What’s Anarcho-Capitalism?

[Suzanimal]

Lew Rockwell gives excellent interviews.

You can listen here.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/...ho-capitalism/

Or you can read the transcript here.

ROCKWELL: Recently, famed journalist, Ben Swann, asked me, “What is Anarcho-Capitalism?” I thought you might like to hear our discussion.

SWANN: This is going to be an interesting show because in our first hour, we’re going to be talking with Lew Rockwell of LewRockwell.com. He is one of the — I would say one of the foremost authorities right now in the country in terms of especially something called Anarcho-Capitalism. We’re going to talk to him a little bit about that, what exactly Anarcho-Capitalism consists of. But also, one of these guys who has been pushing the idea of Libertarianism and really the liberty movement before there was a liberty movement in the United States. And so I’m interested in hearing from him, specifically on media and how he sees things beginning to shift.

On the phone with me right now, as we get the show kicked off, is Lew Rockwell.

Lew, thanks so much for being on.

ROCKWELL: Ben, great to be with you.

SWANN: This is the first time we’ve talked. It’s absolutely an honor to talk with you. Your reputation precedes you, certainly, the founder of the Von Mises Institute in Alabama. And you have pushed forward a lot of these ideas of sovereign money, of limited government. I guess the way to describe it is you’re referred to as anti-war, anti-state and pro-market, is that correct?

ROCKWELL: Yes, that’s the little slogan at the top of my website.

[LAUGHTER]

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/03/...ho-capitalism/

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...50.wCXF1CJ2ReU

[torchbearer]

will give it a listen. thanks.

[DFF]

That article was so thoroughly informative it should be a sticky.

Great job by Lew telling it like it is.

[green73]

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...50.wCXF1CJ2ReU

Great post, bro

[Ronin Truth]

Great post, bro

Thanks!

Suzanimal really likes them too.

[Suzanimal]

Thanks!

Suzanimal really likes them too.

You got a quote for this thread?

[Ronin Truth]

You got a quote for this thread?

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

[idiom]

RIP Terry Pratchett

[Ronin Truth]

Just like regular anarchy except for the lack of the all too common, seemingly required statist socialist economic enforcement.

[presence]

What is anarcho capitalism?

No government licensing schemes
No government mandatory insurance for anything
No government loans
No government accredidation
No permits
No price controls
No labor controls
No government military aparatus
Right to keep and bear blackhawks and tanks.
No subsidies
No taxes - No IRS
No legalized deeming of bankruptcy or summary judgements
Common, private, abandoned, or collective; but never public roads
Common, private, abandoned, or collective; but never public lands
Common, private, abandoned, or collective; but never public property
Private civil courts



Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be

-Rothbard






COMMON PROPERTY IN
ANARCHO-CAPITALISM

RANDALL G. HOLCOMBE


http://mises.org/sites/default/files/19_2_1.pdf

[wizardwatson]

What is anarcho capitalism?

No government licensing schemes
No government mandatory insurance for anything
No government loans
No government accredidation
No permits
No price controls
No labor controls
No government military aparatus
Right to keep and bear blackhawks and tanks.
No subsidies
No taxes - No IRS
No legalized deeming of bankruptcy or summary judgements
Common, private, abandoned, or collective; but never public roads
Common, private, abandoned, or collective; but never public lands
Common, private, abandoned, or collective; but never public property
Private civil courts



Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be

-Rothbard

Sorry Rothy,

anarcho-capitalism = market based morality

You know Murray, you never tell anyone HOW you would enforce this libertarian paradise. It's kind of lost knowledge given how few people actually read your books.

I'll help:

Thus, we see that the fashionable reform approach to punishment
can be at least as grotesque and far more uncertain and arbitrary than
the deterrence principle. Retribution remains as our only just and
viable theory of punishment and equal treatment for equal crime is fundamental
to such retributive punishment. The barbaric turns out to
be the just while the "modern" and the "humanitarian" turn out to be
grotesque parodies of justice. - Ethics of Liberty

Murray doesn't believe in reforming criminals, or using punishment as deterrence, or mercy in general it appears.

He believes in violent retribution, slave camps, and cruel punishments like cutting off two hands if they cut off anothers.

More specifically, Rothbard presented a rigorous modern
defense of the traditional proportionality principle of punishment as contained
in the lex talionis-of an eye for an eye, or rather, as he would correctively
explain, two eyes for an eye.

