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.