Your explaination only makes sense, if everyone had something to trade that others need. Thus, those who have this kind of things would be in power since they could let anyone else starve by refusing to trade them. Eventually, you would have to work out and enforce rules that secure the distribution of basic goods, which leads back to some state kind of thing
@LarsCobain No, everyone has at least one thing inherent to them that they can trade, their labor. Provided you are in at least decent health.
Also you ignore the fact that competition exists in a free market. If one business would intentionally refuse to trade with you, there do exist competiting businesse and there's a huge jump in logic from this (even assuming what you say is true) and a state forming.
So are people still learning that a anarcho-communists definition of capitalism is state capitalism and that an anarcho-capitalist's definition of capitalism is free market capitalism? Are we going to settle on a definition any time soon? Maybe before the corporate slave owners eat us for lunch? Would be nice.
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite.
money is power is force is authority. people can produce the stuff they need, no trading or indirection over good->universal medium of exchange->good or direct swapping needed.
Define coercion and force. Right-anarchists often want to be rid of violent force, but allow all other forms of coercion and force as being part of "freedom." Yes anarchism means "without a ruler," but shouldn't this apply to people who rule beyond just through direct violence.
"Anarchists" agree that there should no use of violence to coerce people, but a true anarchists would call for total equality in all areas, so that people are not coerced economically or socially, either....continued...
@nogovlikenogov "total equality in all areas" This is a broad, meaningless phrase. For example, equality of opportunity and equality of results are mutually exclusive, economically speaking. Also, equality of existence as a whole would require complete conformity, which goes contrary to what most of us would want; a peaceful but diverse society of individual people.
The truth is, nobody is a "true anarchist" in the sense of being all-permissive of the behavior of others.
@XOmniverse True enough - complete equality is an impossibility. But, let's face it, any discussion of anarchism is really only philosophical and hypothetical anyway. We're essentially discussing ideals, not pragmatic realities.
So, acknowledging that this is only an ideal, rather than a realistic possibilities, shouldn't the guiding principle or goal of anarchism be complete equality in all areas so that people are never coerced in any way? ....
Because I was born poor, for example, I am immediately coerced, by not fault of my own, to certain behaviour. Yes, I'm not physically forced, but I am certainly influenced. Complete freedom means no outside influences. So, if we acknowledge that this is the ideal (though hypothetical and unrealistic) then how does that shape the practical application? I suggest it means we minimize these external influences as much as we can...
i was going to leave a comment for the other guy but then i found your video, its nice to hear from people who are not trapped in a box created by the ascribed heirachy of the past, false 'truths' and limited definitions believed to be set in stone...but i find the problem of disscussing these ideas with non-believers is that they argue against ur points using the past and the boxes of the past, they just cant get out of the BOX!
markets are always needed, he wasnt talking about the "market" he was talking about capitalism or free market which is not and has never been fair, therefore anti Anarchist in essence.
The faulty aspect of your proof is the belief that in a free-market (with bosses, regulations, and codes) what you percieve to be voluntary employment is actually cohersion. For example, the dress code. If a company says I have to dress business casual and I come in with flip flops I get a warning that if I do it again (i.e. not follow the rules) then I will be fired. When I do it again, though it is voluntary whether I wear them or not I am being cohersed into following the rules.
@jszymc1 "belief that in a free-market (with bosses, regulations, and codes)"
You should probably start by having an accurate conception of what I mean by free market, since nothing about how I use the term says "Yay! Bosses!" or "Boo! Bosses!"
@XOmniverse You should start by actually defining what the difference between cohersion and voluntary is.. it's a slippery slope. If someone says "shut up or I'll shoot you with the gun in my hand" and they have a gun in their hand.. is it really voluntary when I shut up? Whether you mentioned bosses or not.. you miss the point. You're proof never delineated the difference between cohersion and voluntary so the proof fails.
@jszymc1 Ok. You are not forced into working at that company and you entered into a contract in which you'll dress how your boss wants you to. Voluntary interaction. Don't like it then get another one or start your own.
if everyone knows the free market is a part of anarchy the why call it anarcho capitalism and not just call it anarchy, now the problem is not the free market the problem is who is the owner of the free market who owns the resources and what gives them the right to own these, and the that corporations and companies should be owned by the people involved in the process of producing the items that are going to be traded not some guy who claims that the corporation is his private property
Free market capitalism is anarchism but anarcho-capitalism is not. In anarcho capitalism there is a private owner who has more power over the factories decisions (no equality). Yes the agreements are technically 'voluntarily' but what if the circumstances the individual was put under 'coerced' him into selling his labor ('free' exchange)? EX: Some slaves 'voluntarily' subordinated themselves to slavery to pay off debts. Obviously no free individual would subordinate themselves to slavery...
@XOmniverse doesnt the term 'boss' by definition mean unequal relationships (command and obeadience)?
When i said 'free market capitalism' i ment free market anarchism. Having markets does not imply capitalism. Indeed markets can exist in a socialist society.