Murray is a sadist who would institute grossly anti-Christian methods for enforcing his "anarcho-capitalist" society.

Matthew 5:38-42

38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 BUT I SAY unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. 42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

[Ronin Truth]

Sorry Rothy,

anarcho-capitalism = market based morality

You know Murray, you never tell anyone HOW you would enforce this libertarian paradise. It's kind of lost knowledge given how few people actually read your books.

I'll help:



Murray doesn't believe in reforming criminals, or using punishment as deterrence, or mercy in general it appears.

He believes in violent retribution, slave camps, and cruel punishments like cutting off two hands if they cut off anothers.



Murray is a sadist who would institute grossly anti-Christian methods for enforcing his "anarcho-capitalist" society.

We're safe from Murray, he died.

[idiom]

"Axiom" 1: Every one owns themselves.
- Things a person makes they also own (homesteading)
- Only things that have been made or altered by men can be owned
- Things that are not or cannot be homesteaded cannot be owned.
- A person owns themselves inalienably due to homesteading themselves (this one is a tad circular)

"Axiom" 2: Aggression against property is wrong.
- Aggression can only be against others property by definition.
- If its not aggression against others property it is not wrong and cannot be punished.

Not really axioms as they assume a lot of sub-precepts, and the fact that these are not examined causes a lot of issues.

Sorry Rothy,

anarcho-capitalism = market based morality

You know Murray, you never tell anyone HOW you would enforce this libertarian paradise. It's kind of lost knowledge given how few people actually read your books.

I'll help:



Murray doesn't believe in reforming criminals, or using punishment as deterrence, or mercy in general it appears.

He believes in violent retribution, slave camps, and cruel punishments like cutting off two hands if they cut off anothers.



Murray is a sadist who would institute grossly anti-Christian methods for enforcing his "anarcho-capitalist" society.

Its actually one of the interesting problems that turns up due to the "worked backwards from the outcome" rather than forwards from axioms nature of much of the work in the field.

A person is supposed to have an inalienable claim to themselves, yet they can apparently easily alienate such claims by violating others alienable property.

Logically one could never inflict retribution on inalienable claims, only on alienable claims, thus in An-cap world only fines and confiscation are permissible punishments.

As Rothbard admitted, its more culture than philosophy.

More recent writers have worked forwards from the axioms in somewhat more rigorous fashion and end up in some really odd places and often diametrically opposed to each other.

If you can beat someone or jail someone, then enslaving them is logically also permissible. Some accept this and reject that a persons claim to themselves is inalienable, because they want physically retributive justice to be part of the system, but it breaks the entire homesteading principle.

Or maybe they want to be able to keep people off of 'their' land. Your land is alienable, and their person is inalienable due to continuous homesteading, so logically a person has the right to travel anywhere they want to and it is unethical to stop them. Block sort of addresses this with his land Donuts.

Those who want trespassing to be illegal in the system don't ever address the problem of natural monopolies. They wouldn't exist in a free world apparently. But ask them how many roads run past their house and you get blank stares.

It also has some more interesting core faults which I haven't seen addressed yet. Like the solar shade problem.

Sunlight (photons) in free space isn't home-steaded, so it can't be property. Thus no interaction solely involving sunlight can cause harm. Thus if someone were to build a giant solar shade between the Earth and the Sun and kill 7 billion people they would not have committed a single act of aggression.


Depending on who you ask, intellectual property may or may not exist, along with privacy. Infanticide is also permissible as one has no right to life until one homesteads oneself by running away from home.


The patchwork nature of it is also shown by the simple summary of the Non-Aggression Principle as "No harm to homesteaded property owned by living non-convicted adults who have a voluntary contract with you not to harm your property, + no fraud". The Fraud is tacked on there every time, and is just as universally added without justification. Despite information not being a real thing, fraud is apparently very real in An-Cap theory.

When the actual definition of the NAP is written out as above, the marketing sheen of the term disappears and plenty of potential flaws become apparent.

[Ronin Truth]

And Marx was not a Marxist.

[TheTexan]

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

I seem to notice an option conspicuously missing from there.

[Ronin Truth]

I seem to notice an option conspicuously missing from there.

Which conspicuous option is that?

[Suzanimal]

Which conspicuous option is that?

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20in%20america

[Ronin Truth]

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...20in%20america

As a voluntaryist I really kinda doubt that Ron would go for that.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...15.duQgpeULIpM