Re: Anarcho-Capitalism

[wbhyatt]

property limits others from using nature. that's the only argument you need to refute Anarcho-Capitalism. More property = less freedom for all, more freedom for one

[MillionthUsername]

What absolute garbage. Each business would be a "miniature Soviet Union"???

If you're going to make a video on X, it might help to talk about X. All you are doing here is setting up your own feeble straw man that you can then smash with a wave of your hand. You are not talking about what ancap is. All this bs about property being evil is just insane commie talk. What kind of society bans property? You going to go to war with your neighbors because they claim to own their home and business?

[Houshalter]

Private property doesn't *have* to exist in anarcho capitalism. In a state it is some kind of binding legal arangement. In anarchy it is merely a mutual agreement between the relevant parties. You have to protect it yourself if anyone decides they don't like the idea of private property. And certainly the rights to life and liberty are more important then property, so your idea of mini tyrants existing on their own property wouldn't work. Just like anarchy, capitalism is a default position.

[jaminunit]

Private property is very different from the state because people can choose to use the property. I wouldn't sign a contract with a land owner unless the contract said that the owner of the property cannot kill me and so on. Its so fundamental to realize that contracts of use would play a huge role in a Anarcho capitalistic space. As a business it makes no sense to be tyrannical because this would lead to competition to be less tyrannical making all "customers" leaving your property.

[ExquisiteDoom]

Collectivism inherently creates a far greater power disparity between individuals and even groups than capitalism is allowed to. One only needs to look at all the horrors performed in the name of democracy, invasions, unjustified wars.... the 20th century is filled with democratic violence. One only needs to look at syndicates, which operate only with the idea of crushing other syndicates or reduce the efficiency of labor in order to generate a shakedown racket.

[Reyludd]

those americans are deformating the ideology of the anarchism....

the anarchism is against all kind of capitalism!!!!!!

[Jenawahrheit]

Anarcho-Capitalists never seriously study or read the seminal works AC. They just sit up late and read blurbs on Anarcho-Capitalism on the web and then ape them in chat rooms. I have never met a single proponent who knows what the heck he/she is talking about. AC is for disorderly minds.

[LouGrimaldi]

I think the author here is a socialist. Total freedom is not for everybody and I think you are talking about the Pinkertons and other money grabbers back in the day who, by the way, created the FED. The state must stay out and all should not pay there taxes now. This is real anarcho capitalism.

[forty2oz]

Quick question: Is your own body your private property?

[bradh57]

But it seems that the hierarchy of capitalism, is replaced by another hierarchy under anarchy. If I am stopped from owning more land than some-else deems I need, then this is hierarchical. Both systems must have a process by which to allocate resources, and while I am still unclear how this is done under non anarcho-capitalism anarchy, the capitalistic system seems to me to be the most moral and efficient process by which to allocate resources.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

Capitalism, socialism, and communism are naturally non-anarchic from my point of view.

They can exist without a hierarchy,the way I see it.

[LouGrimaldi]

Ok then the Amercian Revolution and your constitution and the emancipation declaration and the civil war are non-anarchic. Think please.

[OutdoorsBlackMan]

My views have changed.

In the 4 months since I made that comment, I have concluded that anarcho-capitalism is going to be ABOUT the result of a state's absence.

[bradh57]

I don't understand non anarcho-capitalism anarchism. We live in a world of scarce resources, how does anarchism determine who gets what without property rights or force? If you vote than you have oppression by the majority. If I work to produce something, plow a field and plant some corn, why isn't that corn mine? Who will food if anytime you grows something, other people come and take it(if I have no legitimate right to it under anarchism)? I don't understand please help.

[ddrumsman549]

No you do have a right to that corn that you planted and grew. What you don't have the right to would include anything that you don't need. The people who own major companies make all of their money just because they own. For example you can own a field of corn, but you cannot own 10,000 acres of corn, have other people pick it, and make all of you money by collecting 10 percent of what they pick and selling it.

[bradh57]

What if I traded the corn for more land, traded the corn for labor, allowing me to produce corn much more efficiently.

How do you define "anything that you don't need"? and who determines this? How am I stopped from running a corn factory? If I obtained the factory legitimately (no violence or fraud) why can others take it away? I am taking a large risk by employing people to pick corn, what if it doesn't sell?

