Anarcho-Capitalism & Why Libertarians are statists.

[Arkolon]

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.

Welp, someone doesn't know what anarchism is.

[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.

Welp, someone doesn't know what anarchism is.

Anarchy.

I understand what it is.

Its still bullshit.

[Zottistan]

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?

The state is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a given area. Presumably, if the landlord has regulations imposed on his land, he'd have people to enforce them (by evicting tenants forcefully if they break them). So he'd have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within his territory and would have formed a primitive state.

Unless you subscribe to the private security firms take on anarchocapitalism. In which case the most successful security firms gain local monopolies on violence through the free market and become primitive states.

[Arkolon]

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.

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.

[Arkolon]

Welp, someone doesn't know what anarchism is.

Anarchy.

I understand what it is.

Its still bullshit.

Oh so all anarchists want to destroy and set fire to everything?

[Deamonopolis]

Well, I wouldn't say the average black block anarchist is prone to reason and accountability during protest marches.

[Unified Corea]

Well, I wouldn't say the average black block anarchist is prone to reason and accountability during protest marches.

"Black Bloc" is a protest tactic, not an ideology.

"Black Bloc Anarchists" do not exist; they are an invention of the media.

[Arkolon]

Well, I wouldn't say the average black block anarchist is prone to reason and accountability during protest marches.

Ah, I understand. The actions of 0.1% of anarchists speak for the other 99.9%, right?

[Soselo]

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.

You'd rather see?

[MERIZoC]

Well, I wouldn't say the average black block anarchist is prone to reason and accountability during protest marches.

Ah, I understand. The actions of 0.1% of anarchists speak for the other 99.9%, right?

Buuuurn! Burn it all! Anarhulk smash!

[Soselo]

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.

Hierarchical social institutions include the state. It's not possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy. If considers oneself as an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they principally exemplify authority, including the state.

[Soselo]

Well, I wouldn't say the average black block anarchist is prone to reason and accountability during protest marches.

Ah, I understand. The actions of 0.1% of anarchists speak for the other 99.9%, right?

When they're louder.

[The Liberated Territories]

Alright, you got me. I am a statist.

Most Libertarians are statists. Dur. Not all Libertarians are AnCaps.

That alone should make the argument irrelevant because you have no idea who you are criticizing.

Anarcho-Capitalists identify as Libertarian.

"Why Libertarians are statists" is the topic name, which seems to convey that all Libertarians are statists, even the statist Libertarians, which is redundant.

Also:

"Do you think libertarians are statists?"

Without the context, you could be criticizing left wing anarchists. Here you obviously mean anarcho-capitalists, but it's not clear.

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

Classical Liberals support the existence of the state to handle only the courts, police, and military (and sometimes a few other things, but mostly that). The night-watchman state.

AnCap wants to go and eliminate the state for pure capitalism (which would, imo, end up creating another state due to the deregulated monopoly of violence leading to the creation of warring gangs who exploit it as a means of control.)

[New Aerios]

Ah, I understand. The actions of 0.1% of anarchists speak for the other 99.9%, right?

When they're louder.

All Muslims are terrorists, all gays are ridiculously flamboyant, all feminists want to castrate every man on the planet, all black people like to rap about drugs and guns, all people who wear white clothes are in the KKK, all Jews are war criminals who like bombing schools, hospitals, and playgrounds, all...

OK, see why your logic is flawed yet?

[Margno]

Welp, someone doesn't know what anarchism is.

Anarchy.

I understand what it is.

Its still bullshit.

The term anarchism is a compound word composed from the word anarchy and the suffix -ism,[33] themselves derived respectively from the Greek ἀναρχία, i.e. anarchy[34][35][36] (from ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "one without rulers";[37] from the privative prefix ἀν- (an-, i.e. "without") and ἀρχός, archos, i.e. "leader", "ruler";[38] (cf. archon or ἀρχή, arkhē, i.e. "authority", "sovereignty", "realm", "magistracy")
It's not named after "violence on a massive scale." The word means "the absence of rulers."

[Liberaxia]

Anarchy.

I understand what it is.

Its still bullshit.

The term anarchism is a compound word composed from the word anarchy and the suffix -ism,[33] themselves derived respectively from the Greek ἀναρχία, i.e. anarchy[34][35][36] (from ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "one without rulers";[37] from the privative prefix ἀν- (an-, i.e. "without") and ἀρχός, archos, i.e. "leader", "ruler";[38] (cf. archon or ἀρχή, arkhē, i.e. "authority", "sovereignty", "realm", "magistracy")
It's not named after "violence on a massive scale." The word means "the absence of rulers."

No, it's just the correlation that exists in reality.

[Margno]

The term anarchism is a compound word composed from the word anarchy and the suffix -ism,[33] themselves derived respectively from the Greek ἀναρχία, i.e. anarchy[34][35][36] (from ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "one without rulers";[37] from the privative prefix ἀν- (an-, i.e. "without") and ἀρχός, archos, i.e. "leader", "ruler";[38] (cf. archon or ἀρχή, arkhē, i.e. "authority", "sovereignty", "realm", "magistracy")
It's not named after "violence on a massive scale." The word means "the absence of rulers."

