Anarcho-Capitalism

[ArchonAlarion]

Hey I'm a newb on this forum.

Hopefully, as NT's, you will hold back your biases and go to the following links.

Anarchism has had a bad name for far to long, as has capitalsim and the free market. Maybe as rational, intuitive, thinkers you might be persuaded to change your mind.

Half a year ago, I too was a right wing archist, but, when I got into some philosophy, I realized with increasing intensity that the state is an abomination and has to go. If you think you can shoot this theory down, than please try, because either you'll be right and we'll be closer to the truth, or I'll be right and you'll be closer to the truth.





ArchonAlarion added to this post, 1 minutes and 32 seconds later...

The philosophy of liberty:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Freedomain Radio:
listen to volume 1 - podcast 271, than start back at the beginning at podcast - (warning, Stefan can be long winded)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[prometheus]

"Right wing archist" eh? Is that something like ...........[trys to be gentle].. ...a Nationalist?

[ArchonAlarion]

no I wrote "right wing ARchist" not anarchist.

It is a little confusing though. An anarchist is one who believes in a society without rulers. In other words, a large group of individuals making voluntary decisions without being coerced to do things by men in funny hats and suits.

[prometheus]

no I wrote "right wing ARchist" not anarchist.

It is a little confusing though. An anarchist is one who believes in a society without rulers. In other words, a large group of individuals making voluntary decisions without being coerced to do things by men in funny hats and suits.

Hummm, this is a new one on me.

[ArchonAlarion]

yes i was a right winger, but now I'm a anarchist.

By the way, seeing as this topic (in general) is one of the most important in the world, I think you should give it some serious thought.

please watch the vid

[prometheus]

yes i was a right winger, but now I'm a anarchist.

By the way, seeing as this topic (in general) is one of the most important in the world, I think you should give it some serious thought.

please watch the vid

Seeing as how I describe myself as an Market Anarchist, or an Anarcho-Capitalist I would say I've already given this some thought, probably longer than you've been driving. ;)

MTA: I saw the first vid (in an older version) 5-6 years ago, and the second link is broken. :p

[ArchonAlarion]

Good and because I can't drive yet, your probably right :)

And my previous comment was "you" in the 2nd person plural not just directed at you (damn the english language!)

I'm glad you are a freedom lover too.

I'm using the links because it is easier to convey the message this way rather than explain the philosophy in a post.

[Jerry]

I just read Rothbard's "A New Liberty"

It was the most logical (yet oddly humorous) book I had ever read.

[prometheus]

I just read Rothbard's "A New Liberty"

It was the most logical (yet oddly humorous) book I had ever read.

Rothbard rocks! So does Ludwig Von Mises.

[coffeeloverfreak]

A lot of people go through this phase of infatuation with anarchy at a certain point in their lives. Most grow out of it. Those who don't usually end up shouting on a soapbox somewhere.

[prometheus]

A lot of people go through this phase of infatuation with anarchy at a certain point in their lives. Most grow out of it. Those who don't usually end up shouting on a soapbox somewhere.

You are confusing Anarchist communism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (you know the grungy kids shouting at the World Bank Summits) with the Market Anarchists here.

[ArchonAlarion]

yeah and anarcho-communism is an oxymoron anyway.

[PortInStorm]

Any good links we can read, not as a vid, other than Wiki? Contrary perhaps to my appreciation of universal healthcare in Canada as expressed elsewhere, I heard an interview with a 'new' anarchist, and man, was he persuasive. Interested me a great deal.

[ArchonAlarion]

Yes here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

and here ( not exactly anarchist, but if you want the basic philosophy behind it than read on):

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Smacknrat]

Anarchism is an extreme version of libertarianism. I do like elements of anarchism as I like elements of many philosophies. What I like about it is the complete focus of individual rights.

The flaw that lies in anarchism as there lies in libertarianism is the lack of focus of internalizing positive (not a big deal) and negative (big deal) externalities.

In addition, anarcho-libertarianism doesn't account for an amount of structure that would ensure stable growth. e.g. patents, protection of personal assets via corporations or LLCs, execution of laws (essentially... People deside that if you broke a law, anyone gets to kill you next time they see you. Problem solved), etc.





Smacknrat added to this post, 4 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Oh. In case anyone didn't know. Alan Moore (V for Vendetta) is an anarchist (very particular form). Very good interview:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ArchonAlarion]

Anarchism is an extreme version of libertarianism. I do like elements of anarchism as I like elements of many philosophies. What I like about it is the complete focus of individual rights.

The flaw that lies in anarchism as there lies in libertarianism is the lack of focus of internalizing positive (not a big deal) and negative (big deal) externalities.

In addition, anarcho-libertarianism doesn't account for an amount of structure that would ensure stable growth. e.g. patents, protection of personal assets via corporations or LLCs, execution of laws (essentially... People deside that if you broke a law, anyone gets to kill you next time they see you. Problem solved), etc.





Smacknrat added to this post, 4 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Oh. In case anyone didn't know. Alan Moore (V for Vendetta) is an anarchist (very particular form). Very good interview:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't understand your 2nd paragraph so I'll skip it.

