• Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials?
    Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details
  • Looking for HSC notes and resources?
    Check out our Notes & Resources page

Anarcho-capitalists, I'm calling you out.... (1 Viewer)

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Just face it we don't like the system, we can't change it but we CAN undermine it.
But this is a democracy; we can change it. It's been done before, and it will be done again.

In fact, the beauty of democracy is that instead of being forced to adhere to an ideal no matter the cost, and see it through to the bitter end (e.g. communism), we can change the ideal as we go, fine-tune it, mould it to be a better (perhaps not perfect) fit.

Interesting post nonetheless.
 

chelsea girl

everybody knows
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
617
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
It's definitely Dom. I am shocked you would even think it was Stephen; the grammar is so sloppy.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
It's definitely Dom. I am shocked you would even think it was Stephen; the grammar is so sloppy.
yeah; the; grammar; definitely; is; quite; sloppy semicolon;
 
C

copkiller

Guest
Hey Im not who you think I am, and my grammer is not that bad.

I think it's a bit of a moot point to bring up what is taught in a school environment (not just public schools - there is a curriculum that all schools, including private, must follow) as you can apply that same issue to any discipline covered. Why aren't art students taught about EVERY artistic movement ever? Why don't we learn about every various type of verse and prose? Why doesn't geography cover every geographical location in the world? Why don't we learn about the history of every nation in our history classes?
I wasn't saying we should be taught about anarcho-capitalism. Its just interesting to note that we haven't been, and that public school teachers are always encouraging us to question things (supposedly) but never encourage us to question the need for the state.

I'm not saying it proves anything in particular, its just something to think about.

Obviously there is a limited amount that can be taught and the people who decide the curriculum have chosen the most pertinent, applicable and overall useful topics for the average Australian student.
Why is this obvious? What makes you confident they have chosen the most useful topic, rather than choosing a curriculum that presents a favorable view of the government?


Also, I am not saying that all anarcho-capitalists are selfish, mean, condescending people. Of course I do not think that (or else I would hate my boyfriend, right?)
Great. So stop bringing it up.


What I think is that, ironically enough, the way you tend to present your arguments gives the impression that you have actually been somehow indoctrinated by Libertarian propaganda. You spout a lot of, what seems to me to be, empty rhetoric. You are able to point out the flaws in the current governmental system, but think that anarcho-capitalism will somehow fix it all, despite your arguments being purely hypothetical.
I've pointed out several times I don't think anarcho-capitalism will fix everything. Merely that it will be better than the status quo.

I don't doubt that you genuinely do care for the weak, poor and undesirables of societyhowever, I think that rather than actually completely knowing and understanding their positions and being absolutely SURE that anarcho-capitalism will benefit them, you find a way to make their plight fit in with your worldview. I do not believe their quality of life is a primary concern of yours at all.
See you keep bringing this up. How can you claim to know what I think and feel? Even if you could, why is it relevant anyway?

The current welfare system in Australian undoubtedly needs to be looked at and refined, but to suggest that it has no place whatsoever is utterly narrow-minded.
Why is it narrow minded?

1. Private charity for people with ailments such as mental illness and addiction does exist now. Nearly all of them are run my religious groups. Many use them as a way to convert people or use shaming tactics to "cure them" (Mercy Ministries, I am looking at you). I would hazard a guess and say that, in the absence of any government-provided welfare, most private charities would be set up by organisations with some vested interest in having power over the weak. Though the government is flawed, I do not believe it has this same interest.
Well I would question whether "many" charitable groups have sinister alterior motives. I believe there are a lot who genuinely want to do good, and more of these people would step forward if they weren't being robbed through taxation.

I too deplore fanatical religious groups, but a lot of there funding is due to generous tax exemptions provided by...you guess it, the government.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C

copkiller

Guest
A
This is a blatant lie. A tiny minority of the population works at the minimum wage. Any removal of these laws would result in this small subset of the population being placed on even lower wages. Minimum wage laws have absolutely no effect on the level of employment whatsoever and your assertion that they do is painfully misleading.
It is true that the minimum wage in Australia at the moment does not do much damage. This is because for most people, the minimum wage is below the market price they can get for their labor anyway so it has no effect.

However, for a minority of poorly educated, unskilled people, the minimum wage is devastating and it forces them into welfare dependence even when they want to work. Also due to the recession, real wages will likely fall and the minimum wage may start to cause a lot more harm.

