I'd advocate libertarianism at first, to go from small government to eventually no government. Also there are plenty of things on which us, libertarians left and right and anarchists left and right can agree on. Let's work together to restore individual liberty, end big government infiltrating personal lives, do away with taxation, do away with immigration restraints, do away with drug laws, scale down the police and military, etc. Let's start with that.
The concern you raise about private security firms is one of the biggest ones I have with anarcho-capitalism. I don't think there is much use in abolishing the government as a source of violence-monopoly if you are going to make big business a violence-monopoly.
You'd have the right to defend yourself of course, but still...
I invite anyone anarcho-capitalist to tell me what they think about this issue.
If people in America listened to that in the late 1700's and decided "yes, back to reality", you would still be signing "God save the Queen", wouldn't you?
I dare safely say this would get rid of 99% of all human violence. Furthermore, I'd give people the right to defend themselves (which comes with all the civil liberties I'd return), thus making the police obsolete. For all crime that is left now is compulsive or passionate, and the police can't stop that, nor can jailing people prevent that. That is my ' anarcho-socialist'- or 'libertarian socialist'- or 'whatever you want to call me'-view on society and the police.
I would abolish the monetary system by declaring all resources and capital collective good in a stateless society. Further I would automate construction and production to aid in the creation of abundance, which will lead to the abolishment of the monetary system by itself. With the government gone, the major actor of international and coercive domestic force is gone. With money gone and products abundant, the incentive to commit most other crimes is gone as well.
The police are bought, because the government is bought. If you seriously think the police treat poor people equal to rich people, you are beyond deluded. Get out of your house, look around.
@mikerowphone "The Police exist to ensure laws are enforced against EVERYBODY.. Not just the poor."
That explains why the harass bums and homeless people passing trough rich neighborhoods and yet let the Koch borthers get away with 2 confirmed dead due to their chemical spillages and negligance. Oh wait, it does the exact opposite.
"The world would quite literally be a playground for corporations. "
Ever heard of communalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism,anarcho-syndicalism,...?
@mikerowphone I coined the term garblefrax. I claim that Garblefraxes do not eat food. I claim that you are a garblefrax. Therefore you do not eat food. Rock solid logic.
Not the best quality vid, but very informative. Liked+1. It is amazing how people clump ideologies together rather than seeing a spectrum of subtle differences and often-coincidental overlaps.
@Madfoot713 I just demonstrated to you that "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. You were unable to give me any evidence to the contrary except some vague assertions of resemblance. And now you are howling and whining because you are out of ammo.
@agapeiron I'm not a very good debate. I don't spend a lot of time propagandizing. Just because you're very good at twisting words doesn't mean you're right or that you have any facts on your side.
@Madfoot713 I just asked you for facts and you couldn't give any. Now you're listing isolated aspects of your own ideology (non-coercion, anti-statism) and simply claiming that makes "anarcho"-capitalism part of anarchism. It doesn't.
@Madfoot713 Anarchism is a political theory with a history. The philosophers and theorists that constitute this theory were socialists, though advocating different kinds of socialist societies founded on libertarian principles.
@agapeiron I'm not sure how many of them were capitalists themselves and how many of them influence ancap thought. I don't understand why this is important.
@Madfoot713 If you are not sure how many of the anarchist thinkers were capitalists (none of them), how can you even be sure that I am not correct?
It is important because anarchism has been thoroughly opposed not merely to state hierarchy but hierarchy in the private sphere, viz. via private property, exploitation, profit, inequality etc.
@agapeiron I'm not sure how many anarchist thinkers were capitalists because the term is only 150 years old, and for some odd reason you dismiss the opinions of anyone born after 1900.
@Madfoot713 No, I don't. Voline, G.P. Maximoff, and many others were anarchists and had specifically anarchist ideas that are totally anarchist, within the 20th century. One could go on for hours listing anarchist thinkers after 1900.
@Madfoot713 Even Rothbard understood this. Which is why he himself once wrote: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
@Madfoot713 My point was that even Rothbard-- the only reason people are talking about "anarcho"-capitalism-- knew it was a totally silly idea with no meaning.
@Madfoot713 Considering yourself an anarchist doesn't make you an anarchist. Like I said, anarchism is more than just opposition to statism.
I agree Rothbard isn't a socialist, but he wasn't an anarchist either. Your argument that there were capitalist anarchists in the 20th century assumes to begin with that anarchism as a political theory is pro-capitalist. It isn't, as I have shown.
@Madfoot713 Clever. But Tucker opposed wage labor. How can you call him a capitalist if he found simply selling your labor on the market fundamentally demeaning?
@Madfoot713 I guess you will have to go back in time and tell Tucker he was wrong to call himself a socialist. I mean, translating the works of Proudhon and Bakunin-- What a capitalist!
@agapeiron "Your argument that there were capitalist anarchists in the 20th century assumes to begin with that anarchism as a political theory is pro-capitalist."
No it doesn't. I'm just assuming neutrality. And no doubt, some anarchist strands are very anti-capitalist; some to the point of irrationality, as you demonstrate very well.
@Madfoot713 Neutrality because you are totally unfamiliar with anarchism, as you have shown. You are depending, again, that anarchism is simply anti-statism. You said this at the beginning and you now seem afraid to use it as an argument.
@agapeiron If you believe the textbook definition is inaccurate, ask them to change it. Oh wait, they won't, because textbook and dictionary manufacturers are evil capitalists!
