6 arguments against "anarcho"-capitalism

1) The issue of wage slavery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery which indicates how one CANNOT avoid larger hierarchical structures like the state without eliminating
hierarchy at the individual workplace level (larger structures depend on smaller structures). In other words, hierarchical systems have more commonalities than differences, thus the hierarchical nature of business structures does not seem fundamentally incompatible with the hierarchical nature of the state.

2) The well-documented, close historical relationship between markets and the state,


3) The tendency of owners to form coalitions to maximize their power against wage laborers e.g. chambers of commerce

4) The tendency of owners to form coalitions to compete against each other (e.g. those in favor of free trade vs. protectionists, capital intensive vs. labor intensive business etc), traditionally expressed in political party platforms--treating the state as a sort of expensive commodity that different blocs of capitalists compete to buy and control through their voluntary financial support of one or another party. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_theory_of_party_competition
http://goldenruledocumentary.blogspot.com/

5) The growth of certain business in comparison to others, leading to capital concentration in the hands of the few even without the presence of the state--a state which subsequently would nevertheless develop as a way of stabilizing the privilege of some against others. In so-called democratic states, this stabilization does requires some capitalist concessions to the public; and this account for the hatred that many capitalists have toward state functions that stem from some degree of public input, such as medicare, social security, public firefighters etc.

6) The fact that anarchism entails a minimization NOT an elimination of hierarchy, and thus any economic structure will require a certain level of coercion to prevent some natural tendencies in favor of others and thus make certain options EASIER to pursue. For example, a community may employ some coercion to prevent the implementation of wage labor on any substantial scale with the knowledge that such implementation would make worker self-management harder to pursue, because the limited resources of the earth and the effort required to travel to find workers self-management would bias their choice in favor of wage labor. Furthermore, the community would also know that once the employer of wage labor accumulates capital and increases the size of his businesses, then any attempt of workers to implement workers self-management would be fought with violence and coercion. Thus communities would prefer to employ a small amount of coercion to prevent wage labor on any substantial scale than face the much greater coercion arising out of allowing wage labor and capital concentration

Category:

Education

Tags:

• anarchism
• capitalism
• communism

[Victorprossart1]

You complain about not coming acoross a ancap worth a damn in debate, You should try a slice of humble pie and take Stefan Molynuex on.

[Batta0909]

I love how you totally ignore the moral argument, Gov. that forces compliance and taxation is immoral. That is, if you believe in the non-aggression axiom.

[LiberalBohemian]

@mr1001nights I think you're an INFJ. What do you think?

[SmoothPlayLLC]

To summarize:

1) All systems, anarchist, communist, syndicalist, whatever the hell ALLOW for human free will and therefore allow for people to band together and use violence to exert their will.

2) capitalism is the system that has gone closest to allowing HUMANS to coexist in mutually beneficial existence. Not communism, monarchism, none.

3) Therefore you argument that AnCap is null because the possibility of evil is nonsensical. This always will exists.

Later alligator!

[SmoothPlayLLC]

Anarcho-capitalism is the GREATEST and the one nearest a civilized natural state where EVERYONE is nearest the possibility to coexist in a way that allows all humans to trade and serve one another in mutually beneficial ways. Can some group of morons rise up and try and make everyone succumb to their will power? Sure. But the free market and human will if educated enough will prevail.

[SmoothPlayLLC]

This will NEVER happen. So long as human free will exists someone or some people will always be able to band together to use their violent ways to force try and force others.

Here is the proof of where I am right:

out of all the systems that have ever existed, CAPITALISM is the ONLY one were people have actually in the REAL WORLD succeed at co existing with each other and minimizing their need and want to RULE OVER each other using POWER (which can only exist in the state).

[SmoothPlayLLC]

You just like the communists of the cold war era want to try and create an IDEALISTIC solution by trying to place everyone on an "equal" playing field and hoping that no one will resort to evil ways by convincing others to band together and force themselves onto others using VIOLENCE to gain power over others.

[SmoothPlayLLC]

What you fail to mention is that the same thing can happen in any other system, even the non-hiearchal systems that are based on anarchy. Even the one that you would propose! I challenge you to mention me any system that would prevent people from banding together and trying to use violence to exert their will power! YOU CAN'T!

So long as humans have will power this will ALWAYS be a possibility. What you cant accept is that this is ALWAYS POSSIBLE.

[SmoothPlayLLC]

What you and may more people don't seem to understand is the ACCEPTANCE of REALITY. You have to understand that in AnCap or any other system their will always be the case were people try to band together and use VIOLENCE to force others to succumb to their will. You say that biz men joining force to create state-like chambers of commerce, etc will cause the same problems like other hierarchy embracing systems (such as statist vartiations, democracy, communism, monarchism, etc).

[SecondAgeOfReason]

@SecondAgeOfReason Your argument that allowing people to choose wage labor (since there is much risk in investment in a competitive environment) and whatever else constitutes hierarchy (higher pay? management?) requires that a market with private competitive functions would have firms becoming large like corporations today, large enough to pool interests and form a state or de facto state. Most of the advantages of that level of size only exist with a state to leech from.