"? Yes, I've heard of them. I don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

[Fanosolia]

Why can't it be. Ever heard of the concept of corporate republics?

Those things which only exist in works of fiction written by people who want to portray a future of "capitalism gone wrong"? Yes, I've heard of them. I don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

and the banana republic? what's that then?

[New Aerios]

Those things which only exist in works of fiction written by people who want to portray a future of "capitalism gone wrong"? Yes, I've heard of them. I don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

and the banana republic? what's that then?

Assuming you're not referring to the clothing company, a banana republic is a state, typically run by a ruling plutocracy comprised of business, political, and military elites, where the economy is dependent on the export of a single limited resource e.g. bananas. Sorry, I don't quite see the relevance.

[Liberaxia]

Why can't it be. Ever heard of the concept of corporate republics?

Those things which only exist in works of fiction written by people who want to portray a future of "capitalism gone wrong"? Yes, I've heard of them. I don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

Can we say the same thing about anarcho-capitalism, then?

[Liberaxia]

and the banana republic? what's that then?

Assuming you're not referring to the clothing company, a banana republic is a state, typically run by a ruling plutocracy comprised of business, political, and military elites, where the economy is dependent on the export of a single limited resource e.g. bananas. Sorry, I don't quite see the relevance.

So close.

[New Aerios]

Those things which only exist in works of fiction written by people who want to portray a future of "capitalism gone wrong"? Yes, I've heard of them. I don't take them seriously, and neither should you.

Can we say the same thing about anarcho-capitalism, then?

No, because that's an actual coherent ideology, not just an author's tool for creating a crapsack world.

[Zottistan]

Can we say the same thing about anarcho-capitalism, then?

No, because that's an actual coherent ideology, not just an author's tool for creating a crapsack world.

"Coherent" is a strong term for an ideology that claims to be anarchist and isn't.

[Fanosolia]

and the banana republic? what's that then?

Assuming you're not referring to the clothing company, a banana republic is a state, typically run by a ruling plutocracy comprised of business, political, and military elites, where the economy is dependent on the export of a single limited resource e.g. bananas. Sorry, I don't quite see the relevance.

well... crap I didn't realize it was a whole term.

Didn't a private company, with the help of the USA's army, take control of resources in the Caribbean and Central America from the people there? isn't that something like a corporate government?

[Liberaxia]

Assuming you're not referring to the clothing company, a banana republic is a state, typically run by a ruling plutocracy comprised of business, political, and military elites, where the economy is dependent on the export of a single limited resource e.g. bananas. Sorry, I don't quite see the relevance.

well... crap I didn't realize it was a whole term.

Didn't a private company, with the help of the USA's army, take control of resources in the Caribbean and Central America from the people there? isn't that something like a corporate government?

Yes, and it even overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. More amazing, however, is the British East India Trading Company which conquered the subcontinent of India.

[New Aerios]

No, because that's an actual coherent ideology, not just an author's tool for creating a crapsack world.

"Coherent" is a strong term for an ideology that claims to be anarchist and isn't.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central, some argue[11] that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

So what we have there is "abolition of the state", which anarcho-capitalism advocates, and then stuff about broader concepts of hierarchy written under "several authors" and "some argue".

If it pains you that much, there are other terms. You could call it stateless capitalism, Rothbard's own preferred term of nonarchism, whatever. But petty squabbling over a word and " lol no true anarchism" achieves precisely nothing.

[New Aerios]

well... crap I didn't realize it was a whole term.

Didn't a private company, with the help of the USA's army, take control of resources in the Caribbean and Central America from the people there? isn't that something like a corporate government?

Yes, and it even overthrew the queen of Hawaii.

Key there being "with the help of the USA's army". It wouldn't have been able to do it without their help.

EDIT: Oh, and you've mentioned the East India Company as well, with its royal charter and government support.

So really, that's a pretty good argument against state intervention in the capitalist system.

