NationStates

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Fluffy Panda wrote:Apologies but if there is no state to enforce the Laws, that means Laws do not exist there.

Explain that to every native American tribe in pre Columbian times.

I’d argue that a tribe is type of state, just a very primitive one.

Ancapitalism is an oxymoron, hierarchies are fundamentally the opposite of what anarchy is.

Adamede wrote:Anarchism in general doesn’t make sense.

It is always entertaining to see political factions try to "establish anarchism"

They admitted to not being traditional anarchists, because traditional anarchists are just statists with democracy, so them having companies is technically still anarchism as long as there's no government. It's an evil system, but it makes some sense, at least until the workers and customers start working and buying from the same corporation. Then you can say it's a state.

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:They admitted to not being traditional anarchists, because traditional anarchists are just statists with democracy, so them having companies is technically still anarchism as long as there's no government. It's an evil system, but it makes some sense, at least until the workers and customers start working and buying from the same corporation. Then you can say it's a state.

This post made less sense than anarchism itself

You know what makes less sense? why when I try to type anarcho-capitalism, it autocorrects to anarchy-capitalism.

Seriously though it is indeed quite an oxymoron, because if companies control society there are still social constructs and therefore defeating the purpose of anarchism.

Cordel One wrote:Ancapitalism is an oxymoron, hierarchies are fundamentally the opposite of what anarchy is.

To be fair, at least the guy that made it said it wasn't anarchism

The Emerald Legion wrote:The closest thing I know of to an Anarcho Capitalist country was the Icelandic Commonwealth. And that still had an official government.

According to Cubra and Conservative Republic of Huang, anarchists can have a government, army, and police, as long as it's democratic, radical, and has federal structures.

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:The closest thing I know of to an Anarcho Capitalist country was the Icelandic Commonwealth. And that still had an official government.

According to Cubra and Conservative Republic of Huang, anarchists can have a government, army, and police, as long as it's democratic, radical, and has federal structures.

Which is precisely why their communes always get crushed so easily

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:The closest thing I know of to an Anarcho Capitalist country was the Icelandic Commonwealth. And that still had an official government.

According to Cubra and Conservative Republic of Huang, anarchists can have a government, army, and police, as long as it's democratic, radical, and has federal structures.

So federal structures don't count as a state now? Anarchists are crazier than I thought.

An Alan Smithee Nation wrote:

The Three Palins wrote:
And again, you're assuming there isn't any government within the tribe.

Probably the old people. Perhaps in time of conflict the fighting age men. The witchdoctor is probably protected from executive power, but is always influential. Protected? Top executive is a dangerous position to be in, the witchdoctor knows lots of stuff vital for tribe survival. Keep him alive to have his advice another day. He likely protects himself with "spells" and such so everyone is afraid to kill him anyway. Witchdoctor, another name for priest.

That's a government, it just doesn't have the trapping you are expecting.

So are you actually trying to argue that individuals cannot actually trade with one another without a government?

Not really. You introduced the concept of tribes, though. You can't have a tribe without some form of government within it, other than a very short-lived tribe that is all one family unit.

Trade without government, individuals only, in an n-body problem. The cotton farmer and the fisherperson, sure anyone can see how that works. Assuming they're both men or both women, and have no interests besides making things with cotton or catching fish, then it's fairly straightforward. Neither will exploit the other, because they aren't competing and can only benefit from trade.

Introduce just one more player, say a person of the opposite sex who wants cotton and fish and has only sexual services to provide, and the form of "government" known as marriage is likely to arise.

N-body problem? Without government of some kind, for instance an agreed currency and rules thereof, freely agreed barter gets so complicated above 5 or 6 people that none of the participants can estimate future demand (OK for cotton which can be stored, not so good for fishes), and just one player cheating (eg robbery) throws the whole economy out of whack.

So it's not so much that you can't have simple trade, but you can't have economy without a tribe (more than one family), and you can't have that without some form of government.

Government is that which seeks to control and stabilize market conditions which the market itself is helpless in.

Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana wrote:

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:According to Cubra and Conservative Republic of Huang, anarchists can have a government, army, and police, as long as it's democratic, radical, and has federal structures.

Which is precisely why their communes always get crushed so easily

An open-source military would be weak on principle: who wants to be on the losing side? Add in that it's democratic only modifies it from "run away" to "run away in all different directions".

I'm definitely no militarist, but I'm even less keen on supporting a warrior class that won't fight.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Fluffy Panda wrote:Apologies but if there is no state to enforce the Laws, that means Laws do not exist there.

Explain that to every native American tribe in pre Columbian times.

You mean the Native American tribes whose laws we didn't respect, leading to their entire continent being stolen from them with little to no recourse?

Anything with anarchism is stupid

Neuer Deutsches Reich wrote:Anything with anarchism is stupid

Fair assesment.

