anarcho-capitalism

[blueback]

Let's see if this makes sense:

Assumptions:
1) The state is unnecessary and undesirable
2) A free market, private property economy is necessary and desirable

Number (1) up there seems to be based on the idea that to be morally correct people must rule themselves. They can't be morally correct if they are not allowed to rule themselves, so the coercive power of the state is enough to destroy morality, which means the state is immoral. Individual sovereignty, moral autonomy, dignity, soul, whatever you wish to call it, demands that a person refuse to be ruled.

Additionaly, anarchists seem to think that it is the states that are responsible for everything that is wrong in the world. They think that if people were freed from the 'slavery' of state rule they would naturally form an ordered society. Pierre Proudhon: "Liberty is not the daughter but the mother of order." Basically, the more freedom people have the more order they will create.

I'm not sure if this is really a seperate thought, but I'll list it seperately. Anarchist think that we need anarchism no matter how people behave. If people are good, then they don't need a higher authority to keep them in line. If people are bad, then allowing them to have excessive power over other people through the state will only result in a magnification of badness.

[Dreamer]

States are immoral, that's for certain,but they work as far as providing armed security. They pretty much are incompetent at everything else.

[Lights]

States are immoral, that's for certain,but they work as far as providing armed security. They pretty much are incompetent at everything else.

Morality is subjective. Those who do not share your particular values, may not share your perception that the state is immoral.

[NephilimAzrael]

A point of interest (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I did not quite understand your core point in the opening topic (mental faculties are running empty at the moment), but would like to contribute this to the topic, RE: one faction of anarchist thought.

[Synamon]

Anarchy has been brought up on here lately and after listening to the endless youtube propaganda videos and reading some of the material all I've been able to conclude is that anarchists can't agree on anything. There are many types of anarchists, left, right, free market, communes, unionist, etc, etc. The only common theme I've noticed is that states or governments are evil.

I've read some of the threads and haven't seen any models of how an anarchist world would function in any practical way. How would a society be stable without a state to make, enforce and distribute laws, security, money, etc? Or am I missing something and the inherent instability of an anarchist world is the goal? The usual answer is free market, supply and demand. Huh? There are costs to all markets whether it be in lives or sacrificing rights or opportunity costs. Some markets are more efficient than others but none are free.

[NephilimAzrael]

Without rulers and without hierarchy. I'm pretty sure that is the main theme of anarchism.
No status, prestige or imbalance of rights is another line attributed to anarchism.

It's mostly to live without imposed standards or use of coercion, although most individuals can't visualize living in such a world. Many don't want to, that would damage the integrity of their concepts of value, meaning etc. An idea. I sympathize with the increasing of individual responsibilities associated with the philosophy, as well as the deconstruction of the authority of statutory institutions. And that is an opinion, I am nothing looking for scrutiny at this present time.

[SirJac]

Without state, what is there to stop someone from employing brutal methods to advance their interests? Like most systems like it, it looks good on paper but in practice I think it would be easily corrupted. Historically, the absence of a centeral government has always resulted in control being seized by warlords. I don't see how that can be avoided in anarcho-capitalism.

[Tocsin]

The ideal that there is going to be a state of existence without power or politics is absurd, an adolescent fantasy.

If you put two people in a room, and one of them eventually tries to exert some sort of influence over the other to get them to serve their own interests, you're talking politics - and power.

Nature abhors a vacuum, an anarchy is nothing more than the belief that a political vacuum is sustainable.

The best you can hope for is a true democracy, where the people as a whole act in their collective interest to prevent subversion of the whole people to the influence of a small but powerful minority.

[Seppuku Savant]

I like the idea of anachro-capitalism.

However, the type and sheer number of people that live in this world today... I just don't see it working. Any type of anarchy. Most people seem to need rules and government to prosper.

[blueback]

The reason I started a topic on it is that I've been looking into it recently and I think there might be enough there to be worth a discussion.

First, I should point out that "anarchism" is a very limited word. The word literally means "no ruler" and that's about as much as self-described anarchists can agree on. The left-anarchists are basically communists without the communist party and the anarcho-capitalists are capitalists without the politics.