I think anarcho-capytalism is the true anarchism and anarcho-collectivism (communism) is self-contradicting because it implies coersive limitation of personal wealth that could only be done by reppressive measures possible under governmental control only
And the fact you people warp Stirner, Tucker and Spooner to the point of promoting capitalism is disturbing. The cherry picking and revisionism would be laughable if so many midwest and southern intellectual lightweight white working class self hating fools didn't latch onto the Rothbardian doublethink.
Wide eyed Randroids pushing everything but objective reality. Anarchism is a philosophy directly opposed to wage slavery, rent interest and usury. Read the individualist's works youre claiming
If you capitalists, especially you, want to live by the oath "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine" then drop your idiotic promotion of wage slavery, rent, interest and usury.
You are no anarchist. Rothbard, who is a revisionist, knew he was not promoting anarchism. Rothbard promotes a class society. Capitalism.
"voluntary" is a flexible term. if i agree with all other wheat-farmers to raise our prices by 900%, then you can choose to starve or engage in "voluntary" exchange.
what you just described is barter. that does not relate to either free-market or capitalism.
also, great job on starting you video out with "you're an idiot, but i'm not gonna stoop so low as to call you an idiot".
As an uneducated minority who rents and works for somebody else, I'm a little afraid of anarcho capitalist. It sounds a lot like feudalism, but instead of calling people lord and duke t we just call them the land Lord or boss or whatever title they demand, they're Free to pick and choose. But I'm not because I don't have a marketable skill, the only jobs I've been able to hold my adult life are cleaning jobs, mopping and sweeping the boss' floor. The state protects the working poor from you
You did not need to mention the fact you are an uneducated minority, because everybody would have come to that assumption after reading that nonsense anyway.
The major problem with the vid's (and AnCap's) logic is that "free market" and "capitalism" are the same thing. XO says AnCaps use them synonymously, fair enough, but that fails to respond to AnSoc criticisms against it re: employers, investors and landlords whose exchange with workers/consumers amounts to passive earning. If AnCap rewards people for the work they do, what does it propose to do with the highest earners, who do the least amount of work?
If anarchy is the absence of the state, then does it matter what other philosophy they subscribe too? There are anarcho-Christians, anarcho-communists, anarcho-sydicalists, and plain anti-statists. Don't give the usual crap that market capitalism is an oppressive system.
If, is the key word. It isn't just the absence of the state, otherwise current day Somalia would be some sort of anarcho utopia (I'm sure there's some mentalists who reckon they're anarchists who think that it is).
In reality, anarchism would mean a state where workers are organised enough to control their workplaces and neighbourhoods. Why are they going to overthrow a competitive precarious economic system in order to compete in a still slightly different one?
As for the list of fruitloops that happen to prefix their nonsense with anarcho, there is only class struggle anarchists, those that actually believe in and suggest working class strength and organisation. Infact, anarchism is so bogged down with shite that the term on its own is useless.
The funny thing is, the tossers with metal hair in their bedrooms talking about markets have no clue how to get there, nor the desire if they any sense. Least we have their funny videos!
@NoEoAoRo exactly! it's so dumb, the little infighting. getting rid of force is all that lovers of liberty should concern themselves with! their own little voluntary communes or social groups are their own business, and are fine!
His video was entirely about the use of force in an anarcho-capitalist society and how force is necessary for the preservation of private property. You didn't adress this issue at all.
Furthermore the example you gave was not even an example of capitalism being that capital was not involved.
Most of your video was just a personal attack on him.
Now you said how you didn't use capitalism but Anarcho-capitalism implies capitalism.
First, I'd note that Rothbard advocated workers seizing control of corporations that rely heavily on state privilege (an awfully SOCIALIST idea for someone who coined the term anarcho-capitalism).
I pretty much agree with Rothbard.
The problem is that this assumption that self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists are pro-corporatism is just that; an ASSUMPTION that is not present in any anarcho-capitalist literature that I am aware of.
You should take the time to learn what someone actually thinks.
You're right. It's pretty redundant. But, as I've noticed, particularly in America, the everyday language of your avg politician/activist is pretty redundant to say the least.
XO you try to justify Anarcho-Capitalism with the barest of definitions you can use bypassing what is over a century of Anarchist political theory and literature. Anarchism isn't just No Rulers.
It is a defined political theory against a social hierarchy, private property and capitalism. The free market creates a monetary hierarchy and puts the have-nots at the whims of the haves. That means it is not in line with Anarchism. Stop leeching off of our ideology you shits.
Call my position whatever you want. I'm at the point that I really don't give a shit what label you want to attach to it; attack the ideas, if you can.
Nice use of a dictionary, but there is a lot more to anarchism than elementary definitions. It seems to me you are describing a barter system or a capitalism that doesnt exist. We know from reality that in a capitalist society you need workers or wage slaves. What happens if a worker says no to his boss and refuses to work? Force is used to break the strike. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist, for reasons that are very easily understood.
But Collectivisation is always forced as well. You too believe in an economic system that does not exist. While there is a real problem with Capitalists and wages; these issues are not insurmountable. This is not true for collectivisation. To collectivise successfully and permanantly all must join. But all will not join, and those that do may decide to leave - in the absence of force. Once the collective realises its danger - force comes in to play. And Anarchy dies.
