Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
capitalism means a structure of private property. Socialism means a structure of social property.

If society is anarchistic it must be capitalistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
But again, in the absence of a universal rule of law, how do you control what individuals will do? What is to stop a large group of people in an AC society taking control of an area and defining the property as communal? It seems that by definition, as soon as something goes wrong in AC society, it is no longer an AC society.

[ QUOTE ]
that is the only way to provide individual freedom and therefore a diversity of ideas lacking a coercive over-arching structure. Within that society there can be corperations and kibbutz's which live side by side. Even a kibbutz is capitalistic so far as they keep the land to themselves treat the property as social amongst themselves and dont interfere with the lives of others including the rights of members to defect.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're describing the current United States and the countries of the world.

[ QUOTE ]

What do you define a state as? If they violate the property rights of others to enforce their structure then what makes them different from stalin? How can they be called anarchists?

[/ QUOTE ]
A modern state is fundamentally a universal rule of law within defined geographical borders, with those laws backed by organized force.

As for AS, I agree that it seems a rather strange notion, since it's defined by people accepting the land claims of the group and disavowing personal land claims. But it's not that much stranger than AC, that stipulates that people must respect the property claims of others. Again, if you dismantle the government, free agents making choices (some of them incompatible with either philosophy) will determine what happens or doesn't, which makes AC and AS really just A.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
What is to stop a large group of people in an AC society taking control of an area and defining the property as communal? It seems that by definition, as soon as something goes wrong in AC society, it is no longer an AC society.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is wrong with them doing that. This is like me living at my parents house. We all share the food. We all attempt to equally contribute. If something belongs to one, that thing belongs to all. This is our private dominion though and we're all private actors willingly participating. We need to not be forced to accept or share with others nor imprison a family member who chooses to defect.

[ QUOTE ]
You're describing the current United States and the countries of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. So far as the countries of the world respect each others property rigths they are applying an anarcho-captilistic framework on a country by country basis. Each country is a state though with regards to the relationship they have with the people who live therin.

[ QUOTE ]
As for AS, I agree that it seems a rather strange notion, since it's defined by people accepting the land claims of the group and disavowing personal land claims. But it's not that much stranger than AC, that stipulates that people must respect the property claims of others. Again, if you dismantle the government, free agents making choices (some of them incompatible with either philosophy) will determine what happens or doesn't, which makes AC and AS really just A.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think your misinterpreting what i mean by anarcho-captilism as the macro framework. You keep make reference to micro situations. Think about the household example i gave above or the voluntary association of a kibbutz. These are socialist on micro scale but anarcho-capitalist on a macro scale.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
Life, liberty, freedom of association, and the pursuit of happiness


[/ QUOTE ]

an anarcho-capitalist in a AS society cannot assoicate with individuals freely or pursue their own happiness if they aren't free to be able to choose their destiny from the fullest options of life. Whether that includes selling their labor or anything of the sort.

[ QUOTE ]
You're confusing "advocates" with "can achieve in practice"

[/ QUOTE ]

elaborate

[ QUOTE ]
An overload of religious nutcases, strong ethnic splits, lack of professional groups with a tradition of ethics (Saddam corrupted the courts, the police, the army, administrators). Democracy doesn't work everywhere but it's the only proven system for maximizing stability, human rights and freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying democracy only works when society just happens to work anyways? What good is a democracy as a system if it isnt a weapon againt divided nations?

Democracy should be most effective in a place of strong ethnic divides since the attempted goals are of unification. If people were unified before what purpose does introducing democracy serve?

Also if democracy only works some places, what makes those places qualified and what is to be done the the countries that dont qualify?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is why anarcho socialism does not make sense. The only form of socialism that can exist without statism is the private groupings ive talked about.

If i accept the ASists position i must think of them and everyone alive as initiating force against themselves and each other simply by standing still and thinking. These cause a variety of anomalies.

[/ QUOTE ] Haha. Ok maybe I shouldn't so harsh on you. I can't be sure it's my fault that I don't understand what you are saying at all. But wtf?

[/ QUOTE ]

i searched and found someone else's words that touches on some of the same points. Maybe you'll benefit from a different persons articulation:

"The fact that "there are only individuals" is also a great argument for anarchism. There cannot be a single system forced on any two individuals without it fitting one individual better than the other, and thus such a system would create legal inequalities (and therefore be oppressive). Also, since there are only individuals there is no reason to believe some individuals should have the power to rule other individuals. If there are only individuals, all of them should be sovereign self-owners and enjoy an equal full right to their selves.

But this fact means also that people are different and that some people will value certain things while other people value completely different things. Some people will have high time preference for certain values, while others will have low time preference. Some people will be able to use their time and skill to create a lot of value to others (assessed subjectively), while others create value only recognized by a few. And individual choices will always be individual choices, the decisions made depending on the individual's subjective assessment of values he chooses to identify.

Socialism, as commonly defined by the socialists (of both anarchist and statist varieties), fails to realize this fact and therefore categorically dismisses market solutions, functions, and institutions that arise voluntarily and spontaneously. It might be true that socialists themselves would never accept wage labor, but many others would perhaps happily accept employment as being beneficial to them individually or collectively.

The same is true with the famous Marxian credo, usually advocated also by socialist anarchists, that the laborer is free only when he has taken ownership of the means of production. But how can we say a certain kind of profession or "class" shares the exact same values? That necessarily presupposes an extreme class consciousness, where individuals no longer exist. If "class consciousness" is instead interpreted rather as a sense of class belonging and unity in certain values, time preference and subjectivity of values would still apply!

"

http://www.mises.org/story/2096

[Mr_Moore]

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom and happiness? How can a philosophy that advocates maximal economic and social freedom reduce freedom? Also, do you equate any form of tyranny with happiness?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You're confusing "advocates" with "can achieve in practice"

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Minarchism achievable in practise in your opinion?

[wtfsvi]

If that article correctly explains the views of ASism, I'm not an ASist. Under no circumstances would I have a problem with market solutions that arise voluntarily, or any other solutions that arise voluntarily. But that doesn't mean I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
No, you can just be an anarcho-anarchist. I don't think it would work well though.

[/ QUOTE ]

anarcho-anarchist and anarcho-capitlist are the same thing.

If individuals are truely free laissez faire will reign.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
If that article correctly explains the views of ASism, I'm not an ASist. Under no circumstances would I have a problem with market solutions that arise voluntarily, or any other solutions that arise voluntarily. But that doesn't mean I'm an anarcho-capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

It means you respect individuals and private property however which is what anarcho-capitalism is defined as.

Ive been arguing against the definition that an individual owning property is tantamount to a forceful invasion of the entire society.

[wtfsvi]

It isn't forceful against the entire society. Only against those who have not agreed to it. But if people that had not agreed to it were forced to respect it, it would not be "a voluntary solution".