Anarcho-capitalism?

[Che]

What's the difference between Anarcho-capitalism and just pure capitalism? and where does libertarian socialist fit in..?
can you explain in easy english where i can understand?

[yongrel]

Anarcho-captialist = principled

Pure Capitalist = prosperous

Libertarian Socialist = confused

[Theocrat]

• Anarcho-capitalism
• Capitalism

[Conza88]

What's the difference between Anarcho-capitalism and just pure capitalism? and where does libertarian socialist fit in..?
can you explain in easy english where i can understand?

Well, essentially anarcho-capitalism is pure capitalism.

Capitalism = the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism = the public ownership of the means of production.

Classical Liberalism (what I guess you associate as "pure capitalism", actually isn't.) And part of the reason for Capitalism's decline over the 20th Century / since the American Revolution, is because of democratic nature / tradition of the US (politicians / special interests) which even a Constitutional Republic, and Constitution - a MINIMAL STATE cannot protect against. It has inherent contradictions which itself cannot resolve.

Anarcho-capitalism is the logical extension of Libertarianism. The non aggression axiom (principle) and the Lockean / Rothbardian homesteading private property rights principle. This is applied to EVERYTHING. Others say: radical, I say: 'consistent'. It is the pure capitalism.

Libertarian socialist - is someone who is using the Libertarian in the European label sense of the world. When the socialists stole "Liberal" ie. morphed classical liberal to make liberal mean "socialist", in America - the free market folks where able to obtain the label "Libertarian".

A Libertarian socialist - is a Chomsky supporter. They are completely ignorant of economics, and think the State actually protects private property (lolz, it doesn't - it has to violate private property to exist). Confused and lost.

Hope that helps.

[Kludge]

I agree with Conza.

If you believe in inalienable property rights, you cannot support "public" government.

If you do not believe in inalienable property rights, I still believe it would be unethical of you to steal from me, even if it is through government (even a "democratic" government.), and even if you perceive your cause to be "just". Unless 100% of citizens support their government, aggression is taking place. Limited government may be beneficial to society, but that does not necessarily mean its existence is justified.

[Paulitician]

I was going to say that anarcho-capitalism is the same thing as pure capitalism, but now that I think about it I don't believe that's true. Pure capitalism to me would mean a principled capitalism, but also a full-fledged capitalism, i.e. a market economy based on private property, and only that. No room for public/common "property" or non-market economic type institutions. Anarcho-capitalism is principled because it rejects a mixed economy in the sense of a voluntary/private sector and a coerced/public sector, but most are not against mixed economies in the sense of capitalist economy with other types of economies such as libertarian socialist, as long as they're voluntary, so it's not "pure" (there are however ancaps who are pure capitalists, but anarcho-capitalism need not necessarily be so). But it would seem to me that by nature, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism could not possibly coexist (I don't think the same would hold true with anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-collectivism--there's a lot of theory and practicality to be fleshed out).

As for libertarian socialists--well, there are two kinds if you ask me. The actual anarchist libertarian socialists, and more social democratic, minarchist libertarian socialists (I'd put the likes of Chomsky and Howard Zinn in latter category even though they claim to be anarchists). Kind of like just like you have minarchists capitalists and anarchist capitalists. Obviously the anarchist strand of libertarian socialists are not anarcho-capitalists, but the two can can coexist with few conflicts. I guess the biggest issue they have is that of private property. They're not outright communists in that they reject any sort of property, but they don't agree with capitalist theory of property, and most support collectivization, worker-run industry, unions etc. and don't think things like road or other public goods should be privately owned, but have more public solutions (though there are individualist so-called libertarian socialists who don't support some of the above--libertarian socialism is a big tent in and of itself, though it's not very popular as modern Americanized libertarianism is currently--maybe it was more prevalent in late 19th century/early 20th century...)

So yeah, hope that helps, even though this stuff isn't entirely clear-cut.

[Indy Vidual]

In theory:
Socialism and even Utopian Communism is perfectly compatible with freedom and Libertarianism as long as participation and funding are 100% voluntary.

[Young Paleocon]

To bad socialism and communism won't have funds for long due to lack of a pricing mechanism.

[Indy Vidual]

To bad socialism and communism won't have funds for long due to lack of a pricing mechanism.

Local communes, like the one formerly in Waco, can fund themselves quite well, as long as they avoid being exterminated.


"The community of faith that once lived at Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, believed the promise of free society. They chose to separate themselves from society, as so many others have done in our nation's history. This was not allowed in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China. That's one reason we regard these regimes as tyrannical."

The Moral Promise of Freedom
by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX)

The above article is one of Ron's best, in case you have never read it.