It seems like it might be possible for things normally provided by the state to be provided for a profit, but not if the area inhabited by anarchists is ever targeted by an external state. It seems like they wouldn't be able to band together in a powerful enough group to fight off a state that is, for better or worse, all of 'one mind.'

[Noehelia]

What do you mean there will be no state? No police, no education system, no health system, no punishment system, and so on?

It depends of how someone defines morality. If it means look out only for yourself, do whatever you want, then yes, the state kind of suppress this moral.

From my personal view of morality I think that big companies with great power to appoint and get down governments are more immoral and all that for their profit are more immoral.

[JonD]

In an anarcho-capitalist society, the laws that are most profitable are the laws that will be made, since law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors rather than through compulsory taxation.

So let's play a game. It's called, make up a law that is profitable.

Well, first of all, screw wildlife/environment conservation. You can't make money telling people not to cut down forests and build dams.

Actually, I can't really be bothered to attack Anarcho-capitalism any further. Upon looking it up at Wikipedia, among it's various critics is Noam Chomsky. If Chom thinks it's stupid, it's pretty fucking stupid. He says:

"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history."

[Dreamer]

Actually, I can't really be bothered to attack Anarcho-capitalism any further. Upon looking it up at Wikipedia, among it's various critics is Noam Chomsky. If Chom thinks it's stupid, it's pretty fucking stupid. He says:

"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history."

Exactly. Who the hell dares to question a quotation with "Noam Chomsky" at the bottom anyway?

[PeterBristolUK]

Without state, what is there to stop someone from employing brutal methods to advance their interests?

That what capitalism has been doing for years surely? If there's profit to be made the wealthy don't think twice about being brutal.

I think it comes down to 2 things....
1)Humans need a leader
2)POwer = Corruption

Maybe we just need to evolve to deal with these facts

[blueback]

You would have to setup a system in which it was in people's best interest to keep their promises. But not because a sovereign would punish them if they didn't, because the system itself would automatically adjust to marginalize them.

So, when someone lies, something has to happen to reduce the power of the liar. . .as opposed to increase their power.

Well, no one likes a liar and if people can avoid dealing with that person they generally do. So, if everyone knew that a person was a liar, then a system built on voluntary contracts should automatically marginalize them.

This implies that information will be vitally necessary to maintaining the system. If no one can hide their actions then everyone will deal with full disclosure by default. Or, rather, if no one can hide the information about themselves pertinent to deal making. It doesn't matter if they pick their nose, but if they do what they promise to do.

The first thing that pops to mind is a feedback system much like Ebay and other online retail conglomerates have. A neutral party maintains the record of each transaction and over time builds up a useful picture of that person. However, we have already assumed that we won't have a state to administer this system, so it needs to be done as a for-profit enterprise.

That means our anarcho-capitalist system needs businesses which maintain accurate records of transactions between individuals. It seems to me that mistakes in the records are inevitable. How the business deals with these mistakes will be very important. If they collect their profit from the person they are keeping a record of they will be pressured to edit mistakes in his favor, erring on the side of a positive review. If the person who wants the information pays the fee they will be pressured to edit the mistakes towards a negative review, otherwise the customers will get upset when the person who got a good review burns them in a deal. If neither party pays the business, who will? I can't think of a third party that will be interested in keeping this business alive. The only thing I can think of at the moment is that the society as a whole will donate money to keep this business alive.

Additionally, this will lead to another form of revenue for business. They will begin accepting "tips", a little something extra, in return for giving people good reviews to boost their 'trust score.' People will begin to pay each other a tax, or bribe, to ensure they get a good review. This seems to me like it will be nearly the same as the assumed corruption in many third world nations. Most government employees in shit-hole countries keep their job only because they demand enough in bribes to pay the bribes that are demanded of them.

I dunno. I tried. I just can't come up with a way to get around the fact that lying, cheating and stealing are all effective strategies to get ahead. Not to mention out-right violence. How can a system in which everyone is free to do as they please not be destabilized by that?

