[Junkalunka]

What do you think of and know about this concept?

Also:

http://en.wikipedia....rcho-capitalism

[Nalka]

More of a Minarchist myself but I sympathize with the intent.

[Gustave5436]

Voted that third thing (though disagreeing with the idea that the market in a capitalist system is really "free"), also would have voted "contradictory" due to the existence of private property.

This post has been edited by Gustave5436: 17 September 2007 - 01:39 AM

[Nalka]

Gustave5436, on Sep 17 2007, 03:37 AM, said:

Voted that third thing (though disagreeing with the idea that the market in a capitalist system is really "free"), also would have voted "contradictory" due to the existence of private property.

Rofl, says the guy that thinks that comities deciding everything is somehow "anarchist"

[Gustave5436]

Because whatever you're talking about is the exact same as private property causing a class system. Class systems, especially involving economic systems based on exploiting the workers, really don't fit in with anarchism.

[Nalka]

Gustave5436, on Sep 17 2007, 03:48 AM, said:

Because whatever you're talking about is the exact same as private property causing a class system. Class systems, especially involving economic systems based on exploiting the workers, really don't fit in with anarchism.

I think you should consult a dictionary, your idea of anarchy seems a bit...odd

[Junkalunka]

Gustave5436, on Sep 17 2007, 07:48 AM, said:

Because whatever you're talking about is the exact same as private property causing a class system. Class systems, especially involving economic systems based on exploiting the workers, really don't fit in with anarchism.

I always thought anarchism was lack of government. Check out the Wikipedia entry I posted.

[King Comm]

A Finnish dude wrote this a while ago regarding to while all the supporters of anarcho-capitalism are of middle class background, although the passage was worded rather harshly, it's pretty good in addressing the point.

Quote

This is only natural. Under imperialism, classical liberalism or 'libertarianism' is the ideology of the small and middle capitalists. The ruling imperialist bourgeoisie doesn't believe in it. It only uses it as a deceptional ideology with the purpose of keeping the smaller capitalists and certain middle strata on their side.

That's why you see these 'libertarian' types whining how this imperialist system whe have supposedly isn't "REAL capitalism". Of course it is just as real as it has always been. It's just no longer capitalism with free competition, which is what these "oppressed by the state" ragamuffin capitalists and other wannabes hate.

Accepting imperialism as the lawful highest stage of capitalism would mean acknowledging that what they long for is being left farther and farther behind with the evolution of capitalism. What these "oppressed" ragamuffin capitalists and other 'libertarian' wannabes want, can't be achieved. The ruling imperialist bourgeoisie will never give it to them, and the toiling masses would throw them to the junkyard right after they've done away with the imperialists.

The only thing these decaying strata can do in practise, is to cling on to what imperialism has preserved of their reactionary dream.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

SUBMIT TO THE PEOPLE, FOR THE GREATER GOOD! OUT OF MANY, ONE.

[escape]

Voted for the second option. I don't believe in the complete destruction of the state as I believe that certain things such as national defence should be state controlled

[Alteveer]

I'm skeptical of how well it would work.

[Anarcho Jesse]

I am an AnCap, and I know plenty about it. Minarchism is contradictory, General Statism is evil, and Anarcho-Leftism is retarded (how do you like that, Gustave?).

Gustave5436, on Sep 17 2007, 07:37 AM, said:

Voted that third thing (though disagreeing with the idea that the market in a capitalist system is really "free"), also would have voted "contradictory" due to the existence of private property.

Same old and dance, eh Gustave?

Gustave5436, on Sep 17 2007, 07:48 AM, said:

Because whatever you're talking about is the exact same as private property causing a class system. Class systems, especially involving economic systems based on exploiting the workers, really don't fit in with anarchism.

Oh please. The Class System is a government construct and a by-product of the collusion of economics and the State. You calling our true Capitalism synonymous with this system (which is either a bald face attempt at being disingenuous, or you truly never have cracked open any literature on Anarcho-Capitalism) would be the same as me calling people who live on a Kibbutz of supporting Stalinism; it's wrong, it's ignorant, and it's just plain asinine. What really gets me is that the you practically ignore the role of the state in the exploitation of men. Kind of strange for an "anarchist" to ignore the role of the state, the most monopolistic institution in any society.

