Question for Anarcho-capitalists

[BKV]

How does ancap, libertarianism or free market capitalism prevent itself from becoming either anarchism or corporatism?

Either there is force to protect property, or there is not.

If there's force to protect property, why not stick with corporatism?

If not, what's to stop anarchism or what's protecting private property from collective theft?

How is corporatism, state sponsored capitalism, or a socialist's strawman of capitalism, any less capitalistic? Is there a rule in capitalism that says competition should always be allowed (even if it means artificially propped up)? Isn't capitalism just about doing whatever is in your favor, including hurting your competitors?

Is there a word that best describes your position?
Freedom? Choice? Property? Individualism? Greed? Voluntarism? Anarchism?

[hugolp]

Lets start first define capitalism.

Capitalism in the economic sense means free and voluntary exchange. It means that the people can freely and voluntarely exchange goods or services.

In the more social sense its more of the same, it means you can live alone or you can freely and voluntarely associate with others. Capitalism is freedom.

What capitalism is not is a call for being extermely greedy, agresive or selfish. You are free to be that way (as long as you dont break the law) if you thing its what is best for you.

Now, why is this supposed to work? Because people follows their self-interest (not selfishness). It means that nobody but each person knows whats best for him/her at any moment (and accept the consequenses). If someone believes his best movement is (or just wants) to help someone with his/her property he/she is free to do it. There is no obligation of being somehow, just respect someone else freedom, live and property, and accept the consecuences of the acts.

A lot of people get confuse by this because they think that being agresive and 100% selfish will led them to success. Its just like thiking that evolution is based on the survival of the strongest. Evolution is based on the survival of the more adapted (and that changes with each enviroment and time). This is something similar, you have to follow your self-interest, wich will be different for each enviroment and each moment. Sometimes it will be associate (like this movement) or sometimes it will be going alone. You will allways decide, not someone else.


How is corporatism, state sponsored capitalism, or a socialist's strawman of capitalism, any less capitalistic? Is there a rule in capitalism that says competition should always be allowed (even if it means artificially propped up)? Isn't capitalism just about doing whatever is in your favor, including hurting your competitors?

First corporatism is a form of socialism. Benitto Musolini was a socialist and his type of socialism was called corporatism.

Now, why is it not really capistalism? Because it doesnt respect the property. In both there is no private property right, just a private use privilege. A right the state can not take, a privilige it can. In socialistic socieities goverment can take any property with any excuse (usually the excuse politicians use is the commong good).Socialistic economies devaluate the value of money wich is theft, another violation of the private property, as money is a property. Also, socialistic societies allways end up restricting the freedom of its citizen (again, usually with the excuse of the common good).

There is no rule in capitalism that sais competition should be artificially propped up, it makes no sense. In a free society competition just happens.

And yes, its important to do all you can to prosper and grow your bussiness and compete as long as you dont use violence, or violate someone else propertiy. Usually you will get the best benefits by offering the best service, but if you think you can win by not offering the best service, as long as you dont use violence or steal property you can try, you tell me how it goes.


How does ancap, libertarianism or free market capitalism prevent itself from becoming either anarchism or corporatism?

Either there is force to protect property, or there is not.

[I am not an anarchist so I am going to leave the anarchist discussion to someone who thinks its the best system, because he/she will give you the best answer.]

It is true that a Republic where the law is respected can become decadent and degrade into a Democracy, and it will soon adopt socialistic policies (of any type, corporatist, socialdemocratic, nationalsocialist, ....). And as history shows, a Democracy allwyas leds to oligarchy, fascism or tyranny, or however you want to call it. But that is allways the danger when you have something (freedom in this case), that you can loose it. I much rather have freedom and being in danger of loosing it, that not have it in the first place. Freedom is not free, you have to fight to keep it.

[Conza88]

How does ancap, libertarianism or free market capitalism prevent itself from becoming either anarchism or corporatism?

Either there is force to protect property, or there is not.

If there's force to protect property, why not stick with corporatism?

If not, what's to stop anarchism or what's protecting private property from collective theft?

How is corporatism, state sponsored capitalism, or a socialist's strawman of capitalism, any less capitalistic? Is there a rule in capitalism that says competition should always be allowed (even if it means artificially propped up)? Isn't capitalism just about doing whatever is in your favor, including hurting your competitors?

Is there a word that best describes your position?
Freedom? Choice? Property? Individualism? Greed? Voluntarism? Anarchism?

Define the terms and I'll see if we can make this a productive conversation.

[BKV]

Define the terms and I'll see if we can make this a productive conversation.

Good start.

Maybe it's all because I don't have my terms straight.

Is an ancap a person who believe there should be no government, just like an anarchist, except in ancap, people have a voluntary respect for private property and will do all to defend it for another?

Corporatism, from what I heard, is when state cooperates with businesses, either outright or indirectly, either owned, or funnels money. This I know, libertarians and ancaps would say is not real capitalism, but I don't see how it's different as government and corporations are simply voluntarily helping another for their own selfish interests.

I'll define/ask more as we go.

[BKV]

Lets start first define capitalism.

