Anarchocapitalism = economic totalitarianism?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
OP,

In a situation where anarchy of capital prevails, i.e. where wealth is not subject to the rule of law but rather is the "law" in its own right, the natural consequence is that those with more money are selected for in terms of power in society, which results in plutocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This raises the interesting question as to which is preferable:

1) an elite of plutocrats, or

2) an elite of elected and frequently corrupt politicians, who enjoy: wide perks, short working hours, and long vacations; and who garner enormous speaking fees and book royalties, and consistently admonish the populace to "do as I say, not as I do".

Which of the above is preferable? I don't really know, but at least the plutocrats don't pretend they're really in it for you.

[LinusKS]

Note: The other thread was locked, after I was banned yesterday, so that's why I'm pasting this here. Sorry for the hijack.

***

In AC = economic totalitarianism, I posed the following question:

Suppose - to take a hypothetical - that a king notices unrest among his peasants. He has, of course, a mercenary army at his disposal, but for whatever reasons he'd prefer not to use it.

He issues a decree, in which he abdicates, disbands his government, and sets up an auction. He then buys up the land the peasants live on.

The peasants are now free of taxes. Instead, they must pay rent. He stops calling his men "mercenaries," and starts calling them a "Private Defense Association," instead.

What, if anything, has changed?

Does the king have any less authority over the peasants as their private landlord, than he did when he was their monarch?


Only nietzreznor answered, and his answer was:

Quote:
In your example, I would say there is very little difference.



There is very little difference. If, as anarchocapitalists say, an owner has absolute control over his property, the landlord has at least as much control over his land, and over its people, as a king has over his realm, and over his subjects.

Murray Rothbard wrote, ” So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property.

If the state “acts as… any other owner,” can we not also say “any other owner…” acts as a state?

In other words, if ACists recognize that A=B, why can’t they see that B=A?

To put it simply: is it not fair to say anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism without government; it’s government by capitalists?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Only nietzreznor answered,

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually a lot of people answered.

[AlexM]

You should really read this LinusKS.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP,

In a situation where anarchy of capital prevails, i.e. where wealth is not subject to the rule of law but rather is the "law" in its own right, the natural consequence is that those with more money are selected for in terms of power in society, which results in plutocracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This raises the interesting question as to which is preferable:

1) an elite of plutocrats, or

2) an elite of elected and frequently corrupt politicians, who enjoy: wide perks, short working hours, and long vacations; and who garner enormous speaking fees and book royalties, and consistently admonish the populace to "do as I say, not as I do".

Which of the above is preferable? I don't really know, but at least the plutocrats don't pretend they're really in it for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take door number 2: politicians, though corrupted by would-be plutocrats, who must at least appear to be serving me.

The other option is direct rule by that same, now self-realized, plutocracy with mask and gloves off.

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
You should really read this LinusKS.

[/ QUOTE ]

You persistently interpret disagreement as either ignorance, or malice.

Shake: if you could point me toward the post you're talking about, I'd appreciate it.

[2OuterJitsu]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose - to take a hypothetical - that a king notices unrest among his peasants. He has, of course, a mercenary army at his disposal, but for whatever reasons he'd prefer not to use it.

He issues a decree, in which he abdicates, disbands his government, and sets up an auction. He then buys up the land the peasants live on.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who does he pay for the land? If the peasants are the owners, why would they sell?

[ QUOTE ]

The peasants are now free of taxes. Instead, they must pay rent. He stops calling his men "mercenaries," and starts calling them a "Private Defense Association," instead.
What, if anything, has changed?


[/ QUOTE ]

Now the peasants can raise the price of their crops to afford their rent. The king isn't farming so he'll probably reduce his rent.

[ QUOTE ]

Does the king have any less authority over the peasants as their private landlord, than he did when he was their monarch?

[/ QUOTE ]

If he likes affordable food he will have a great deal less, or is he one of those infinitely wealthy, abdicating, farming, hypothetical monarchs?

[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
Who does he pay for the land? If the peasants are the owners, why would they sell?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

One of the suppositions of anarchocapitalism is that "government" properties - parks, museums, national monuments, schools, roads, wildlife refuges, etc. - would be seized or auctioned off.

How this process would work - who would get the money raised from auctions, or which seizures would be valid, or how it would be decided who got to seize what - are some of the questions acists typically avoid answering.

My point is that regardless of how the auctioning or seizure process worked, the owners of land or other means of production would (according to ACism) end up with the kind of power any medieval despot aspire to.

[ QUOTE ]
Now the peasants can raise the price of their crops to afford their rent. The king isn't farming so he'll probably reduce his rent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the king-cum-capitalist landlord would charge what the market would bear, and the farmers would do what farmers always do - which is to charge the market price.

I'm not sure why you think the king would reduce rents, or why anything would change for the farmers.

[ QUOTE ]
If he likes affordable food he will have a great deal less, or is he one of those infinitely wealthy, abdicating, farming, hypothetical monarchs?

[/ QUOTE ]

He's the same as any owner - he does not work himself; he profits from his investments.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
You persistently interpret disagreement as either ignorance, or malice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not disagreeing, you're stating things about ACism that are flat out untrue. The way you talk about ACism is like saying Christians believe that God is a giant spaghetti monster. If you're simply disagreeing, then feel free to say things that are in disagreement, but the way you have been talking about AC clearly does demonstrate either ignorance or malice.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

To put it simply: is it not fair to say anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism without government; it’s government by capitalists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are more or less correct, in my opinion. And being governed by capitalists, with profit incentives, would be a far sight better than what we have today. There are pros and cons to having no government, just as there are pros and cons to having big government. You have to weigh the totality of it all, not just isolated quesions like "OMG WHO WILL PROTECT THE KITTENS"?

Most of the things the government does badly wouldn't happen because there's no profit in it. (think about the public education system we have now for example).

The sets of rules you'd have to live by would be far more local and you'd have many options even within the same locality. And of course, these sets of rules you choose to be governed by are your CHOICE. Don't underestimate the importance of this.

A lot of people dismiss that as irrelevent. I've noticed that the most ardent detractors to AC/libertarianism betray a deep contempt for personal liberty and choice.

The paternalists and the moralists see eye to eye. Authoritarian rule over your every choice is not objectionable to either of them in the end. (And don't underestimate how much of leftwing policy is truly driven by a hatred of the rich as opposed to a love of the poor. Many are willing to sacrifice the liberty of ALL just to get to the rich. Again, think of the public education system we have now).

natedogg