Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

If economic totalitarianism is defined as "an economic system whereby absolute, exclusionary rule is established by concentrating the means of production and distribution into the hands of a few, but whose mechanisms are not necessarily controlled or owned by government," is ACism a form of totalitarianism?

Or to put it differently, isn't the "ultimate decision-making power" claimed by property owners in an anarcho-state, the functional equivalent of a feudal form of government?

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If economic totalitarianism is defined as "an economic system whereby absolute, exclusionary rule is established by concentrating the means of production and distribution into the hands of a few, but whose mechanisms are not necessarily controlled or owned by government," is ACism a form of totalitarianism?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
Or to put it differently, isn't the "ultimate decision-making power" claimed by property owners in an anarcho-state, the functional equivalent of a feudal form of government?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0052.gif

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/party/party0052.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The show may be short. ShakeZula's already figured out that this is futile, and I'm just posting to declare my boycott of this thread.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If economic totalitarianism is defined as "an economic system whereby absolute, exclusionary rule is established by concentrating the means of production and distribution into the hands of a few, but whose mechanisms are not necessarily controlled or owned by government," is ACism a form of totalitarianism?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
Or to put it differently, isn't the "ultimate decision-making power" claimed by property owners in an anarcho-state, the functional equivalent of a feudal form of government?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If economic totalitarianism is defined as "an economic system whereby absolute, exclusionary rule is established by concentrating the means of production and distribution into the hands of a few, but whose mechanisms are not necessarily controlled or owned by government," is ACism a form of totalitarianism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why assume that a stateless society will lead to a few people owning most of the property? Historically, the instances of massive inequality (including present society) have been brought about by the State. By eliminating the state, I think it would be quite difficult for anyone or any small group to have so much (economic) power.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

Suppose - to take a hypothetical - that a king notices unrest among his peasants. He has, of course, a mercenary army at his disposal, but for whatever reasons he'd prefer not to use it.

He issues a decree, in which he abdicates, disbands his government, and sets up an auction. He then buys up the land the peasants live on.

The peasants are now free of taxes. Instead, they must pay rent. He stops calling his men "mercenaries," and starts calling them a "Private Defense Association," instead.

What, if anything, has changed?

Does the king have any less authority over the peasants as their private landlord, than he did when he was their monarch?

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If economic totalitarianism is defined as "an economic system whereby absolute, exclusionary rule is established by concentrating the means of production and distribution into the hands of a few, but whose mechanisms are not necessarily controlled or owned by government," is ACism a form of totalitarianism?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.
[ QUOTE ]
Or to put it differently, isn't the "ultimate decision-making power" claimed by property owners in an anarcho-state, the functional equivalent of a feudal form of government?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

There comes a point where ignorance is no longer an excuse, and I think Linus may be there. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

Alex & Co.: Is this the anarcocapitalist equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I can't heeear you,"?

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There comes a point where ignorance is no longer an excuse, and I think Linus may be there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point.

For a second there, I thought you were just being childish.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose - to take a hypothetical - that a king notices unrest among his peasants. He has, of course, a mercenary army at his disposal, but for whatever reasons he'd prefer not to use it.

He issues a decree, in which he abdicates, disbands his government, and sets up an auction. He then buys up the land the peasants live on.

The peasants are now free of taxes. Instead, they must pay rent. He stops calling his men "mercenaries," and starts calling them a "Private Defense Association," instead.

What, if anything, has changed?

Does the king have any less authority over the peasants as their private landlord, than he did when he was their monarch?

[/ QUOTE ]

In your example, I would say there is very little difference. But I'm not sure what your example has to do with a stateless society (or with my response, for that matter).
The point I was attempting to make is that the 'king' could never justly acquire total domination over such a large area. He has undoubtedly gained such power through theft, aggression, and oppression. So trying to look at what an 'AC society" might look like by basically assuming that he could still keep all his stuff is ridiculous. The money that he used to buy his land back via auction--why wasn't that, too, auctioned off?
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.

Along these lines, I think that those in our society who have so much stuff as a result of heavy government intervention should not just get to 'carry it over' into an anarchist society.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.