@Madfoot713 There is a great deal of overlap between anarchism and aspects of classical liberalism. That does not necessarily make Tucker a capitalist.
@agapeiron And what does it make him, then? Are you telling me a dedicated Jeffersonian and noted anarchist had absolutely no influence on anarch-capitalism?
@Madfoot713 You are the one that has not been able to muster any kind of argument. There is a lot to discuss if you want to bring up the ideas of anarchism.
@Madfoot713 I think what you are trying to do is pretend anarchism is not actually a political theory, but just an abstract anti-government sentiment. That way you can maybe say that anarchism itself is not "anarchist" as some Youtube "anarcho"-capitalists try to do. As if all Proudhon or Malatesta needed to do was just wait around for Rothbard to concoct his wacky theories in the late 20th century and they'd realize they weren't anarchists!
@agapeiron "I think what you are trying to do is pretend anarchism is not actually a political theory, but just an abstract anti-government sentiment."
No. I believe anarcho-capitalism has a modest but legitimate place in anarchist thought.
@Madfoot713 Yes, and you believe that by assuming that anarchist thought simply boils down to anti-statism. That is the only way you can fit in capitalism, stick "anarcho" on there and pretend it has any meaning.
@Madfoot713 Some anarchists have had different ideas on what anarchist societies should look like. Mutualists, collectivists and anarcho-communists might have differed, for example, on the abolition of money or of some form of market, but were consistently opposed to private hierarchy and exploitation as well. Proudhon, who was not a communist, himself declared property to be theft. And he was an actual "market anarchist" in the true sense.
@agapeiron "Some anarchists have had different ideas on what anarchist societies should look like."
They sure have.
"Mutualists, collectivists and anarcho-communists[...]opposed to private hierarchy and exploitation as well."
"Private hierarchy" is an interesting term. Are anarchists opposed to family structures? How about student-teacher relationships or sadomasochism? And that ignores individualist anarchists, who I doubt are opposed to "hierarchy" at all so long as it is truly voluntary.
@Madfoot713 Look, I understand you don't know all the arguments. That's fine! I can point you in the right directions if you like, if you want to message me. But what you will find in the end is that anarchism has never had anything to do with capitalism, and that anarchism historically formed against capitalism as well as the state.
What also seems to be oddly left out of your argument, EyeAmMine, is that an Anarcho-Capitalist society would STILL foster a landscape of haves/have-nots, where if money/profit was the driving force, people would STILL be oppressed via economic stratification, domination by the rich of the best resources (both physical resources and market resources), and narrow-minded society based on accumulation of wealth instead of directly working towards goals by direct/common-sense means.
I quote you in the video, EyeAmMine, summarizing your self-corrections "A private-defense company cannot initiate force. They only protect property owners from others who initiate force." To me this seems very weak logic... in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, the word "cannot" doesn't exist for private entities. If one private entity hired a private defense company, what is there that FUNDAMENTALLY stops them from either INITIATING offense or defending against LEGITIMATE offense? Nothing, really.
@javisonatero true anarchy is impossible. True anarchy is when there is nobody or anything ruling. Anarcho-communism is in effect, marxism. The fact that there is a group with a set of resources in itself anti-anarchic. Anarcho-capitalism is more "pure" than anarcho-communism
@JtiksPies first true anarchism is NOT impossible, at least it wouldnt be if there werent as many asholes as you, second, anarcho comunism is NOT marxism, marxism is state authoritarian comunism, anarchy is libertarian comunism, and finally and i hope you can understand it, anarchism isn't only against then state, it's against authority itself, that includes all its forms, direct (brute force) and indirect (whitdrawhal of thenecesary things to live) anarchocapitalists deny the later's existence
@Madfoot713 Oh? Which of the classical anarchist thinkers were pro-capitalist? "Anarcho"-capitalism is not a "form" of anarchism because anarchism is not simply an abstract anti-government mentality. The only thing "ancaps" have in common with anarchists is that they like the word "anarchist."
"Ancaps" are followers of Murray Rothbard, a right winger who himself admitted he was not an anarchist, and that it was inaccurate to refer to his position as anarchist.
@agapeiron Anarchism is simply anti-state. I would argue as many others would, that capitalism is the *purest* form of anarchism because it only recognizes voluntary arrangements between individuals. However, I welcome the discussion between "right" anarchists and "left" anarchist, which libsocs seem so unwilling to allow (you cannot merely disagree with us, you must also prove our beliefs inherently contradictory; why is that?).
@Madfoot713 No, it is not "simply anti-state"-- That is a dictionary definition of anarchism. Anarchism is a political theory and has thinkers; Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tucker.
All anarchists are leftists. "Right wing" anarchism is just free market people and neo-fascists trying to appropriate anarchism for their weird ideologies.
@Madfoot713 I am not proving your beliefs contradictory. I understand you are an anti-statist and are into free markets, voluntarism, etc. This is fine-- Pursue it. But it has nothing to do with the anarchist tradition, which is what I previously pointed out.
It is not a discussion "between anarchists." "Anarcho"-capitalism is simply a rhetorical usage of a political theory (anarchism) by right wingers.
A duck could call itself a mouse and it'd still be a duck.
@Madfoot713 Of course you assert that; that way your "ancap" tradition can call itself anarchist and feel radical. Anarchism is a political theory with different currents within it; individualist anarchist, mutualist, collectivist, communist, syndicalist, etc. They don't all agree on the same things but they are consistently opposed to exploitation, being of an egalitarian character.