Personally i don't think patents would exist under an ancap society. Why do we need them? Seems to just stunt progress in favor of one business for a little bit. Forgive me for not understanding what you are saying about personal assets.

Lastly, I dislike when people refer to "law" in ancap. Law is made by rulers and so incompatible with anarchy. I really cannot explain how "rules" would be enforced in one sitting.

You can listen to Stefan Molyneux's Freedomain Radio about criminal deterance (podcast 1, 2, and 3 for starters) here:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I used to hate V, but now that I'm looking at it from the other side, I love it.

[thod]

Its all about greed, nothing else. Posters here see themselves as winners. Thus they see themselves as contributing more than they gain. Thus they don't want to play under those rules. If they saw themselves as losers they wouldn't object.

It is a simplistic model. You can put in more than you take out and still gain. Its actually cheaper to feed the poor man than it is to deal with his gun crime or keep him in a prison. You can give more to a relationship than your partner does, but you still gain, you are still gaining something you would not otherwise have.

Its typical of these models to want to restrict things to models where they will come out ahead. So they often want police and army because they don't want to have to deal on even terms with a gunman. The model where you feed the gunman is bad, the model where he is allowed to take the food is bad. Everything has to be on the terms they want. If you are smart at wheeling and dealing you want that to be the determinant, if someone is a great soldier he mustn't be allowed to use that skill. They don't want anarchy at all, they want their rules. They try to appeal to fairness but they don't want fairness, they want to be top dog themselves.

They are delusional. If they were any good they would be life's winners under any set of rules, including the ones that govern currently. As is often the case their assessment of their own abilities is out of sync with the reality of their patheticness

[ArchonAlarion]

I guess your right... but what does that have to do with libertarianism?

If you mean that it couldn't work because people are greedy, selfish, and have their own values, than I'd say wrong; it works because of these reasons. If you mean that people are uneducated about ethics and liberty, than thats's what people like me (and probably most people on this forum) are trying to solve.

Something, or some system is moral if it maximizes the amount of life, liberty, and happiness. Happiness is the only reason to live. It is the only end. Market anarchists believe that freedom to pursue what makes one happy, will maximize happiness. That's liberty. To achieve liberty and happiness you must be alive. Actions which are adverse to life are immoral. If you murder someone you are ending their life, hence their future. If you are enslaving someone (forcing them to do things through coercion) you are taking away their ability to achieve happiness. If you are taking away their happiness you are taking away their reason for living.

Their are limited resources and things in this world. Human desires are unlimited though. Two people can't eat the same bagel or drive the same car at the same time to different places. Therefore market anarchists have chosen the system which maximizes the ability for people to work for what they value (liberty), and therefore achieve happiness. If you want something that someone has it is not fair to take it from them by force; thats taking away their liberty and thus their happiness. You must offer them something that they value higher than the thing that you want, but which you value less. This is called free trade: When people exchange goods and values with mutual, voluntary, consent. Free trade requires ownership of property.

[thod]

Therefore market anarchists have chosen the system which maximizes the ability for people to work for what they value (liberty), and therefore achieve happiness. If you want something that someone has it is not fair to take it from them by force; thats taking away their liberty and thus their happiness. You must offer them something that they value higher than the thing that you want, but which you value less.

So you have strong arms and a keen brain. You can grow your own food. Well nope, you cant you see I own that land, want to plant over there, I own that too, in fact I own all of it. You can work my land for me and I will give you 10%.

Whenever I talk about ownership its not about my rights. Its about your rights. Owning something doesnt effect me, it effects you. It is you that is being prevented from doing things, not me. I can only tell you what to do if you are willing to accept that. If you refuse to accept that I may tell you what to do and plant your crops on my land anyhow there is nothing I can do. I will have to use violence to force you to accept my will.

You talk about trade is if you had something to trade when you only have your labor. That is pretty worthless. The owners set all the agendas and the price of your labor. You are not an equal, you are a pleb that is bought and sold. The problem with free trade is all the property ends up with the best traders. Then the others have no means to get what they need because they have nothing to trade. Now thier ownership is making a lot of people unhappy, the total happyness across the system is reduced.

Such people always hate democracy. They fear that others may vote that they should lose ther property, yet the state is the only thing that gives them it. Nobody has property. Its a licence from the state. If I say I own all the land there is nothing to stop you taking it from me either by force or vote.

[Theodoric]

It is a simplistic model. You can put in more than you take out and still gain. Its actually cheaper to feed the poor man than it is to deal with his gun crime or keep him in a prison.


Isn't keeping the poor man in prison just the same as feeding him?

And if you keep feeding him, eventually he will soon expect you to keep feeding him without him contributing anything. Then he will expect you to house him, provide him with health care, take care of his offspring who will in turn expect the same from you, etc etc etc.

In all respects, most crime is done out of want, rather than actual need. Even when given assistance such as food stamps and subsidized housing some will still participate in criminal activities such as drug trafficking, prostitution, and petty theft. All these programs do is enable and encourage people to become dependents and wards of the state perpetually, rather than to realize their full potential.

