Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you call an anarchist who doesn't believe in property rights? Such a person would definitely not be an acist.

[/ QUOTE ]

An anarchist who doesnt believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied.


[/ QUOTE ]

One could just as easily say:

"An anarchist who does believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied."

Both of these statements seem true to many who support the opposite sides, but both are completely false. To both, the other side is the one initiating force and because of the nature of belief, they are both completely correct in believing that. The fact is that in any kind of anarchist society where these two beliefs exist in a significant portion of the population, which they both do, they will have to find a means to compromise or collapse into statism, regardless of which one would be dominant.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Under laissez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez fair be tried."

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you call an anarchist who doesn't believe in property rights? Such a person would definitely not be an acist.

[/ QUOTE ]

An anarchist who doesnt believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied.


[/ QUOTE ]

One could just as easily say:

"An anarchist who does believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied."

Both of these statements seem true to many who support the opposite sides, but both are completely false. To both, the other side is the one initiating force and because of the nature of belief, they are both completely correct in believing that. The fact is that in any kind of anarchist society where these two beliefs exist in a significant portion of the population, which they both do, they will have to find a means to compromise or collapse into statism, regardless of which one would be dominant.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Under laissez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez fair be tried."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, too bad that's not actually true in this instance.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Would you call an anarchist who doesn't believe in property rights? Such a person would definitely not be an acist.

[/ QUOTE ]

An anarchist who doesnt believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied.


[/ QUOTE ]

One could just as easily say:

"An anarchist who does believe in property rights is void of a means of getting his way. He must become a statist in order to see his goals satisfied."

Both of these statements seem true to many who support the opposite sides, but both are completely false. To both, the other side is the one initiating force and because of the nature of belief, they are both completely correct in believing that. The fact is that in any kind of anarchist society where these two beliefs exist in a significant portion of the population, which they both do, they will have to find a means to compromise or collapse into statism, regardless of which one would be dominant.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Under laissez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez fair be tried."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, too bad that's not actually true in this instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

can you expand on that point? i dont get it

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ill leave it at this.

socialism implies the non-existence of capitalism while capitalism does not imply the non-existence of socialism.

this will tend to result in socialism needing an iron fist to persist while anarcho-capitalism can have many different ways of life and uses of resources without imploding.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a 19th century philosopher noted, (to paraphrase) "Under laissez faire, all other systems may be tried, but under no other system may laissez fair be tried."

[/ QUOTE ]

lovely quote. Much clearer than my statements.

I feel like i've heard it before, in fact, however, i just can't recall who was responsible for the wise words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, neither can I, which is why I had to paraphrase it.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
ill leave it at this.

socialism implies the non-existence of capitalism while capitalism does not imply the non-existence of socialism.

this will tend to result in socialism needing an iron fist to persist while anarcho-capitalism can have many different ways of life and uses of resources without imploding.

[/ QUOTE ]

every attempt at socialism one can recall has been a major attempt at state capitalism 'to benefit for the whole people". An adbsurd bs claim from Lenin. This is not socialism imo and we don't really know what would aris from a true attempt at socialism, or especially free socialism.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not socialism imo and we don't really know what would aris from a true attempt at socialism, or especially free socialism.

[/ QUOTE ]

what makes the society socialist if there aren't boundaries to define said societal classification?

[wtfsvi]

It's not unreasonable that you have a problem imagining how one group's territory will be distinct from another's if they don't practise violently enforcable property rights. But why do you need one group's territory to be distinct from another's?

(Am I zuastergevara's one anarcho-socialist buddy? haha)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Anarcho-socialism", as a macro structure for society, can only be protected through force and therefore proponents are statists by practical necessity.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not believe this to be true. There have been literally hundreds, if not thousands, of anarcho-socialist societies throughout human history.

[/ QUOTE ]

such as....?

what happened to those in those societies who tried to control the fruits of their labor?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any number of ancient stateless tribes were essentially anarcho-socialist, i.e. there was no state, there was private property in personal goods, but collective ownership of most of the means of production, such as the land itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boro, im not sure what ancient tribes you are referring to but the only ones I know of relied on an extremely heirarchial society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Up until very recently I think the !Kung society in Botswana would qualify for this, they had pretty much no hierarchical structure and were basically anarcho-socialists or whatever label you want to use.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I get your point. Are you saying it isn't socialism unless it includes the whole world? Well by that definition, yeah, socialism is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats pretty much what im saying.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow.

[ QUOTE ]
Another interesting product of socialism, even if imposed among all humans, is the implication that humans have the rights to the private resources of the world. Wouldn't socialist humans need the consent of possible aliens or even other earth species before using resources?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wtf?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
But why do you need one group's territory to be distinct from another's?

[/ QUOTE ]

because thats the only available means of attaining anarchy. Anarchy is rule by individuals over themselves rather than groups or individuals over other individuals. To rule ones self is the first distinct divide of private property and this is a natural necessary truth. One cannot make any action or claim to the contrary without conceding that they own themselves in so far as they are acting without the consent of others. I cannot even exist on this earth without occupying some space and land without the consent of others. Without allowing for private land use, who am i to stop someone who desires to stand precisely where im standing? I can only defend my territory by private property.

So far as there are conflicts, which only arise where there is scarcity, the sole rational means of solving these conflicts without resorting to an argument that equates to statism is to invoke private property rights. These are the only options available, statism or private property.

Statism is defined as an intuition that rules above and beyond the individual's rule of oneself or, in other words, infringements of private property.