[Young Paleocon]

I would be interested to see how the settlement had worked out if it had been allowed to survive for 20 more years to see if they or their children had lost work incentives.

[UnReconstructed]

I was going to say that anarcho-capitalism is the same thing as pure capitalism, but now that I think about it I don't believe that's true. Pure capitalism to me would mean a principled capitalism, but also a full-fledged capitalism, i.e. a market economy based on private property, and only that. No room for public/common "property" or non-market economic type institutions. Anarcho-capitalism is principled because it rejects a mixed economy in the sense of a voluntary/private sector and a coerced/public sector, but most are not against mixed economies in the sense of capitalist economy with other types of economies such as libertarian socialist, as long as they're voluntary, so it's not "pure" (there are however ancaps who are pure capitalists, but anarcho-capitalism need not necessarily be so). But it would seem to me that by nature, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism could not possibly coexist (I don't think the same would hold true with anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-collectivism--there's a lot of theory and practicality to be fleshed out).

As for libertarian socialists--well, there are two kinds if you ask me. The actual anarchist libertarian socialists, and more social democratic, minarchist libertarian socialists (I'd put the likes of Chomsky and Howard Zinn in latter category even though they claim to be anarchists). Kind of like just like you have minarchists capitalists and anarchist capitalists. Obviously the anarchist strand of libertarian socialists are not anarcho-capitalists, but the two can can coexist with few conflicts. I guess the biggest issue they have is that of private property. They're not outright communists in that they reject any sort of property, but they don't agree with capitalist theory of property, and most support collectivization, worker-run industry, unions etc. and don't think things like road or other public goods should be privately owned, but have more public solutions (though there are individualist so-called libertarian socialists who don't support some of the above--libertarian socialism is a big tent in and of itself, though it's not very popular as modern Americanized libertarianism is currently--maybe it was more prevalent in late 19th century/early 20th century...)

So yeah, hope that helps, even though this stuff isn't entirely clear-cut.

You sure have given that a lot of thought. May I ask, where do you align yourself amongst these non-collective groups?

[Pod]

Local communes, like the one formerly in Waco, can fund themselves quite well, as long as they avoid being exterminated.

Yes, but it is good to point out that In Anarcho-Capitalism Local communes are communistic only internally. Externally they must be capitalistic. So basically you just get 1 body (the commune) interacting in a capitalist manner with the outside instead of say 200 bodies (the members).

Very much like a nuclear family today is communistic but within a larger capitalist framework.

[Paulitician]

You sure have given that a lot of thought. May I ask, where do you align yourself amongst these non-collective groups?

Individualist, egoist & post-left anarchist... although I have my problems with the term "individualist" (as well as some popular aspects of the philosophy of individualism in general). I'm not very keen the use of labels anymore but those three would be best at describing me.

I don't consider myself capitalist or anything like that. I don't support any social structure anymore in fact, as it seems the wrong way of looking at things from an egoist/individualist perspective. I'm only concerned about my relations with other persons and what I want to see in my life. So long as it has no notable/significant impact on me, I wouldn't care what's going on outside my living area just as I don't care what's happening in China right now in a personal/egoist level (I do care about what happens in China in a "oh that's interesting" standpoint, but I have no emotional attachment/care to whatever direction the "country" goes). Even when it comes to the US government, I just try to find secessionist/agorist ways of "overthrowing" it so to speak for myself... if it is destroying property rights or taxing people 100% in another area of the country, say, then I wouldn't be phased (not that I wouldn't encourage the subjects to rebel... just like I encourage anyone who is willing to join me in the struggle of overthrowing and abolishing all rulers for myself and themselves). Yeah, thanks for giving me the opportunity to ramble on about myself.

[Kraig]

Anarcho-capitalism is what happens when capitalists realize they don't need the government to be capitalists.

[heavenlyboy34]

This explanation is correct. Well done, conza!

Well, essentially anarcho-capitalism is pure capitalism.

Capitalism = the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism = the public ownership of the means of production.

Classical Liberalism (what I guess you associate as "pure capitalism", actually isn't.) And part of the reason for Capitalism's decline over the 20th Century / since the American Revolution, is because of democratic nature / tradition of the US (politicians / special interests) which even a Constitutional Republic, and Constitution - a MINIMAL STATE cannot protect against. It has inherent contradictions which itself cannot resolve.

Anarcho-capitalism is the logical extension of Libertarianism. The non aggression axiom (principle) and the Lockean / Rothbardian homesteading private property rights principle. This is applied to EVERYTHING. Others say: radical, I say: 'consistent'. It is the pure capitalism.