@agapeiron As notable an-caps, I would include Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Ayn Rand, Robert Anton Wilson, Nozick, Mises, and as you mention, Rothbard, as well as a whole bunch of brilliant thinkers operating today.
@Madfoot713 Neither Tucker (a self-declared socialist) or Spooner (who opposed wage labor) were capitalists. Those are the only classical anarchist thinkers you mentioned. Keep looking. Or accept that you won't find any, as anarchism developed out of the 19th century workers movement which wanted to get rid of capitalism in the first place.
The idea of calling Ayn Rand or Mises anarchists is just totally silly. Any well-read "ancap" would take you to task on that.
@Madfoot713 By the way, you still have not listed any classical anarchist thinkers that were pro-capitalist. The "not much different" argument doesn't hold water.
@agapeiron Anarcho-capitalism as an ideology has three major influences: classical liberalism, individualist anarchism, and the Austrian school. Though I'm curious as to why political movements from the modern era can't possibly be anarchist.
@Madfoot713 There is a good blog piece by someone of your political character called "Why I Abandoned 'anarchism' and you Should Too." Google it and check it out. He did not give up his politics, and believes in free markets and non-coercion still. But he saw that calling himself "anarchist" was simply misleading and harmful even to capitalists he was trying to convince of his ideals.
Based on what logic would you say that the private defence forces could not initiate force. For instance, you are from Guatemalla so you should understand how easy it is to "fire" private mercenaries. You can see anarcho-capitalism in the form of the Drug industry. The defence companies hired by drug manufacturers or Blackwater are examples of how private defence agencies behave.
WHAT prevents these forces from doing WHATEVER THEY WANT?
Monetary incentive that is based on voluntary association, unlike the State, which is much worse, since it relies on extortion - i.e., capital is coercively extracted. It doesn't rely on voluntary association. Yes, they have the capacity to evolve into a State, but only insofar as they are not kept in check by consumers.
I don't think you know what the definition of the State is. I don't even know if you read my comment. There is nothing volentary about being forced to do whatever druglords/blackwater tells you. That seems pretty coersive.
Maybe girls in bagdad like fucking for 1$ and no force was used, or maybe native people just like processing cocaine for just enough rice to live.
What prevents anyone from doing whatever they want? If someone is appointed to stop them, what stops that someone from doing what they want in turn?
The answer is you, me, nobody. Either you tolerate them initiating force or you don't. If you tolerate it, they will do it. If you do not, they die or you die. This cycle continues in your scenario until nobody is left to initiate force. Either we all learn to reject force or we all die in other words. One outcome or the other is inevitable.
You are trying to create a vauge question when the issue is very specific. You are talking about taking the monopoly on violence away from police and military who are selected by oficials who are elected by the people, there are very often many steps of beurocrats making the decisions... replacing it with a free-market of mercinaries.
all mercenary forces have been brutal toward those who aren't directly paying them.
"all mercenary forces have been brutal toward those who aren't directly paying them."
The same is true of governments (especially if you don't count tax livestock who fall afoul of the government as "voluntary payees"). There is no difference between them. If one can be restrained, so can the other - and the question becomes one of superior ethics and utility. If neither can be restrained, we are all doomed.
Are you equating having to pay a portion of your income in exchange for security of yourself and your property to living your entire life in captivity until the point you are mass slaughtered?
Cops do beat the shit out of people and can be racist but this is nothing in comparison to the intense physical
brutality frequently often commited by mercenaries the the the intense fear and desporation created in the population over which they act as State.
"Are you equating having to pay a portion of your income in exchange for security of yourself and your property to living your entire life in captivity until the point you are mass slaughtered?"
Yes, that's exactly the comparison I'm making, except for the part about security of my self and my property - which the state does not in any appreciable way provide. Mass slaughter is of course figurative - we are harvested for our productive efforts, not our meat. :) Captivity is perfectly apt.
The primary purpose of the State has always been to protect the oppulant from the majority. Without police protection your property would be stolen. You would in turn need to hire people who would do the task the State is already doing for you. If you have enough money these people will protect your rights as long as you remain the highest bidder and they themselves don't get the opportunity to simply rob you. If you aren't very wealthy you simply have no rights and are under thug law.
1) captivity isn't apt because you can leave this country any time you want.
2) By saying we are harvested you are saying we are physically gathered. Stop trying to use these rediculous exagerations and please make an attempt at intelectual discussion.
-- now to the meat of the argument
Police protect property, that is their primary purpose, in lui of police a capitalist state will require mercenaries to act as the state and these mercenaries are far worse than cops in nearly every way
1) Leave to where? Another country? Nonsense. You cannot rescind your U.S. citizenship, so the IRS still taxes your income. Besides, why abandon my property because I'm afraid of the thugs threatening it, that's defeatist to the extreme.
2) I am saying our productivity is harvested, gathered if you like, at gunpoint, which it is. That is not ridiculous, in my view.
Governments have killed 250 million people in the past century. What's the mercenary death toll? Total bull, sorry.
1) You are either ignorent or consciously lying because you can renounce your citizenship and not pay taxes. If you wish I will explain to you the details of how.
2) Again you are lying, it is well known taxes are taken from paychecks and no guns are ever used in arresting those who cheat on their tax returns, which you don't even need to fill out if you don't want to.