Moreover, true Capitalism (not this Mercantilism bullcrap you refer too) is not exploitation. How you could possibly "exploit" someone who has voluntarily agreed to action? It seems odd that you are contrary to volunteerism and mutualism, considering that the alternatives would be coercion and slavery, two antithetical concepts to Anarchism.

King Comm, on Sep 17 2007, 11:44 AM, said:

This is only natural. Under imperialism, classical liberalism or 'libertarianism' is the ideology of the small and middle capitalists. The ruling imperialist bourgeoisie doesn't believe in it. It only uses it as a deceptional ideology with the purpose of keeping the smaller capitalists and certain middle strata on their side.

That's why you see these 'libertarian' types whining how this imperialist system whe have supposedly isn't "REAL capitalism". Of course it is just as real as it has always been. It's just no longer capitalism with free competition, which is what these "oppressed by the state" ragamuffin capitalists and other wannabes hate.

Accepting imperialism as the lawful highest stage of capitalism would mean acknowledging that what they long for is being left farther and farther behind with the evolution of capitalism.

What these "oppressed" ragamuffin capitalists and other 'libertarian' wannabes want, can't be achieved. The ruling imperialist bourgeoisie will never give it to them, and the toiling masses would throw them to the junkyard right after they've done away with the imperialists.

The only thing these decaying strata can do in practise, is to cling on to what imperialism has preserved of their reactionary dream.

This is of no substance, and as such, until a more academic approach can be taken, I don't think it's worth my time to address such an intentionally inflammatory statement.

[Anarcho Jesse]

escape, on Sep 17 2007, 02:51 PM, said:

Voted for the second option. I don't believe in the complete destruction of the state as I believe that certain things such as national defence should be state controlled

Which is inherently hypocritical. Why should the State have a hand in nothing else, barring a few issues? Even if you minimize it, it still violates the core principle of Libertarianism, "Do what you will, but not at the expense of others Life, Liberty, or Property" and the Non-Aggression Principle. There is no reason why a private militia or defensive agency, or even individuals themselves, could do the same workings of a national defense.

[Anarcho Jesse]

Alteveer, on Sep 17 2007, 03:00 PM, said:

I'm skeptical of how well it would work.

Where does your initial skepticism lie?

[Freddy]

Anarcho capitalism is only of any value to those who already control wealth. It's liberalism gone made.

Freedom is nothing without equality and equality is meaningless without freedom.

[Anarcho Jesse]

Freddy, on Sep 17 2007, 03:45 PM, said:

Anarcho capitalism is only of any value to those who already control wealth. It's liberalism gone made.

To the contrary; without the interference of the State and its arbitrary laws and plunder, you would see people more in control of their money that would otherwise be going to some polyanna pluralistic coercive institution that ends up either wasting the money that they took or spending it in places and on projects you'll never use/need.

Quote

Freedom is nothing without equality and equality is meaningless without freedom.

To the contrary, Freedom cannot exist with forced equality, and people are not equal. I agree that at the core, every human is in some sense or another, "equal", in that they all possess the right to Life, Liberty, and the Product of their Life and Liberty, or Property; however, abrogating these natural rights in the name of "equality" is contradictory by their inherent nature.

[Freddy]

Anarcho-Jesse, on Sep 17 2007, 05:05 PM, said:

To the contrary; without the interference of the State and its arbitrary laws and plunder, you would see people more in control of their money that would otherwise be going to some polyanna pluralistic coercive institution that ends up either wasting the money that they took or spending it in places and on projects you'll never use/need.

What is the source of their money? If that source is the labour of others then the removal of state intervention in regulation of that relationship would suit them very well. Enforcement of the property relationships would be a market controlled affair, that is entirely in the hands of those with the resources to fund it.