Terrible single-villain argument. Here's an alternative theory for you: original sin. People will mess things up, whether by stupidity or by active malice. There is no magical class of people (e.g. government) who can be removed to produce the utopian situation you advocate. Any institution is liable to failure, inefficiency or active criminality.
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME I AM NOT CLAIMING IT WILL PRODUCE A UTOPIA! YES, THERE WILL STILL BE LOTS OF PROBLEMS UNDER ANARCHO-CAPITALISM. I MERELY BELIEVE IT IS THE BEST POSSIBLE OPTION.

Put anyone in power-- whether it's communists or engineers or businessmen-- and they will abuse or mishandle it.
But in anarcho-capitalism there is no one group like the government "in power."

No single group has a monopoly over the use of force. No single group can demand you pay taxes. No single organisation claims the exclusive right to print money out of thin air.

As you rightly point out, such groups could still re-form. But if they had these qualities they would be governments. So you seem to be saying anarcho-capitalism is bad because it could end up reverting back to statism. Seems rather a weak argument.

I realise anarcho-capitalism is difficult to achieve, I'm simply saying that in principle it would be the best system, and it is what we should work towards, even if we never get there.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It is pretty pathetic to say, "well there will always be bad guys who rip off common working people and just care about themselves, lets allow it to be the government because at least its democratic, better the devil we know ect."

We should always be working to fight those who would try to oppress us, and rob us, and enrich themselves at our expense, no matter what fancy titles the give to themselves, or what grand institutions they create to make their exercise of power seem legitimate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
687
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
But in anarcho-capitalism there is no one group like the government "in power."

No single group has a monopoly over the use of force.
Exactly. And that, I feel, would be the problem. On one side of the coin, this system would mean an end to oppression etc, on another, without *any* group being able to enforce *anything* there would be no law, no way of deterring those who seek to harm others. Without this, people would not feel safe, would cease to trust. And where would that lead us? Imo, this situation would lead to far more harm than good.

We should always be working to fight those who would try to oppress us, and rob us, and enrich themselves at our expense, no matter what fancy titles the give to themselves, or what grand institutions they create to make their exercise of power seem legitimate.
The current system makes these groups accountable for their actions as well. Business people over the years have been jailed etc. for fraudulent action and exploitation of their customers. These institutions you speak of are not infalible. And, seriously, how 'oppressed' are we? Do we get shot for voicing our opinions? Are women allowed out of their houses with uncovered faces? Honestly, the way you suggest it makes it seem that Australian society is oppressed in the same way as women in Afghanistan or students in China.

This is not to say that I don't agree with you to some extent. I, too, feel the markets have too much power, that there are issues with imbalance of wealth etc. But I don't think that anarcho-capitalism is the best way of dealing with these problems.
 

Freedom_

Banned
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
173
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
As HD has pointed out I see allot of negatives in the ancap system. I rather see a very small government which is ONLY responsible to protect life and liberty (I doubt it could do the latter).
 
C

copkiller

Guest
Exactly. And that, I feel, would be the problem. On one side of the coin, this system would mean an end to oppression etc, on another, without *any* group being able to enforce *anything* there would be no law, no way of deterring those who seek to harm others. Without this, people would not feel safe, would cease to trust. And where would that lead us? Imo, this situation would lead to far more harm than good.
Wrong. While there would be no one group that has a monopoly on the use of force, self defense is of course permissible. By extension you can also pay people to defend yourself. So there would be private security organisations that maintain security and ensure people and property rights are protected.

The difference is, you have a choice. If you find the police are bashing people, or holding them without trial, or locking them up for victimless crimes, you can leave and refuse to fund this organization.

The objection you will of course leap to is; what if the security organizations fight each other?

Well, the same problem exists with nation states. At least if institutions that have weapons are smaller, the conflicts between them will be smaller and easier for people to flee from.

Would you pay fees to a warmongering security firm? In particular, would you pay fees to a security firm that built nuclear weapons and sent men off to fight in the middle east? Most wouldn't, and those that deplore this sort of stupidity would be free to choose security companies that only spend want is necessary to actually provide legitimate protection for their customers.

This is a huge difference from the current situation where you a forced to fund pointless overseas wars, and where young men in democratic, supposedly free countries like Australia have been forced into the armed services against their will and sent far away from their homes to be slaughtered in conflicts that have nothing to do with them.