Where did you get the number 250 million? no offence but you are a very unreliable source
The purpose of governments is and can only be to extract property by force from one group to give to another group - like any other organization engaged in the use of force. It sometimes pretends to be something else, but that is all it ever will be. You can choose to pick the murdering thugs you know over the boogeymen they make up for you, or you can step out into the world and take personal responsibility, for better or worse. I choose to not submit. Good luck with your pet parasites. :)
Now let us look at some facts... The rate of death in the Anaconda mine of Butte Montana was higher during WWI than that of American soldiers in active combat...
The worst of governmental soldiers have always come from the ranks of private security hired to do the jobs police generally are morally opposed to doing, for example the Heimwehr who became stormtroopers
Regardless, based on your definition of govt you are not against govt. only against democracy within govt.
I am against mob rule, yes. I am also against any rule. The only ethic I acknowledge is the non-aggression principle. Also, no offense, but this conversation is really dragging on and not interesting to me at all. Been nice talking to you but I'm going to call it quits. Again, please enjoy your pet parasites - but I would like it if you would keep them out of my home : )
I have noticed radical right wing arguments don't stand on paper. The tactic of being loud and always changing the subject as well as trying to use reduclous over exagerations and constantly creating new vernacular just makes someone seem rediculous on printed page. That seems to be the main reason these people do not argue points but spam discussions in an attempt to prevent educated discourse from occuring.
Under narco-capitalism the hands of Elected governments such as the USA and France and the State falls under the control of already well developed private industries such as Cocacola, Nestea....
These corperations have the financial power to attain the monopoly on violence and already control the means of production.
In this way Narco-capitalism is worse than state capitalism just as governments behave better than corperations
Do you, or do you not understand that the state can initiate force when people who control it see fit? and that private agencies can only respond to the initiation of force.
As for your Pinkertons and modern equivalents comment; please listen really hard to my video and try to understand that those are not examples of anarchocapitalist agencies, but merely acting in a state capitalism environment. Its not that hard, state capitalism is not anarcho capitalism.
State capitalism is far better than narco-capitalism. Elected governments are somewhat controlled by the population that lives under them.... aka elections... impeachment.
Coorperations will undoubtably assume complete power under narcocapitalism... it is in their rational self interest to quickly aquire a monopoly on violence. Being that nearly all major corperations have private armies they will immediately have this monopoly being that they already have private forces.
private agencies very often in itiate force... AKA my example, Why should I believe you when I gave you examples you haven't discredited?
Pinkertons and blackwater are private security, they are the essential of what you are talking about despite the existance of state capitalism.
The state did not encourage their existance but rather they were created to commit acts of violence police and military would often refuse to do on moral grounds.
The "vast difference" between private defence and the state exist in your mind. Essentially it would be the same thing in practice. If you want to see how "good" your Private Defence Forces would be check out the Pinkertons or even the modern equivalent blackwater. You haven't proven anything here. But thanks for the response.
The state steals its income. That is aggressive violence (as opposed to defensive). The state claims compulsory monopolies, another example of aggressive violence.
When aggressive violence ceases to exist, the state ceases to exist. It's not very complicated. If you want to know how "good" private defense agencies will work once the state is abolished, learn economics.
Agree
EMCPoint0fView 1 month ago
@mikerowphone
I'd advocate libertarianism at first, to go from small government to eventually no government. Also there are plenty of things on which us, libertarians left and right and anarchists left and right can agree on. Let's work together to restore individual liberty, end big government infiltrating personal lives, do away with taxation, do away with immigration restraints, do away with drug laws, scale down the police and military, etc. Let's start with that.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@mikerowphone
The concern you raise about private security firms is one of the biggest ones I have with anarcho-capitalism. I don't think there is much use in abolishing the government as a source of violence-monopoly if you are going to make big business a violence-monopoly.
You'd have the right to defend yourself of course, but still...
I invite anyone anarcho-capitalist to tell me what they think about this issue.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@mikerowphone
"Sure it's fun to dream about a perfect world."
If people in America listened to that in the late 1700's and decided "yes, back to reality", you would still be signing "God save the Queen", wouldn't you?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@mikerowphone
I dare safely say this would get rid of 99% of all human violence. Furthermore, I'd give people the right to defend themselves (which comes with all the civil liberties I'd return), thus making the police obsolete. For all crime that is left now is compulsive or passionate, and the police can't stop that, nor can jailing people prevent that. That is my ' anarcho-socialist'- or 'libertarian socialist'- or 'whatever you want to call me'-view on society and the police.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
Comment removed
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@mikerowphone
I would abolish the monetary system by declaring all resources and capital collective good in a stateless society. Further I would automate construction and production to aid in the creation of abundance, which will lead to the abolishment of the monetary system by itself. With the government gone, the major actor of international and coercive domestic force is gone. With money gone and products abundant, the incentive to commit most other crimes is gone as well.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@mikerowphone
The police are bought, because the government is bought. If you seriously think the police treat poor people equal to rich people, you are beyond deluded. Get out of your house, look around.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@mikerowphone "The Police exist to ensure laws are enforced against EVERYBODY.. Not just the poor."
That explains why the harass bums and homeless people passing trough rich neighborhoods and yet let the Koch borthers get away with 2 confirmed dead due to their chemical spillages and negligance. Oh wait, it does the exact opposite.
"The world would quite literally be a playground for corporations. "
Ever heard of communalism, libertarian socialism, anarcho-communism,anarcho-syndicalism,...?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 4 months ago
@mikerowphone I coined the term garblefrax. I claim that Garblefraxes do not eat food. I claim that you are a garblefrax. Therefore you do not eat food. Rock solid logic.