If you have to exchange your labour in order to survive then the removal of the state and the imposition of market controlled enforcement would be a disaster. Possibly*

Quote

To the contrary, Freedom cannot exist with forced equality, and people are not equal. I agree that at the core, every human is in some sense or another, "equal", in that they all possess the right to Life, Liberty, and the Product of their Life and Liberty, or Property; however, abrogating these natural rights in the name of "equality" is contradictory by their inherent nature.

we do not have forced equality, we have forced inequality. Somewhere between 70 and 80% of all wealth was inherited - The vast majority of those that can call themselves wealthy did not get so through the results of some meritocracy and those that are not wealthy are not in their current state because they have somehow
failed.

*The current governmental institutions we have are in the most part a result of the bourgoise revolutions in the 18th Century, that is to say that they are controlled by and run for the bourgoisie. How much more the playing field could be skewed in the favour of capital if these institutions were removed is questionable.

[Lord GVChamp]

I would never trust an anarcho-capitalist society to provide for the common defense. A decentralized "milita" system made the United States much weaker than it had to be. The navy, which was more centralized, almost always performed admirably.

[Gustave5436]

Nalka, on Sep 17 2007, 01:34 AM, said:

I think you should consult a dictionary, your idea of anarchy seems a bit...odd

Anarchy- society without rulers. Comes from the Greek "archon"- ruler

A society with a working class and a ruling class, therefore, cannot be anarchist.

Quote

I always thought anarchism was lack of government. Check out the Wikipedia entry I posted.

Because anarchists really just want to replace the oppression of the state with the oppression of the "free" market.

This post has been edited by Gustave5436: 17 September 2007 - 11:06 AM

[Anarcho Jesse]

Freddy, on Sep 17 2007, 04:23 PM, said:

What is the source of their money? If that source is the labour of others then the removal of state intervention in regulation of that relationship would suit them very well.

I'm sorry, but this is a bit confusing; who's money?

Quote

Enforcement of the property relationships would be a market controlled affair, that is entirely in the hands of those with the resources to fund it.

Which would be the most suitable exchange, no?

Quote

If you have to exchange your labour in order to survive then the removal of the state and the imposition of market controlled enforcement would be a disaster. Possibly*
we do not have forced equality, we have forced inequality. Somewhere between 70 and 80% of all wealth was inherited - The vast majority of those that can call themselves wealthy did not get so through the results of some meritocracy and those that are not wealthy are not in their current state because they have somehow
failed.

*The current governmental institutions we have are in the most part a result of the bourgoise revolutions in the 18th Century, that is to say that they are controlled by and run for the bourgoisie. How much more the playing field could be skewed in the favour of capital if these institutions were removed is questionable.

You're arguing against Mercantilism, not Capitalism. I'm debating whether or not I should argue against this misconception, or just let this lie.

Lord GVChamp, on Sep 17 2007, 04:28 PM, said:

I would never trust an anarcho-capitalist society to provide for the common defense. A decentralized "milita" system made the United States much weaker than it had to be. The navy, which was more centralized, almost always performed admirably.

In other words, you can't wrap your elitist mind around the abilities of Individuals, who make up defense as it is, extending as far as actively organizing a suitable defense?

Gustave5436, on Sep 17 2007, 05:03 PM, said:

Anarchy- society without rulers. Comes from the Greek "archon"- ruler

Lol, we've been over etymological fallacies before Gustave.

Quote

A society with a working class and a ruling class, therefore, cannot be anarchist.

Classes are a forced distinction, a construct of the State. If you're simply a voluntary worker, who are you being ruled by? You can always leave, you can always refuse to work, you can always choose another job. Your options are only limited by any prior contract or the enacting of violence.

Which brings up an interesting thought: If you're living in a purely democratic society, and an issue comes up to being voted for, doesn't the division in votes establish a class of the non-rulers and the rulers? How is this Anarchy?

Quote

Because anarchists really just want to replace the oppression of the state with the oppression of the "free" market.

Oh, now I know you've never really opened a book up on Capitalism or Market Anarchism. I have a hard time believing that free interaction is truly oppressive.