Anarcho-Capitalism & Why Libertarians are statists.

[Zottistan]

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?

Private security firms?

The most successful firms in a given area establish monopolies on violence through legitimate means. They are the best at providing their services cheapest within their area, so people use their services and they establish a local monopoly on violence over the territories they service. I thought this much was obvious.

[Soselo]

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.

What the hell? Read my response again, I told you that it's possible for unjust hierarchies based on sexism and racism to be consistent with anarcho-capitalism while a consistent anarchist cannot be a racist or sexist due to their opposition to hierarchal authority, including the sexist and racist sort.

And if you could be bothered to see past your own rhetoric, you would realise that private enterprise is not a state institution.

They're functional synonyms, hierarchy is present in both systems which is what anarchists are opposed to.

[New Aerios]

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?

Private security firms?

The most successful firms in a given area establish monopolies on violence through legitimate means. They are the best at providing their services cheapest within their area, so people use their services and they establish a local monopoly on violence over the territories they service. I thought this much was obvious.

They can still only use violence as a defensive action (yes, arbitration firms would settle this), these aren't legions of hitmen we're referring to. Anyone can legitimately use violence in self defence. All the PMC would do is amplify that capability for people who didn't consider themselves capable of defending themselves against a perceived threat. That's not a monopoly. Anyone can do what they're doing. That's a lot of people using a service.

[New Aerios]

What the hell? Read my response again, I told you that it's possible for unjust hierarchies based on sexism and racism to be consistent with anarcho-capitalism while a consistent anarchist cannot be a racist or sexist due to their opposition to hierarchal authority, including the sexist and racist sort.

They're functional synonyms, hierarchy is present in both systems which is the problem actual anarchists address.

Petty arguments over a word is not constructive. Refer to the previous page, somewhere there is the Wikipedia definition of anarchism. It says it is anti-state, and stuff about hierarchy in general is written as "some say".

Like I said to the other guy, call it stateless capitalism, call it nonarchism, whatever. Just stop going " hurr durr u can't use that word!1!!!1!1!1!"

[Zottistan]

Private security firms?

The most successful firms in a given area establish monopolies on violence through legitimate means. They are the best at providing their services cheapest within their area, so people use their services and they establish a local monopoly on violence over the territories they service. I thought this much was obvious.

They can still only use violence as a defensive action (yes, arbitration firms would settle this), these aren't legions of hitmen we're referring to. Anyone can legitimately use violence in self defence. All the PMC would do is amplify that capability for people who didn't consider themselves capable of defending themselves against a perceived threat.

Defense of other people's property for pay isn't self-defense. It's defense of others, like what the state does

That's not a monopoly. Anyone can do what they're doing. That's a lot of people using a service.

It's a local monopoly. They have a monopoly on violence within the jurisdictions they're defending.

Riddle me this: can a landlord buy vast areas of land, establish rules for his tenants to follow, and use force to evict them if they don't follow those rules?

[Zottistan]

They're functional synonyms, hierarchy is present in both systems which is the problem actual anarchists address.

Petty arguments over a word is not constructive. Refer to the previous page, somewhere there is the Wikipedia definition of anarchism. It says it is anti-state, and stuff about hierarchy in general is written as "some say".

Like I said to the other guy, call it stateless capitalism, call it nonarchism, whatever. Just stop going " hurr durr u can't use that word!1!!!1!1!1!"

The whole thread is based around the concept of properly defining anarchocapitalism. If you think that's unproductive, there's no need to post here. We have a thread for anarchist discussion.

[Soselo]

They're functional synonyms, hierarchy is present in both systems which is the problem actual anarchists address.

Petty arguments over a word is not constructive. Refer to the previous page, somewhere there is the Wikipedia definition of anarchism. It says it is anti-state, and stuff about hierarchy in general is written as "some say".

Like I said to the other guy, call it stateless capitalism, call it nonarchism, whatever. Just stop going " hurr durr u can't use that word!1!!!1!1!1!"

Wikipedia is your source? At least source Rothbard, I want something! Anarchists understand a state to be a centralized hierarchal organization that has the means to mobilize violence over an area to sustain it's rule. A private institution that has such capabilities is a state by definition.

[Arkolon]

Petty arguments over a word is not constructive. Refer to the previous page, somewhere there is the Wikipedia definition of anarchism. It says it is anti-state, and stuff about hierarchy in general is written as "some say".

Like I said to the other guy, call it stateless capitalism, call it nonarchism, whatever. Just stop going " hurr durr u can't use that word!1!!!1!1!1!"

Wikipedia is your source? At least source Rothbard, I want something! Anarchists understand a state to be a centralized hierarchal organization that has the means to mobilize violence over an area to sustain it's rule. A private institution that has such capabilities is a state by definition.

See those citations (little blue numbers in boxes) on every Wikipedia article? Those are Wikipedia's sources. If you don't think annotated Wikipedia is a source, you obviously don't know how to use Wikipedia.

[Death Metal]

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

You mean the only realistic and logical conclusion to any thought experiment of ancap theory implemented in real life that doesn't rely on Mary Sue bullshit like private arbitration firms that will magically never be corrupt ever?