Nphyx 5 months ago
Not the best quality vid, but very informative. Liked+1. It is amazing how people clump ideologies together rather than seeing a spectrum of subtle differences and often-coincidental overlaps.
@-$ism
SakaScotii 8 months ago
Remember: If an old white guy in the 1800s didn't invent it, it's not anarchism! :D
Madfoot713 8 months ago
Basically, agapeiron doesn't believe anarcho-capitalism is anarchism because he's a whiny bitch and he has to feel special.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 I just demonstrated to you that "anarcho"-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. You were unable to give me any evidence to the contrary except some vague assertions of resemblance. And now you are howling and whining because you are out of ammo.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I'm not a very good debate. I don't spend a lot of time propagandizing. Just because you're very good at twisting words doesn't mean you're right or that you have any facts on your side.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 *debater
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 I just asked you for facts and you couldn't give any. Now you're listing isolated aspects of your own ideology (non-coercion, anti-statism) and simply claiming that makes "anarcho"-capitalism part of anarchism. It doesn't.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Because I'm curious, what specifically do you need for an ideology to be an anarchist ideology?
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Anti-state socialism.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron And if you'd care to back that up.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 How? Do you want me to list the thinkers of anarchism and discuss their respective ideas?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron No, I'd like you to conclusively prove that anarchism is inherently socialist. Well, you can't, since it isn't.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Anarchism is a political theory with a history. The philosophers and theorists that constitute this theory were socialists, though advocating different kinds of socialist societies founded on libertarian principles.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron No, they are not all socialists.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Then again, I will ask you: which ones were capitalists? Which thinkers of anarchism were capitalists? Tucker, Spooner, Stirner?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I'm not sure how many of them were capitalists themselves and how many of them influence ancap thought. I don't understand why this is important.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 If you are not sure how many of the anarchist thinkers were capitalists (none of them), how can you even be sure that I am not correct?
It is important because anarchism has been thoroughly opposed not merely to state hierarchy but hierarchy in the private sphere, viz. via private property, exploitation, profit, inequality etc.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I'm not sure how many anarchist thinkers were capitalists because the term is only 150 years old, and for some odd reason you dismiss the opinions of anyone born after 1900.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 No, I don't. Voline, G.P. Maximoff, and many others were anarchists and had specifically anarchist ideas that are totally anarchist, within the 20th century. One could go on for hours listing anarchist thinkers after 1900.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron And some of them are capitalists.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Some of who are capitalists?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron "anarchists in the 20th century"
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Even Rothbard understood this. Which is why he himself once wrote: "We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Yes, and he changed his mind years later. Who taught you how to debate? Bill O'Reilly?
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 My point was that even Rothbard-- the only reason people are talking about "anarcho"-capitalism-- knew it was a totally silly idea with no meaning.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron My point was Rothbard considered himself an anarchist.
"Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Considering yourself an anarchist doesn't make you an anarchist. Like I said, anarchism is more than just opposition to statism.
I agree Rothbard isn't a socialist, but he wasn't an anarchist either. Your argument that there were capitalist anarchists in the 20th century assumes to begin with that anarchism as a political theory is pro-capitalist. It isn't, as I have shown.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron I was talking about Tucker.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Tucker was a socialist.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron He called himself a socialist. Duck and the mouse, remember?
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Clever. But Tucker opposed wage labor. How can you call him a capitalist if he found simply selling your labor on the market fundamentally demeaning?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 I guess you will have to go back in time and tell Tucker he was wrong to call himself a socialist. I mean, translating the works of Proudhon and Bakunin-- What a capitalist!
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Did he sell them, by any chance? :p
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@agapeiron "Your argument that there were capitalist anarchists in the 20th century assumes to begin with that anarchism as a political theory is pro-capitalist."
No it doesn't. I'm just assuming neutrality. And no doubt, some anarchist strands are very anti-capitalist; some to the point of irrationality, as you demonstrate very well.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Neutrality because you are totally unfamiliar with anarchism, as you have shown. You are depending, again, that anarchism is simply anti-statism. You said this at the beginning and you now seem afraid to use it as an argument.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron If you believe the textbook definition is inaccurate, ask them to change it. Oh wait, they won't, because textbook and dictionary manufacturers are evil capitalists!
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 If you care to put forth an argument, do so. Otherwise, I am not going to reply anymore.
agapeiron 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Madfoot713 Anti capitalist anarchy is a contradiction in terms. Without a free market you are back to governments and no longer have anarchy.
LordShandor 6 months ago
@agapeiron Although yes, I would say Tucker and Spooner were liberals, as well as Thoreau.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 There is a great deal of overlap between anarchism and aspects of classical liberalism. That does not necessarily make Tucker a capitalist.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron And what does it make him, then? Are you telling me a dedicated Jeffersonian and noted anarchist had absolutely no influence on anarch-capitalism?
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Being a Jeffersonian does not make one an anarchist.
I don't know what it makes him, call him what you will. Maybe a precursor to anarchism.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron It definitely doesn't make him a socialist.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Thoreau is more of a precursor to anarchism.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Sorry, but anarchism has always been more than just anti-statism.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron You are doing a very poor job of establishing that.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 You are the one that has not been able to muster any kind of argument. There is a lot to discuss if you want to bring up the ideas of anarchism.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 I think what you are trying to do is pretend anarchism is not actually a political theory, but just an abstract anti-government sentiment. That way you can maybe say that anarchism itself is not "anarchist" as some Youtube "anarcho"-capitalists try to do. As if all Proudhon or Malatesta needed to do was just wait around for Rothbard to concoct his wacky theories in the late 20th century and they'd realize they weren't anarchists!