I'm not disagreeing that Anarchism is a Romantic and Idealistic system were everyone participates without force. I am skeptical that humans are capable of achieving this. Plenty of philosophers have speculated as to how an Anarchist system could be achieved without force, non to convincing. All I was saying is that Anarcho Capitalism is intellectually disingenous, how can one have no rulers in a system based on wage slavery? At least the traditional Anarchists are consistent.
I see your point. I will say that it is natural for man to live in some form of a market economy. This is the way most have survived for thousands of years. Only in the the most primitive tribal system do you see collectivism but even there an Archy still retains power. We think that because collectivisation tends to stiffle the individual and that all liberties are based on the individuals rights, that a market is the best way.
If you look at the anthropological record, the existence of markets are far from universal among past and indigenous societies.
The gift economics that Marcel Mauss first laid out is a good starting point for understanding the dynamics of the myriad nonmarket communities and societies that dot the globe.
Markets are a consistent feature of civilization, technology, written language, etc.
I'm sure there are plenty of primitive tribes that have barely changed since their inception that have no concept of property. And if that's the lifestyle you want, go for it, but count me out.
Gift economies include concepts of property; otherwise it'd be hard to give a gift when it's simultaneously not yours and already theirs, wouldn't it? ;)
If a bunch of people want to try a gift economy, I have no intention of stopping them.
My point is that allowing people to retain the product of their labor is an essential characteristic of technological societies. And the essence of what most people call a market is some concept of property ownership and exchange, at least partially grounded in someone retaining the product of their labor.
You are exactly correct, my friend. The only thing I disagree with agorists about is using greek to describe "market", and in eschewing incrementalist political action. (Bernardo De La Paz never did!) LOL Hang in there, your video was excellent, and I don't have a camera. This video speaks for me! Downrate stupid anarcho-syndicalists (scared little socialist who want to sound cooler than dictatorial authoritarians)
Atheists who don't believe in anything supernatural are compelled by logic to be Hard Determinists and thus they understand that "free will" is an illusion. So you fundamental justification for the "free market", that being that it is all "voluntary", is completely undermined. Now that your entire ideology has been completely and totally discredited, you may proceed to try and justify your logic-defying voodoo economics.
You're ridiculous. Not only have I already provided, in another video, a rational conception of will that is not grounded in mystical thinking, the concept of voluntary (meaning without coercion) doesn't even have anything to do with free will.
Whether my actions are "determined" is irrelevant to the question of whether I am free to perform them.
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. If your actions are determined then that is the MOST relevant to the question of whether you are free to perform them. Every decision you make will be determined by prior influences and their affects on your brain. To make a free decision means you are performing and absolute beginning, which is to say a completely unbiased action. That is, of course impossible.
Even if you were to accept hard determinism, it is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Unlike an apple falling from a tree, humans have the conscious ability to understand the forces that act on us. In a state of absolute freedom, your attempts to force me to act in a certain way against my "free will," creates a state of chaos between us which gives me the 'freedom' to defend myself.
Wrong, if all there is in existence is physical matter that obeys the physical laws, human consciousness is an illusion. Understanding itself is a physical process. Nothing escapes causality. Nothing escapes materialism.
From this point of view, how can you call your opinion superior to mine in any way? But there are things that escape causality - objective truths. Some things are a matter of fact, not a matter of perception, and from those facts we can derive new assumptions through the laws of physics, mathematics, and logic. And there are even many EVENTS in the physical world that defy causality - the uncertainty principle, the release of alpha particles, etc.
Logic still compels you to accept that you have no authority over another person, and they have no authority over you, except those things that you both consent to. And "consent" does not have to be voluntary, because we can be forced by reason to consent to objective principles. For ex., logic forces you to accept that you cannot use violence against another. If you did, you would expose yourself to the violence of people defending their freedom. Reason doesnt require your voluntary agreement.
I disagree. I have authority over a deranged lunatic like you that would advocate the absolute maximum tyranny- libertarianism. Consent is, like free will, an illusion. I also don't like it when you rightwingers throw around the world "freedom". It really damages your credibility.
If my beliefs were tyranny then yes you would have authority to defend yourself. But my belief is the opposite - the lack of authority. If I leave you and everyone else completely alone and simply say that if you interfere with my life or the life of another against our consent I consider myself free to defend us - I have not oppressed you. The argument "How dare you force me to be free!" is not compelling, even if one does accept hard-determinism.
Why can't free-market capitalism exist without a state?
Infact free-market capitalism means a form of capitalism without any interference from the state.
Though i'm not for no leaders. I believe in small local communities/governments. Like the way it was in the past with tribes and all. If a person doesn't like the way the community is run by its leader, he could try to change the leader or leave. This can only work in small local councils, not for a big central state. Hence i'm not a fedralist.
@MarxBakuninMe I think you are confusing capitalism with social/collective/syndicalism. The former (free market capitalism) exists in a vaccum of force, the latter requires a presence of force (state - in some form or another).
Great explanations on this video. I think that many anarchists have the same misconception comparing a free market capitalism with the current capitalism, which is definitely not a free market.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Market anarchy is one thing. Anarcho-capitalism is another. No one is accusing Proudhon of not being an anarchist. Rothbard, on the other hand, is not an anarchist. The idea of anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption that it's OK to own property. Anarchists don't see that as "voluntary," since to own land is to deprive mankind of that land. And mankind NEEDS land to survive.
