Anarcho-Capitalism & Why Libertarians are statists.

[Liberaxia]

Voluntary association is not the state. Rented accommodation is not the state. Paying for a service is not the state. Are you seriously claiming they are?

Seriously? Why can't voluntary associations—insofar as it's possible—be statist?

[Liberaxia]

We're discussing what, exactly?

I can't tell. It feels almost like the OP is written like a riddle.

[Feroxi]

Serious? Private owner-ship of all the land, and tenant farming and paramilitaries? Come on, look at history, mate.

[Threlizdun]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is contradictory and libertarians are vehemently opposed to capitalism, so I don't really see what this thead is about.

[Arkolon]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is contradictory and libertarians are vehemently opposed to capitalism, so I don't really see what this thead is about.

And then, you know, time progressed and definitions evolved. If you don't like the use of the word "anarcho-", try "nonarchism", "pure capitalism", or "organised anarchism" instead.

[Risottia]

Not quite. I consider them more accurately to be feudalists.

Ever heard of feudal states?

Quite, but the concept of "statism" is more related to the nation-state, its ideology, and the power of the bourgeoisie.

[Liberaxia]

Ever heard of feudal states?

Quite, but the concept of "statism" is more related to the nation-state, its ideology, and the power of the bourgeoisie.

What is "its" ideology?

[Liberaxia]

Serious? Private owner-ship of all the land, and tenant farming and paramilitaries? Come on, look at history, mate.

Private states.

[Arkolon]

Serious? Private owner-ship of all the land, and tenant farming and paramilitaries? Come on, look at history, mate.

Private states.

... aren't states.

[Liberaxia]

Private states.

... aren't states.

Yes they are.

[Threlizdun]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is contradictory and libertarians are vehemently opposed to capitalism, so I don't really see what this thead is about.

And then, you know, time progressed and definitions evolved. If you don't like the use of the word "anarcho-", try "nonarchism", "pure capitalism", or "organised anarchism" instead.

"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.

[Nazi Flower Power]

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.

That would not result in a similar system to what we have now. That would result in feudalism.

[Condunum]

Private states.

... aren't states.

The Crown, in it's height of power, was a private state. They ran, owned, and controlled everything in their kingdoms, and it was theirs, the direct property of individuals, not the state. Private states are states.

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

Of course Libertarians are statists. Even libertarians don't deny that.

[Death Metal]

Voluntary association is not the state. Rented accommodation is not the state. Paying for a service is not the state.

Actually, you just described every modern democratic state.

Especially the voluntary association part, as any state that allows people to emigrate is essentially working on a voluntary basis. There may be conditions for emigration, but a voluntary association also requires mutually voluntary disassociation as well.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Voluntary association is not the state. Rented accommodation is not the state. Paying for a service is not the state. Are you seriously claiming they are?

Seriously? Why can't voluntary associations—insofar as it's possible—be statist?

He didn't say they weren't.
He said they weren't the state. Which is entirely correct.

As to the OP: Hierarchy is not the state, nor is exchange. Some anarchists may be opposed to hierarchy, or even exchange, but this is ultimately a ripple in the waters of anti-state sentiment.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Voluntary association is not the state. Rented accommodation is not the state. Paying for a service is not the state.

Actually, you just described every modern democratic state.

Especially the voluntary association part, as any state that allows people to emigrate is essentially working on a voluntary basis. There may be conditions for emigration, but a voluntary association also requires mutually voluntary disassociation as well.

No, he described aspects of the modern democratic state.

Such are not mandatory for 'the state' to exist.

[Death Metal]

Seriously? Why can't voluntary associations—insofar as it's possible—be statist?

He didn't say they weren't.
He said they weren't the state. Which is entirely correct.

Yet other than title, a monarch and a landlord are more or less the same thing.

[Death Metal]

Actually, you just described every modern democratic state.

Especially the voluntary association part, as any state that allows people to emigrate is essentially working on a voluntary basis. There may be conditions for emigration, but a voluntary association also requires mutually voluntary disassociation as well.

No, he described aspects of the modern democratic state.

Such are not mandatory for 'the state' to exist.

Of course they are not. North Korea is a state, and does not have voluntary association (as there is no lawful way for a citizen to disassociate himself from that particular state) . Nobody claims that all these things must exist within a state (though one can argue that lacking voluntary association makes it an illegitimate social contract, but that's another can of worms altogether). But to claim that a state cannot arise of these things is as laughable as putting water over a fire fueled by paper and claiming it will not form steam.

[Socialist Tera]

What are the differences between Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalism? I can't see many differences.