[bradh57]

If others don't want labor for me then they can start there own corn factory or do something else to survive. Why can't people trade for land, hire others to pick it and make a profit? What is wrong with that system?

[ddrumsman549]

The point is in this Anarchist society you cannot buy more land than you need. This is Capitalism which for good or bad IS hierarchical. Without getting into a debate about wether this is good or not (which if you want I could send you some links etc. on the Anarchist perspective of private property and Capitalism) it is a fact that Anarchy is against Hierarchy and since Capitalism is all about Hierarchy they cannot ever be merged or joined in any way. Anarcho-Capitalism is like Jews for Hitler.

[wbhyatt]

@bradh57 most real anarchists support "consensus democracy" which isn't majority rule. read up please. people get an equal share of the food, not "everyone takes" 'your' food. the good are created for the community and not for yourself. thats just the problem. capitalism is a system which allows for power structures no matter how you wanna put it. hierarchies between classes, and boss and worker. if these structures of power exist, we no longer have Anarchy aka "without rulers"

[LBRTRN89]

As far as a private property owner becoming a mini-state I would say yes but the difference is the private property owner exist independently without robbing people of their substance...private property is a reality not just something people accept as a necessity that does not have to exist

[LBRTRN89]

Absolutely I disagree how can you as an anarchist whose stated goal is to abolish compulsory institution advocate anything other than a free market...how can you have a voluntary collective economy? Its just not possible unless you live in a world where everyone will join you. Your equality sacrifices liberty which results in neither liberty nor equality.

[R3DF4C710N]

I never said anything about markets. This is all about property. I argue that private property is illegitimate. Even if we forget the origin of the modern property contract through acts of mass theft and coercion, property within itself contains powers that enslave the propertyless.

[LBRTRN89]

I disagree in the sense that property is a right of every individual! Property allows people to better themselves and it allows for liberty not equality because the aim of anarchy should be Liberty not Equality!

[R3DF4C710N]

Talk of liberty is meaningless if "liberty" includes the freedom to dominate and oppress others.

[chorizo1337]

@R3DF4C710N Sounds like collectivism to me, which you thugs love

[Jcolinsol]

@R3DF4C710N

A man on the mainland "owns" 1 ton of gold, and uses some of it to trade for food. A man on an island hunts pigs and eats their meat. If they never meet or interract, how has the man on the mainland enslaved the islander?

I think that you are taking an unrealistically hard line in the case of property. Property is a fictional idea, we only manage material resources. I consider it reasonable to allow others to manage resources without my intervention.

[CarlosMarti123]

@R3DF4C710N So your theory is to enforce equality?

[StateExempt]

@R3DF4C710N - Neither of which would be the case under market anarchy.

[Jcolinsol]

@LBRTRN89

I can't observe a right. I consider rights to just be an idea, rather than something physical which we can talk about in empirical terms. So it is meaningless to talk about rights. We must talk about behaviors, and which behaviors we prefer and why.

I allow others to behave without my coercion, that is my definition of liberty.

[wbhyatt]

@LBRTRN89 how is property the right of every individual? people don't have a "right" to property or possessions. the more "property" a person has, the less everyone else has. THIS MEANS, the more freedom one person has, the less everyone else has. You create economies to work for the PEOPLE not the person that can beat everyone else in a game of trade. Wage labor is a type of hierarchy even if it is voluntary, which it isn't. Power and capitalism go together. Anarchism is AGAINST power

[DSXmachine]

@R3DF4C710N If I build a house, is it mine?

[GoingGoingGalt]

@R3DF4C710N The doctrine that 'human rights' are superior to 'property rights' simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of 'human.'

[Eldxale]

The owners of private property own the private property. The state does not own the property it rules over. That is the difference.

[OrlandoClarkson]

When I saw all these anarchists on you tube I felt happy. Then I found out half of them were just capitalists disguised as anarchists.

ugh

[A86]

I think there are a few types of anarcho-capitalists. There are those who are just uber-capitalists who want to make money on workers without the interference of the state. There are some who believe in utopian capitalism of Rothbard and Friedman and call themselves "anarchists" because they don't fully appreciate what "anarchy" means. Some envision a capitalism something like anarcho-socialists view market socialism, but call it "capitalism". Unfortunately most seem to be the first type.

[buddyfreakinholly]

Anarcho-socialists don't address the many questions about who decides what. About where I can build my house, or a building for a store which according to them I have to get others interested in running a business with me because heaven forbid if I own a hardware store at the edge of town I might somehow start a monopoly and become an imperialist and try to take over and control society. Bill Gates watch out!