Has that guy actually debated the merrits of Anarcho-Capitalism with you, or does he merely distract from that debate by debating the legitimacy of the term? At this point, it seems to me that you're debating someone who is knowingly and willfully dishonest/deceptive. That at least, is the impression I get.
Anyways... great job (as always); you are most masterful.
To murder someone would be economic crippling (to the point where they couldn't do anything), granted people will still commit crimes of passion, but an anarchist society creates even more incentives not to.
1) You can't force everyone to buy guns, most people don't want to fight
2) It wouldn't stop the largest militia if everyone had guns, if they have more guns, bigger guns, organization and training etc... What can the people do?
3) It sounds like a state of serious instability because the power hungry people who want to impose force will never go away, and having no state ensures an enviornment for warring militia to rise
4) Sorry we don't live in a fantasy land where ideals are held to the highest regard, the reality is force exisits, and people will use it to get what they want. The best you can hope for is to create an enviornment where the ability of force is minimized
we've seen throughout history criminal organizations and warlords having impressive armies. It definately can happen, and saying that the gang warfare will keep them at bay isn't an appealing argument. Not to mention that there still would be other countries around the world who can either
1) Fund a militia and arm in a partnership for resources of the land
Your explaination only makes sense, if everyone had something to trade that others need. Thus, those who have this kind of things would be in power since they could let anyone else starve by refusing to trade them. Eventually, you would have to work out and enforce rules that secure the distribution of basic goods, which leads back to some state kind of thing
LarsCobain 1 year ago
@LarsCobain No, everyone has at least one thing inherent to them that they can trade, their labor. Provided you are in at least decent health.
Also you ignore the fact that competition exists in a free market. If one business would intentionally refuse to trade with you, there do exist competiting businesse and there's a huge jump in logic from this (even assuming what you say is true) and a state forming.
crazypants88 1 month ago
So are people still learning that a anarcho-communists definition of capitalism is state capitalism and that an anarcho-capitalist's definition of capitalism is free market capitalism? Are we going to settle on a definition any time soon? Maybe before the corporate slave owners eat us for lunch? Would be nice.
MirageScience 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
A moneyless,classless,stateless communities of humanity expressing our freedom in creative harmonious cooperation for a world that is so POTENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY nourishing. Capitalism in any form, Statist or Corporatist is the denial of our common humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical armed MARKET SYSYTEM of artificial scarcity that is designed to perpetuate the enslavement of immense humanity for material interest of the criminal ruling elite.
arzoyan 1 year ago
-.-
money is power is force is authority. people can produce the stuff they need, no trading or indirection over good->universal medium of exchange->good or direct swapping needed.
Nutzername36 1 year ago
Define coercion and force. Right-anarchists often want to be rid of violent force, but allow all other forms of coercion and force as being part of "freedom." Yes anarchism means "without a ruler," but shouldn't this apply to people who rule beyond just through direct violence.
"Anarchists" agree that there should no use of violence to coerce people, but a true anarchists would call for total equality in all areas, so that people are not coerced economically or socially, either....continued...
nogovlikenogov 1 year ago
@nogovlikenogov "total equality in all areas" This is a broad, meaningless phrase. For example, equality of opportunity and equality of results are mutually exclusive, economically speaking. Also, equality of existence as a whole would require complete conformity, which goes contrary to what most of us would want; a peaceful but diverse society of individual people.
The truth is, nobody is a "true anarchist" in the sense of being all-permissive of the behavior of others.
XOmniverse 1 year ago 3
@XOmniverse True enough - complete equality is an impossibility. But, let's face it, any discussion of anarchism is really only philosophical and hypothetical anyway. We're essentially discussing ideals, not pragmatic realities.
So, acknowledging that this is only an ideal, rather than a realistic possibilities, shouldn't the guiding principle or goal of anarchism be complete equality in all areas so that people are never coerced in any way? ....
nogovlikenogov 1 year ago
@nogovlikenogov continued...
Because I was born poor, for example, I am immediately coerced, by not fault of my own, to certain behaviour. Yes, I'm not physically forced, but I am certainly influenced. Complete freedom means no outside influences. So, if we acknowledge that this is the ideal (though hypothetical and unrealistic) then how does that shape the practical application? I suggest it means we minimize these external influences as much as we can...
nogovlikenogov 1 year ago
i was going to leave a comment for the other guy but then i found your video, its nice to hear from people who are not trapped in a box created by the ascribed heirachy of the past, false 'truths' and limited definitions believed to be set in stone...but i find the problem of disscussing these ideas with non-believers is that they argue against ur points using the past and the boxes of the past, they just cant get out of the BOX!
consumedsociety 1 year ago
markets are always needed, he wasnt talking about the "market" he was talking about capitalism or free market which is not and has never been fair, therefore anti Anarchist in essence.
