Anarcho-Capitalism & Why Libertarians are statists.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

States will always exist no matter how small, in fact, anarchists themselves may freely come together in the absence of a government to form their own interactions as a confederacy or even a federal unit. Property owners may do the same, as may the elite. It always has happen and will happen in the absence of a government.

A confederacy does not equate a state, which we define as a monopoly on the initiation of force.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

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

Aaaaaaaaand thanks to your neoplatformism, the state will oppress us all and a stateless society will NEVER be achieved!

[Freethinking Anarchists]

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.

But...it isn't feudalism, stop trying to demonize anarcho-capitalism. That's like calling statism nazism, progressivism=marxism or socialism=totalitarianism.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

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

Except the anarcho-capitalist and voluntaryist crowd.

[Zeouria]

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

Aaaaaaaaand thanks to your neoplatformism, the state will oppress us all and a stateless society will NEVER be achieved!

The thing is: Anarchism is fundamentaly opposed to any coercion outside of voluntarily accepted commands and the like. Thus, it would be "il-Anarchist," per-se, to coerce people INTO your favored economic system. So, Threlizdun, there is a giant contradiction in Platformism.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

Aaaaaaaaand thanks to your neoplatformism, the state will oppress us all and a stateless society will NEVER be achieved!

The thing is: Anarchism is fundamentaly opposed to any coercion outside of voluntarily accepted commands and the like. Thus, it would be "il-Anarchist," per-se, to coerce people INTO your favored economic system. So, Threlizdun, there is a giant contradiction in Platformism.

Threlizdun is synthesist....I was merely saying that to say that she's the neo-platformist left-anarchist who opposes anarcho-capitalism and isn't willing to work towards a common goal: a voluntary society.

[Liberaxia]

States will always exist no matter how small, in fact, anarchists themselves may freely come together in the absence of a government to form their own interactions as a confederacy or even a federal unit. Property owners may do the same, as may the elite. It always has happen and will happen in the absence of a government.

A confederacy does not equate a state, which we define as a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Wrong. A confederation is a type of structure for a state.

[Zeouria]

The thing is: Anarchism is fundamentaly opposed to any coercion outside of voluntarily accepted commands and the like. Thus, it would be "il-Anarchist," per-se, to coerce people INTO your favored economic system. So, Threlizdun, there is a giant contradiction in Platformism.

Threlizdun is synthesist....I was merely saying that to say that she's the neo-platformist left-anarchist who opposes anarcho-capitalism and isn't willing to work towards a common goal: a voluntary society.

I would consider myself a Synthesis Anarchist, along the lines that Syndicalists, Communists, and Collectivists work side by side, instead of being seperated; but still allowing voluntary associations.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

A confederacy does not equate a state, which we define as a monopoly on the initiation of force.

Wrong. A confederation is a type of structure for a state.

You are mistaking an anarchist federation/confederation with a confederate state.

[Zottistan]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

"A monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (also commonly but controversially known, in abbreviated form, as a monopoly on violence; from the German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates, "Violence-Monopoly of the State") is the conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten to use, or authorize others to use direct physical violence against members of its territorial domain."

I don't see anything about initiating force. A state not initiating force makes it a voluntary state. It is still a state, under Webster's definition, which is the one most widely used among anarchists and statists alike.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

"A monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (also commonly but controversially known, in abbreviated form, as a monopoly on violence; from the German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates, "Violence-Monopoly of the State") is the conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten to use, or authorize others to use direct physical violence against members of its territorial domain."

I don't see anything about initiating force. A state not initiating force makes it a voluntary state. It is still a state, under Webster's definition, which is the one most widely used among anarchists and statists alike.

I'm arguing from a voluntaryist point of view. We oppose the initiation of force rather than force itself.

[Zottistan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

"A monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force (also commonly but controversially known, in abbreviated form, as a monopoly on violence; from the German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates, "Violence-Monopoly of the State") is the conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory";[1] thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination."[2] In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten to use, or authorize others to use direct physical violence against members of its territorial domain."

I don't see anything about initiating force. A state not initiating force makes it a voluntary state. It is still a state, under Webster's definition, which is the one most widely used among anarchists and statists alike.

I'm arguing from a voluntaryist point of view. We oppose the initiation of force rather than force itself.

Which is fine, but it's hardly anarchy if there's a state, voluntary or otherwise.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

I'm arguing from a voluntaryist point of view. We oppose the initiation of force rather than force itself.

Which is fine, but it's hardly anarchy if there's a state, voluntary or otherwise.

There would be no state, as the state is inherently a monopoly on the initiation of force. This whole notion of "hardly anarchy" or "this isn't anarchy, but this is" is what got us in this mess in the first place.

[Margno]

Which is fine, but it's hardly anarchy if there's a state, voluntary or otherwise.

There would be no state, as the state is inherently a monopoly on the initiation of force. This whole notion of "hardly anarchy" or "this isn't anarchy, but this is" is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Would you prefer the word have no definition?

[Zottistan]

Which is fine, but it's hardly anarchy if there's a state, voluntary or otherwise.

There would be no state, as the state is inherently a monopoly on the initiation of force. This whole notion of "hardly anarchy" or "this isn't anarchy, but this is" is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Firstly, I'm not an anarchist. Not my mess.

Secondly, statehood is not chatacterized by a monopoly on the initiation of force. It's characterized by the possession of a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. That's the definition of a state.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

There would be no state, as the state is inherently a monopoly on the initiation of force. This whole notion of "hardly anarchy" or "this isn't anarchy, but this is" is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Firstly, I'm not an anarchist. Not my mess.

