Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists

[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.

[Zygote]

[ 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 ]

this is like calling my household socialist rather than a reference to the societal structure. The fact that there were more than one tribe proves this point. The tribes divided themselves by means of private property. Different tribes made exchanges with other tribes with their private "social" property too. They were socialist in the same way a a kibbutz is socialist.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

this is like calling my household socialist rather than a reference to the societal structure. The fact that there were more than one tribe proves this point. The tribes divided themselves by means of private property. Different tribes made exchanges with other tribes with their private "social" property too. They were socialist in the same way a a kibbutz is socialist.

[/ QUOTE ]

They were socialist in that the members collectively owned the factors of production (or at least some of them), which is all that matters.

[zasterguava]

[ 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 ]

There have been many anarcho-syndicalist communities. There have been less than a handful of major scale attempts at anarcho-syndicalist societies.

[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)

[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.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
I cannot not 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 stands precisely where im standing?


[/ QUOTE ] Haha. How do you expect this someone to stand precisely where you're standing? And why would anyone be interested in that?

As for your claim that private property rights are the only possible way to distribute scarce resources, it's just not true. You might claim that on a larger scale it's true, and I can't refute you so long as it has never been tried, but your claim is certainly unsubstanciated and your logic is all over the place.

Consider that Borodog and AlexM has disagreed with your hard-headed position here. (Your claim that any anarchism that isn't anarcho-capitalistism is tyranic statism in disguise.)

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha. How do you expect this someone to stand precisely where you're standing? And why would anyone be interested in that?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can stand where im standing only by forcefully removing me or persuading me away. IF they choose the first option they are a statist if they choose the second option then they respect private property.

[ QUOTE ]

As for your claim that private property rights are the only possible way to distribute scarce resources, it's just not true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said private property rights are the only possible way to distribute scarce resources. I said they are the only rational means of solving conflicts of scarce resources without resorting to statism.

[ QUOTE ]

Consider that Borodog and AlexM has disagreed with your hard-headed position here. (Your claim that any anarchism that isn't anarcho-capitalistism is tyranic statism in disguise.)

[/ QUOTE ]

okay now that youve made this point ill retract my argument since this must render my point incorrect [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
The can stand where im standing only by forcefully removing me or persuading me away. IF they choose the first option they are a statist if they choose the second option then they respect private property.

[/ QUOTE ] If they choose the first option you get to defend yourself. If they choose the second option they respect that you own your self and your own body.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said private property rights are the only possible way to distribute scarce resources. I said they are on the only rational means of solving conflicts of scarce resources without resorting to statism.

[/ QUOTE ]The conflicts stem from property rights, so it's circular to claim you need property rights to solve them. If nobody would respect your sole right to "your land", why would you bother initiating some violent conflict over it? Nothing would be won until you had killed or imprisoned all the people that didn't respect your property. That doesn't seem so cost-efficient.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Consider that Borodog and AlexM has disagreed with your hard-headed position here. (Your claim that any anarchism that isn't anarcho-capitalistism is tyranic statism in disguise.)

[/ QUOTE ]

okay now that youve made this point ill retract my argument since this must render my point incorrect [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ] Not necessarily, but when the in house ACists don't agree with you, that probably means that nobody does.

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
They can stand where im standing only by forcefully removing me or persuading me away. IF they choose the first option they are a statist

[/ QUOTE ]
lol [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]