[ArchonAlarion]

Thod, anyone that is alive is an "owner," because they own themselves.

All I feel like saying right now is that you don't understand a freemarket and how it functions. You aren't bought and sold, you agree voluntarily to pay people to work for you, or you agree voluntarily to work for someone in exchange for pay. If one business offers higher wages, than employees will go to that business or demand higher wages from their current employer. The business with lower prices and/or better quality will get more customers.

[thod]

Thod, anyone that is alive is an "owner," because they own themselves.

All I feel like saying right now is that you don't understand a freemarket and how it functions. You aren't bought and sold, you agree voluntarily to pay people to work for you, or you agree voluntarily to work for someone in exchange for pay. If one business offers higher wages, than employees will go to that business or demand higher wages from their current employer. The business with lower prices and/or better quality will get more customers.

You will learn. You will take a huge mortgage which forces you to work. You will take whatever is on offer to service your debt. There wont be many options available to you that is the problem.

Free markets, that would be the trading systems I have written for the several city banks I have worked at. Or would it be the shares I buy and sell on my online account. Perhaps it would be that for the last 15 years I have been selling my time, as a consultant, through my company, 3 months here 6 months there to whoever pays me the most, countless contracts. Perhaps it would be years I spent reading the economist magazine. I bow to your understanding of free markets. You get a lot of experience and accumulated knowledge in an undergraduate study bedroom.

[searcheagle]

Personally i don't think patents would exist under an ancap society. Why do we need them? Seems to just stunt progress in favor of one business for a little bit. Forgive me for not understanding what you are saying about personal assets.

Patents are an important part of the economic system. They protect the individual or company's innovation, which results in companies and individuals deciding it is worthwhile to innovate.

[sriv]

I'm going to revive this thread because I've been recommended to look into this field by a few of my peers.

My first impression was that anarchism is too idealistic. Let's see how it goes from here.
Any other good links other than the ones provided?

[ArchonAlarion]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Not anarchist, but great philosophical base.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Go to youtube and find the market anarchists there. They have a lot of great videos on pretty much every issue and regularly shut down statists and pretend anarchists alike

If I can think of more good ones I'll post em

[Antares]

I'm a Centrist Anarchist (or a Libertarian. Whatever you decide to call it), although I have left leanings. I can't really see a society functioning without social welfare.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well I'm really a voluntarist. What ever comes out of that, I'm fine with.

[tehinternetsgam]

I always try to not peg myself to a specific label or system because they rarely, if ever, match 100% what I believe.

That said, I don't see any logical or rational reason that anarchy would work any better than the systems we currently have in place. It simply places far too much emphasis on individuals doing 'the right thing' in order for it to work fairly and peacefully. And people are <generalisation>stupid, greedy power mongers</generalisation>.

[ArchonAlarion]

What a better reason to have a government, where those stupid, greedy, powermongering people will elect stupid greedy power mongers. If the people are bad/stupid and they elect their politicians, then they will make bad/stupid decisions and elect horrible leaders.

Think before you post.

[sriv]

What would anarcho-capitalism do about the formation of trusts?

[tehinternetsgam]

What a better reason to have a government, where those stupid, greedy, powermongering people will elect stupid greedy power mongers. If the people are bad/stupid and they elect their politicians, then they will make bad/stupid decisions and elect horrible leaders.

This is a fairly typical argument for anarchy. "Well if people are so bad, then having governments just means bad people will lead, therefore, get rid of governments". (and magically all the bad people go away)

This is a possibility. Maybe even a probability. But in anarchy it would become an inevitability. We have systems in place to try to keep what we view as evil or dispicable out of power, and to keep leadership balanced.

In the US we can see that this appears to be going pear-shaped. But the US is not the whole world. There are plenty of democratic nations that seem to be doing relatively fine with our flawed systems.

Think before you post.

Right back at you.

[AncientOfDays]

As a staunch conservative I support quite a few of the tenets of anarcho-libertarianism. however, since as I am a conservative I'm allowed to rationally reject the imprudence and self-defeatingness of the proposed system.

1. This system promises borderline utopia IMO, which signifies red flags: death and destruction.

2. People must be coerced to allow others to be free. Conservatives understand this, libertarians do not.

3. Too radical to, in the least, seriously consider now. Maybe in the future, but Permanence and Change must be reconciled. You can only change society so much.

4. Seems imprudent. Basics, like water distribution construction, high ways etc. which can be privately developed are generally best run under some government regulation.

5. Remember freedom ensures that people can choose badly, which is good, to a certain extent. Someone choosing to murder me, a defensless, familiess grandma will get victimized without consequence in such a proposed society. What will result is people will voluntarily enter into governemnts to form a better society, that society will prosper, defeating the more chaotic unregulated societies, and we're back to square one.

Those are my completely unsupported (thus far) ideas.

[tehinternetsgam]

Those are my completely unsupported (thus far) ideas.

Your points are pretty much spot on in my opinion.