[Liberaxia]

Yes, and it even overthrew the queen of Hawaii.

Key there being "with the help of the USA's army". It wouldn't have been able to do it without their help. So really, that's a pretty good argument against state intervention in the capitalist system.

The US military assisted them. So what? And I don't use the word "intervention". I find it misleading. As I mentioned in my edit of that post, the BEITC conquered India and it was only when the Crown pressured it that it acted more docile. Either way, the point is Ancapistan is NOT stateless. All it is is a different type of state.

[Liberaxia]

Can we say the same thing about anarcho-capitalism, then?

No, because that's an actual coherent ideology, not just an author's tool for creating a crapsack world.

Rothbard never seemed much more than a social inventor to me.

[New Aerios]

No, because that's an actual coherent ideology, not just an author's tool for creating a crapsack world.

Rothbard never seemed much more than a social inventor to me.

One could say that about all political thinkers. It's a bit of a cop out when it comes to arguments, really.

[Fanosolia]

Yes, and it even overthrew the queen of Hawaii.

Key there being "with the help of the USA's army". It wouldn't have been able to do it without their help.

EDIT: Oh, and you've mentioned the East India Company as well, with its royal charter and government support.

So really, that's a pretty good argument against state intervention in the capitalist system.

but wouldn't this be something that COULD happen in a minarchist society, unless there was a law to prevent this sort of "intervention", or let's call it what is was, assisting.

[Liberaxia]

Rothbard never seemed much more than a social inventor to me.

One could say that about all political thinkers. It's a bit of a cop out when it comes to arguments, really.

Touche.

[Liberaxia]

Yes, and it even overthrew the queen of Hawaii.

Key there being "with the help of the USA's army". It wouldn't have been able to do it without their help.

EDIT: Oh, and you've mentioned the East India Company as well, with its royal charter and government support.

So really, that's a pretty good argument against state intervention in the capitalist system.

No true capitalist. It's interesting to note that was what capitalism originally was and that what libertarians advocate is a model abstracted from it.

[Zottistan]

"Coherent" is a strong term for an ideology that claims to be anarchist and isn't.

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central, some argue[11] that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

So what we have there is "abolition of the state", which anarcho-capitalism advocates, and then stuff about broader concepts of hierarchy written under "several authors" and "some argue".

If it pains you that much, there are other terms. You could call it stateless capitalism, Rothbard's own preferred term of nonarchism, whatever. But petty squabbling over a word and " lol no true anarchism" achieves precisely nothing.

Haha, no, anarchocapitalism advocates the abolition of the state and then replacing it with many primitive states. Not anarchism. I call it minarchism or feudalism.

It achieves nothing, but it calls you out on your incorrectness. You claimed anarchocapitalism was coherent: it's not coherent if it claims to be anarchist and isn't. Use words correctly.

[New Aerios]

Key there being "with the help of the USA's army". It wouldn't have been able to do it without their help.

EDIT: Oh, and you've mentioned the East India Company as well, with its royal charter and government support.

So really, that's a pretty good argument against state intervention in the capitalist system.

No true capitalist.

Except I never said it wasn't capitalism. Of course it was capitalism, it would be silly to suggest that it wasn't. However, it was a form of capitalism that I do not like or advocate, a form where the state gives royal charters telling their favourite company to go and own a large chunk of the world, a form where the state says "go conquer this country, we'll give you our army to do it". I support the form where the state cannot do that, because it simply doesn't exist.

[New Aerios]

Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central, some argue[11] that anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.

So what we have there is "abolition of the state", which anarcho-capitalism advocates, and then stuff about broader concepts of hierarchy written under "several authors" and "some argue".

If it pains you that much, there are other terms. You could call it stateless capitalism, Rothbard's own preferred term of nonarchism, whatever. But petty squabbling over a word and " lol no true anarchism" achieves precisely nothing.