[buddyfreakinholly]

If the community decides that I am allowed 10 acres of land to use for my farm and I can make an humble living for my family, what happens 5 to 10 years down the road, can the people of the community says that there are many more people in the community than before and I must give up 2 or 3 acres so others can use it. Now the problem is I can't support my family any longer with my farm. Land ownership resolves many of these problems.

[buddyfreakinholly]

Another question to Anarcho-socialists What if I built a house myself and used my own resources and supplies and afterwards I die, Who gets the house? My son who lives in another town? Or does your community pick who gets to use it (the most popular well liked individual)? And don't even try to say that in your anarcho-socialist sytem groups won't play favorites. I can imagine disliked people would get alloted property farther away and liked people could have their store near all the houses.

[buddyfreakinholly]

If a community decides who can live where and who can build businesses in what area, then the community (group of people) are the rulers. So in order to live somewhere I have to accept where the community (group) lets me build my house and accept where they let me and friends build our business. You Anarcho-socialist have no clue about what "FREEDOM" is all about. A ruler by any other name is still a ruler.

[cflying]

Apparently your understanding of anarcho-capitalism is much different than mine. The goal is not the abolition of all government, but the abolition of public, coercive government. Government founded on the principle of property rights is much different than government founded upon coercive action. The only legitimate government is one based solely on property rights and defensive force.

[R3DF4C710N]

And I still hold to the position that all government is inherently a public, social matter. Property rights contain within them the promise of coercion; that much cannot be denied.

[cflying]

The assertion that "all government is inherently a public, social matter" is false. Government can and indeed should only be a private matter. Families, Small Businesses, Churches, and non-profit organizations all represent private forms of government. How an individual runs his church or family is not up for discussion by the public at large. Also, property rights by no means promise coersion. Quite the contrary property rights act as a barrier to coersion and a promise of self-defense.

[R3DF4C710N]

Power is public by its very nature. It is social; it involves one party having coercive or manipulative force over another. The moment an individual's actions become destructive to the life and liberty of another, they become the domain of the public, and the public has a duty to end such aggression. Property grants such rights of coercion and control, and is by its very nature illegitimate. It is destructive to life and liberty, and places the will of one individual superior to another.

[cflying]

Please address the arguements raised below. Do you agree that property rights act as a barrier to coersion and a promise of self-defense?

[R3DF4C710N]

If you had read the above, you would have known that I rejected the notion that property rights in themselves provide a promise of self-defense. Self defense stems from our innate rights of life and liberty, and more often than not property rights squash the right to life and liberty. The propertyless man has no right to life or liberty. He may defend himself by stealing bread to live, but he will thrown in jail for this.

[buddyfreakinholly]

Saying Anarcho-capitalists want to own even the air and roads is quite extreme. As land owners it would be in our best interest to have public roads between private properties to stop people from trespassing. Also to note people can overpopulate an area depleating its resources. Not every community can support a large population. Water and other natural resources differ, growing seasons, climate, etc all affect how many can live in a given area. I believe land ownership would help bring balance

[R3DF4C710N]

Then you, my friend, are not the average anarcho-capitalist. Most are opposed to public goods of any kind.

[buddyfreakinholly]

I think most anarcho-capitalists would agree that a public road would have to exist not that anyone would be forced to maintain it, that would be voluntary. As I stated land owners wouldn't want people trespassing through their property, and fishermen and boaters would obviously need public access to the ocean.

[buddyfreakinholly]

Land ownership is definitely an issue that divides the anarcho-capitalists from the anarcho-socialists. I support anarcho-capitalism and land ownership. I as a family man want to protect my family. I don't want a thief, rapist, or murderer near my house and family and as a farmer I don't want thieves in my garden, land ownership lets me stake my claim and guarantees me that I will be able to continue my farm year after year without some socialist later trying to use my property as their own.

[Bosco20061217]

I should make it clear that I am using terms like "ownership" and "property" obviously in the classical sense, not in the modern sense of "things" external to oneself, but in defining a persons proper sphere of influence and rightful disposition. I think all anarchists respect this basic foundation.