The current system makes these groups accountable for their actions as well. Business people over the years have been jailed etc. for fraudulent action and exploitation of their customers. These institutions you speak of are not infalible.
Not really. Occasionally a few businessmen are jailed. It hasn't stopped trillions of dollars being given to big banks and big companies like General Motors who have paid out massive bonuses to their executives who made terrible decisions and ran these companies into the ground.

This could never happen in the free market. Sure people can still be corrupt and greedy in the free market. But once the money dries up and their company fails, they're finished. Only the government with its printing press can allow these incompetent people to stay in business indefinitely.

And, seriously, how 'oppressed' are we? Do we get shot for voicing our opinions? Are women allowed out of their houses with uncovered faces? Honestly, the way you suggest it makes it seem that Australian society is oppressed in the same way as women in Afghanistan or students in China.
Sure, we're much better off than Afganistan or China. Part of the reason is that we have smaller government. I'm not happy to settle for less oppression than some other group, I don't want to be oppressed at all.

As HD has pointed out I see allot of negatives in the ancap system. I rather see a very small government which is ONLY responsible to protect life and liberty (I doubt it could do the latter).
I'd be happy to see minarchism, but one of these reason why I think anarcho-capitalism is better, is that any government tends to get bigger and more powerful as time goes on. The US was very close to minarchist when it was founded, yet today it is one of the worst examples of big government out of control. The country has an international empire and has spent so much beyond its means it is effectively bankrupt and can only survive as long as foreigners accept its freshly printed currency.

It seems odd to acknowledge the positive power of free markets and competition and to denounce government monopolies and the use of force, yet to make an an exception for one of the most important services that people demand; the provision of security. Why shouldn't normal market forces and competition provide better results in this case too? Why is a compulsory monopoly which you are not permitted to opt out of better, especially when you acknowledge this system has already done so much harm throughout history?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Hmm. That's interesting. From your perspective as a Libertarian, what are the main negatives of anarcho-capitalism? Because I confess to often being unable to distinguish between the two ideologies, though I accept that Libertarians don't necessarily advocate the abolition of all government.
 

Hobbit90

New Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
9
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
Without discussing its various merits and disadvantages, I find anarcho-capitalism to be inevitable. You need to understand the nature of capitalism and infuse with a dialectic view of history to realise its eventual unfurling.

After all, there is no denying that capitalism is greedy. Capitalism is selfish. Capitalism will stop at nothing to achieve its final aim, which is, it would seem, the complete abolition of the state.

To explain; it is rooted in Marx's theory of history that social structures will develop to challenge the current status quo. This is a development out of necessity, and it is the way that the free market will evolve.

Why do I say this is inevitable?

In the words of the key advocate of anarcho-capitalism, Murray Rothbard:

"capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."

Whilst I disagree with the first premise, I do maintain that anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.

Again, my opponent would, rightfully so, dispute this, and challenge its very core. My answer is that for a system that is built around self-interest and the accumulation of capital, the government is only a hinderence. After all, does the government not effectively take money away from people, even if it is for the greater good? Does the government not force a person to be charitable, even though the person may not want to relinquish their capital?

Simply, capitalism wants to be free. Capitalism needs to feel its "fullest expression". Whether this is good or bad is irrelevent; the fact is, it's going to happen.

Please- feel free to debate- I welcome it :D
 

murphyad

Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
416
Location
Newy, brah!
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Wrong. While there would be no one group that has a monopoly on the use of force, self defense is of course permissible. By extension you can also pay people to defend yourself. So there would be private security organisations that maintain security and ensure people and property rights are protected.

The difference is, you have a choice. If you find the police are bashing people, or holding them without trial, or locking them up for victimless crimes, you can leave and refuse to fund this organization.

The objection you will of course leap to is; what if the security organizations fight each other?
Actually, the objection I prefer to leap to is the natural tendency of markets to develop into a monopoly. This isn't a theory, it's a fact, and I could provide squillions of examples. Look at the aerospace industry these days: post-WWII there were many companies, but now there are three principle players: EADS, BAe and Boeing, that have subsumed all others. This natural tendency would also be borne out amongst these private security firms you so espouse. The simple fact is that the organisation of many private security firms into a single market-cornering cartel would be good for business; monopolies are always good for business.
Furthermore, the private donation argument doesn't stack up. If I donate my funds to Company A so that they then protect me from harm, what is to stop Companies B and C harassing me for 'protection money' as well, since I am paying nothing to them? Sure, you could assume that those who donate to B and C would have a moral obligation to cease if they found out about such activity, but who might they be, exactly? Perhaps Company B is far larger and more powerful because it receives donations from some larger entity (such as a business) who has an interest in threatening and coercing people? There is a reason that organised crime syndicates like the Mafia extort money rather than rely on charity: because it's more profitable. And this is essentially what such a private security firm would be: a euphemised Mafia.