[Lights]

This implies that information will be vitally necessary to maintaining the system. If no one can hide their actions then everyone will deal with full disclosure by default. Or, rather, if no one can hide the information about themselves pertinent to deal making. It doesn't matter if they pick their nose, but if they do what they promise to do.

Reality check. This is a world where FOX news exists and maintains a strong viewership. The fact of the matter is, some people simply want to be lied to. They want the world served up to them in simple dichotomies in which they can pick the side that corresponds with their personal values. They know that they are being lied to constantly, but they don't care because it is convenient to be told what to believe.

[NephilimAzrael]

I've noticed there is a recurring theme here regarding coercive forces. Notably a force that would form within anarchist society to take a dominating position, and those that would attack an anarchist society from the outside. Problem is, the speculation lies on both the idealism of the anarchists and of the supporters of state. But which society would be the one to suppress and coerce any group who chose to denounce their views?

[blueback]

Reality check.
Were you talking to me? Didn't I end my post with the conclusion that it wouldn't work?

I'm just trying to see if anyone can come up with a way to make an anarchist system work. I don't think it's possible, but I don't know everything. There are a lot of really smart people who think that anarchism in one form or another is the way to go, so there might be something there.

Ultimately I just want to know what works. I'm not too good to entertain a silly idea for a while to see if it has any substance.

[Karamazov]

Were you talking to me? Didn't I end my post with the conclusion that it wouldn't work?

I'm just trying to see if anyone can come up with a way to make an anarchist system work. I don't think it's possible, but I don't know everything. There are a lot of really smart people who think that anarchism in one form or another is the way to go, so there might be something there.

Ultimately I just want to know what works. I'm not too good to entertain a silly idea for a while to see if it has any substance.

You might want to give it up then because, as someone aptly pointed out, anarchists can't even agree within their own respective epochs.

[blueback]

Not gonna happen. I haven't reached a conclusion yet.

Lets address aggression, instead.

Most anarchists seem to agree that if there will be one universal rule it will be that no one initiates aggression against anyone else. To simplify I will just say "attack" instead of "initiate aggression."

How can we build a system which automatically adjusts to marginalize anyone who attacks?

It seems to me there are two main options:
1) counter the attacker with overwhelming force so that it the effect can't spread
2) structure the system so that an attack is absorbed, rather than magnified, and the system heals up quickly without any effect on the parts of the system that weren't attacked

Number (1) seems to require that a source of overwhelming force exist. Since we have already stated that we won't have a state, what can we have? If the source of the force is permenant, how will we ensure that it is only used when it is needed? If it is temporary, how will we ensure that it is enacted quickly enough, that it is controlled properly, an that it is disbanded once it is no longer needed?

The spirit of an anarchist system seems to render a traditional military implausible, even if it was fully funded by voluntary donations. Since no one is "ruled" by anyone else, the obedience necessary to a military is ruled out. So we are left with a mercenary company, in which everyone is simply under contract and they can readjust their contracts whenever they desire. If the mercenary company was the equivalent size/power of a traditional military it would be very expensive. Things like tanks aren't very useful in peace time. They could maintain that level of power if they passed the cost on to their subscribers. However, this is listing dangerously close to capsizing back into the evils of a state with its taxes.

So maybe what we have are many mercenary companies, some of which provide every day police type actions and some of which provide a more "insurace" type of role. Since we only need traditional military power in certain circumstances, it makes sense to treat it more like an insurance plan. You pay for it and when you need it it is there for you. It would be sort of amusing to decline the "close air support" coverage :-)

This does, of course, lead us to the difficult problem of how each of these companies will deal with each other.

Since no one will have legal monopoly on force, there will be no standardization of rules. Additionally, the mercenary companies will be the only ones with sizeable access to force. If one company gets more powerful than its neighbors it will have every business interest in acquiring them. This will lead to in-fighting in a literal sense. Also, since the mercenary companies will be the ones with guns, who will keep the mercenary companies in line? Actually, will there even be a line to keep them in? If the law is established in a 'free flowing' sort of way between people and their armed representatives then there is no law. If one company wants to force another company to respect their rules they will have to allie themselves with another company to overpower their enemy. They could covertly undermine their enemy by harming their customers so they lose business. Once a powerful alliance is formed, it would make sense for them to alter things to better suit themselves.