[Threlizdun]

Of course Libertarians are statists. Even libertarians don't deny that.

Arguably libertarianism can be compatible with support for the existence of the state, though historically libertarianism is radically anti-statist in nature.

What are the differences between Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalism? I can't see many differences.

Libertarians are socialist radicals who seek an end to the exploitation at the hands of capitalism and the state and the establishment of a society that promotes individual and collective freedom. "Anarcho-capitalism" meanwhile does not exist, and is what very confused individuals call neo-feudalism, a system where small handfuls of individuals own vast swaths of land and act as a law unto themselves with those within their domain completely at their mercy. It is an aggressively authoritarian concept that in an almost Orwellian manner some individuals have come to believe actually is a picture of a free society.

[Earth in Roughly 1000 Years]

Of course Libertarians are statists. Even libertarians don't deny that.

Arguably libertarianism can be compatible with support for the existence of the state, though historically libertarianism is radically anti-statist in nature.

Even if you ideal is a night watchman state, you still believe in the existence of a state and are therefore a statist.

[Socialist Tera]

Of course Libertarians are statists. Even libertarians don't deny that.

Arguably libertarianism can be compatible with support for the existence of the state, though historically libertarianism is radically anti-statist in nature.

What are the differences between Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalism? I can't see many differences.

Libertarians are socialist radicals who seek an end to the exploitation at the hands of capitalism and the state and the establishment of a society that promotes individual and collective freedom. "Anarcho-capitalism" meanwhile does not exist, and is what very confused individuals call neo-feudalism, a system where small handfuls of individuals own vast swaths of land and act as a law unto themselves with those within their domain completely at their mercy. It is an aggressively authoritarian concept that in an almost Orwellian manner some individuals have come to believe actually is a picture of a free society.

Then why do "Libertarians" such as Rand and Ron Paul oppose workers rights? Many Libertarians, I spoke to personally seem to only care about the rights of the bourgeois over the right of the employer. They mention small business but without correct intervention of the vanguard party, the proletariat would be enslaved. I don't see how Libertarians has promoted individual or collective freedom. Let's use Orwell as an example in Spanish Civil War, he was anti-Semite as and an anti-feminist.

[Threlizdun]

Arguably libertarianism can be compatible with support for the existence of the state, though historically libertarianism is radically anti-statist in nature.

Even if you ideal is a night watchman state, you still believe in the existence of a state and are therefore a statist.

The so called "night watchman state" retains the power of the state terror apparatus while severing any helpful organs such as social welfare and education capabilities and is not supported by any libertarian. Some people have argued for the existence of a largely reformed state with the state terror apparatus highly diminished, which exists simply to protect the functioning of a socialist society, though whether even such a minimally authoritarian state can be considered libertarian is still a subject of great debate amongst the far left.

Arguably libertarianism can be compatible with support for the existence of the state, though historically libertarianism is radically anti-statist in nature.
Libertarians are socialist radicals who seek an end to the exploitation at the hands of capitalism and the state and the establishment of a society that promotes individual and collective freedom. "Anarcho-capitalism" meanwhile does not exist, and is what very confused individuals call neo-feudalism, a system where small handfuls of individuals own vast swaths of land and act as a law unto themselves with those within their domain completely at their mercy. It is an aggressively authoritarian concept that in an almost Orwellian manner some individuals have come to believe actually is a picture of a free society.

Then why do "Libertarians" such as Rand and Ron Paul oppose workers rights? Many Libertarians, I spoke to personally seem to only care about the rights of the bourgeois over the right of the employer. They mention small business but without correct intervention of the vanguard party, the proletariat would be enslaved. I don't see how Libertarians has promoted individual or collective freedom.

To put it simply, because those individuals are just classical liberals at best and neo-feudalists at worst. None of them are libertarians. The term is misused in America more often than not.

Let's use Orwell as an example in Spanish Civil War, he was anti-Semite as and an anti-feminist.

Orwell was an anti-Semite in his youth though largely abandoned such views later in life and actually wrote about the harms of rising anti-Semitism in Great Britain. His anti-feminism could both be attributed to an unfortunate product of the time he lived in and his improper association of masculinity with the hard labor of the poor. Orwell was in no way a perfect man, and his ideological convictions were often unclear, but he did generally display libertarian tendencies throughout his life that were largely inspired by anarchism. He never actually considered himself one however, admitting its influence on him but still clinging to the more moderate label of "democratic socialist".

[Roski]

Right.

I am willing to describe all "Anarcho-Capitalists" as people who want to start shit.


I'd much rather put a Libertarian in office than someone who names their ideology after total violence on a massive scale.