ErikVaughnDillinger 1 year ago
The faulty aspect of your proof is the belief that in a free-market (with bosses, regulations, and codes) what you percieve to be voluntary employment is actually cohersion. For example, the dress code. If a company says I have to dress business casual and I come in with flip flops I get a warning that if I do it again (i.e. not follow the rules) then I will be fired. When I do it again, though it is voluntary whether I wear them or not I am being cohersed into following the rules.
jszymc1 1 year ago 3
@jszymc1 "belief that in a free-market (with bosses, regulations, and codes)"
You should probably start by having an accurate conception of what I mean by free market, since nothing about how I use the term says "Yay! Bosses!" or "Boo! Bosses!"
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse You should start by actually defining what the difference between cohersion and voluntary is.. it's a slippery slope. If someone says "shut up or I'll shoot you with the gun in my hand" and they have a gun in their hand.. is it really voluntary when I shut up? Whether you mentioned bosses or not.. you miss the point. You're proof never delineated the difference between cohersion and voluntary so the proof fails.
jszymc1 1 year ago
@jszymc1 your not being coerced if your have the ability to leave the situation by obtaining new employment
johnnyno51 1 year ago
@jszymc1 Ok. You are not forced into working at that company and you entered into a contract in which you'll dress how your boss wants you to. Voluntary interaction. Don't like it then get another one or start your own.
jmjargon 4 months ago
if everyone knows the free market is a part of anarchy the why call it anarcho capitalism and not just call it anarchy, now the problem is not the free market the problem is who is the owner of the free market who owns the resources and what gives them the right to own these, and the that corporations and companies should be owned by the people involved in the process of producing the items that are going to be traded not some guy who claims that the corporation is his private property
DanteWhite 1 year ago
@DanteWhite
What Capitalist would want to be perceived as mingling with Marxists? No, we need to be explicit.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
I have an axe which I use to chop trees. Quick, collectivise it before I oppress someone!
ZealousMarshmallow 1 year ago
Free market capitalism is anarchism but anarcho-capitalism is not. In anarcho capitalism there is a private owner who has more power over the factories decisions (no equality). Yes the agreements are technically 'voluntarily' but what if the circumstances the individual was put under 'coerced' him into selling his labor ('free' exchange)? EX: Some slaves 'voluntarily' subordinated themselves to slavery to pay off debts. Obviously no free individual would subordinate themselves to slavery...
SlashySlash17 1 year ago
I've never read an anarcho-capitalist author who argued that unequal worker/boss relationships were an inherent element of anarcho-capitalism.
XOmniverse 1 year ago
@XOmniverse doesnt the term 'boss' by definition mean unequal relationships (command and obeadience)?
When i said 'free market capitalism' i ment free market anarchism. Having markets does not imply capitalism. Indeed markets can exist in a socialist society.
SlashySlash17 1 year ago
@XOmniverse
Don't mind him; the guy's argument is pathetic. He thinks if you come to collect on debts, you're an aggressor.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
I anarcho-communism sounds oxymoron to me for the equalitrianism (communism) and freedom conflict with each other.
nosorog91 1 year ago
I think anarcho-capytalism is the true anarchism and anarcho-collectivism (communism) is self-contradicting because it implies coersive limitation of personal wealth that could only be done by reppressive measures possible under governmental control only
nosorog91 1 year ago
Lots of economically illiterate communists on this page.
OthelloCarmellow 2 years ago
"economically illiterate communist", but you repeat yourself :)
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Haha.
High five.
OthelloCarmellow 2 years ago
@OthelloCarmellow Aren't communists by definition economically illiterate?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
And the fact you people warp Stirner, Tucker and Spooner to the point of promoting capitalism is disturbing. The cherry picking and revisionism would be laughable if so many midwest and southern intellectual lightweight white working class self hating fools didn't latch onto the Rothbardian doublethink.
Wide eyed Randroids pushing everything but objective reality. Anarchism is a philosophy directly opposed to wage slavery, rent interest and usury. Read the individualist's works youre claiming
crud4 2 years ago
If you capitalists, especially you, want to live by the oath "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine" then drop your idiotic promotion of wage slavery, rent, interest and usury.
You are no anarchist. Rothbard, who is a revisionist, knew he was not promoting anarchism. Rothbard promotes a class society. Capitalism.
crud4 2 years ago
you can't have individualism without equality.
you won't have capitalism without extortion.
"voluntary" is a flexible term. if i agree with all other wheat-farmers to raise our prices by 900%, then you can choose to starve or engage in "voluntary" exchange.
what you just described is barter. that does not relate to either free-market or capitalism.
also, great job on starting you video out with "you're an idiot, but i'm not gonna stoop so low as to call you an idiot".
lygophile 2 years ago
As an uneducated minority who rents and works for somebody else, I'm a little afraid of anarcho capitalist. It sounds a lot like feudalism, but instead of calling people lord and duke t we just call them the land Lord or boss or whatever title they demand, they're Free to pick and choose. But I'm not because I don't have a marketable skill, the only jobs I've been able to hold my adult life are cleaning jobs, mopping and sweeping the boss' floor. The state protects the working poor from you
mikaeel6 2 years ago
@mikaeel6
You did not need to mention the fact you are an uneducated minority, because everybody would have come to that assumption after reading that nonsense anyway.
anarcap28 2 years ago
Comment removed
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Comment removed
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Comment removed
GuiMarquito 2 years ago
Dip Shit!