[R3DF4C710N]

Then we have a definitional problem here. The problem of the classical model of ownership is that it makes the leap to conclude that a commons can become property through the application of labor. The sticky point I have with property is the fact that property is the absolute sovereignty over owned objects. I believe that the only tenable demarcation of sovereignty is one's life and liberty. Beyond that boundary lies the social dimension of actions that affect the commonality.

[Bosco20061217]

If you accept self-sovereignty (every persons right to his or her own life, whichever way you express it), ownership is the right to exclusive use and disposal, of that which is not acquired by force. Without the right to take the actions appriate to a rational being with regard to the external world, one is nothing more than a slave, and the use and disposal is the jurisdiction of someone else.

[R3DF4C710N]

A person's sovereignty terminates the moment their actions adversely affect others. Sovereignty does not grant an individual the right to own that which was common. If we grant individuals this right, than some will necessarily become slaves to those who do own land and capital.

[Bosco20061217]

"Adverse effects" as a standard is an invitation for the total state. Anything can be said to have such an effect.

[R3DF4C710N]

You and I both know that such rhetoric is bullshit. When it comes down to it, the majority of actions do not have any negative social dimension. Moreover, anarchism can permit no hierarchies. Enforcement of this can only legitimately derive from the people themselves, organized democratically.

[Bosco20061217]

If you can get more than 5 people in a room to agree on the meaning of "adverse effects" or the dividing line between freedom and a "negative social dimension", I would be shocked indeed. For such vague terms, you require a final arbiter who can override subjective whims. You need a state.

[R3DF4C710N]

There is nothing vague about "adverse effects". It is a harm, pure and simple. If a harm can be demonstrated, than an individual must cease and desist their actions. But there is no prior restraint of action, and such issues will be decided in a manner roughly analogous to the modern tort system. Do not think that we have not thought of such objections before. I cannot easily condense 150 years of anarchist thinking into a series of youtube comments.

[Bosco20061217]

The most rational aspects of the modern tort system are based on individual rights and legitimate title to property. The task of demonstrating harm without reference to such standards will take another 150 years, and would undoubtably constitute a political system far worse than any we have now.

[R3DF4C710N]

That's why I said "roughly analagous". I was referring to arbitrative nature of tort. Individual rights still exist in an anarchist society. I'd love to continue this, but it is nearly 1 am my time, and I have class in the morning. I must bid you adieu.

[Bosco20061217]

3 oclock my time, and yes,very late. Very interesting though, and thank you..

[R3DF4C710N]

You are welcome.

[Bosco20061217]

Morever, I don't see any clear line of demarcation in your treatment of liberty. Is there any liberty, or freedom of action, that could not concievably be constrained because they "affect the commonality"?

[R3DF4C710N]

Most certainly. I should have said "adversely" affect the commonality. I was in a hurry though. For instance, the color of my underwear, my sexual orientation, my free exercise of speech or my choice of music to listen to do not harm others. When decisions are to be made, only those who are affected can legitimately have a say. A person's romantic relationships are do not affect the commonality adversely, so they have no right to interfere, for example.

[Bosco20061217]

R3DF4C710N,

Market Anarchism is based on the principle of self ownership, of each person's moral jurisdiction over his own life. Private property in the sense that you address is a corrolary and logical extension of this principle.

[R3DF4C710N]

I understand the claim that Market Anarchists make about private property rights. I do not believe in self-ownership for a number of different reasons, so it is useless for you to try to defend private property based on that principle. You have to convince me of self-ownership's legitimacy first.

[Bosco20061217]

Fair enough, so if you do not have the right to use and dispose of your own person, that is, if you have no moral jurisdiction over yourself, than who does. The state? Society?

[R3DF4C710N]

Rejecting self-ownership does not mean that one rejects liberty. It is foolish to make that claim. The autonomy of the individual is not based on a figurative reduction to ownership. It is postulated based on the very existence of humans as rational beings. I am, therefore I ought to be free.

[Bosco20061217]

So how is that different from the principle of personal sovereignty? How does it follow from the fact that humans are rational beings that they ought to be free, unless you refer to some principle of self-proprietership? An individual either has a right to their own life or they don't. If they don't, someone else does.

[R3DF4C710N]

You're begging the question. You implicitly assume self-ownership within the premises of your argument.

Furthermore, you're committing a non-sequitor. It does not follow that personal autonomy leads directly to a notion of self-ownership. Simply put, to say that an individual is free does not mean that we can seperate the objective from the subjective self and claim that an individual "owns" themselves. It is a logical abusrdity.