Leading into my next point: you have a confused and blinkered belief (like most of your ilk) that economic goals = social goals. It is as though a necessary component of turning a profit is making people happy. However, this is not true, and rather than argue theoretically I will instead refer to various examples of times when private enterprise was far less regulated than it is now:

Pre-New Deal America: At the turn of the 20th century, business could do what it wanted-- and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organisers, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly and gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests. Don't think, by the way, that if governments don't provide gunboats, no one else will. Corporations will build their own military if necessary: the East Indies Company did; Leopold did in the Congo; management did when fighting with labor.
Post-communist Russia: Take Russia in the decade after the fall of Communism, as advised by free-market absolutists like Jeffrey Sachs. Russian GDP declined 50% in five years. The elite grabbed the assets they could and shuffled them out of Russia so fast that IMF loans couldn't compensate. Russia lacked a working road system, a banking system, anti-monopoly regulation, effective law enforcement, or any sort of safety net for the elderly and the jobless. Inflation reached 2250% in 1992. Central government authority effectively disappeared in many regions, although I guess you would regard that as a boon......
Pinochet's Chile: Consider the darling of many an '80s conservative: Pinochet's Chile. In twenty years, foreign debt quadrupled, natural resources were wasted, universal health care was abandoned (leading to epidemics of typhoid fever and hepatitis), unions were outlawed, military spending rose (for what? who the hell is going to attack Chile?), social security was "privatized" (with predictable results: ever-increasing government bailouts) and the poverty rate doubled, from 20% to 41%. Chile's growth rate from 1974 to 1982 was 1.5%; the Latin American average was 4.3%.

This is libertarian philosophy applied in practise, with predictably disastrous results. But oh, wait, I bet it was the government's fault............


When push comes to shove, anarcho-capitalism is not really even anarchism. A large part of anarchism involves the rejection of property rights ("property is theft") as being a perpetuation of social hierarchy, a cardinal sin in the anarchist world. Any "anarchist" capitalist society would have vast differences in wealth and hence power. Instead of a government imposed monopolies in land, money and so on, the economic power flowing from private property and capital would ensure that the majority remained subjugated. Therefore, how can the anarcho-capitalist idea of 'free exchange' possibly occur, since there remains a social hierarchy in place and thus a power differential?

To get really partisan and quote Chomsky:
"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error.
NB: You noted this yourself in an above post, when you suggested that anarcho-capitalism would return to a form of statism. The truth is that it would be horrendous statism. Continuing on....

The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences of these (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else."
 
Last edited:

chelsea girl

everybody knows
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
617
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Actually, the objection I prefer to leap to is the natural tendency of markets to develop into a monopoly. This isn't a theory, it's a fact, and I could provide squillions of examples. Look at the aerospace industry these days: post-WWII there were many companies, but now there are three principle players: EADS, BAe and Boeing, that have subsumed all others. This natural tendency would also be borne out amongst these private security firms you so espouse. The simple fact is that the organisation of many private security firms into a single market-cornering cartel would be good for business; monopolies are always good for business.
Furthermore, the private donation argument doesn't stack up. If I donate my funds to Company A so that they then protect me from harm, what is to stop Companies B and C harassing me for 'protection money' as well, since I am paying nothing to them? Sure, you could assume that those who donate to B and C would have a moral obligation to cease if they found out about such activity, but who might they be, exactly? Perhaps Company B is far larger and more powerful because it receives donations from some larger entity (such as a business) who has an interest in threatening and coercing people? There is a reason that organised crime syndicates like the Mafia extort money rather than rely on charity: because it's more profitable. And this is essentially what such a private security firm would be: a euphemised Mafia.