Garage191 2 years ago
The major problem with the vid's (and AnCap's) logic is that "free market" and "capitalism" are the same thing. XO says AnCaps use them synonymously, fair enough, but that fails to respond to AnSoc criticisms against it re: employers, investors and landlords whose exchange with workers/consumers amounts to passive earning. If AnCap rewards people for the work they do, what does it propose to do with the highest earners, who do the least amount of work?
frostynorth 2 years ago
@frostynorth give them what they earned, no less and no more...
chuFFisTwo 2 years ago
Define 'work.'
OthelloCarmellow 2 years ago
Anarcho...capitalists?
Only in America, baby!
molly0000000s 2 years ago 5
If anarchy is the absence of the state, then does it matter what other philosophy they subscribe too? There are anarcho-Christians, anarcho-communists, anarcho-sydicalists, and plain anti-statists. Don't give the usual crap that market capitalism is an oppressive system.
NoEoAoRo 2 years ago
If, is the key word. It isn't just the absence of the state, otherwise current day Somalia would be some sort of anarcho utopia (I'm sure there's some mentalists who reckon they're anarchists who think that it is).
In reality, anarchism would mean a state where workers are organised enough to control their workplaces and neighbourhoods. Why are they going to overthrow a competitive precarious economic system in order to compete in a still slightly different one?
Market...anarchy? Shite.
molly0000000s 2 years ago
As for the list of fruitloops that happen to prefix their nonsense with anarcho, there is only class struggle anarchists, those that actually believe in and suggest working class strength and organisation. Infact, anarchism is so bogged down with shite that the term on its own is useless.
The funny thing is, the tossers with metal hair in their bedrooms talking about markets have no clue how to get there, nor the desire if they any sense. Least we have their funny videos!
molly0000000s 2 years ago
@NoEoAoRo exactly! it's so dumb, the little infighting. getting rid of force is all that lovers of liberty should concern themselves with! their own little voluntary communes or social groups are their own business, and are fine!
chuFFisTwo 2 years ago
You didn't adress any of the points he made.
His video was entirely about the use of force in an anarcho-capitalist society and how force is necessary for the preservation of private property. You didn't adress this issue at all.
Furthermore the example you gave was not even an example of capitalism being that capital was not involved.
Most of your video was just a personal attack on him.
Now you said how you didn't use capitalism but Anarcho-capitalism implies capitalism.
poleske 2 years ago
Force is necessary to stop a crazed murderer from killing people too. Force is necessary in some cases.
As far as whether my example is "capitalism," since I'm not an advocate of "capitalism", I'm really not too worried about that.
I think it's very unlikely that you mean the same thing by the word capitalism that anarcho-capitalists do.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Here in lies the problem. Every time I argue with anarcho-capitalists it always boils down to semantics
We need to clearly establish what capitalism is, what property is and what constitutes the state.
This is one reason I dislike Rothbard because he creates a definition of property that is unbelievably vauge.
What I and other Ansy say is that large corperations have the power to act as government.
What is to be done with Hallaburton, Coke, Shell, Phillup Morris?
poleske 2 years ago
First, I'd note that Rothbard advocated workers seizing control of corporations that rely heavily on state privilege (an awfully SOCIALIST idea for someone who coined the term anarcho-capitalism).
I pretty much agree with Rothbard.
The problem is that this assumption that self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalists are pro-corporatism is just that; an ASSUMPTION that is not present in any anarcho-capitalist literature that I am aware of.
You should take the time to learn what someone actually thinks.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
a ruler is like you mum telling you to get your hair cut?
worriedaboutlife 2 years ago
Comment removed
gouranga245 2 years ago
You're right. It's pretty redundant. But, as I've noticed, particularly in America, the everyday language of your avg politician/activist is pretty redundant to say the least.
CupisHomines 2 years ago
XO you try to justify Anarcho-Capitalism with the barest of definitions you can use bypassing what is over a century of Anarchist political theory and literature. Anarchism isn't just No Rulers.
It is a defined political theory against a social hierarchy, private property and capitalism. The free market creates a monetary hierarchy and puts the have-nots at the whims of the haves. That means it is not in line with Anarchism. Stop leeching off of our ideology you shits.
lbcdemon 2 years ago
Call my position whatever you want. I'm at the point that I really don't give a shit what label you want to attach to it; attack the ideas, if you can.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
Nice use of a dictionary, but there is a lot more to anarchism than elementary definitions. It seems to me you are describing a barter system or a capitalism that doesnt exist. We know from reality that in a capitalist society you need workers or wage slaves. What happens if a worker says no to his boss and refuses to work? Force is used to break the strike. Anarchism has always been anti-capitalist, for reasons that are very easily understood.
nickbnntt 2 years ago
But Collectivisation is always forced as well. You too believe in an economic system that does not exist. While there is a real problem with Capitalists and wages; these issues are not insurmountable. This is not true for collectivisation. To collectivise successfully and permanantly all must join. But all will not join, and those that do may decide to leave - in the absence of force. Once the collective realises its danger - force comes in to play. And Anarchy dies.