[Soselo]

Wikipedia is your source? At least source Rothbard, I want something! Anarchists understand a state to be a centralized hierarchal organization that has the means to mobilize violence over an area to sustain it's rule. A private institution that has such capabilities is a state by definition.

See those citations (little blue numbers in boxes) on every Wikipedia article? Those are Wikipedia's sources. If you don't think annotated Wikipedia is a source, you obviously don't know how to use Wikipedia.

Every Wikipedia claim is not cited, try again on a sunnier day.

[Liberaxia]

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.

But the BEITC had its own army. It wasn't using the Crown's forces. The BEITC acted largely independently.

[Soselo]

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.

But the BEITC had its own army. It wasn't using the Crown's forces. The BEITC acted largely independently.

You've got him in a knot.

[Arkolon]

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.

But the BEITC had its own army. It wasn't using the Crown's forces. The BEITC acted largely independently.

Does that in any way justify what they did, keeping in mind the capitalist philosophy?

[Geilinor]

See those citations (little blue numbers in boxes) on every Wikipedia article? Those are Wikipedia's sources. If you don't think annotated Wikipedia is a source, you obviously don't know how to use Wikipedia.

Every Wikipedia claim is not cited, try again on a sunnier day.

Don't pay attention to the un-cited claims then.

[Fanosolia]

But the BEITC had its own army. It wasn't using the Crown's forces. The BEITC acted largely independently.

Does that in any way justify what they did, keeping in mind the capitalist philosophy?

of course not! He just pointing out any one/thing can be corrupted (ie take resources without an agreement or governmental help.) so if you were a minimal government what would you do in acapistand?

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

Did you just call me a statist you motherfucker.

[Death Metal]

Did you just call me a statist you motherfucker.

Such an eloquent and rational counter-argument.

[Arkolon]

Did you just call me a statist you motherfucker.

Such an eloquent and rational counter-argument.

Taking a satirical post seriously makes you look more deplorably embarrassing than the unfunny satire you quoted.

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

Such an eloquent and rational counter-argument.

Taking a satirical post seriously makes you look more deplorably embarrassing than the unfunny satire you quoted.

ding ding ding.

[Republic of Coldwater]

The fallacy with the argument is that nothing ensures the landlords to do such things. If we switched to Anarcho-Capitalism today, there would not be the people, nor the culture for landlords to do some things. The landlord would definitely get security in place of a government, but that won't result in an army. We have private security today, why don't the large companies have an army? They definitely have the means to overthrow the government and instill their own rules, but they don't. The difference between landlords and the government setting regulations are that there are much better ways to bargain and negotiate than with the government. If you go to a market street, you will more than definitely see bargaining, you will see this too with landlords. Furthermore, due to far more competition within a far smaller area, one can simply change to a better landowner, thus deterring the chances of any sort of this hypothetical situation happening.

[Death Metal]

Taking a satirical post seriously makes you look more deplorably embarrassing than the unfunny satire you quoted.

ding ding ding.

Not my fault that your "joke" had all the wit of Carlos Mencia doing a Dane Cook joke.

[Boston and Surrounding Provinces]

ding ding ding.

Not my fault that your "joke" had all the wit of Carlos Mencia doing a Dane Cook joke.

Don't you dare compare me to that anus (Dane Cook).

[Death Metal]

The fallacy with the argument is that nothing ensures the landlords to do such things.

Actually, you have it backwards. The argument is correct because nothing ensure the landlords cannot do such things.

Government heads of state are already landlords in all but name, and even today, there are landlords looking to gain power. The only thing that stops these landlords are governing bodies to sanction and censure them, and if necessary, war. And it's been that way for thousands of years.

So it's already been historically proven that yes, landlords will do such things.

And "there can always be more competition" isn't a valid response; being a landowner takes money and resources, and getting into business, even in a welfare state, is always a gamble that can lead to poverty if you fail.

All it takes is one asshole to fuck it all up; anyone who thinks nobody will be an asshole is simply naive.

[Liberaxia]

We have private security today, why don't the large companies have an army?

Because the government limits them.

They definitely have the means to overthrow the government and instill their own rules, but they don't.

No they don't. No company in their right mind would challenge the might of the US military because they would be pulverized into dust.

[Fanosolia]

The fallacy with the argument is that nothing ensures the landlords to do such things.

Actually, you have it backwards. The argument is correct because nothing ensure the landlords cannot do such things.

Government heads of state are already landlords in all but name, and even today, there are landlords looking to gain power. The only thing that stops these landlords are governing bodies to sanction and censure them, and if necessary, war. And it's been that way for thousands of years.

So it's already been historically proven that yes, landlords will do such things.

And "there can always be more competition" isn't a valid response; being a landowner takes money and resources, and getting into business, even in a welfare state, is always a gamble that can lead to poverty if you fail.

All it takes is one asshole to fuck it all up; anyone who thinks nobody will be an asshole is simply naive.

Pretty much all this. I mean I'm a little more optimistic and change that will into can.