[Orenazt]

However, I understand where you're coming from. Your argument is completely valid against the kind of property advocated by "vulgar libertarians" - that is, defending everything the State now calls private property. But keep in mind that Murray Rothbard believed that the case for property is meaningless without a theory of justice in property titles.

[R3DF4C710N]

I understand where you are coming from. For my part, I try to distinguish between "market anarchists" and "anarcho-capitalists". The former tend to follow a position more akin to yours, and the latter are quite often vulgar libertarians in theory.

[Orenazt]

Here's the difference between property and the State. State territory is acquired by force - property, in the Lockean/Rothbardian sense, is acquired by labor and trade. If property is acquired by force (as it is in the modern statist world) then it is equivalent to the State. However, anarcho-capitalist property isn't acquired by force - it is merely defended by force. If an individual defends his own body from attack, does that make him a State? Of course not.

[DeraJa]

For me, market anarchy is a system of trail and error, and little more. It is the way to test ideas, and methods of organization.

[R3DF4C710N]

Cool. It's always good to get a dialogue going between market and collectivist anarchists. To a certain extent, I can agree with you. I personally prefer to transcend the idea of property itself, but that may not be possible in the immediate future. I'll be sure to look into your vids.

[DeraJa]

In market anarchy, property may be treated like a mini state, but if the property doesn't provide some desired good or service to the wider populace it will close down and fail. This principle also hold true for the worker.

Maybe market anarchists should think of our conceptions of property as a necessary evil, because property is necessary. There needs to be a system that attempts to allocate scare resources to where they can be used most effectively.

[DeraJa]

I am a market anarchists, and actually agree with your video. I think the traditional perspective held by anarcho-capitalists doesn't entirely make sense. Maybe, the reason they do it is so they can call it a voluntary system, and try to claim a moral high ground...

The biggest reasons I think I am a market anarchist is because it creates the close relationship between consumption and production. If you consume, you need to produce.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

But I have no problem being the authoritarian of my life, liberty, and property--better than being submissive to others.

There are many intellectual arguments for property rights. LibertyIsNotGiven has a good one: watch?v=MJP8JhCIwKs

Others are that, through labor one creates private property, and that through free association, any abuses would not last long.

[R3DF4C710N]

You may not, but you do not live in a vacuum. Even more, not everyone owns property. The vast majority must sell themselves to those who do.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

They don't sell themselves. They sell their labor.

Even still, if someone doesn't have any food, do they have a right to steal yours? And if they do have that right, do you have a right to then steal it right back?

Do you have an obligation to give it to them? If so, do they have an obligation to give it right back?

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I disagree with you about the "meat." It's a rejection of the initiation of force. Anyone seeking to initiate force is essentially trying to govern the actions of others against their will. Anarcho-capitalists are simply anarcho- because the state falls into the category of initiators of violence.

[R3DF4C710N]

But are they internally consistent, then? As I showed, the state and property are fundamentally no different.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

First, the state cannot claim anything, as it is a concept. Only individuals can claim or own things. It is the individuals in the state that would be doing the owning. But the internal consistency arrives when we ask what gives these individuals the right to own property but those who are not a function of the state do not have that right?

[ForOrAgainstUs]

Sorry, internal inconsistency.

[R3DF4C710N]

Property is no less a social construct than the state is. Why can only individuals own things? I've never heard a compelling answer to this. And what does give an individual a "right" to own property anyway?

[ForOrAgainstUs]

Science and logic are social constructs as well. Does that make them any less valid?

Only individuals can own things because only individuals can act. Individuals can act within groups, but groups cannot act separate from the individuals within them. Show me a group without showing me any individuals.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

I view the state as fascistic (metaphorically), no matter what form it takes. Either you live the way you want to and allow others to do the same, or you live the way you want to and don't allow others to do the same. In both cases, you define yourself as promoting freedom, but in the former case its freedom for liberty, and in the second case, it's freedom for fascism. Private property acquired legitimately derives from liberty, not fascism.

[R3DF4C710N]

Whoever said I was a statist? I was probing your logic. There is a current of inconsistency, for private property creates the right for individuals who own property to deny others their liberty. Whether you can see that 2+2 does in fact equal 4 is solely up to you. At any rate, if you have any further comments, please make a vid instead of blitzkreiging the comments page.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

And how does deny people private property not infringe on their liberty to own the fruits of their labor?