Libertarian socialist - is someone who is using the Libertarian in the European label sense of the world. When the socialists stole "Liberal" ie. morphed classical liberal to make liberal mean "socialist", in America - the free market folks where able to obtain the label "Libertarian".

A Libertarian socialist - is a Chomsky supporter. They are completely ignorant of economics, and think the State actually protects private property (lolz, it doesn't - it has to violate private property to exist). Confused and lost.

Hope that helps.

[Paulitician]

Yes, but it is good to point out that In Anarcho-Capitalism Local communes are communistic only internally. Externally they must be capitalistic. So basically you just get 1 body (the commune) interacting in a capitalist manner with the outside instead of say 200 bodies (the members).

Very much like a nuclear family today is communistic but within a larger capitalist framework.

Yeah, that's why I said anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism cannot possibly coexist, because one is based on the private property, and the other is based on the abolition/rejection of private property. Of course, there could be communes, but not communism as a system. As a result, ancoms say ancaps aren't true anarchists and ancaps say ancoms aren't true anarchists. This issue should probably be reconciled in some way...

[Kraig]

I was going to say that anarcho-capitalism is the same thing as pure capitalism, but now that I think about it I don't believe that's true. Pure capitalism to me would mean a principled capitalism, but also a full-fledged capitalism, i.e. a market economy based on private property, and only that. No room for public/common "property" or non-market economic type institutions. Anarcho-capitalism is principled because it rejects a mixed economy in the sense of a voluntary/private sector and a coerced/public sector, but most are not against mixed economies in the sense of capitalist economy with other types of economies such as libertarian socialist, as long as they're voluntary, so it's not "pure" (there are however ancaps who are pure capitalists, but anarcho-capitalism need not necessarily be so). But it would seem to me that by nature, anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism could not possibly coexist (I don't think the same would hold true with anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-collectivism--there's a lot of theory and practicality to be fleshed out).

Anarchy is the principled form of capitalism because removing the initiator of force (government and criminals, redundant I know) is the only way that property rights can truly be upheld. This difference is key, and it can seem like some form of paradox but it is quite essential. I say paradox, because you are right, an-cap leaves plenty of room for the voluntary socialist. That is the beauty of a completely voluntary social structure, you can take your private property and subject it to anything you wish, if it is not hurting others of course. However, consider the other side, "pure" capitalism as you said. For that system you would have to initiate force against the voluntary socialists to keep it pure, which would completely debase your so called support for private property.

If I live in a capitalistic society, and I go buy and cook a huge meal and invite my neighbors to come eat at my expense, the society didn't just become partially socialistic - it's just me doing what I want with my property. Capitalism is not about sharing or not sharing, it's about private property ownership and who gets to decide who shares your stuff.

There is plenty of room for anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism to co-exist.

[Paulitician]

removing the initiator of force (government and criminals, redundant I know) is the only way that property rights can truly be upheld.

This is true but then one has to ask if property rights should truly be upheld. There are anarchist who don't believe so at all, and other anarchists who'd disagree on some points with (anarcho-)capitalist property rights theory, though still believe some property rights should be upheld.

This difference is key, and it can seem like some form of paradox but it is quite essential. I say paradox, because you are right, an-cap leaves plenty of room for the voluntary socialist. That is the beauty of a completely voluntary social structure, you can take your private property and subject it to anything you wish, if it is not hurting others of course. However, consider the other side, "pure" capitalism as you said. For that system you would have to initiate force against the voluntary socialists to keep it pure, which would completely debase your so called support for private property.

Ehhh... this is mostly semantic so I won't argue about it.

There is plenty of room for anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism to co-exist.

I don't think so. The anarcho-capitalist would say "this is my property, you can't be on it/use it/whatever"... the anarcho-communists say "$#@! that, this is no one's property/everyone's 'property', we decide what happens with it, not you alone etc."

EDIT: I believe ancom and ancap can coexist witch each other, but both would be somewhat limited, cases of conflict would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and be subjective rather than objective

[Conza88]

Just want to add a comment in relation to the: families being 'communistic' or 'socialist'. I used to think that, but they really aren't.

It is called:

Human Action - X. EXCHANGE WITHIN SOCIETY
1. Autistic Exchange and Interpersonal Exchange

... "Making one-sided presents without the aim of being rewarded by any conduct on the part of the receiver or of third persons is autistic exchange. The donor acquires the satisfaction which the better condition of the receiver gives to him. The receiver gets the present as a God-sent gift. But if presents are given in order to influence some people's conduct, they are no longer one-sided, but a variety of interpersonal exchange between the donor and the man whose conduct they are designed to influence. Although the emergence of interpersonal exchange was the result of a long evolution, no gradual transition is conceivable between autistic and interpersonal exchange."...

