Anarcho-Capitalism

[LibertiORDeth]

Now that I have declared myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, I would like to know what it is. What exactly are the differences between it and Anarchy (I understand that it's a subset of Anarchy). I keep hearing about it allowing for private property, but it does no more so then Anarchy, since either way your property is whatever you can hold on to.

[Jeremy]

The funny part was when you declared you were something you didn't understand

[MRoCkEd]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism

By the way, I'm a Rastafarian. Can someone explain to me what a Rastafarian is?

[Ozwest]

How will a Anarco - Capitalist deal with living in a Corporate - Fascist State?

[Micah Dardar]

Funny, I thought I was a liberal until I realized that I was a classical liberal!

[Chiznaddy]

The funny part was when you declared you were something you didn't understand

+ $700 billion

[Shotdown1027]

How an anarcho-capitalist lives in a ANY government is the subject of Rational Anarchism and Agorism--feel free to do some reading.

[Ozwest]

Funny, I thought I was a liberal until I realized that I was a classical liberal!

It's hard to keep up!

[StilesBC]

the term 'anarchy' is about as useless as the term 'conservative' or 'liberal'. It simply doesn't mean anything anymore.

Anarchists are seen as nihilistic people who disbelieve in the ownership of private property, that there should be no law, and everything belongs to everyone else.

This is what most people will think of you if you call yourself an anarchist.

The Rothbardian definition is far more accurate, but far less understood. Do yourself a favour and call yourself a libertarian.

I am a minarchist with hints of anarcho-capitalist, agorist and other leanings. But if anyone asks, I'm a libertarian. That creates enough glass-eyed response as it is from the sheep. No need to confuse them further.

People need to be taught that government is bad gradually. It goes against everything they've been taught in their lives. The older they are, the harder it is.

[Josh_LA]

how can you declare yourself something you don't know what it is?

Look for the thread Anarcho-capitalist FAQ where Conza88 and I go back and forth.

[gilliganscorner]

I am a minarchist with hints of anarcho-capitalist, agorist and other leanings. But if anyone asks, I'm a libertarian. That creates enough glass-eyed response as it is from the sheep. No need to confuse them further.

People need to be taught that government is bad gradually. It goes against everything they've been taught in their lives. The older they are, the harder it is.

I am a dyslexic agnostic insomniac that lays awake in bed at night that pondering the existence of Dog.

Ah yes. The ol' glazed donut look.

It's true, the older you are, the more you are hardwired into the nanny state as all those handouts are maturing from the extortion payments you made in the past.

[Ozwest]

I am a dyslexic agnostic insomniac that lays awake in bed at night that pondering the existence of Dog.

Ah yes. The ol' glazed donut look.

It's true, the older you are, the more you are hardwired into the nanny state as all those handouts are maturing from the extortion payments you made in the past.

Dog is Good!

[Razmear]

//////

[LibertiORDeth]

The funny part was when you declared you were something you didn't understand

I know it's a subset of Anarchy (which I do agree with) and I know it's similar enough where I agree with it too

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism

By the way, I'm a Rastafarian. Can someone explain to me what a Rastafarian is?

That didn't help, still don't see the differences that set it apart from Anarchy.

[LibertiORDeth]

the term 'anarchy' is about as useless as the term 'conservative' or 'liberal'. It simply doesn't mean anything anymore.

Anarchists are seen as nihilistic people who disbelieve in the ownership of private property, that there should be no law, and everything belongs to everyone else.

This is what most people will think of you if you call yourself an anarchist.

The Rothbardian definition is far more accurate, but far less understood. Do yourself a favour and call yourself a libertarian.

I am a minarchist with hints of anarcho-capitalist, agorist and other leanings. But if anyone asks, I'm a libertarian. That creates enough glass-eyed response as it is from the sheep. No need to confuse them further.

People need to be taught that government is bad gradually. It goes against everything they've been taught in their lives. The older they are, the harder it is.

I was also, until recently when I realized that all government turns bad. Quickly.

