Yuk! anarchism...? I'd rather be arrested and beaten up by a state than by anarchists- the latter are more likely to use brutal torture without restraint whereas the former observe strict protocol shaped by centuries of moral evolution.
I think the actual term 'anarcho-capitalism' was coined by Murray Rothbard to distance himself from socialism, which was a duff move IMO. It is like declaring yourself an anarcho-stalinist and being suprised that you are being presented with arguments against stalinism. Most Rothbardians recognise this and use the term 'market anarchism' instead, which has a broader and more pluralistic application.
the overwhelming fact is that anarchism is a type of socialism. whether they call themselves market anarchists, the fact remains. they suport capitalism. they are not anarchists. why not call themselves anti-statist capitalists? market anarchism is a pre-existing title. virtually the whole things is ridiculous. It's still taking another ideology's terms for you own, rather then simply making your own.
I think that anarchism stands on it's own. It doesn't logically exclude individuals or collectives from private property ownership per se, and it doesn't exclude a market economy. To some people this means capitalism, but that is a bastardisation of the term 'capitalism' more than anything else. Some self-described 'anarchists' you might find here are little more than bourgiose 'radicals' who's anarchism is little more than a shallow anti-statism.
anarcho capitalists certainly would fall under the label of bousgoise liberal "radicals" as you say. anarchists who support a market economy (like myself) support a market but not nessesarily a capitalist one. If a ideology has to twist and subvert definitions in order to fit together, it can't be much good. the whole thing doesn't hold up to analysis and is not a form of anarchism. Just shallow libertarianism.
The shallowness of anti-statism is that it just sees the state like a cancer that can be cut out of society, rather than an organisational form that emerges from the social and economic relationships that make a state necessary in the first place.
anti-statism is valid and true. it is perfectly possible to remove it. The state is the monopoly of force owned by a government. volentary social and economic relationships do not generate the state. The Government does. governments must be got rid of and can be. They ARE a cancer.
Yuk! anarchism...? I'd rather be arrested and beaten up by a state than by anarchists- the latter are more likely to use brutal torture without restraint whereas the former observe strict protocol shaped by centuries of moral evolution.
Primeprophet 3 years ago
a) who said anything about beating anyone up?
b) Who says the state wouldn't use torture? (guantanamo bay anyone?)
c)why would anarchists beat you up?
d)the state is not moral.
you really know nothing about anarchism.
go read a book
norulers85 3 years ago
LOL. You have got an off-topic, ill-informed, strawman argument already. Welcome to YouTube!
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
lol. yeah, wondered when one might appear
norulers85 3 years ago
Here's a good video on 'vulgar' libertarianism:
watch?v=c2cfFo0pj2g
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
I think the actual term 'anarcho-capitalism' was coined by Murray Rothbard to distance himself from socialism, which was a duff move IMO. It is like declaring yourself an anarcho-stalinist and being suprised that you are being presented with arguments against stalinism. Most Rothbardians recognise this and use the term 'market anarchism' instead, which has a broader and more pluralistic application.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
the overwhelming fact is that anarchism is a type of socialism. whether they call themselves market anarchists, the fact remains. they suport capitalism. they are not anarchists. why not call themselves anti-statist capitalists? market anarchism is a pre-existing title. virtually the whole things is ridiculous. It's still taking another ideology's terms for you own, rather then simply making your own.
norulers85 3 years ago
I think that anarchism stands on it's own. It doesn't logically exclude individuals or collectives from private property ownership per se, and it doesn't exclude a market economy. To some people this means capitalism, but that is a bastardisation of the term 'capitalism' more than anything else. Some self-described 'anarchists' you might find here are little more than bourgiose 'radicals' who's anarchism is little more than a shallow anti-statism.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
However, most Rothbardians, or those than cite him as a major influence do not support capitalism as you or I understand the term.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
anarcho capitalists certainly would fall under the label of bousgoise liberal "radicals" as you say. anarchists who support a market economy (like myself) support a market but not nessesarily a capitalist one. If a ideology has to twist and subvert definitions in order to fit together, it can't be much good. the whole thing doesn't hold up to analysis and is not a form of anarchism. Just shallow libertarianism.
norulers85 3 years ago
Anarchism in its various forms have always opposed private property in the current capitalist sense and capitalism in general.
norulers85 3 years ago
The shallowness of anti-statism is that it just sees the state like a cancer that can be cut out of society, rather than an organisational form that emerges from the social and economic relationships that make a state necessary in the first place.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
anti-statism is valid and true. it is perfectly possible to remove it. The state is the monopoly of force owned by a government. volentary social and economic relationships do not generate the state. The Government does. governments must be got rid of and can be. They ARE a cancer.
norulers85 3 years ago