CapitalistAnarcho 2 years ago
I'm not disagreeing that Anarchism is a Romantic and Idealistic system were everyone participates without force. I am skeptical that humans are capable of achieving this. Plenty of philosophers have speculated as to how an Anarchist system could be achieved without force, non to convincing. All I was saying is that Anarcho Capitalism is intellectually disingenous, how can one have no rulers in a system based on wage slavery? At least the traditional Anarchists are consistent.
nickbnntt 2 years ago
I see your point. I will say that it is natural for man to live in some form of a market economy. This is the way most have survived for thousands of years. Only in the the most primitive tribal system do you see collectivism but even there an Archy still retains power. We think that because collectivisation tends to stiffle the individual and that all liberties are based on the individuals rights, that a market is the best way.
CapitalistAnarcho 2 years ago
If you look at the anthropological record, the existence of markets are far from universal among past and indigenous societies.
The gift economics that Marcel Mauss first laid out is a good starting point for understanding the dynamics of the myriad nonmarket communities and societies that dot the globe.
forstudentpower 2 years ago
Markets are a consistent feature of civilization, technology, written language, etc.
I'm sure there are plenty of primitive tribes that have barely changed since their inception that have no concept of property. And if that's the lifestyle you want, go for it, but count me out.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
haha Well now you're just moving the goalpost!
Gift economies include concepts of property; otherwise it'd be hard to give a gift when it's simultaneously not yours and already theirs, wouldn't it? ;)
forstudentpower 2 years ago
If a bunch of people want to try a gift economy, I have no intention of stopping them.
My point is that allowing people to retain the product of their labor is an essential characteristic of technological societies. And the essence of what most people call a market is some concept of property ownership and exchange, at least partially grounded in someone retaining the product of their labor.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
A world without rulers? How would we be able to measure anything?
averagejoe0073 2 years ago 2
Best comment ever!
XOmniverse 2 years ago
You are exactly correct, my friend. The only thing I disagree with agorists about is using greek to describe "market", and in eschewing incrementalist political action. (Bernardo De La Paz never did!) LOL Hang in there, your video was excellent, and I don't have a camera. This video speaks for me! Downrate stupid anarcho-syndicalists (scared little socialist who want to sound cooler than dictatorial authoritarians)
libertarianjury 2 years ago
Comment removed
libertarianjury 2 years ago
Atheists who don't believe in anything supernatural are compelled by logic to be Hard Determinists and thus they understand that "free will" is an illusion. So you fundamental justification for the "free market", that being that it is all "voluntary", is completely undermined. Now that your entire ideology has been completely and totally discredited, you may proceed to try and justify your logic-defying voodoo economics.
BattousaiOfChaos 2 years ago
You're ridiculous. Not only have I already provided, in another video, a rational conception of will that is not grounded in mystical thinking, the concept of voluntary (meaning without coercion) doesn't even have anything to do with free will.
Whether my actions are "determined" is irrelevant to the question of whether I am free to perform them.
XOmniverse 2 years ago
That is the dumbest thing I have ever read. If your actions are determined then that is the MOST relevant to the question of whether you are free to perform them. Every decision you make will be determined by prior influences and their affects on your brain. To make a free decision means you are performing and absolute beginning, which is to say a completely unbiased action. That is, of course impossible.
OntologicalQuandary 2 years ago
Even if you were to accept hard determinism, it is completely irrelevant in this discussion. Unlike an apple falling from a tree, humans have the conscious ability to understand the forces that act on us. In a state of absolute freedom, your attempts to force me to act in a certain way against my "free will," creates a state of chaos between us which gives me the 'freedom' to defend myself.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
Wrong, if all there is in existence is physical matter that obeys the physical laws, human consciousness is an illusion. Understanding itself is a physical process. Nothing escapes causality. Nothing escapes materialism.
BattousaiOfChaos 2 years ago
From this point of view, how can you call your opinion superior to mine in any way? But there are things that escape causality - objective truths. Some things are a matter of fact, not a matter of perception, and from those facts we can derive new assumptions through the laws of physics, mathematics, and logic. And there are even many EVENTS in the physical world that defy causality - the uncertainty principle, the release of alpha particles, etc.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
Logic still compels you to accept that you have no authority over another person, and they have no authority over you, except those things that you both consent to. And "consent" does not have to be voluntary, because we can be forced by reason to consent to objective principles. For ex., logic forces you to accept that you cannot use violence against another. If you did, you would expose yourself to the violence of people defending their freedom. Reason doesnt require your voluntary agreement.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
I disagree. I have authority over a deranged lunatic like you that would advocate the absolute maximum tyranny- libertarianism. Consent is, like free will, an illusion. I also don't like it when you rightwingers throw around the world "freedom". It really damages your credibility.
BattousaiOfChaos 2 years ago
If my beliefs were tyranny then yes you would have authority to defend yourself. But my belief is the opposite - the lack of authority. If I leave you and everyone else completely alone and simply say that if you interfere with my life or the life of another against our consent I consider myself free to defend us - I have not oppressed you. The argument "How dare you force me to be free!" is not compelling, even if one does accept hard-determinism.
dbmcmillan 2 years ago
I really don't get how people can't understand such basic and simple ideas!!
Everyone needs to go and read Common Sense by Thomas Paine.
afthefragile 2 years ago
Market anarchism is anarchism, but anarcho-capitalism is not. Why? Quite simply because capitalism cannot exist without a state.