[/ QUOTE ]

So working the land is a requisite to laying claim? Say you own 10,000 acres and have never stepped foot on the furthest parts. I build a house there and work the land and live off it. Do I have a more just claim to the land than your piece of paper claiming your ownership?

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

So anarchocapitalism starts off with a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and a redistribution of land from landlord to tenant?

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Alex & Co.: Is this the anarcocapitalist equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting, "I can't heeear you,"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is the equivalent of saying that you should know better than this by now and it makes me wonder if you do and are just... well, I guess I'm not supposed to say. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] Suffice it to say that both of your posts to me go right along with my theory.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.

[/ QUOTE ]

So working the land is a requisite to laying claim? Say you own 10,000 acres and have never stepped foot on the furthest parts. I build a house there and work the land and live off it. Do I have a more just claim to the land than your piece of paper claiming your ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. This is addressed in the AC FAQ. If you are not making productive use of land, you lose your claim to ownership of it.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah dude. Labor creates value. Capitalists appropriate it from workers. It sounds like you're a socialist (or producerist) and just don't know it.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah dude. Labor creates value. Capitalists appropriate it from workers. It sounds like you're a socialist (or producerist) and just don't know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was hinting towards.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So working the land is a requisite to laying claim?

[/ QUOTE ]

Homesteading is a (and really, the) prerequisite to owning land.

[ QUOTE ]
Say you own 10,000 acres and have never stepped foot on the furthest parts. I build a house there and work the land and live off it. Do I have a more just claim to the land than your piece of paper claiming your ownership?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I'm not sure this situation has a cut and dried answer. If you were the original appropriator of the land, then it is hard to imagine that there would be land that was 'yours' yet you hadn't set foot on it (or near it).
But maybe you bought the 10,000 acres from someone. Then there could be a case where you own all 10k acres but you really only needed the west half. So you use that and the rest you don't use. Do you still own the other half? It probably depends on the specifics of the situation. Since its yours, you can do whatever you want with it, including letting it sit there. But it also seems to me that there is a difference between a situation in which someone intentionally wants a part of their land unused (maybe its pretty to look at), and the case where the person just ignores it (essentially abandoning it) and then someone else might claim it.

So yeah, sorry this was rambling; the short answer is "it depends".

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah dude. Labor creates value.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "labor creates value" you mean, individuals determine value subjectively.

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalists appropriate it from workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "appropriate" you mean "accept when voluntarily given in exchange for wages."

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
anarcho-state

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Labor creates value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't adhere to the LTV, so I would have to disagree (I'm an Austrian on matters economic, but I also think that on a free market price will approach cost so I don't think the difference is that important).

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalists appropriate it from workers.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I said was meant in the context of individuals or groups who had attained their stuff in large part through the State. So I think, if tomorrow the US went anarchist, a lot of large businesses and pretty much all government operations should be turned over to the people who legitimately own them--the people who work them, because they are the true homesteaders.

That said, I don't think that 'profit is theft', or that ALL situations in which someone sells their labor to another are inherently bad. So while I don't think labor creates value, I do think that on a free market wages will approach costs of production, and hence the very large $$$ made by CEOs and the like compared to others is a hint that the government intervenes heavily in our economy on behalf of the wealthy elites.

[ QUOTE ]
It sounds like you're a socialist (or producerist) and just don't know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I try to avoid classifying myself as either a capitalist or a socialist since the terms mean such vastly different things to different people. I tend to prefer 'left-libertarian', 'agorist', or just plain ol 'anarchist'. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah dude. Labor creates value. Capitalists appropriate it from workers. It sounds like you're a socialist (or producerist) and just don't know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Workers are capitalists...

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]



A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.





[ QUOTE ]
Yeah dude. Labor creates value. Capitalists appropriate it from workers. It sounds like you're a socialist (or producerist) and just don't know it.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Workers are capitalists...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Capitalists derive their income from the work of OTHER PEOPLE. Workers, well, they work.

If your definition of capitalist doesn't include ownership of capital, then your definition sucks.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]



A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.





[ QUOTE ]
Yeah dude. Labor creates value. Capitalists appropriate it from workers. It sounds like you're a socialist (or producerist) and just don't know it.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Workers are capitalists...