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron "I think what you are trying to do is pretend anarchism is not actually a political theory, but just an abstract anti-government sentiment."
No. I believe anarcho-capitalism has a modest but legitimate place in anarchist thought.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Yes, and you believe that by assuming that anarchist thought simply boils down to anti-statism. That is the only way you can fit in capitalism, stick "anarcho" on there and pretend it has any meaning.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron You are misrepresenting my positions. Please stop that.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Some anarchists have had different ideas on what anarchist societies should look like. Mutualists, collectivists and anarcho-communists might have differed, for example, on the abolition of money or of some form of market, but were consistently opposed to private hierarchy and exploitation as well. Proudhon, who was not a communist, himself declared property to be theft. And he was an actual "market anarchist" in the true sense.
agapeiron 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@agapeiron "Some anarchists have had different ideas on what anarchist societies should look like."
They sure have.
"Mutualists, collectivists and anarcho-communists[...]opposed to private hierarchy and exploitation as well."
"Private hierarchy" is an interesting term. Are anarchists opposed to family structures? How about student-teacher relationships or sadomasochism? And that ignores individualist anarchists, who I doubt are opposed to "hierarchy" at all so long as it is truly voluntary.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Look, I understand you don't know all the arguments. That's fine! I can point you in the right directions if you like, if you want to message me. But what you will find in the end is that anarchism has never had anything to do with capitalism, and that anarchism historically formed against capitalism as well as the state.
agapeiron 8 months ago
What a dumbass. The state is a firm you retard.
ourben 9 months ago
hey eyeammine, before givin "lessons" to anybody please, get rid of all that nervous ticks and stumbling, it makes you look like REALLY STUPID
javisonatero 1 year ago
What also seems to be oddly left out of your argument, EyeAmMine, is that an Anarcho-Capitalist society would STILL foster a landscape of haves/have-nots, where if money/profit was the driving force, people would STILL be oppressed via economic stratification, domination by the rich of the best resources (both physical resources and market resources), and narrow-minded society based on accumulation of wealth instead of directly working towards goals by direct/common-sense means.
IngeniousEpithet 1 year ago
I quote you in the video, EyeAmMine, summarizing your self-corrections "A private-defense company cannot initiate force. They only protect property owners from others who initiate force." To me this seems very weak logic... in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, the word "cannot" doesn't exist for private entities. If one private entity hired a private defense company, what is there that FUNDAMENTALLY stops them from either INITIATING offense or defending against LEGITIMATE offense? Nothing, really.
IngeniousEpithet 1 year ago 2
in anarchocapitalism instead of nations we have mutinationals, an we are free to decide wich one is gonna exploit us or die of hunger
true anarchy is anarchocommunism
javisonatero 1 year ago 2
@javisonatero true anarchy is impossible. True anarchy is when there is nobody or anything ruling. Anarcho-communism is in effect, marxism. The fact that there is a group with a set of resources in itself anti-anarchic. Anarcho-capitalism is more "pure" than anarcho-communism
JtiksPies 1 year ago
@JtiksPies first true anarchism is NOT impossible, at least it wouldnt be if there werent as many asholes as you, second, anarcho comunism is NOT marxism, marxism is state authoritarian comunism, anarchy is libertarian comunism, and finally and i hope you can understand it, anarchism isn't only against then state, it's against authority itself, that includes all its forms, direct (brute force) and indirect (whitdrawhal of thenecesary things to live) anarchocapitalists deny the later's existence
javisonatero 1 year ago
@javisonatero communism relies on the state to loot those who can produce.
mrhnm 10 months ago
@JtiksPies How is anarcho-communism Marxism?
How can "anarcho"-capitalism be more "pure" (what does this mean?) when it is not even a form of anarchism?
agapeiron 9 months ago
@agapeiron It is a form on anarchism.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Oh? Which of the classical anarchist thinkers were pro-capitalist? "Anarcho"-capitalism is not a "form" of anarchism because anarchism is not simply an abstract anti-government mentality. The only thing "ancaps" have in common with anarchists is that they like the word "anarchist."
"Ancaps" are followers of Murray Rothbard, a right winger who himself admitted he was not an anarchist, and that it was inaccurate to refer to his position as anarchist.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Anarchism is simply anti-state. I would argue as many others would, that capitalism is the *purest* form of anarchism because it only recognizes voluntary arrangements between individuals. However, I welcome the discussion between "right" anarchists and "left" anarchist, which libsocs seem so unwilling to allow (you cannot merely disagree with us, you must also prove our beliefs inherently contradictory; why is that?).
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 No, it is not "simply anti-state"-- That is a dictionary definition of anarchism. Anarchism is a political theory and has thinkers; Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, Tucker.
All anarchists are leftists. "Right wing" anarchism is just free market people and neo-fascists trying to appropriate anarchism for their weird ideologies.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron "All anarchists are leftists."
I agree. There is nothing "right-wing" about free market capitalism, but that's just an example of how confused the American political spectrum is.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 If you agree that all anarchists are leftists, do you oppose the neo-fascist National Anarchists that claim to be right wing anarchists?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 I am not proving your beliefs contradictory. I understand you are an anti-statist and are into free markets, voluntarism, etc. This is fine-- Pursue it. But it has nothing to do with the anarchist tradition, which is what I previously pointed out.