No, it's just the correlation that exists in reality.

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.

Just correcting a misconception, Liberaxia. I think your position on anarchism is well known.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

There are statist libertarians and stateless libertarians. And "libertarian" was originally a socialist term...are you implying that libertarian socialists are also statists?

By your logic, Anarcho-Communism could equally be called a state, even anarcho-syndicalism. The majority could have a monopoly on the initiation of force. This conversation is a circlejerk over "No True Anarchist" pack mentalities....

Voluntaryism allows for a pan-anarchic society based on ideas of voluntary association and the true end of monopolies on aggression.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

The term anarchism is a compound word composed from the word anarchy and the suffix -ism,[33] themselves derived respectively from the Greek ἀναρχία, i.e. anarchy[34][35][36] (from ἄναρχος, anarchos, meaning "one without rulers";[37] from the privative prefix ἀν- (an-, i.e. "without") and ἀρχός, archos, i.e. "leader", "ruler";[38] (cf. archon or ἀρχή, arkhē, i.e. "authority", "sovereignty", "realm", "magistracy")
It's not named after "violence on a massive scale." The word means "the absence of rulers."

No, it's just the correlation that exists in reality.

Perhaps, in your world.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

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.

Hierarchical social institutions include the state. It's not possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy. If considers oneself as an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they principally exemplify authority, including the state.

A guy on YouTube, Libertarian Socialist Rants, once said "anarchists are against all unjust social hierarchy, not all hierarchy. What you are saying is impossible. Is the master chef not allowed to teach his apprentices how to cook, because that IS social hierarchy? No. It's a voluntary, non-coercive hierarchy. If you apply the ideas of Voluntaryism, the philosophy that all initiation of force should be abolished, any hierarchy can be accepted, without a state, so long ias it is non-coercive. Thus, capitalism, if it is not forced onto others, is completely acceptable. Capitalists live a capitalist community, syndicalists in a syndicalist one, etc. Voluntaryism. It's a wonderful thing, and I find it could unite all anarchists against the state, if we didn't have people like you, who say "No True Anarchist..."

[Freethinking Anarchists]

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?

The state is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a given area. Presumably, if the landlord has regulations imposed on his land, he'd have people to enforce them (by evicting tenants forcefully if they break them). So he'd have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within his territory and would have formed a primitive state.

Unless you subscribe to the private security firms take on anarchocapitalism. In which case the most successful security firms gain local monopolies on violence through the free market and become primitive states.

The state has a monopoly on the initiation of force. In Ancapistan, the law is nothing more than response to initiated force. No one, in a voluntary society, would have such a monopoly, they would all, yes have monopolies of force, but no, they would not be able to initiate it. They would be purely defensive.

[Arkolon]

The state is a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within a given area. Presumably, if the landlord has regulations imposed on his land, he'd have people to enforce them (by evicting tenants forcefully if they break them). So he'd have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence within his territory and would have formed a primitive state.

Unless you subscribe to the private security firms take on anarchocapitalism. In which case the most successful security firms gain local monopolies on violence through the free market and become primitive states.

The state has a monopoly on the initiation of force. In Ancapistan, the law is nothing more than response to initiated force. No one, in a voluntary society, would have such a monopoly, they would all, yes have monopolies of force, but no, they would not be able to initiate it. They would be purely defensive.

There would be no motive for war, either. Even the winners of wars are still losers.

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

Hierarchical social institutions include the state. It's not possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy. If considers oneself as an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they principally exemplify authority, including the state.

You're correct. Hierarchical institutions include 'the state'.
This does not make all hierarchical institutions 'the state'.

Hierarchy is not, by itself, opposed by anarchists except in some few cases. Natural influences have long been admitted by most anarchists as entirely acceptable, if one chooses to abide by them or be influenced by them.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

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]

1. So very wrong. This implies that the state owns your land, when it doesn't. The landlord actually does own your land. But you act like this is going back to feudalism and that people won't own their own land for some reason.

2. Left-Wing Anarchists have traditionally also had armies. Are you implying that No Anarchist is a True One?

3. Left-Wing Anarchism has legislation and laws. All anarchism has laws. This merely proves your ignorance on anarchist theory. To quote Benjamin Tucker, an individualist anarchist:

"Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection."

4."Anarcho" capitalist is actually spelled "anarcho-capitalist". I know you wish you had a monopoly on the term, but that's the real statist thing to do in this situation.

To conclude, some right-libertarians are just minarchists. So yes, some are statists. You, however, are implying anarcho-capitalists are statists, which is more hilarious than trying to call Obama a Marxist.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Hierarchical social institutions include the state. It's not possible to be an anarchist without opposing hierarchy. If considers oneself as an anti-authoritarian, one must oppose all hierarchical institutions, since they principally exemplify authority, including the state.

You're correct. Hierarchical institutions include 'the state'.
This does not make all hierarchical institutions 'the state'.

Hierarchy is not, by itself, opposed by anarchists except in some few cases. Natural influences have long been admitted by most anarchists as entirely acceptable, if one chooses to abide by them or be influenced by them.

This is where voluntaryism draws from. The acceptance of voluntary hierarchy and the end of coercion to enforce hierarchy or lack of hierarchy.