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Capitalists derive their income from the work of OTHER PEOPLE. Workers, well, they work.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, capitalists derive their income by exchanging goods and services.

[ QUOTE ]
If your definition of capitalist doesn't include ownership of capital, then your definition sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Capitalism:

1. A supporter of capitalism.

Anyone who ever makes any kind of trade is a capitalist.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Capitalists derive their income from the work of OTHER PEOPLE. Workers, well, they work.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Workers" do both. They invest their paychecks in the market to become shareholders. Multi-tasking FTW!

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So anarchocapitalism starts off with a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and a redistribution of land from landlord to tenant?

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like the answer is yes, no, maybe, or it depends, but I'm not sure which.

[ QUOTE ]
if tomorrow the US went anarchist, a lot of large businesses and pretty much all government operations should be turned over to the people who legitimately own them

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about corporations like Haliburton, right?

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So anarchocapitalism starts off with a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and a redistribution of land from landlord to tenant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol no. I suggest you learn a little more about AC (plenty of posts here to search through) before you continue attempting to criticize it.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah dude. Labor creates value. Capitalists appropriate it from workers. It sounds like you're a socialist (or producerist) and just don't know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Labor doesn't necessarily create value.

ie I can go outside and dig a 10ft hole in the ground. If anything, my labor only destroyed value.

Capitalists do not appropriate anything. Thieves appropriate. Capitalists make mutually beneficial exchanges.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If your definition of capitalist doesn't include ownership of capital, then your definition sucks.


[/ QUOTE ]

If your definition of capitalism doesn't include ownership of human and intellectual capital, then your definition sucks.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So anarchocapitalism starts off with a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and a redistribution of land from landlord to tenant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol no. I suggest you learn a little more about AC (plenty of posts here to search through) before you continue attempting to criticize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry.

I guess I was just confused because nietz said

[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some guy named Rothbard - if I remember right - also said the same thing.

However, since you know more about it, maybe you could tell us how it really works?

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So anarchocapitalism starts off with a redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, and a redistribution of land from landlord to tenant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol no. I suggest you learn a little more about AC (plenty of posts here to search through) before you continue attempting to criticize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry.

I guess I was just confused because nietz said

[ QUOTE ]
A far more accurate picture of what ought to happen is that the people who have actually worked the land, who have actually homesteaded and who are the only ones with any real claim to ownership--the peasants, the farmers, the merchants, etc.--it is they who things belong to, not the king.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some guy named Rothbard - if I remember right - also said the same thing.

However, since you know more about it, maybe you could tell us how it really works?

[/ QUOTE ]

And from this quote, where did you get the words

"starts off with"
"redistribution"
"wealth"
"rich" "poor"
"landlord" "tenant"

I couldnt figure it out, which is why I called your post "inane"

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I couldnt figure it out, which is why I called your post "inane"

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep working on it. If you still can't figure it out, I'll try to help you when I have a little more time.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some guy named Rothbard - if I remember right - also said the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

ding ding ding

My position on this is essentially Rothbard's--that corporations/companies who get the majority of their profits through government subsidies, regulations, tax breaks (note: obv i'm opposed to taxes, but when say walmart gets a huge tax break that other companies don't get its a huge competitive advantage), etc. should be turned over to the people who *legitimately* own them--the people who work them.
The bigger question is what stuff does this include? It seems clear that all government agencies and government 'property' should be turned over to the individuals actually using them. It also seems pretty clear that some corporations would fit the bill, but which ones do is an empirical matter (halliburton would, i would think).

Not sure that most 'anarchocapitalists' agree with me on this--I honestly have no idea--so there are probably differences of opinion on this.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]

My position on this is essentially Rothbard's--that corporations/companies who get the majority of their profits through government subsidies, regulations, tax breaks (note: obv i'm opposed to taxes, but when say walmart gets a huge tax break that other companies don't get its a huge competitive advantage)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well said. Governments use taxes to get people to do what they want for them through incentives. A tax incentive is basically a way of saying "do this, or I'll steal your property." And big businesses are no stranger to lobbying the incentives in their favor to get a competitive advantage.