Would a prospective customer withhold their patronage from a mercenary monopoly on principle to shut them down or would customers flock to a mercenary monopoly because it is obviously the most successful? How would mercenary companies deal with customers in different geographical locations if they have to cross boarders of control?

It seems to me that the situation would quickly spiral into feudal warfar. Companies would use their guns to enforce payments so that they could defend themselves against other companies that are taxing their customers. Power would accumulate in a few companies which would each expand their control. The more people and land they control the more involved they have to get in ground-level matters to ensure a stable economy to support them. And we are right back to state control.

I just don't see how it would work.

[Karamazov]

Anarchy and Capitalism are virtually incompatible. The latter would only engender a monopoly, rendering an authority over the market to specific companies. Capitalism is authoritarian in nature, so the allure of gaining power and money at any costs is generally more favorable to the general population.

[SirJac]

I agree Blueback, it's just not a sustainable system once you throw human nature into the mix. Enforcement is necessary of at least very basic rules (Capitalism and rampant theft don't mix well), but if enforcement entities are not answerable to anyone then your just a hop, skip and a jump from feudal warlords fighting each other over turf.

I think that Somalia is as good as it gets under such a system.

[Lights]

Were you talking to me? Didn't I end my post with the conclusion that it wouldn't work?

My apologies, I misinterpreted what you said.

[JonD]

Exactly. Who the hell dares to question a quotation with "Noam Chomsky" at the bottom anyway?

It's good to question things and enhance understanding. But that doesn't mean I pull the oddest scenarios out of my ass and try to make the case that they could work.

[blueback]

You should try it sometime. It's like an enema; very refreshing.

[ArchonAlarion]

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

The podcast thing is on the right, listen to the first video and maybe the second.

He attempts to cover how anarchic criminal defense might work.

[Dreamer]

It's good to question things and enhance understanding. But that doesn't mean I pull the oddest scenarios out of my ass and try to make the case that they could work.

I actually taught that Chomsky line of yours was a joke.

[Lights]

I actually taught that Chomsky line of yours was a joke.

It's no joke. Chomsky pwns.

[blueback]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
He attempts to cover how anarchic criminal defense might work.


So, I spent about a week on this site. I read as far into Stef's books as I could stomach. I engaged as many anarchists as possible in debate. I presented alternate theories when I disagreed with theirs.

And I just got banned from the entire site. Not just the forum, the entire domain. Either that or the entire site is down, but based on the reception I was getting I'm assuming the former.

There are a couple ideas worth investigating, and I plan to continue, but for the most part it's all propaganda. Stef's a poor philosopher who's over reaching because he's more of a self-promotor. The forum gets a few dozen people a day and those are incapable of explaining why they think anarchy is a good idea. So, bottom line is that anarchy is probably a bad idea since it's not attracting any decent thinkers.

[Karamazov]

From reading your posts and the replies it garnered, I think it's safe to say they didn't like you very much. You made quality posts but no one bothered to make substantive replies to counterbalance your points.

Good luck finding other people to discuss this subject with. Personally, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Purple]

There are a couple ideas worth investigating, and I plan to continue, but for the most part it's all propaganda. Stef's a poor philosopher who's over reaching because he's more of a self-promotor. The forum gets a few dozen people a day and those are incapable of explaining why they think anarchy is a good idea. So, bottom line is that anarchy is probably a bad idea since it's not attracting any decent thinkers.

There are plenty of decent thinkers among self proclaimed anarchists. I think you'll find the decent thinkers will agree with you that anarchy isn't gonna work with the mindest of most of humanity as it is right now. Most are just exploring ideas of how it could work or how it would work better in certain situations than what we have now. There are plenty of intellectual anarchists out there but the noise level of the ones who sound like they are reading from some handbook is much louder.

[Lights]

And I just got banned from the entire site. Not just the forum, the entire domain. Either that or the entire site is down, but based on the reception I was getting I'm assuming the former.

ROFL! Classic! People who believe in anarchy using authority to squash alternative ideas!

[blueback]

Actually, according to their philosophy it is correct to ban me.