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:

The Emerald Legion wrote:The closest thing I know of to an Anarcho Capitalist country was the Icelandic Commonwealth. And that still had an official government.

According to Cubra and Conservative Republic of Huang, anarchists can have a government, army, and police, as long as it's democratic, radical, and has federal structures.

So... the United States until, say... 1890, was anarchist. Cool! (this is a joke strawman btw)

Also, isn't that self-defeating? A state consists of a government, army, and especially police (or some other kind of enforcement). How can something be anarchist if it enforces its government via police, which is the definition of a state?

Neuer Deutsches Reich wrote:Anything with anarchism is stupid

Based.

It does make sense. Anarchy is just the lack of a state, not of a government (corporations in anarcho-capitalism).
Now, it making sense doesn't mean the ideology isn't mega cringe..

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:

Cordel One wrote:Ancapitalism is an oxymoron, hierarchies are fundamentally the opposite of what anarchy is.

To be fair, at least the guy that made it said it wasn't anarchism

A lot of ancaps didn't get that message, though.

Atheris wrote:

Exalted Inquellian State wrote:According to Cubra and Conservative Republic of Huang, anarchists can have a government, army, and police, as long as it's democratic, radical, and has federal structures.

So... the United States until, say... 1890, was anarchist. Cool! (this is a joke strawman btw)

Also, isn't that self-defeating? A state consists of a government, army, and especially police (or some other kind of enforcement). How can something be anarchist if it enforces its government via police, which is the definition of a state?

Neuer Deutsches Reich wrote:Anything with anarchism is stupid

Based.

Apparently if the police and army are democratic or something it's fine.

Don't call it anarcho-capitalism. Call it what it really is: neofeudalism.

Pasong Tirad wrote:Don't call it anarcho-capitalism. Call it what it really is: neofeudalism.

The hell is that supposed to mean?

Pasong Tirad wrote:Don't call it anarcho-capitalism. Call it what it really is: neofeudalism.

Feudalism relied on a system of vassalage stratifying society.

Hey folks,

There have been a few posts that have covered Ancaps pretty well, but I would like to give my two cents. "Anarcho-Capitalism", is a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron. Illogical and Nonsensical... Rubbish.

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. It opposes the exploitation of any person by another. Anarchy means without rulers, and therefore the hierarchical structured and exploitative nature of capitalism is not compatible in any way shape or form with Anarchism.

Typically in an Anarchist society (Mutualism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism & Collective Anarchism) businesses would operate as workers co-operatives through the use of direct democracy and workers self management. This is the opposite to capitalism where a small number of people control a private enterprise, imposing their will on a larger number of workers.

If we were to imagine what an "Ancap" society looks like, the state would be replaced with large monopolistic conglomerates and we would all be working in sweatshops until we expired from exhaustion earning 10 cents an hour... if we were allowed to earn anything at all. There would likely be a privately funded secret police, which would be needed to keep the surplus labour population (the unemployed) in check. It would be a highly stratified society as well as overtly racist and sexist.

The closest example we have to an "Anarcho-Capitalist" society from history are the Nazis.

Calofas wrote:The closest example we have to an "Anarcho-Capitalist" society from history are the Nazis.

Wrong. I already posted a number of historical examples. You just using here anarcho-capitalism as something to attribute to your nr 1 historic enemy.

Calofas wrote:Hey folks,

There have been a few posts that have covered Ancaps pretty well, but I would like to give my two cents. "Anarcho-Capitalism", is a contradiction in terms. An oxymoron. Illogical and Nonsensical... Rubbish.]Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist. It opposes the exploitation of any person by another. Anarchy means without rulers, and therefore the hierarchical structured and exploitative nature of capitalism is not compatible in any way shape or form with Anarchism.

Yes.

Typically in an Anarchist society (Mutualism, Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Syndicalism & Collective Anarchism) businesses would operate as workers co-operatives through the use of direct democracy and workers self management. This is the opposite to capitalism where a small number of people control a private enterprise, imposing their will on a larger number of workers.

Wouldn't businesses not exist in mutualist, anarcho-communist, syndicalist, and collective anarchist societies? Corporate bodies would, but not businesses.

If we were to imagine what an "Ancap" society looks like, the state would be replaced with large monopolistic conglomerates and we would all be working in sweatshops until we expired from exhaustion earning 10 cents an hour... if we were allowed to earn anything at all. There would likely be a privately funded secret police, which would be needed to keep the surplus labour population (the unemployed) in check. It would be a highly stratified society as well as overtly racist and sexist.
The closest example we have to an "Anarcho-Capitalist" society from history are the Nazis.

This is blatantly false. Like, seriously. You can't just take a label and say "but they wuz nazis!!1!!!"