difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism

[ShakeZula06]

To me it seems implicit that an anarchy would operate in capitalism, being that without state restrictions or funding it is economic freedom.

So why call AC society AC society insted of just anarchy?

[QuadsOverQuads]

Because their conception of "property rights" cannot exist without a strong central state for enforcement. If you doubt that, take a look at how they were acquired in the first place. In the absence of the state, early "anarcho-capitalists" simply stole land by force, and from there created "the state" as a means of protecting and maintaining their own stolen lands. It took centuries for "non-land-owners" to obtain a voice in this process, and the moment they did, the same "anarcho-capitalist" class began bitching and moaning about how "oppressed" they were by this "evil statism" that no longer represented their interests.

Whiny spoiled-brat punks and cheats, every one of them.


q/q

[Nielsio]

You are correct, anarchy and AC are analogous.

The reason AC is used is because it discerns itself from the 'our government is hijacked from us, the people'-crowd (hippies).

There are also the anarcho-syndicalists, and you really want to distinguish yourself from that position; as they see the 'workers' as the ones who need the 'power' and the capitalists as the bad guys.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Because their conception of "property rights" cannot exist without a strong central state for enforcement.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false, and you are an angry man.

[hmkpoker]

Anarchy does not necessarily mean anarcho-capitalism. It depends on whom you ask.

Most people who identify as "anarchists" are not anarcho-capitalists. They are anarcho-syndicalists, libertarian socialists, or whatever other term may be used. The basic premise (coming from my highly biased and poorly-informed opinion) is that "anarchy" doesn't just mean the absence of a tax-funded state. It means an absence of force altogether, which is then extended into private capital (since someone who has a lot can, according to them, control other people through employment.) So basically they want a state where all but the most personal items are unowned, and all property is public property, all of which takes place in the absence of a ruling authority. (It doesn't make sense to me, but then anarcho-capitalism doesn't make sense to them [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )

Moreover, the horrible nightmare-society Thomas Hobbes described as anarchy (and probably what comes to most people's minds when you say the word) is neither socialist nor capitalist. Hobbesian anarchy describes a society where an extreme lack of resources facilitates a level of time preference so high that it is necessary to run around clubbing each other over food scraps. Capitalism implies that there are sufficient resources and social norms to make voluntary trade of private property the basis of wealth distribution.

In my opinion, anarcho-capitalism is an attempt to minimize government and facilitate free trade as much as possible. To get rid of government completely, in all its forms, would probably require a society where everyone has enough resources to lower time preference of goods to a degree where there's no point of violence, and no point of any kind of government. That day, if it ever happens, is far, far away, and no one here can predict what social norms will be adopted centuries from now.

AC society is not just anarchy. It is just capitalism.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Whiny spoiled-brat punks and cheats, every one of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we're whiny spoiled brats, what are our polar opposites, the bleeding heart liberals?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
To get rid of government completely, in all its forms, would probably require a society where everyone has enough resources to lower time preference of goods to a degree where there's no point of violence, and no point of any kind of government.

[/ QUOTE ]

O RRRRRRLLLLYYYYY

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
This is false

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeat: you cannot have a meaningful system of "property rights" without a strong central state to enforce it. Land titles, in particular, are a creation of state power -- be it feudal, monarchal, democratic, socialist or whatever. Arguments resorting to "natural rights" are meaningless if those rights only "exist" as unenforceable abstract claims. If there is no central mediator to enforce those rights, then it comes down to competing forces operating on behalf of specific individuals. Which force then takes precedence? The one that can forcibly impose their will on the others. That is the story of human history. Eventually, the strongest either go to war with each other or team up to form larger entities. In time, those entities become states, and there we are again.

That being the case, the "ACer" fantasy world is contrary to both human history and the demonstrated rules of human behavior.

In fact, the "anarcho-capitalist" wingnuts are just another power-group in this same long line -- pushing for their agenda to be imposed above all others, trying to beat down their opponents wherever they find them, and demanding that the powers of the world be reordered according to their will.

As a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.

[ QUOTE ]
and you are an angry man.

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilty as charged. And it doesn't matter.


q/q

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is false

[/ QUOTE ]

I repeat: you cannot have a meaningful system of "property rights" without a strong central state to enforce it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
If we're whiny spoiled brats, what are our polar opposites, the bleeding heart liberals?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to find the true opposite of an ACer, I'd start by looking for a Rationalist -- preferrably one with a solid understanding of basic economics.


q/q