I won't make a video. I'm fine with this. I'm surprised you don't like the comments. It increases the likelihood of more people watching your videos.

[R3DF4C710N]

Because liberty logically implies usufruct: the right to control one's own labor, as well as a system of use-rights. Resources are not owned, for ownership implies absolute control. Usufruct entails that only actual need or active determines one's right to control a resource.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

If no one owns a resource, then I am not infringing on anyone's right to life, liberty, (or property) am I not? No one can claim a resource, but no one can claim what someone has labored for either.

Also, who determines need? If not me, then you? A majority? A consensus? Is this not based on logic but opinions?

[R3DF4C710N]

The first paragraph makes absolutely no sense. You are going to have to clarify.

If two people want to use a resource, they can work out the issue themselves, have a third party arbitrate, or bring the issue before the community. Opinions and logic are intertwined obviously. It is not an issue of either/or.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

If no one owns a resource, then a person would be infringing upon my right to life and liberty to try to stop me from using my labor to acquire that resource, making it my property thusly.

I certainly agree that people can work out the issue or use arbitration. But forcing someone to do that limits their liberty, and someone who uses violence doesn't have a valid claim to rights anyway.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

Basically, I agree with everything in your second paragraph, other than it being an issue of either/or. Either property rights are derived from logic or opinion. Enforcing property rights based on opinion is imposing your opinion on someone else, while enforcing property rights based on logic is imposing that standard on yourself and anyone else that adheres to logic. Those who don't adhere to logic have no ability to make an intellectual argument in the first place.

[Zamolxx]

Private property can pe invoched, only when the owner of that property is using it to produce, and ofcourse it can't be an individual ownership over land, but a collective ownership, who participate in production and thus satisfying they're needs. Private ownership is an incorrect term, collective ownership is correct.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

But there is no such "thing" as a collective. There is no difference between individual and collective ownership--just the number of individuals involved. If you're talking about collective ownership, then you're talking about no ownership. I mean, is there a minimum amount of people required for a collective? What if a person just produces enough for himself?

[ForOrAgainstUs]

What if he finds a technology that allows him to produce more than he needs? Does his new beneficial technology require him to give up his land?

[Zamolxx]

No one can produce "enough" form himself, because that means that he's a hunter, or a woodsman ranger.Property should be considered a means of production by using the land's resources to create goods, while the entire community produces goods or services, they all are entitled to shelter/homes. Individual ownership of land, means ind.ownership over it's resources, and thus ownership of the people's needs. A capitalist society cannot become anarchic, a socialist society can.

[R3DF4C710N]

No they wouldn't. As I stated before, under usufruct, use and need are the only titles. Labor cannot acquire absolute title to a resource. Property is nothing more than a private state, and regime of property rights forces those who own no property to sell their liberty. Property conflicts with liberty, and thus property cannot be considered a natural right.

The only acceptable options are the ones listed. Anything else would be an act of aggression against other individuals or the community.

[ForOrAgainstUs]

"As I stated before, under usufruct, use and need are the only titles. " Clarify.

"Labor cannot acquire absolute title to a resource." But resources cannot be owned if no one labors for them. Therefore, anyone giving orders under usufruct is imposing their opinion on others as to what can be done with something (the resource) that did not labor for.

[R3DF4C710N]

If you are using, say, an axe to chop wood currently, no one can legitimately deprive you of it without showing there is a distressing need for it (say, a charging grizzly bear ;) ). If you're not using it, others can use it freely.

See, that's the beauty. No one can give orders. Decisions that involve large scale property (more than 1 person running it) require a democratic decision making process.

[EscapeGoats]

Regardless of how distinct or not distinct the state and capital are, they are both manifestations of the hierarchy of power.

[R3DF4C710N]

I understand that. My point was that the two are so close as to be practically indistinguishable. Thus, anarcho-capitalists are burdened with proving why any compelling distinction should be made or else their theory is internally inconsistent.

[buddhagem]

Thanks for the kind words, brother. I think this was touched by Engels in explaining the development of the state. I think you nailed it at the end because it is also my view that ancaps simply don't understand the consequences of their views. They simply lack class consciousness. They don't even think classes exist. Great vid, btw, until you get a cam you can always use pics to illustrate points. An idea. Hope to hear more from you.

[R3DF4C710N]

Thanks. I'll be sure to keep on posting.