[Kludge]

If you still subscribe to Nihilism, then it'd be VERY difficult (impossible?) to believe in natural rights at the same time (not that it'd matter practically...). So, if you promote Anarcho-Capitalism, you'd have to live in a type of Commune (Anarcho-Communism) under a social contract to have rights. And if you don't care for rights, than you are more likely a libertine... And living in a libertine society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".


Weee... Wikipedia links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

[kombayn]

The funny part was when you declared you were something you didn't understand

+1, it made me laugh out loud.

[Conza88]

how can you declare yourself something you don't know what it is?

Look for the thread Anarcho-capitalist FAQ where Conza88 and I go back and forth.

It really hasn't got much to do with Anarcho-Capitalism anymore...

It's more an argument of Libertine, Immorality, Violence, Ignorance (you & your position) vs Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson & Aristotle, Logic, Reason, Morality, Virtue, Knowledge.



Here is the thread for the OP: link.

[Conza88]

If you still subscribe to Nihilism, then it'd be VERY difficult (impossible?) to believe in natural rights at the same time (not that it'd matter practically...). So, if you promote Anarcho-Capitalism, you'd have to live in a type of Commune (Anarcho-Communism) under a social contract to have rights. And if you don't care for rights, than you are more likely a libertine... And living in a libertine society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

All pretty right; except for your notion that you promote anarcho-capitalism you have to live in an anarcho-commune with a social contract to have rights.. LOL.

I understand where you're coming from, but it's flawed.

Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't need anarcho-communism. They're fundamentally different. Take a look at the last terms, lol..

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz

You've largely got it the other way around imo. If you're talking current day in America; anarcho-capitalists need to establish a commune; like a voluntary socialist community... (LOL)

That's fine if they want to be socialists... but in terms of anarcho-capitalism / libertarianism, the state is still around... being a pain in the ass, coming with taxes & coercion, bleh bleh.

Agorism is what you're looking for.

[LibertiORDeth]

If you still subscribe to Nihilism, then it'd be VERY difficult (impossible?) to believe in natural rights at the same time (not that it'd matter practically...). So, if you promote Anarcho-Capitalism, you'd have to live in a type of Commune (Anarcho-Communism) under a social contract to have rights. And if you don't care for rights, than you are more likely a libertine... And living in a libertine society would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".


Weee... Wikipedia links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

Actually sir, a person has rights as far as he can protect them. I believe I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I won't allow anyone to infringe on those rights.

[me3]

I was also, until recently when I realized that all government turns bad. Quickly.

You get it.

It's more an argument of Libertine, Immorality, Violence, Ignorance (you & your position) vs Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson & Aristotle, Logic, Reason, Morality, Virtue, Knowledge.

Nice smackdown.

Actually sir, a person has rights as far as he can protect them. I believe I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I won't allow anyone to infringe on those rights.

Read Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty.

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics.pdf

And don't worry about what the names mean. A lot of libertarians spend more time explaining what they are, than doing anything to have more liberty. If you believe in property and you don't believe in the right to use force against others, you're one of the good guys.

If you think you can take over government, and use it to do your version of good, you're a statist. And very dangerous to free people, who might not like your vision of how mankind should act and behave.

[Mini-Me]

All pretty right; except for your notion that you promote anarcho-capitalism you have to live in an anarcho-commune with a social contract to have rights.. LOL.

I understand where you're coming from, but it's flawed.

Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't need anarcho-communism. They're fundamentally different. Take a look at the last terms, lol..

"The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community." – David D. Boaz

You've largely got it the other way around imo. If you're talking current day in America; anarcho-capitalists need to establish a commune; like a voluntary socialist community... (LOL)

That's fine if they want to be socialists... but in terms of anarcho-capitalism / libertarianism, the state is still around... being a pain in the ass, coming with taxes & coercion, bleh bleh.

Agorism is what you're looking for.

Said with a lisp, "You totally mithunderthtood him, you thilly goothe!" According to Kludge's post, he was under the impression that LibertiORDeth is a nihilist and does not believe in natural rights, only social contracts. He was not trying to say that anarcho-capitalism requires communism in any way; rather, he was trying to say that anarcho-capitalism absolutely requires a concept of natural rights and cannot work on social contract alone, whereas anarcho-communism is somehow supposed to be different in that regard. In any case, Kludge was still incorrect: After all, a social contract is not a written contract, and anarcho-capitalism has just as much of an unwritten social contract as any other kind of anarchy.