Leading into my next point: you have a confused and blinkered belief (like most of your ilk) that economic goals = social goals. It is as though a necessary component of turning a profit is making people happy. However, this is not true, and rather than argue theoretically I will instead refer to various examples of times when private enterprise was far less regulated than it is now:

Pre-New Deal America: At the turn of the 20th century, business could do what it wanted-- and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organisers, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly and gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests. Don't think, by the way, that if governments don't provide gunboats, no one else will. Corporations will build their own military if necessary: the East Indies Company did; Leopold did in the Congo; management did when fighting with labor.
Post-communist Russia: Take Russia in the decade after the fall of Communism, as advised by free-market absolutists like Jeffrey Sachs. Russian GDP declined 50% in five years. The elite grabbed the assets they could and shuffled them out of Russia so fast that IMF loans couldn't compensate. Russia lacked a working road system, a banking system, anti-monopoly regulation, effective law enforcement, or any sort of safety net for the elderly and the jobless. Inflation reached 2250% in 1992. Central government authority effectively disappeared in many regions, although I guess you would regard that as a boon......
Pinochet's Chile: Consider the darling of many an '80s conservative: Pinochet's Chile. In twenty years, foreign debt quadrupled, natural resources were wasted, universal health care was abandoned (leading to epidemics of typhoid fever and hepatitis), unions were outlawed, military spending rose (for what? who the hell is going to attack Chile?), social security was "privatized" (with predictable results: ever-increasing government bailouts) and the poverty rate doubled, from 20% to 41%. Chile's growth rate from 1974 to 1982 was 1.5%; the Latin American average was 4.3%.

This is libertarian philosophy applied in practise, with predictably disastrous results. But oh, wait, I bet it was the government's fault............


When push comes to shove, anarcho-capitalism is not really even anarchism. A large part of anarchism involves the rejection of property rights ("property is theft") as being a perpetuation of social hierarchy, a cardinal sin in the anarchist world. Any "anarchist" capitalist society would have vast differences in wealth and hence power. Instead of a government imposed monopolies in land, money and so on, the economic power flowing from private property and capital would ensure that the majority remained subjugated. Therefore, how can the anarcho-capitalist idea of 'free exchange' possibly occur, since there remains a social hierarchy in place and thus a power differential?

To get really partisan and quote Chomsky:


NB: You noted this yourself in an above post, when you suggested that anarcho-capitalism would return to a form of statism. The truth is that it would be horrendous statism. Continuing on....

Oh my god, I just came.

Amazing.
 
C

copkiller

Guest
Actually, the objection I prefer to leap to is the natural tendency of markets to develop into a monopoly. This isn't a theory, it's a fact, and I could provide squillions of examples. Look at the aerospace industry these days: post-WWII there were many companies, but now there are three principle players: EADS, BAe and Boeing, that have subsumed all others. This natural tendency would also be borne out amongst these private security firms you so espouse. The simple fact is that the organisation of many private security firms into a single market-cornering cartel would be good for business; monopolies are always good for business.
Ah of course, the aerospace industry, an industry heavily regulated by the government. What a surprise, the dominant oligopolists in this industry all have massive contracts with the US government.

Great example. Proof the free market doesn't work. :confused:

I may deal with the rest of this post later. However, I feel its largely a waste of time. Its not that your post is bad, but I would merely be saying what so many anarcho-capitalists have said before me far more eloquently.

Freedomain Radio - Free Books!

Download the free ebook on this site called "Practical Anarchy." It basically deals with all these standard sort of objections you have just raised.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Actually, the objection I prefer to leap to is the natural tendency of markets to develop into a monopoly. This isn't a theory, it's a fact, and I could provide squillions of examples. Look at the aerospace industry these days: post-WWII there were many companies, but now there are three principle players: EADS, BAe and Boeing, that have subsumed all others. This natural tendency would also be borne out amongst these private security firms you so espouse. The simple fact is that the organisation of many private security firms into a single market-cornering cartel would be good for business; monopolies are always good for business.
Furthermore, the private donation argument doesn't stack up. If I donate my funds to Company A so that they then protect me from harm, what is to stop Companies B and C harassing me for 'protection money' as well, since I am paying nothing to them? Sure, you could assume that those who donate to B and C would have a moral obligation to cease if they found out about such activity, but who might they be, exactly? Perhaps Company B is far larger and more powerful because it receives donations from some larger entity (such as a business) who has an interest in threatening and coercing people? There is a reason that organised crime syndicates like the Mafia extort money rather than rely on charity: because it's more profitable. And this is essentially what such a private security firm would be: a euphemised Mafia.

