Re: Anarcho-Capitalism

Just a response to a kick-ass vid on anarcho-capitalism, with a couple insights of my own on the issue of anarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• anarcho-capitalism
• anarchism
• socialism
• property
• rights
• franc28
• luke12000
• xomniverse
• brainpolice2
• Kbiomech
• spots1327

[LBRTRN89]

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

[R3DF4C710N]

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

[LBRTRN89]

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

[R3DF4C710N]

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

[Jcolinsol]

@R3DF4C710N

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

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

[wbhyatt]

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

[wbhyatt]

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

[wbhyatt]

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

[StateExempt]

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

[MillionthUsername]

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

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

[CarlosMarti123]

@R3DF4C710N So your theory is to enforce equality?

[GoingGoingGalt]

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

[Houshalter]

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

[jaminunit]

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