Why Anarcho-capitalism? (my reasons)

Please leave comments, links, and/or video responses! I see this as an important topic that overlaps into many relevant areas of life, so discussion=good.

Why did I change to an anarcho-capitalist political philosophy?

This is a further clarification of my "last" video, which is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOhLez33sg

1) I saw my own equivocation between the government and the State.
-The State is not necessary for government.
-The State (coercive monopoly) upsets government (collaborative justice), and makes it inherently unjust, less efficient/effective at governing (i.e. working justice, reasonably protecting against injustice), etc. Indeed, it is a criminal that, if we have compassion on our neighbors and/or care about our own livelihood, that we should protect ourselves against.
-Disrupts natural dialogue regarding social justice and replaces it with forced, involuntary monopolistic violence with little to no accountability instead.
*Government vs. the State: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Nh80aF7dUI
*Coercive monopoly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0DUUjFntbQ
Why voluntary interaction (i.e. a free market) does it better than involuntary coercive monopoly extortion rackets (i.e. States):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQYyu9fStnI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irsEVye45Jg

2) I saw the violence against my fellow humans inherent in supporting the State, including through simply paying taxes.
*The State is violence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPlhUuGRTQQ
How voluntary association/dissociation is more just than democracy, direct *or* representative:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KHqmNwtse4

3) I saw that it took the reasoning for "limited government" to its natural conclusion.
*Courts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuzU3XIHHQs
*Defense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhjbOH6DpQo
*Police: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNFrWur6T8A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6ibh113DuI
*The rest: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B777F4BC7B0DBCCC
*Incentives and accountability: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5tHIiLn0MQ

4) It was proven to my satisfaction that, under anarchy, it would not inevitably relapse into a society with States. (again, it helped to see the State and government as two different things)
-Examples of Stateless societies. (see vids in playlist below)
-What all formerly stateless societies had in common was that they either entirely or eventually saw the State as legit... therefore, a comprehensive philosophy of anarchy is necessary to keep from degenerating back into (pro-)Statism. The main power behind the State is this ideology among those it "rules over" seeing it as legitimate, vs. any other group that might do the exact same things.
*Playlist which includes historical examples of anarchist-type societies' governments, and explains how the State is mainly based on ideology: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=0812AA4B51C3F5B8
*Unlimited secession in an anarcho-capitalist government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra9R0hXL-z8

I'm not saying that I think, in certain instances of State control, that they don't *ever* "do it better/more justly" than in certain instances of a free (completely open and voluntary) market, just that this is the observable trend line, and that *by far*. Concordantly, the market is founded on voluntary interaction, whereas the State is founded on involuntary coercion. This in and of itself makes the State an injustice/immorality to protect oneself against.

FOR THE MORE ACADEMIC:
http://www.mises.org
I mentioned that the purpose of government is to secure justice. Codification of justice is what we call law. There is an excellent work on this subject titled, appropriately, The Law written by Frederic Bastiat, and considered by many to be an anarcho-capitalist work (this was before such terms for these concepts existed). The points he brings up regarding the purpose of law and government are relevant to this discussion, as this is a seminal work, and I don't think they can be legitimately ignored in such political discussions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_(1850_book)
*A more modern anarcho-capitalist work: http://www.amazon.com/Man-Economy-State-Power-Market/dp/1933550279/

Conservative? Christian? "Limited government" proponent? Constitutionalist/"social contract" proponent? Think the points I bring up miss something? If you are any or all of those, here is a relevant article for your consideration:
http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml
http://www.anti-state.com/redford/redford4.html
http://vftonline.org/VFTfiles/thesis/summary01.htm
http://www.mises.org/books/moneyproduction.pdf

I'll continue adding annotations to make things more clear as I notice confusions.

Next vid: probably on some of my ideas regarding activism both for anarcho-capitalism, and non-political activism under an anarcho-capitalist framework/stateless mindset.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• anarcho-capitalism
• extortion
• racket
• coercive
• monopoly
• force
• violence
• anarchy
• why
• limited
• government
• pro-government
• anti-state
• social
• justice
• Gabriel
• Gabe
• Koulikov
• GabrielKoulikov
• voluntary
• voluntaryist
• voluntaryism

[shmee10]

What about injustice inflicted for capitalistic gain? Don't forget that the majority of the labor that takes place on this Earth is the product of sweatshop/child/slave labor.

[GabrielKoulikov]

@shmee10 How can injustice be a gain to those it is inflicted upon?

Yes, under a state, it would be impossible for there not to be slavery, since that's precisely what taxation is: forcing others to work and taking the product of their labor. (slavery by definition)

Another YouTube AnCap did a fairly in-depth video on this: watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

If one were to label my position now, I'd use the term voluntaryist, since it's more descriptive. (def. = only voluntary interactions are legitimate)

[spartacandream]

Perhaps I'm not using the same definition of state as you are, but I'm for a state that is noncoercive in nature. It's ruled by a government, and the state itself is a territory marked under that govenrnments jurisdiction.

[GabrielKoulikov]

@spartacandream Definitely using a different definition.

The anti-statist definition oscillates around the core definition: a state = a coercive monopoly extortion racket. They/we are simply defining what it is that we're against, and that was the closest English language term available.

Nowadays I go by the label "voluntaryist" for my position on all relationships, personal *and* political, as it's perhaps the most descriptive and the least likely to run into confusions in terminology.

[spartacandream]

@GabrielKoulikov For my definition, a state in which you are a part of, whether you were born there or not, that doesn't coerce you into anything but just protects liberty. And there is no taxation unless people personally choose to opt into such, as the government can't force people to do such. What would you call such a government?

[GabrielKoulikov]

@spartacandream I would call that a stateless society.

It sounds like what you support has been called alternatively emergent governance and polycentric law. (Google!) This is not a state as anti-statists define it, so what you are describing is a stateless, or voluntaryist society, i.e. one with no legitimized coercion, "crime" being coercion which is treated as illegitimate.

Payment that is chosen by the person paying can only ever be a bill, a gift, or a donation. Why call it a tax?

[sharperguy]

The biggest reason I can see for why a state cannot easily re-arise in a stateless society, is that the state can only ever exist when it is considered to be legitimate.

In order to have the state again, a large majority of people must be convinced to support it's monopoly on the legitimate use of force. And, of course, the less people agreeing with the state would mean more visible coercion, which would make the legitimacy harder to believe.

[SanguineBullet667]

@shmee10 you can leave the job at any time. nobody is forcing people to work in sweatshops.

[shogu666]

@PanzerDivisionBOM

", where the alternatives are usually heavily taxed subsistence farming or prostitution, sweatshopping is the bee's knees."

I can say exactly the same think about slaves.

It is better to have a master and be able to eat , then to starve.

Slavery is good then huh?

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@shmee10

But why are billions of people in the third world eagerly flocking into sweatshops, away from all other available productive activities?

Compared to societies with hundreds of years of accumulated capital- and empathy under relatively liberal states, sweatshops are unthinkably horrible. But in societies with next to no capital accumulation or economic liberalism, where the alternatives are usually heavily taxed subsistence farming or prostitution, sweatshopping is the bee's knees.

[sstearns34]

@shmee10 I don't know a lot about how things work in other countries, but I think the fact that here it was government goons killing people for not sending their kids into coal mines that was what was part of the reason unions were created is a pretty good indicator that governments don't care more about a parent's children than the parent

[spartacandream]

@GabrielKoulikov Because it's the same in almost every way to a tax except you decide whether to take part in it, how its spent, etc....

I agree there, that it would be a voluntaryist society.