It is not a discussion "between anarchists." "Anarcho"-capitalism is simply a rhetorical usage of a political theory (anarchism) by right wingers.
A duck could call itself a mouse and it'd still be a duck.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Your mistake is that you believe there is a single "anarchist tradition". There isn't.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Of course you assert that; that way your "ancap" tradition can call itself anarchist and feel radical. Anarchism is a political theory with different currents within it; individualist anarchist, mutualist, collectivist, communist, syndicalist, etc. They don't all agree on the same things but they are consistently opposed to exploitation, being of an egalitarian character.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron FREEDOM IS NOT EXPLOITATION RETARD
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Take that up with the individualist anarchists you claim not to be very different from.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron As notable an-caps, I would include Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Ayn Rand, Robert Anton Wilson, Nozick, Mises, and as you mention, Rothbard, as well as a whole bunch of brilliant thinkers operating today.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Neither Tucker (a self-declared socialist) or Spooner (who opposed wage labor) were capitalists. Those are the only classical anarchist thinkers you mentioned. Keep looking. Or accept that you won't find any, as anarchism developed out of the 19th century workers movement which wanted to get rid of capitalism in the first place.
The idea of calling Ayn Rand or Mises anarchists is just totally silly. Any well-read "ancap" would take you to task on that.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron He was an individualist socialist. This is not much different from a voluntary capitalist.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Madfoot713 "He was an individualist socialist. This is not much different from a voluntary capitalist."
Except for the vehement opposition to profit, interest, and rent as forms of exploitation. Give me a break.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 By the way, you still have not listed any classical anarchist thinkers that were pro-capitalist. The "not much different" argument doesn't hold water.
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Fuck off.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Make an argument?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Arguments for anarcho-capitalism being anarchism proper:
*It is anti-state.
*It is anti-force.
*It is egalitarian (equality of opportunity; not equality of outcome).
*It has a broad history.
Arguments against:
*It doesn't have agapeiron's seal of approval.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 Can you describe the broad history of "anarcho"-capitalism? Who were the "anarcho"-capitalists before Rothbard in the 1960s?
agapeiron 8 months ago
@agapeiron Anarcho-capitalism as an ideology has three major influences: classical liberalism, individualist anarchism, and the Austrian school. Though I'm curious as to why political movements from the modern era can't possibly be anarchist.
Madfoot713 8 months ago
@Madfoot713 There is a good blog piece by someone of your political character called "Why I Abandoned 'anarchism' and you Should Too." Google it and check it out. He did not give up his politics, and believes in free markets and non-coercion still. But he saw that calling himself "anarchist" was simply misleading and harmful even to capitalists he was trying to convince of his ideals.
agapeiron 8 months ago
Based on what logic would you say that the private defence forces could not initiate force. For instance, you are from Guatemalla so you should understand how easy it is to "fire" private mercenaries. You can see anarcho-capitalism in the form of the Drug industry. The defence companies hired by drug manufacturers or Blackwater are examples of how private defence agencies behave.
WHAT prevents these forces from doing WHATEVER THEY WANT?
poleske 2 years ago
Monetary incentive that is based on voluntary association, unlike the State, which is much worse, since it relies on extortion - i.e., capital is coercively extracted. It doesn't rely on voluntary association. Yes, they have the capacity to evolve into a State, but only insofar as they are not kept in check by consumers.
Nellsing 2 years ago
I don't think you know what the definition of the State is. I don't even know if you read my comment. There is nothing volentary about being forced to do whatever druglords/blackwater tells you. That seems pretty coersive.
Maybe girls in bagdad like fucking for 1$ and no force was used, or maybe native people just like processing cocaine for just enough rice to live.
Long live the free market and the putocracy..
poleske 2 years ago
What prevents anyone from doing whatever they want? If someone is appointed to stop them, what stops that someone from doing what they want in turn?
The answer is you, me, nobody. Either you tolerate them initiating force or you don't. If you tolerate it, they will do it. If you do not, they die or you die. This cycle continues in your scenario until nobody is left to initiate force. Either we all learn to reject force or we all die in other words. One outcome or the other is inevitable.
Nphyx 2 years ago
You are trying to create a vauge question when the issue is very specific. You are talking about taking the monopoly on violence away from police and military who are selected by oficials who are elected by the people, there are very often many steps of beurocrats making the decisions... replacing it with a free-market of mercinaries.
all mercenary forces have been brutal toward those who aren't directly paying them.
poleske 2 years ago
"all mercenary forces have been brutal toward those who aren't directly paying them."
The same is true of governments (especially if you don't count tax livestock who fall afoul of the government as "voluntary payees"). There is no difference between them. If one can be restrained, so can the other - and the question becomes one of superior ethics and utility. If neither can be restrained, we are all doomed.
Nphyx 2 years ago
What do you mean by tax livestock?
Are you equating having to pay a portion of your income in exchange for security of yourself and your property to living your entire life in captivity until the point you are mass slaughtered?
Cops do beat the shit out of people and can be racist but this is nothing in comparison to the intense physical
brutality frequently often commited by mercenaries the the the intense fear and desporation created in the population over which they act as State.
poleske 2 years ago
"Are you equating having to pay a portion of your income in exchange for security of yourself and your property to living your entire life in captivity until the point you are mass slaughtered?"
Yes, that's exactly the comparison I'm making, except for the part about security of my self and my property - which the state does not in any appreciable way provide. Mass slaughter is of course figurative - we are harvested for our productive efforts, not our meat. :) Captivity is perfectly apt.