Haha, no, anarchocapitalism advocates the abolition of the state and then replacing it with many primitive states. Not anarchism. I call it minarchism or feudalism.

It achieves nothing, but it calls you out on your incorrectness. You claimed anarchocapitalism was coherent: it's not coherent if it claims to be anarchist and isn't. Use words correctly.

But your whole argument relies on you twisting the definition of the state. A quick google search for "define state" brings up "A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government". This definition clearly does not apply to private enterprise, and it takes quite a bit of deliberate distortion and intellectual dishonesty to make it.

Neither does anarcho-capitalism fall under the category of "the dominant social system in medieval Europe, in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labour, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection." Calling it Feudalism is rather silly.

[Zottistan]

Haha, no, anarchocapitalism advocates the abolition of the state and then replacing it with many primitive states. Not anarchism. I call it minarchism or feudalism.

It achieves nothing, but it calls you out on your incorrectness. You claimed anarchocapitalism was coherent: it's not coherent if it claims to be anarchist and isn't. Use words correctly.

But your whole argument relies on you twisting the definition of the state.

No, my argument requires using the Weberian definition of a state: a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The definition used by anarchists to separate large-scale organization from statehood.

A quick google search for "define state" brings up "A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government".

Firstly, this is a colloquial definition of statehood, and not the one widely used by anarchists.

Secondly, if this is your definition of statehood, why do you oppose it? What's wrong with that?

This definition clearly does not apply to private enterprise,

TBH, a state under that definition could very easily be established by private enterprise.

and it takes quite a bit of deliberate distortion and intellectual dishonesty to make it.

I'd call it intellectual dishonesty to use a different definition for terms than the ones widely used in a given context... that's not the anarchist definition of statehood.

[Zottistan]

Neither does anarcho-capitalism fall under the category of "the dominant social system in medieval Europe,

So feudal Japan isn't a thing?

in which the nobility held lands from the Crown in exchange for military service, and vassals were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants (villeins or serfs) were obliged to live on their lord's land and give him homage, labour, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."

"In which the less the private security firms held lands from the wealthy in exchange for military service, and landlords were in turn tenants of the nobles, while the peasants were obliged to live on their landlord's land and give him homage, labour, and a share of the produce, notionally in exchange for military protection."

Stop using the outdated terminology and realize that these people all fulfill the same roles in the system, and you'll see it.

Calling it Feudalism is rather silly.

Maybe neofeudalism is more accurate, but they're very similar.

[New Aerios]

But your whole argument relies on you twisting the definition of the state.

No, my argument requires using the Weberian definition of a state: a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The definition used by anarchists to separate large-scale organization from statehood.

A quick google search for "define state" brings up "A nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government".

Firstly, this is a colloquial definition of statehood, and not the one widely used by anarchists.

Secondly, if this is your definition of statehood, why do you oppose it? What's wrong with that?

This definition clearly does not apply to private enterprise,

TBH, a state under that definition could very easily be established by private enterprise.

and it takes quite a bit of deliberate distortion and intellectual dishonesty to make it.

I'd call it intellectual dishonesty to use a different definition for terms than the ones widely used in a given context... that's not the anarchist definition of statehood.

Great, so please explain to me how a business acquires a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. I can see it being granted by the government, like the East India Company, but how could it arise without such a government?

[Fanosolia]

No, my argument requires using the Weberian definition of a state: a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The definition used by anarchists to separate large-scale organization from statehood.


Firstly, this is a colloquial definition of statehood, and not the one widely used by anarchists.

Secondly, if this is your definition of statehood, why do you oppose it? What's wrong with that?


TBH, a state under that definition could very easily be established by private enterprise.


I'd call it intellectual dishonesty to use a different definition for terms than the ones widely used in a given context... that's not the anarchist definition of statehood.

Great, so please explain to me how a business acquires a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. I can see it being granted by the government, like the East India Company, but how could it arise without such a government?

What about private armies? Those are on the rise.