Capitalism in the economic sense means free and voluntary exchange. It means that the people can freely and voluntarely exchange goods or services.

In the more social sense its more of the same, it means you can live alone or you can freely and voluntarely associate with others. Capitalism is freedom.

What capitalism is not is a call for being extermely greedy, agresive or selfish. You are free to be that way (as long as you dont break the law) if you thing its what is best for you.


So how would today's Keynesian econ or corporate Fascism be any different?

Some people are greedy, some are not, some are capable, some don't care to be slaves, everybody gets what they deserve. What's involuntary about a corporation buying out the government to favor it's own interests?

And how would removing government sponsorship of corporate power not conjugantly remove protection of property to all other people?



Now, why is this supposed to work? Because people follows their self-interest (not selfishness). It means that nobody but each person knows whats best for him/her at any moment (and accept the consequenses). If someone believes his best movement is (or just wants) to help someone with his/her property he/she is free to do it. There is no obligation of being somehow, just respect someone else freedom, live and property, and accept the consecuences of the acts.


Exactly, therefore we have no business telling corporations they can't "underpay" "outsource" "exploit" "pollute" because it's none of our business what they want to do, they know what's best for them.

Unless you own certain parts of the environment, you have no say who can't pollute it, do you?




A lot of people get confuse by this because they think that being agresive and 100% selfish will led them to success.


I don't, but I don't think that's wrong either.



Its just like thiking that evolution is based on the survival of the strongest.


Fittest, not strongest.



Evolution is based on the survival of the more adapted (and that changes with each enviroment and time). This is something similar, you have to follow your self-interest, wich will be different for each enviroment and each moment. Sometimes it will be associate (like this movement) or sometimes it will be going alone. You will allways decide, not someone else.


Exactly, so corporations can decide to end competition and enslave other people, that's what their interest is.



First corporatism is a form of socialism. Benitto Musolini was a socialist and his type of socialism was called corporatism.


Just saying so doesn't make it so.

I can see you're thinking no competition automatically means socialism.

I don't think that's a fair definition, socialism means democratic and collective interests, corporatism may mean no competition, but it is also not exactly for interest of society (only those on top).




Now, why is it not really capistalism? Because it doesnt respect the property.


YES IT DOES, it respect property and ownership of the government and the elite corporations who are in bed with them, all of which would not happen if social democracy or anarchy were in place.



In both there is no private property right, just a private use privilege. A right the state can not take, a privilige it can. In socialistic socieities goverment can take any property with any excuse (usually the excuse politicians use is the commong good).Socialistic economies devaluate the value of money wich is theft, another violation of the private property, as money is a property.


If anybody is robbing anybody, that's still capitalism, because you can't have theft without recognizing property exists, and should belong somewhere (here or there).



Also, socialistic societies allways end up restricting the freedom of its citizen (again, usually with the excuse of the common good).


Restricting freedom is part of the government and corporation's interests, why shouldn't they do what is in their best interest?

Or are you saying freedom is an absolute maxim? If so, you have nothing to say if ancap and libertarianism soon uses the market to go back to corporatism or anarchy, whatever the ignorant masses want for themselves.

You have nothing to say about people giving up their freedom voluntarily. do you?




There is no rule in capitalism that sais competition should be artificially propped up, it makes no sense. In a free society competition just happens.


Competition just happens, and bad ones die, either their own fault of via corporation's power to crush them, so if corporations use mass media or low prices to kill competition, you have nothing to say, because they are just using free speech and looking out for their own interests.



And yes, its important to do all you can to prosper and grow your bussiness and compete as long as you dont use violence, or violate someone else propertiy.


So persuading people to pay a house for a meal is OK so long as I didn't use a gun and it's not my fault they don't know better?



Usually you will get the best benefits by offering the best service, but if you think you can win by not offering the best service, as long as you dont use violence or steal property you can try, you tell me how it goes.


What if I use violence? Who's going to stop me? (I take it, the state for you, since you are not an anarchist)

And what if I provide the "best service" because there is no "other choice"?



[I am not an anarchist so I am going to leave the anarchist discussion to someone who thinks its the best system, because he/she will give you the best answer.]

It is true that a Republic where the law is respected can become decadent and degrade into a Democracy, and it will soon adopt socialistic policies (of any type, corporatist, socialdemocratic, nationalsocialist, ....). And as history shows, a Democracy allwyas leds to oligarchy, fascism or tyranny, or however you want to call it. But that is allways the danger when you have something (freedom in this case), that you can loose it. I much rather have freedom and being in danger of loosing it, that not have it in the first place. Freedom is not free, you have to fight to keep it.

Ok, so in short, you have no problem letting us come back to today's world as long as you make sure it was chosen properly by 99.99% of the people voluntarily?

[Conza88]

Good start.

Maybe it's all because I don't have my terms straight.

Is an ancap a person who believe there should be no government, just like an anarchist, except in ancap, people have a voluntary respect for private property and will do all to defend it for another?

Yes - anarcho-capitalists is an extension of Libertarianism and taken to it's full and proper logical conclusions. Libertarianism being founded on the: Non aggression axiom (principle) + Private property rights in the Lockean / Rothbardian homesteading tradition.