Nphyx 2 years ago
The primary purpose of the State has always been to protect the oppulant from the majority. Without police protection your property would be stolen. You would in turn need to hire people who would do the task the State is already doing for you. If you have enough money these people will protect your rights as long as you remain the highest bidder and they themselves don't get the opportunity to simply rob you. If you aren't very wealthy you simply have no rights and are under thug law.
poleske 2 years ago
1) captivity isn't apt because you can leave this country any time you want.
2) By saying we are harvested you are saying we are physically gathered. Stop trying to use these rediculous exagerations and please make an attempt at intelectual discussion.
-- now to the meat of the argument
Police protect property, that is their primary purpose, in lui of police a capitalist state will require mercenaries to act as the state and these mercenaries are far worse than cops in nearly every way
poleske 2 years ago
Re:
1) Leave to where? Another country? Nonsense. You cannot rescind your U.S. citizenship, so the IRS still taxes your income. Besides, why abandon my property because I'm afraid of the thugs threatening it, that's defeatist to the extreme.
2) I am saying our productivity is harvested, gathered if you like, at gunpoint, which it is. That is not ridiculous, in my view.
Governments have killed 250 million people in the past century. What's the mercenary death toll? Total bull, sorry.
Nphyx 2 years ago
1) You are either ignorent or consciously lying because you can renounce your citizenship and not pay taxes. If you wish I will explain to you the details of how.
2) Again you are lying, it is well known taxes are taken from paychecks and no guns are ever used in arresting those who cheat on their tax returns, which you don't even need to fill out if you don't want to.
Where did you get the number 250 million? no offence but you are a very unreliable source
If you look
poleske 2 years ago
RE: number, Google "democide". Figures range from about 160 million - 300 million, depending on which historian you ask.
Nphyx 2 years ago
The purpose of governments is and can only be to extract property by force from one group to give to another group - like any other organization engaged in the use of force. It sometimes pretends to be something else, but that is all it ever will be. You can choose to pick the murdering thugs you know over the boogeymen they make up for you, or you can step out into the world and take personal responsibility, for better or worse. I choose to not submit. Good luck with your pet parasites. :)
Nphyx 2 years ago
Now let us look at some facts... The rate of death in the Anaconda mine of Butte Montana was higher during WWI than that of American soldiers in active combat...
The worst of governmental soldiers have always come from the ranks of private security hired to do the jobs police generally are morally opposed to doing, for example the Heimwehr who became stormtroopers
Regardless, based on your definition of govt you are not against govt. only against democracy within govt.
poleske 2 years ago
I am against mob rule, yes. I am also against any rule. The only ethic I acknowledge is the non-aggression principle. Also, no offense, but this conversation is really dragging on and not interesting to me at all. Been nice talking to you but I'm going to call it quits. Again, please enjoy your pet parasites - but I would like it if you would keep them out of my home : )
Nphyx 2 years ago
I have noticed radical right wing arguments don't stand on paper. The tactic of being loud and always changing the subject as well as trying to use reduclous over exagerations and constantly creating new vernacular just makes someone seem rediculous on printed page. That seems to be the main reason these people do not argue points but spam discussions in an attempt to prevent educated discourse from occuring.
poleske 2 years ago 2
Likewise.
Nphyx 2 years ago
Narco-Captitalism is worse than state capitalism
Under narco-capitalism the hands of Elected governments such as the USA and France and the State falls under the control of already well developed private industries such as Cocacola, Nestea....
These corperations have the financial power to attain the monopoly on violence and already control the means of production.
In this way Narco-capitalism is worse than state capitalism just as governments behave better than corperations
poleske 2 years ago
Do you, or do you not understand that the state can initiate force when people who control it see fit? and that private agencies can only respond to the initiation of force.
As for your Pinkertons and modern equivalents comment; please listen really hard to my video and try to understand that those are not examples of anarchocapitalist agencies, but merely acting in a state capitalism environment. Its not that hard, state capitalism is not anarcho capitalism.
EyeAmMine 3 years ago
what allows you to fire these people? What if they say no?
Narco-Capitalism is neo-feudalism... was seporates this from fuedalism?
poleske 2 years ago
State capitalism is far better than narco-capitalism. Elected governments are somewhat controlled by the population that lives under them.... aka elections... impeachment.
Coorperations will undoubtably assume complete power under narcocapitalism... it is in their rational self interest to quickly aquire a monopoly on violence. Being that nearly all major corperations have private armies they will immediately have this monopoly being that they already have private forces.
poleske 2 years ago
private agencies very often in itiate force... AKA my example, Why should I believe you when I gave you examples you haven't discredited?
Pinkertons and blackwater are private security, they are the essential of what you are talking about despite the existance of state capitalism.
The state did not encourage their existance but rather they were created to commit acts of violence police and military would often refuse to do on moral grounds.
anarcocapitalism= plutocracy
poleske 2 years ago
The "vast difference" between private defence and the state exist in your mind. Essentially it would be the same thing in practice. If you want to see how "good" your Private Defence Forces would be check out the Pinkertons or even the modern equivalent blackwater. You haven't proven anything here. But thanks for the response.
buddhagem 3 years ago
The state steals its income. That is aggressive violence (as opposed to defensive). The state claims compulsory monopolies, another example of aggressive violence.
When aggressive violence ceases to exist, the state ceases to exist. It's not very complicated. If you want to know how "good" private defense agencies will work once the state is abolished, learn economics.
spiggitybap 2 years ago