[mport1]

Now that I have declared myself an Anarcho-Capitalist, I would like to know what it is. What exactly are the differences between it and Anarchy (I understand that it's a subset of Anarchy). I keep hearing about it allowing for private property, but it does no more so then Anarchy, since either way your property is whatever you can hold on to.

Glad to have you.

Here are some books I would suggest reading:

For A New Liberty (and everything you can find by Rothbard) - http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp (print or audio)

Everyday Anarchy and Practical Anarchy - http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html (print or audio)

The Market For Liberty - http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

[Kludge]

Actually sir, a person has rights as far as he can protect them. I believe I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I won't allow anyone to infringe on those rights.

And now you've entered libertine territory.

[Elwar]

To understand what it means you must first look at the words:

Anarchy -
An Archy
An -> Against
Archy -> The Archie comics
Against the Archie comic book.

Capitalist -
Capital ist
Capital -> Centeral government facility
ist -> In support of
In support of a central government facility

So basically you hate the archie comics but support centralized government.

Hope that clears things up.

[LibertiORDeth]

Said with a lisp, "You totally mithunderthtood him, you thilly goothe!" According to Kludge's post, he was under the impression that LibertiORDeth is a nihilist and does not believe in natural rights, only social contracts. He was not trying to say that anarcho-capitalism requires communism in any way; rather, he was trying to say that anarcho-capitalism absolutely requires a concept of natural rights and cannot work on social contract alone, whereas anarcho-communism is somehow supposed to be different in that regard. In any case, Kludge was still incorrect: After all, a social contract is not a written contract, and anarcho-capitalism has just as much of an unwritten social contract as any other kind of anarchy.

First of all, I decided that I do indeed still believe in God, so went from Nihilist to Agnostic last week. Even with that, however,
"Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists generally assert that objective morality does not exist, and that no action is logically preferable to any other in regard to the moral value of one action over another. Nihilists that argue that there is no objective morality may claim that existence has no intrinsic higher meaning or goal. They may also claim that there is no reasonable proof or argument for the existence of a higher ruler or creator, or posit that even if a higher ruler or creator exists, humanity has no moral obligation to worship them."
Not sure how this conflicts with An Cap anyhow...

[LibertiORDeth]

And now you've entered libertine territory.

"Libertine has come to mean one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society."
Nope, not at all what I said.

[RevolutionSD]

It's been mentioned but I want to reiterate, if you're a market anarchist or anarcho-capitalist, be sure to check out www.freedomainradio.com and especially Stefan's podcasts and free ebooks. My favorite of the books is Real Time Relationships- The Logic of Love.

I call that one the true red pill.

[Conza88]

Said with a lisp, "You totally mithunderthtood him, you thilly goothe!" According to Kludge's post, he was under the impression that LibertiORDeth is a nihilist and does not believe in natural rights, only social contracts. He was not trying to say that anarcho-capitalism requires communism in any way; rather, he was trying to say that anarcho-capitalism absolutely requires a concept of natural rights and cannot work on social contract alone, whereas anarcho-communism is somehow supposed to be different in that regard. In any case, Kludge was still incorrect: After all, a social contract is not a written contract, and anarcho-capitalism has just as much of an unwritten social contract as any other kind of anarchy.

I KNEW the impression he was under. I KNEW it to be false. I KNEW what he was getting at. Op's corrected you so far. But yeah, not sure you added much.

[Kludge]

"Libertine has come to mean one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns religious norms, accepted morals, and forms of behaviour sanctioned by the larger society."
Nope, not at all what I said.

You said you have as many rights as you can protect and that you choose which rights you have. You could pick any right you want, you'd be totally unrestrained except by yourself if you so choose.

You could claim the right to private property and have then justified killing any government collectors who come to your house.

You could claim that you have the right to be naked, and have then justified going where you please nude.

You could claim the right to be the only person living on Earth and would have justified killing everyone you come into contact with.