While the ancaps are called "radical" - they are merely being consistent. And have actually taken the time to check their premises and research, investigate, read, discuss, consider - their positions.

Archy - means rulers. Anarchy means 'no rulers'. Some from the Austrian School choose to use this label, but I reject it.

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

It is associated with chaos (naturally, because the "anarchists" - who originally held the label and still try to hold it's mantle, are traditional socialists)

They believe the State PROTECTS private property and THAT is why they want to abolish it. They are the ones in the streets rioting, using violence and destroying property.

I'm not sure why someone in their right mind would want to associate with that. But essentially, the anarcho-capitalists are the only "anarchists" or NON-ARCHISTS. They are the true system of 'no rulers'. I just think it's pointless trying to fight the socialists back and retake the label that has been tarnished for decades.


Corporatism, from what I heard, is when state cooperates with businesses, either outright or indirectly, either owned, or funnels money. This I know, libertarians and ancaps would say is not real capitalism, but I don't see how it's different as government and corporations are simply voluntarily helping another for their own selfish interests.

I'll define/ask more as we go.

Fascism is a term coined by Italian's past dictator, Mussolini. He later said it was more accurately called "CORPORATISM". It is the joining of the State and big business. It's the same as Nazism / Fascism = NATIONAL SOCIALISM. (Nazi Party - National SOCIALISTS Party)

And Marxism / Communism = INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM.

5 letters of difference. Makes more sense now?

[BKV]

Yes - anarcho-capitalists is an extension of Libertarianism and taken to it's full and proper logical conclusions.


With the exceptional reservations of private property?



Libertarianism being founded on the: Non aggression axiom (principle) + Private property rights in the Lockean / Rothbardian homesteading tradition.


How does non-aggression principle answer "or else what?"?



While the ancaps are called "radical" - they are merely being consistent. And have actually taken the time to check their premises and research, investigate, read, discuss, consider - their positions.


We'll see about that.




Archy - means rulers. Anarchy means 'no rulers'. Some from the Austrian School choose to use this label, but I reject it.

Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html)

It is associated with chaos (naturally, because the "anarchists" - who originally held the label and still try to hold it's mantle, are traditional socialists)

They believe the State PROTECTS private property and THAT is why they want to abolish it. They are the ones in the streets rioting, using violence and destroying property.


And you and I both know, people who destroy property are not against property, only when they don't get it. They'd be capitalist if they were rich too.



I'm not sure why someone in their right mind would want to associate with that.


Because I have faith in humanity that people are smart enough to judge who I am by what I believe and what I do, not what labels can tie me to others.

Who would want to associate themselves with our founders who were slave enablers and violent murderers?



But essentially, the anarcho-capitalists are the only "anarchists" or NON-ARCHISTS. They are the true system of 'no rulers'. I just think it's pointless trying to fight the socialists back and retake the label that has been tarnished for decades.


So, answer this one, how is property protected in anarchy?

Do have the people stay awake to protect half the people who sleep?



Fascism is a term coined by Italian's past dictator, Mussolini. He later said it was more accurately called "CORPORATISM". It is the joining of the State and big business. It's the same as Nazism / Fascism = NATIONAL SOCIALISM. (Nazi Party - National SOCIALISTS Party)

And Marxism / Communism = INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM.

5 letters of difference. Makes more sense now?

No, not yet. I've heard these terms used interchangeably too.
But my question is.

How is corporatism , fascism, not capitalism?

OK, first, I will grant you that socialism is defined by
1. Government ownership of production
2. Social needs above personal greed

Now, corporatism MAY fit 1., but that's still capitalism in the sense that government is just as human as you are, and that they too seek personal profit above the obligation to serve and please others.

What would ancap have to prevent itself from corrupting into corporatism? (or is corporatism sometimes OK?)

[Conza88]

Josh_LA = BKV.

Josh - I've covered all these questions before with you. You refuse to learn.

Back on ignore list. ;)

In the mean time: You need to read this. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2089401&postcount=134)

[Master]

Didn't want to start another thread but does anyone have any reading material on courts and law in an anarcho-capitalist society?

[Conza88]

Didn't want to start another thread but does anyone have any reading material on courts and law in an anarcho-capitalist society?

Glad you asked :D


For a New Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard (pdf) (http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf) (text) (http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp) (audiobook) (http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87)

Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannehil (pdf) (http://mises.org/books/marketforliberty.pdf) (audiobook) (http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/)

Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe (pdf) (http://mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf)

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (pdf) (http://www.4shared.com/file/92922216/dd10024e/David_Friedman_-_The_Machinery_of_Freedom.html)

Mises Institutes Law Section (http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=subject&ID=122)



First one - specifically Chapter 12.
Second focuses on the private production of defense. Courts etc. Utilitarian perspective.
Third is more private defense.
Fourth contains private courts, law, etc as well.
And some gems in LvMI Law Section.

Anarchy and Law (http://www.mises.org/store/Anarchy-and-Law-P335C0.aspx) is the ultimate book on this.