Leading into my next point: you have a confused and blinkered belief (like most of your ilk) that economic goals = social goals. It is as though a necessary component of turning a profit is making people happy. However, this is not true, and rather than argue theoretically I will instead refer to various examples of times when private enterprise was far less regulated than it is now:

Pre-New Deal America: At the turn of the 20th century, business could do what it wanted-- and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organisers, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly and gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests. Don't think, by the way, that if governments don't provide gunboats, no one else will. Corporations will build their own military if necessary: the East Indies Company did; Leopold did in the Congo; management did when fighting with labor.
Post-communist Russia: Take Russia in the decade after the fall of Communism, as advised by free-market absolutists like Jeffrey Sachs. Russian GDP declined 50% in five years. The elite grabbed the assets they could and shuffled them out of Russia so fast that IMF loans couldn't compensate. Russia lacked a working road system, a banking system, anti-monopoly regulation, effective law enforcement, or any sort of safety net for the elderly and the jobless. Inflation reached 2250% in 1992. Central government authority effectively disappeared in many regions, although I guess you would regard that as a boon......
Pinochet's Chile: Consider the darling of many an '80s conservative: Pinochet's Chile. In twenty years, foreign debt quadrupled, natural resources were wasted, universal health care was abandoned (leading to epidemics of typhoid fever and hepatitis), unions were outlawed, military spending rose (for what? who the hell is going to attack Chile?), social security was "privatized" (with predictable results: ever-increasing government bailouts) and the poverty rate doubled, from 20% to 41%. Chile's growth rate from 1974 to 1982 was 1.5%; the Latin American average was 4.3%.

This is libertarian philosophy applied in practise, with predictably disastrous results. But oh, wait, I bet it was the government's fault............


When push comes to shove, anarcho-capitalism is not really even anarchism. A large part of anarchism involves the rejection of property rights ("property is theft") as being a perpetuation of social hierarchy, a cardinal sin in the anarchist world. Any "anarchist" capitalist society would have vast differences in wealth and hence power. Instead of a government imposed monopolies in land, money and so on, the economic power flowing from private property and capital would ensure that the majority remained subjugated. Therefore, how can the anarcho-capitalist idea of 'free exchange' possibly occur, since there remains a social hierarchy in place and thus a power differential?

To get really partisan and quote Chomsky:


NB: You noted this yourself in an above post, when you suggested that anarcho-capitalism would return to a form of statism. The truth is that it would be horrendous statism. Continuing on....
Pre-New Deal America was only shit when it was also post-central bank America.

Pinochet did too much too quickly, that's well acknowledged by anyone with any sense on the right of the spectrum. This is why you'll find almost no an-caps advocating immediate violent revolution, preferring a slow undermining of the government's authority and gradual erosion of its powers.

Russia is still a fascist police state, and the fact that you're talking about a society based on IMF loans indicates you know absolutely nothing about free market economies. It also suffered from the problems of changing too much too quickly.

Finally, anarchism means 'no government' and your definition of 'subjugation' is not broadly accepted by anybody outside the socialist alternative.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
687
Location
NSW
Gender
Female
HSC
2009
Wrong. While there would be no one group that has a monopoly on the use of force, self defense is of course permissible. By extension you can also pay people to defend yourself. So there would be private security organisations that maintain security and ensure people and property rights are protected.

The difference is, you have a choice. If you find the police are bashing people, or holding them without trial, or locking them up for victimless crimes, you can leave and refuse to fund this organization.

The objection you will of course leap to is; what if the security organizations fight each other?
The objection I would have here would be the inevitable underclass that would be created. What about people who can't afford to pay for someone to defend them? And what if the person you're paying to defend you suddenly stops because they get a better offer? The problem is, also, who defines 'self-defense'? One could legitimize almost anything under this excuse without some sort of system to regulate it.

At least if institutions that have weapons are smaller, the conflicts between them will be smaller and easier for people to flee from.
Really? What about the factionalism in Afghanistan? There's no 'centralised' power, there are, in fact, small institutions with weapons. However, this system has proved extremely difficult for the people to overcome.

I'm not happy to settle for less oppression than some other group, I don't want to be oppressed at all.
I'm sorry, but this is simply impractical and impossible. Humans are innately hierarchical and will always seek to 'dominate' in some form or another. Your definition of 'oppression' is ridiculously broad.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top