Factions within AC

[NSchandler]

bkholdem,

One example I would hold up is Rand in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." Throughout her work, Rand bases her defense of capitalism on natural rights grounds. As another poster pointed out, she even held contempt for libertarians because of their utilitarian justifications for capitalism. But when it comes to explaining the operation of the police forces she switches to a utilitarian justification. I'm out of town right now so I don't have a copy of CTUI on me, but to paraphrase her argument she says:

"Why must police forces be government-run? Well just imagine would would happen if the police were to come under the private sphere. Individual A might commit a crime against individual B. Individual B would call his police force, who would then be met by individual A's police force. When police force A claims they do not recognize the jurisdiction of police force B, I will let you take it from there to figure out what would happen."

If somebody has a copy of CTUI on them, feel free to provide the excerpt I'm talking about if you can find it. It's the essay titled "what would a free society look like?" or something along those lines, and I remember it's near the end, maybe 3/4 of the way through.

Anyway, my point here is that her justification of the police state being under government control is 100% utilitarian. Here she adopts the same standard she finds so loathsome elsewhere. Natural rights (which would seem to argue for private police forces here) conflict with utilitarianism, and she sides with the latter.

I realize this example probably isn't that enlightening. I'll write more later when I have a little time, but just wanted to get something out there now so you don't think I'm ignoring you.

[NSchandler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A natural rights ACer will make the Randian/Rothbard type arguments that taxes are theft, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rand rejected libertarianism and the title of libertarian because she thought that libertarians used moral arguments instead of utilitarian ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you meant to switch "moral" with "utilitarian" in the above statement, right?

[Borodog]

The main philosophical difference amongst market anarchists has already been mentioned; natural rightsers versus consequentialists. As Shakezulu has admirably pointed out, my position is that there is no conflict between these at all. Free market anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism, call it what you want, has the triple coincidence of being that which is natural, that which is moral, and that which produces the best results. And as I've pointed out as well, there's really no coincidence at all; that mutual accomodation is "moral" and produces the best consequences are a direct result of the nature of mankind.

For some more technical differences, there is intellectual property versus no IP, and 100% reserve versus competitive note issue banking.

I used to be a no-IPer, but now am what I would call a market IPer. I'm still a 100% reserve bankist, because I believe that competitive note issue banking will simply drive towards 100% reserve in the free market anyway.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
As Shakezulu...

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

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As Shakezulu...

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I misread your name the very first time and you've been ShakeZulu ever since.

You must admit, it's an interesting visual.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
that mutual accomodation is "moral" and produces the best consequences are a direct result of the nature of mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument there, but why must all accommodative interactions be generated de novo on a one-to-one basis?

It seems that AC under-appreciates the emergent properties of collective enterprises.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that mutual accomodation is "moral" and produces the best consequences are a direct result of the nature of mankind.

[/ QUOTE ]

No argument there, but why must all accommodative interactions be generated de novo on a one-to-one basis?

It seems that AC under-appreciates the emergent properties of collective enterprises.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your understanding of the theory is inadequate. Anarcho-capitalists have no problem at all with collective enterprise.

[Skidoo]

I'm not necessary talking about the theory. Collective undertakings of any size aren't held together without coercion.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not necessary talking about the theory. Collective undertakings of any size aren't held together without coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Provide some examples of this happening. Regardless, should they be held together if the participants don't want to?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not necessary talking about the theory. Collective undertakings of any size aren't held together without coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]

False. There are companies consisting of hundreds of thousands of employees that are held together without coercion.