Secondly, statehood is not chatacterized by a monopoly on the initiation of force. It's characterized by the possession of a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. That's the definition of a state.

Legitimate use of violence is the same thing. You're getting knitpicky in word choices. The use of violence, when initiated against non-violence, is the initiation of force. Aggression. That is the state.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

There would be no state, as the state is inherently a monopoly on the initiation of force. This whole notion of "hardly anarchy" or "this isn't anarchy, but this is" is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Would you prefer the word have no definition?

No, but it's definition is misconstrued today anyway.

[Maqo]

u're getting knitpicky in word choices. The use of violence, when initiated against non-violence, is the initiation of force. Aggression. Tha

Force is a much bigger thing than just violence. Most people I think would agree that physical violence is one of the least harmful types of force out there.

The state exists so that it can use small amounts of physical force to pre-emptively stop larger amounts of worse force from occurring. Or doesn't anarchism recognise the legitimacy of pre-emptive strikes, or the harm caused by economic coercion?

[54e]

I have yet to see evidence of any positive change that a market-ruled society would bring over a state-ruled society. However, I would love to be proven wrong, as always.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

u're getting knitpicky in word choices. The use of violence, when initiated against non-violence, is the initiation of force. Aggression. Tha

Force is a much bigger thing than just violence. Most people I think would agree that physical violence is one of the least harmful types of force out there.

The state exists so that it can use small amounts of physical force to pre-emptively stop larger amounts of worse force from occurring. Or doesn't anarchism recognise the legitimacy of pre-emptive strikes, or the harm caused by economic coercion?

Again, I'm a voluntaryist anarchist, so I do not claim to speak for everyone.

Force is much more than violence. For example, taxation is involuntary and is forced. However, much of the state's force is backed up with the threat of violence. If you don't pay taxes, you can be arrested. Tax evasion is a victimless crime, and all crimes in a voluntary society must have a victim(s). Physical violence is essentially the gold standard of the state. It backs the state's legitimacy through an essentially might-makes-right mentality of "we have guns, obey our laws".

The state is a monopoly on the initiation of force, despite what words one wishes to use to describe or justify it. The state can go out and enforce the law, but you cannot. The state can declare war, but you cannot, etc. In a voluntary society, the only crime IS the initiation of force (which entails a bunch of different actions, from murder to pollution, rape, etc) and using force to respond to it is called self defense, and is completely permitted.

The state exists more or less to monopolize a lot of various industries (defense, production of law, roads, etc) and provide them to their jurisdictions, and taxation is the payment. On paper, this sounds great, but no one else is allowed to compete in these state-dominated markets and payment for these services is involuntary. The state has used some of the worst force in history before, all the moral goodness about this violent monopoly is either anecdotal or just meaningless.

Pre-emptive striking involves initiating force where there is currently no force. In the context of war, then sure, pre-emptive striking could be used by a private or public voluntary army. Purely in organized self-defense, however. And if pre-emptive striking is one of the only justifications for a state, then statism should, right now anyway, be proven drastically unnecessary (see US Military).

Economic coercion? The state embodies economic coercion. It's very existence is already a massive number of various markets monopolized, and it taxes and regulates, the subsidizes it's corporate donors. The state kills capitalism, and, if you're a socialist, oppresses the workers simultaneously. Voluntaryism cures this.

[Freethinking Anarchists]

I have yet to see evidence of any positive change that a market-ruled society would bring over a state-ruled society. However, I would love to be proven wrong, as always.

Howsabout a Voluntary Society?

[Death Metal]

States will always exist no matter how small, in fact, anarchists themselves may freely come together in the absence of a government to form their own interactions as a confederacy or even a federal unit. Property owners may do the same, as may the elite. It always has happen and will happen in the absence of a government.

A confederacy does not equate a state, which we define as a monopoly on the initiation of force.

"When we make up our own definitions, we can move the goalposts anywhere we want!"

No. Confederacies are by definition a collection of States to form a minimal governing State. The EU is a State.

Furthermore, "initiation of force" are weasel words that are intentionally malleable. Even a "beware of dog" sign can be determined to be an initiation of force, as threats are coercive and thus fitting a definition of force.

Lastly, so called "voluntaryism" is nothing but conformist totalitarianism. Virtually every decision made by an individual inevitably effects at least one other member of society in some way. If you buy an apple from a store, you deny others from purchasing the same apple. The only way anything would get done in such a society is to make every decision depend on unanimous voting. There is no freedom, there is no individuality. You obey the collective or the collective will eventually turn on you to get rid of the troublemaker.

[Kelinfort]

States will always exist no matter how small, in fact, anarchists themselves may freely come together in the absence of a government to form their own interactions as a confederacy or even a federal unit. Property owners may do the same, as may the elite. It always has happen and will happen in the absence of a government.

A confederacy does not equate a state, which we define as a monopoly on the initiation of force.

You'd have to have a completely voluntary confederacy where everyone shares the same goals to achieve that end.

[Sociobiology]

I have yet to see evidence of any positive change that a market-ruled society would bring over a state-ruled society. However, I would love to be proven wrong, as always.

Howsabout a Voluntary Society?

size limited which means they can't produce and maintain advanced technology.

[Death Metal]

A confederacy does not equate a state, which we define as a monopoly on the initiation of force.

You'd have to have a completely voluntary confederacy where everyone shares the same goals to achieve that end.

And in all likelyhood, if the member states of that confederacy were so equal-minded, there would only be a single state to begin with.