They think that anarchy is about getting rid of the state, which is evil. Authority is okay if it is mutually agreed to. Since it is their site, and I am visiting, it is perfectly okay for them to choose not to associate with me. It is actually appropriate for them to ban me rather than suffer the pain of listening to me if they don't want to. Additionally, I was working my way through the books on the site explaining why they were baloney, so if anyone ever wants to make money off those books it is in their best business interest to get rid of my influence.

It does illuminate anarchy in an amusing way, though.

[Lights]

It does illuminate anarchy in an amusing way, though.

Hm...their property their rules eh? I guess that just means if one man comes to own the entire world, then by their ideology, he can do what he wants to everyone else on the planet.

[blueback]

No, see, cuz nothing bad can happen in an anarchist organization. Because of cost/benefit analysis. . .and stuff.

[Dreamer]

Hm...their property their rules eh? I guess that just means if one man comes to own the entire world, then by their ideology, he can do what he wants to everyone else on the planet.

Wow.

[Lights]

Wow.

I know. Pity that men like Alexander the Great were not anarcho-capitalists.

[Synamon]

. . .and stuff.

:idea: Well that explains everything. :laugh:

Sigh, if you can't sort it out I'm not even going to try. Watching those videos kept turning my stomach.

[blueback]

Don't worry. The guy who runs the site is an enthusiastic self-promoter. He's actually more enthusiastic about convincing people he's right than being right.

In his book, Everyday Anarchy, he makes the argument that if you ask an anarchist a bunch of questions about how anarchy would work, and they can't answer one of your questions, that actually supports anarchism. . .because a good anarchist thinks that it's not possible for a person to figure out how something as complicated as anarchy would be implemented. . .which obviously means that if they can't explain how anarchy would work they are a good anarchist. . .which obviously means anarchy is a good idea. That is the sort of logic you have to deal with.

Feel free to root around. The forum isn't very large at all, and there's not much traffic on it, so if you have any questions Stef is likely to see and possibly respond to them. I'd say "answer," but he won't do that. He feels like anyone who questions anarchy is A) too lazy to read his books and B) probably just an evil statist trying to get anarchists to make a mistake so they can go on supporting the initiation of violence through the state's subjugation of the population it enslaves.

Yes. He does sound like that. The orbiters on the forum simply refer you back to him.

[Karamazov]

[
Yes. He does sound like that. The orbiters on the forum simply refer you back to him.

So...you can make any legitimate argument but they will always, eventually, refer you back to him? He sounds like a Prophet....who profits.

Wait a minute...this sounds religious in nature. After having a look myself on the forum, they constantly throw sound bite arguments and slogans. It does make them sound cultist.

[blueback]

I mentioned that shortly before I got banned. . .

Whatever. I tried my school library as a source and apparently, while there are plenty of books on economics, there are none on anarchy. I'm taking the position less and less seriously the more deeply I drill into it.

I'm still going to use it in a paper. I'm going to see if I can figure out whether or not an anarchistic area could defend itself successfully. All the arguments I've heard so far range from pathetic to assinine. Maybe I can do better.

[Karamazov]

I mentioned that shortly before I got banned. . .

Whatever. I tried my school library as a source and apparently, while there are plenty of books on economics, there are none on anarchy. I'm taking the position less and less seriously the more deeply I drill into it.

I'm still going to use it in a paper. I'm going to see if I can figure out whether or not an anarchistic area could defend itself successfully. All the arguments I've heard so far range from pathetic to assinine. Maybe I can do better.

I'd say so. You could continue to look for online sources for information but I'm not sure whether or not it could provide anything new. Even though I disagreed with some points, I liked your other paper on Morals. You should post your finished product on anarchism; considering some of the people who you've debated on this forum.

[Wufnu]

I wonder if they would be upset if I told them my ideas on an anarchosyndicalist commune.

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

[Merle]

I was just reading about this the other day... but didn't get much past the description "Market-Anarchist" because the name made me laugh and my brain went off into all sorts of funny ( to me) little mistaken identity scenarios : "I'm a Market-Anarchist"..."Oh great, maybe you could help me with my investments" etc....