And it continues.. so in the family unit, dad essentially works, provides food for the family. It could be considered a gift, because he loves them, or naturally his self interest - they, in turn for getting food, shelter, clothing - help around the house doing chores as payment. Wants to see them prosper and grow into productive members of society.

You could probably whittle it down, that a socialist or welfare system within the family unit early on - (kids are spoilt, get cleaned up after themselves, don't do anything, just take) - can whittle their growth into independent adults, and instead remain stunted or dependent. </psycho babble stab in the dark> lol.. something Stefbot tends to do, but I think does have a lot of merit.

[Conza88]

Individualist, egoist & post-left anarchist... although I have my problems with the term "individualist" (as well as some popular aspects of the philosophy of individualism in general). I'm not very keen the use of labels anymore but those three would be best at describing me.

I don't consider myself capitalist or anything like that. I don't support any social structure anymore in fact, as it seems the wrong way of looking at things from an egoist/individualist perspective. I'm only concerned about my relations with other persons and what I want to see in my life. So long as it has no notable/significant impact on me, I wouldn't care what's going on outside my living area just as I don't care what's happening in China right now in a personal/egoist level (I do care about what happens in China in a "oh that's interesting" standpoint, but I have no emotional attachment/care to whatever direction the "country" goes). Even when it comes to the US government, I just try to find secessionist/agorist ways of "overthrowing" it so to speak for myself... if it is destroying property rights or taxing people 100% in another area of the country, say, then I wouldn't be phased (not that I wouldn't encourage the subjects to rebel... just like I encourage anyone who is willing to join me in the struggle of overthrowing and abolishing all rulers for myself and themselves). Yeah, thanks for giving me the opportunity to ramble on about myself.

Panarchist?

[Pod]

Just want to add a comment in relation to the: families being 'communistic' or 'socialist'. I used to think that, but they really aren't.

It is called:

Human Action - X. EXCHANGE WITHIN SOCIETY
1. Autistic Exchange and Interpersonal Exchange

And it continues.. so in the family unit, dad essentially works, provides food for the family. It could be considered a gift, because he loves them, or naturally his self interest - they, in turn for getting food, shelter, clothing - help around the house doing chores as payment. Wants to see them prosper and grow into productive members of society.

You could probably whittle it down, that a socialist or welfare system within the family unit early on - (kids are spoilt, get cleaned up after themselves, don't do anything, just take) - can whittle their growth into independent adults, and instead remain stunted or dependent. </psycho babble stab in the dark> lol.. something Stefbot tends to do, but I think does have a lot of merit.

So are they socialist, or are they not?

[Paulitician]

Panarchist?

Yes, I basically hold the panarchist position to a T, although even under panarchy I'd still prefer to freely associate with more libertarian persons than not.


On the family, I think that saying the family unit is either communistic, or socialistic, or capitalistic etc. is to make an absolutist, false statement. And to say "well the family is communistic/whatever, therefore that's how all human relations should be such" is a non sequitur and lame argument. Personally, I find some notions and practices of "the family" to be sort of weird, which is also why saying "the family is like X economic system" holds no weight for me. But that's a whole other issue that will take thousands of words to explain. Basically, I believe the philosophy of individualism, voluntarism etc. should be applied to the family as much as possible/is healthy. And I don't hold the family, biological or otherwise, to be anything that is sacred.

[Conza88]

So are they socialist, or are they not?

Ha.

It is pretty blurry, yet I don't think it falls on a particular side of the fence.

No, in the sense that the exchanges taking place are acceptable and a given within a capitalist system. And I was just trying to make the point, that what is considered 'socialist' i.e the family unit, because of the vague notion that property seems like it is 'communal or shared', it actually isn't. It's dad's, mum's whoevers.

Kid Lib makes it crystal clear.

As Paulitican stipulated, it wouldn't make much sense to argue from the family unit perspective is __ this, that societies social system should be, or is __ this.

But I do think it would actually be beneficial in terms of personal relations within the family unit, or to make it work better - teaching your kids about property rights and living the example. That's the way I see myself doing it, if I ever have kids.. lol

[Pod]

No, in the sense that the exchanges taking place are acceptable and a given within a capitalist system. And I was just trying to make the point, that what is considered 'socialist' i.e the family unit, because of the vague notion that property seems like it is 'communal or shared', it actually isn't. It's dad's, mum's whoevers.

I`d say it depends on the culture. Certainly it is hard to argue that a traditional extended family where grandpa or the oldest uncle are making all of the calls is really about induvidual property.