Tax incentives are coercive, but that doesn't logically justify opposing them in the name of equality. No one should be taxed, not everyone.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Along these lines, I think that those in our society who have so much stuff as a result of heavy government intervention should not just get to 'carry it over' into an anarchist society.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, which brings about the problem of just aquisition. Pretty much the worst case scenario has taken place over the past 10 years in the former Soviet countries where basically the government collapsed (for good reasons) and you had massive State assets and wealth built by the people which were pretty much seized by the most powerful - mostly former higher-ups in the totalitarian Communist apparatus and members of organized crime. Klepto-capitalism at its finest.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I agree, which brings about the problem of just aquisition. Pretty much the worst case scenario has taken place over the past 10 years in the former Soviet countries where basically the government collapsed (for good reasons) and you had massive State assets and wealth built by the people which were pretty much seized by the most powerful - mostly former higher-ups in the totalitarian Communist apparatus and members of organized crime. Klepto-capitalism at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

So "klepto-capitalism" replaced "klepto-socialism", right? Because all those assets were already in the hands of an elite, powerful group, right? Now you are being intellectually honest here, right? Concentration of wealth and power was already established in Soviet Russia long before the first reforms came along, right? Right?

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who ever makes any kind of trade is a capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is /not/ true. Is a barter system capitalist? No. Capitalism requires capital, and the private ownership of capital. Capitalism has also always required a massive amount of people /not/ to own capital. Hence the focus on the class interests of those that own capital and those that don't in most anti-capitalist critique.

Furthermore, the more the concentration of capital increases, the more the ability to make profit off that capital without doing anything increases. Now if you want to argue that by investing $1mil in the stock market I am creating value, fine. But don't pretend that capitalism doesn't allow for a minority to use their accumulated wealth to essentially make massive amounts of money off other's labor without laboring at all.

Your definition of a just economic system may include a situation where someone can make more wealth every day without doing anything simply by inheriting a few million dollars and owning capital than a laborer can make each year working 80 hour weeks. Mine does not.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]

So "klepto-capitalism" replaced "klepto-socialism", right? Because all those assets were already in the hands of an elite, powerful group, right? Now you are being intellectually honest here, right? Concentration of wealth and power was already established in Soviet Russia long before the first reforms came along, right? Right?


[/ QUOTE ]

LFD is not pro-soviet, so you're not making a point here. Actually, it's pretty screwed up to blame anarchists for anything in the USSR, since stalinists executed, tortured, or imprisoned many anarchists. It's honestly the same as blaming the jews for hitler.

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So "klepto-capitalism" replaced "klepto-socialism", right?

[/ QUOTE ]

well replaced totalitarian tyrannical socialism yes

[ QUOTE ]
Because all those assets were already in the hands of an elite, powerful group, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they were, I didn't say anything about the situation in the USSR pre the fall, simply pointed to the fact that just acquisition MUST BE a fundamental concern of ACers since the simple removal or implosion of the State can result in a country entering into a market economy where those who have strong amounts of power simply seize as much as they can get their hands on. The amount of "new billionaires" produced through the seizure of massive amounts of formerly State property is pretty [censored] up considering the general wellbeing level of the mass of Russian people (whether they are better off now or then would be a different debate)

You can largely blame the "shock therapy" folks at the IMF and World Bank and the Washington Consensus for that one

Re: Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's pretty screwed up to blame anarchists for anything in the USSR, since stalinists executed, tortured, or imprisoned many anarchists.

[/ QUOTE ]

They slaughtered us in Spain as well. [censored] commie fascists.

In fact among historically minded left-anarchists today I would say that the distrust of any group that identifies even remotely with strains of authoritarian socialism is greater than even their conservative opponents given that anytime in history that left-anarchists have said "look, we don't think that this whole dictatorship of the proletariat and gradual elimination of the State thing is gonna work, but since we both oppose the tyrannical system we live under, we'll go ahead and fight with you now and worry about how that will work later - if things get [censored] you can just let us live in AS world and you can have your State Socialist world" the authoritarian socialists have always, after coming into power, summarily imprisoned and killed anarchists that opposed their power structure - Russia, Spain, Cuba, etc.

anarchism in Russia - crappy wikipedia link, but a little info at least