MarxBakuninMe 3 years ago 2
I agree with you marxbakuninme
fucknazis77 2 years ago
Why can't free-market capitalism exist without a state?
Infact free-market capitalism means a form of capitalism without any interference from the state.
Though i'm not for no leaders. I believe in small local communities/governments. Like the way it was in the past with tribes and all. If a person doesn't like the way the community is run by its leader, he could try to change the leader or leave. This can only work in small local councils, not for a big central state. Hence i'm not a fedralist.
afthefragile 2 years ago
@MarxBakuninMe
Flawless logic...
...oh wait!
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@MarxBakuninMe
Capitalism cannot exist without CAPITAL, DEMAND, and SUPPLY.
State =/= not necessary.
SanieClaws 1 year ago
@MarxBakuninMe I think you are confusing capitalism with social/collective/syndicalism. The former (free market capitalism) exists in a vaccum of force, the latter requires a presence of force (state - in some form or another).
redcorona14 1 year ago
Great explanations on this video. I think that many anarchists have the same misconception comparing a free market capitalism with the current capitalism, which is definitely not a free market.
buddyfreakinholly 3 years ago 2
You just have no idea, do you?
kittiest34 4 years ago
Amen.
acceptableviolence 3 years ago
Don't you get tired of explaining basic shit to people? That's why I don't vlog, but um, if you like doing that, good for you.
Acumensch 4 years ago
Sometimes. But I also like having a venue to express myself with.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Market anarchy is one thing. Anarcho-capitalism is another. No one is accusing Proudhon of not being an anarchist. Rothbard, on the other hand, is not an anarchist. The idea of anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption that it's OK to own property. Anarchists don't see that as "voluntary," since to own land is to deprive mankind of that land. And mankind NEEDS land to survive.
DannyOKC 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The use of force is inherent in market exchange; for example, imagine you want ham and wheat and so decide to take it from someone else.
adaalman 4 years ago
You don't get to take it on whim. Every part in any transaction must change goods voluntary, I repeat voluntary, VOLUNTARY! Get it?
lordmetroid 4 years ago 3
Has that guy actually debated the merrits of Anarcho-Capitalism with you, or does he merely distract from that debate by debating the legitimacy of the term? At this point, it seems to me that you're debating someone who is knowingly and willfully dishonest/deceptive. That at least, is the impression I get.
Anyways... great job (as always); you are most masterful.
D4Shawn 4 years ago
Great response XOmniverse, as usual. Thanks for staying calm and attacking the argument.
juju5000 4 years ago 2
That dude has made an ass out of himself a couple of times now, and this latest spew came with a heaping dose of condescension. Good response.
LibertyIsNotGiven 4 years ago 3
don't waste your time on people that arent even willing to examine the basics of their own argument. video is appreciated none-the-less.
AlexPallas 4 years ago
Great job, keep up the good work.
MatthewLeee 4 years ago
Currency. Unless you think of that as a 'good' :)
eviloatmeal 4 years ago
Real currency is a tradeable good. Fiat currency is essentially fraud on a grand scale. Neither a good nor a service.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
Alright, just suggesting :)
eviloatmeallight 4 years ago
You do "good cop" very well. Me? I had enough. I let my temper show. I don't like this guy, or what he stands for.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
5 stars
ProudAmerican8 4 years ago
Ok, how about murder? How would a Anarchy society deal with this? Explain how we can we have laws with out government.
MySockAccount 4 years ago
There is only one law and that is the non-aggression principal. No one is to harm you or your property
not even by proxy.
This would be enforced through private entities known as DRO's, you can look it up or I can send you some links if you wish.
Neonsolid 4 years ago
To murder someone would be economic crippling (to the point where they couldn't do anything), granted people will still commit crimes of passion, but an anarchist society creates even more incentives not to.
Luke12000 4 years ago
DROs.
cogar48 2 years ago
Question: How do you stop the largest militia from taking de facto rulership and establishing a despotic state.
joekarim87 4 years ago
Universal armament. Everybody got guns.
Kbiomech 4 years ago
1) You can't force everyone to buy guns, most people don't want to fight
2) It wouldn't stop the largest militia if everyone had guns, if they have more guns, bigger guns, organization and training etc... What can the people do?
3) It sounds like a state of serious instability because the power hungry people who want to impose force will never go away, and having no state ensures an enviornment for warring militia to rise
joekarim87 4 years ago
4) Sorry we don't live in a fantasy land where ideals are held to the highest regard, the reality is force exisits, and people will use it to get what they want. The best you can hope for is to create an enviornment where the ability of force is minimized
joekarim87 4 years ago
Economics, without the revenue of a state, you cannot have an army like a states.
That and militias would be checked by other private militias who have it in their own self interest to not allow them to take over.
Neonsolid 4 years ago
we've seen throughout history criminal organizations and warlords having impressive armies. It definately can happen, and saying that the gang warfare will keep them at bay isn't an appealing argument. Not to mention that there still would be other countries around the world who can either
1) Fund a militia and arm in a partnership for resources of the land
2) Annex the land by themselves
joekarim87 4 years ago