Anarchists must be Anarcho-capitalists

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very concept of anarchy means that free actors can do as they wish, and this includes free trade, mob rule

[/ QUOTE ]

You post at this forum yet have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the philosophy of anarchism? nice! The fact that you havn't expanded on the perception of anarchism as meaning 'chasos and disorder' is a shame- then again the only anarchism spoke of here usually refers to ACism so I guess your not entirely at fault.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um...where did I ever say 'chaos and disorder', or even imply it? I don't think an anarchist society will end in chaos and disorder. Most anarchist societies would end up quite ordered provided they had sufficient intellectual and physical capital. However, I do think it will result in greater trampling of rights, freedoms and happiness than democratic government, and poorer security from internal and external threats.

See my post below to understand where I'm coming from. It's not that difficult to understand.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism either. Do YOU see why?

The very concept of anarchy means that free actors can do as they wish, and this includes free trade, mob rule, and buying up/stealing all available land to make socialist communes

Let's call it what it is: Anarchy. You support anarchy, period. The "capitalism" addition is just a bit of fluff to dress up a thoroughly debunked and laughed at notion with credible words.

gg.

[/ QUOTE ]

If individuals are free to do what they want then there is a basis of private property: the individual.

Further, anarcho-capitlism doesnt deny other forms of society so long as they are voluntary. Anarcho-capitlism provides the means for these structures to exist without force. A kibbutz can be set up, a democratically run condo or compound, etc... whatever.. none of this violates anarcho-capitalism.

So far as the institutions aren't voluntary we are no longer taking about anarchy and are talking about a a state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Explain to me how precisely this is different from regular old Anarchy. Thanks. The only thing in your post I dispute is the add-on of "capitalism".

You also invoke some strange notions when you say: "anarcho-capitlism doesnt deny other forms of society so long as they are voluntary".

There is no one to enforce what anarcho-capitalism does and doesn't deny. Let's be real about this: you're just playing with word definitions. In reality, the entire foundation of anarcho-capitalism is just Anarchy, which is the dismantling of the state. What happens after that is entirely up to individuals. What you believe is and isn't ok after that is irrelevant - it will simply be free agents making choices in the absence of government force. If people have enough force behind them, or no one to hold them accountable, they will still do what they want, including violating the property "rights" of others. So the -capitalism bit is exactly what I said: a tag on the end to make regular old Anarchy sound more credible.

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very concept of anarchy means that free actors can do as they wish, and this includes free trade, mob rule

[/ QUOTE ]


You post at this forum yet have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the philosophy of anarchism? nice! The fact that you havn't expanded on the perception of anarchism as meaning 'chasos and disorder' is a shame- then again the only anarchism spoke of here usually refers to ACism so I guess your not entirely at fault.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um...where did I ever say 'chaos and disorder', or even imply it? I don't think an anarchist society will end in chaos and disorder. Most anarchist societies would end up quite ordered provided they had sufficient intellectual and physical capital. However, I do think it will result in greater trampling of rights, freedoms and happiness than democratic government, and poorer security from internal and external threats.


[/ QUOTE ]

Greater trampeling of rights? Rights to what?

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?

Why isn't democracy working in Iraq, in your opinion? Or do you believe democracy is the most successful thing imaginable for their society?

[Zygote]

[ QUOTE ]

Explain to me how precisely this is different from regular old Anarchy. Thanks. The only thing in your post I dispute is the add-on of "capitalism".


[/ QUOTE ]

capitalism means a structure of private property. Socialism means a structure of social property.

If society is anarchistic it must be capitalistic. 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 ]
In reality, the entire foundation of anarcho-capitalism is just Anarchy, which is the dismantling of the state. What happens after that is entirely up to individuals. What you believe is and isn't ok after that is irrelevant - it will simply be free agents making choices in the absence of government force. If people have enough force behind them, or no one to hold them accountable, they will still do what they want, including violating the property "rights" of others. So the -capitalism bit is exactly what I said: a tag on the end to make regular old Anarchy sound more credible.

[/ 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?

[Borodog]

[ 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.

[zasterguava]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very concept of anarchy means that free actors can do as they wish, and this includes free trade, mob rule

[/ QUOTE ]

You post at this forum yet have absolutely no idea whatsoever about the philosophy of anarchism? nice! The fact that you havn't expanded on the perception of anarchism as meaning 'chasos and disorder' is a shame- then again the only anarchism spoke of here usually refers to ACism so I guess your not entirely at fault.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um...where did I ever say 'chaos and disorder', or even imply it? I don't think an anarchist society will end in chaos and disorder. Most anarchist societies would end up quite ordered provided they had sufficient intellectual and physical capital. However, I do think it will result in greater trampling of rights, freedoms and happiness than democratic government, and poorer security from internal and external threats.

See my post below to understand where I'm coming from. It's not that difficult to understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough Phil. But you did say something along the lines of' in anachism "free actors can do as they wish". There is nothing about that in the anarchist philosophy i read; perhaps the distinction between acism and a-sism needs to be made although i should probably get used to the idea that in this forum anarchism is assumed to mean acism.

[zasterguava]

[ 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.

[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.

[Borodog]

[ 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 ]

Such as? Most primitive societies I know of weren't particularly "hierarchical" at all, although many revered tribal elders (not an unwise policy imo). That reverence was typically entirely voluntary and subject to transfer should a particular elder prove himself unworthy of respect.