But that is alright. The same way you can choose not to excercise your right to self-defense and opt for Tolstoyan pacifistic anarchism, you can choose not to excercise your rights of property.

The problem only arises should you want to browbeat everyone else in foregoing their rights as well.

Kid Lib makes it crystal clear.

I don`t use Rothbard as a reference in offspring issues. I think this is one area where he made mistakes.

[heavenlyboy34]

Conza is correct in this post.

Well, essentially anarcho-capitalism is pure capitalism.

Capitalism = the private ownership of the means of production.
Socialism = the public ownership of the means of production.

Classical Liberalism (what I guess you associate as "pure capitalism", actually isn't.) And part of the reason for Capitalism's decline over the 20th Century / since the American Revolution, is because of democratic nature / tradition of the US (politicians / special interests) which even a Constitutional Republic, and Constitution - a MINIMAL STATE cannot protect against. It has inherent contradictions which itself cannot resolve.

Anarcho-capitalism is the logical extension of Libertarianism. The non aggression axiom (principle) and the Lockean / Rothbardian homesteading private property rights principle. This is applied to EVERYTHING. Others say: radical, I say: 'consistent'. It is the pure capitalism.

Libertarian socialist - is someone who is using the Libertarian in the European label sense of the world. When the socialists stole "Liberal" ie. morphed classical liberal to make liberal mean "socialist", in America - the free market folks where able to obtain the label "Libertarian".

A Libertarian socialist - is a Chomsky supporter. They are completely ignorant of economics, and think the State actually protects private property (lolz, it doesn't - it has to violate private property to exist). Confused and lost.

Hope that helps.

[swirling_vortex]

To throw my two bits in, I'll agree that left-wing anarchy and libertarianism is a farce. At no point in history has a collective of some sort survived without it degenerating into a dictatorship. You can't have a bunch of followers function without a leader, even if the leader is totally corrupt. In this respect, capitalism and other market economies have been able to put feudalism and communism in the dust bin because people become more independent. This would make anarcho-capitalism the desired choice.

The problem I have is with anarchy in general. For instance, if Company A believes that Company B stole from them, they could both use their private police forces against each other. I also don't see how something like national security could be possible without a military. That's one of the reasons the Articles of Condeferation failed is because of the lack of funding and mobility of resources for defense purposes. I see a minarchy as desirable, but no less than that.

[Conza88]

I`d say it depends on the culture. Certainly it is hard to argue that a traditional extended family where grandpa or the oldest uncle are making all of the calls is really about induvidual property.

But that is alright. The same way you can choose not to excercise your right to self-defense and opt for Tolstoyan pacifistic anarchism, you can choose not to excercise your rights of property.

The problem only arises should you want to browbeat everyone else in foregoing their rights as well.

I'd say it depends on praxeology. i.e the action axiom. And culture influences those individuals actions.

I don`t use Rothbard as a reference in offspring issues. I think this is one area where he made mistakes.

I don't think he made mistakes, and I'd like to know what you think they are. The only thing, which Block extends from Rothbards analysis would be in regards to Evictionism. (abortion)

[Conza88]

The problem I have is with anarchy in general. For instance, if Company A believes that Company B stole from them, they could both use their private police forces against each other. I also don't see how something like national security could be possible without a military. That's one of the reasons the Articles of Condeferation failed is because of the lack of funding and mobility of resources for defense purposes. I see a minarchy as desirable, but no less than that.

YouTube - Stateless Dictatorships

and

The Myth of National Defense, Hoppe (ed.)

And the articles of confederation didn't fail. The US Constitution was a coup d'etat.

[swirling_vortex]

And the articles of confederation didn't fail. The US Constitution was a coup d'etat.

I wouldn't call it a coup. The AoC gave the federal government no govering power and it couldn't enforce laws. For one thing, it had little funding, so it paid troops through use of printing money. There was no mobility for the military to fight the well organized British because the states kept squabbling with each other. The Consitution, in turn set up a more stable form of taxation and military which later proved to be much more effective. As Washington said, it was "little more than the shadow without the substance."

[South Park Fan]

I wouldn't call it a coup. The AoC gave the federal government no govering power and it couldn't enforce laws. For one thing, it had little funding, so it paid troops through use of printing money. There was no mobility for the military to fight the well organized British because the states kept squabbling with each other. The Consitution, in turn set up a more stable form of taxation and military which later proved to be much more effective. As Washington said, it was "little more than the shadow without the substance."

That didn't exactly work out to our benefit, though. Even if the accusations against the AoC are true, I would much rather have a federal government that couldn't enforce laws than the police state we have today.