Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

[Natural Citizen]

I think you both completely misunderstood why he brought that up. But I'm sure he will reply later, since it was his point. You must realize though, that the 'traditional' anarchists say the same thing, they see capitalism as completely incompatible with anarchism.

Anyway, thank you A Son of Liberty for your reply.

No. I'm not going to reply. We're just starting the same debate over and over again.

Ultimately, the question that has not been answered still stands. And it will continue to stand unchallenged.

Which is: How can an Anarchist and a Capitalist reasonably, justly, and logically, settle any dispute which involves property rights if both have different and opposing conceptions of property rights?

I contend that there are two options. 1 - fight, 2 - submit to opposing principle without protest.

Compromising on ones principles is not an option because compromising on ones principles settles nothing with regard to the difference in principle. It merely confirms that the difference in principles still exists and that they remain unsettled.

 

[lilymc]

Ha ha… That kind of reminds me of a movie I saw recently, about a family that lived in an underground vault for a few decades then finally came out into a completely different world. I can't remember the name of it, but it's with Brendan Fraser. [MENTION=38270]Natural Citizen[/MENTION] knows what I'm talking about.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Ha ha… That kind of reminds me of a movie I saw recently, about a family that lived in an underground vault for a few decades then finally came out into a completely different world. I can't remember the name of it, but it's with Brendan Fraser. @Natural Citizen knows what I'm talking about.

Blast From The Past.

Good movie.

 

[lilymc]

Blast From The Past.

Good movie.

Yeah, it was.

PS: hangouts

 

[Natural Citizen]

I keep seeing this brought up. I'm not sure why it even needs to be addressed. Capitalism by definition is trade without state interference. In that sense, any intervention by the state, whether by shepherding the currency system or acting as fraud watchdog is hamstringing capitalism.

What on Earth would keep two people or even groups of people free from compulsive authority from trading freely with one another? Places with little or no government jurisdiction are famous for being free trade zones.

Your contention stands on the idea that property is private only if a government proxy (I'd say "thug") is protecting your "property" for you with his gun instead of you protecting your property (no scare quotes) with yours.

If your point is just that anarchy is just impractical, okay then people will choose to take your word for it or not. You're free to portray anarchy as a silly pipedream. But I would contend it's not much more silly than constitutional minarchy, which not only is inachievable without secession, but even then can be seen as the greatest possible potential for evil. Minarchies inevitably eventually hand the powerful products of a mostly-capitalist hybrid economy to a hooligan or cartel of hooligans to achieve their own ends.

I'm not contending that Anarchy is a pipedream. In fact, I contend that Anarchy could work.

I'm simply contending that Anarchy and Capitalism cannot be hyphenated in any applicable way because Anarchy and Capitalism are fundamentally different in principle to the point that they are in direct opposition to one another.

 

[undergroundrr]

... having a limited amount of government for only certain things, and a system of checks and balances…

That's EXACTLY what we have now. The best one ever instituted. Somehow it's indistinguishable from an unlimited amount of government that does everything with no checks and balances.

The most unworkable part of the minarchist equation is the "certain things" you reference. Welfare and warfare are complicit and symbiotic. Absurdly, left-wingers think they can have an an-warfare-archy. Right-wingers think they can have an an-welfare-archy.

Meanwhile, NC is scared he's going to sell something on Craigslist, the buyer and he will disagree, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be there to prevent the demanding of satisfaction. I would suggest that transaction disputes happen every minute of the day with no meaningful state involvement and somehow we're all still here. The only predictable effect of government protection of (read as interference with) property rights is the bestowing of advantage on certain traders of property.

 

[otherone]

Meanwhile, NC is scared he's going to sell something on Craigslist, the buyer and he will disagree, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be there to prevent the demanding of satisfaction. I would suggest that transaction disputes happen every minute of the day with no meaningful state involvement and somehow we're all still here.

What kind of society would we be if no one cared about blintzes?

 

[undergroundrr]

I'm simply contending that Anarchy and Capitalism cannot be hyphenated in any applicable way because anarchy and Capitalism are fundamentally different in principle to the point that they are in direct opposition to one another.

What part of two people trading goods without outside intervention requires archy?

It seems you're suggesting that somehow trading goods, services, etc. won't operate as efficiently in an anarchy. That's very different than saying it's not capitalism.

Anything that's not free trade in an anarchy makes it an-anarchy. Anything that's a compulsory public service has the same effect.

The term anarcho-capitalism is redundant. Capitalism means anarchy.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Meanwhile, NC is scared he's going to sell something on Craigslist, the buyer and he will disagree, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be there to prevent the demanding of satisfaction. I would suggest that transaction disputes happen every minute of the day with no meaningful state involvement and somehow we're all still here. The only predictable effect of government protection of (read as interference with) property rights is the bestowing of advantage on certain traders of property.

No, you're misrepresenting my thoughts on the topic.

I agree that if you want to opt out and if you want to get together and take care of yourselves and be self-reliant, then you should be free to do that. Especially if you've renounced the use of force because then I don't have to worry about you. Libertarianism permits for this.

Again, though, and for the last time, once you hyphenate Anarchy with Capitlism as an application, you've inserted a coercive principle into the program in the eyes of the Anarchists.

So. The question naturally follows how that gets settled.

That's all I'm saying, man.

 

[undergroundrr]

once you hyphenate Anarchy with Capitlism as an application, you've inserted a coercive principle into the program in the eyes of the Anarchists.

Capitalism is coercive?

 

[Natural Citizen]

The term anarcho-capitalism is redundant.

No they aren't. They're two terms which are in direct opposition to each other in fundamental principle.

Capitalism means anarchy.

No, capitalism means capitalism. Anarchy mean anarchy.

Capitalist walks into a store and says I'm buying some gum for myself with my pieces of silver.

Anarachist walks into the store and says I'm going to help myself to some of our gum.

 

[Raginfridus]

Don't you Romans 13, brah?

I wonder what God would have written if Rome taxed income. If not just property owners but laymen too were taxed...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Capitalism is coercive?

Yes. What If I don't pay?

What purpose does a contract serve? Does a contract not obligate me to be held liable if I refuse to hold up my end of the contract?

So. You gonna take me to court? Court equals coercion. You gonna shoot me if I don't obey the contract? That's consequence. Coercion.

 

[otherone]

Yes. What If I don't pay?

What purpose does a contract serve? Does a contract not obligate me to be held liable if I refuse to hold up my end of the contract?

there's a gum contract? effin lawyers.

 

[Natural Citizen]

there's a gum contract? effin lawyers.

Okay. Let's put it another way.

What obligation would the private mercenaries and private court in your ancap society have to you, the purchaser of their services, to fulfill their service?

 

[lilymc]

That's EXACTLY what we have now. The best one ever instituted. Somehow it's indistinguishable from an unlimited amount of government that does everything with no checks and balances.

I knew someone was going to say that. So basically what you're saying is, because our system is being subverted and turned into something it was never supposed to be, we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and go to a system that is also going to end up subverted and turned into something it was never supposed to be... Except that in your AnCapLand, you are starting out without a true foundation, but with an illogical, contradictory idea that won't work longer than a few days. Makes loads of sense. :o

 

[Natural Citizen]

22 pages. lol. And all because somebody asked should libertarians support anarcho-capitalism. 22 pages.

And the op hasn't even been back. That's the funny part. I think he just dropped a grenade for the fun of it. He's probly laughing at us.

I'm gonna get ready for work. Screw you guys. lolol.

 

[otherone]

Okay. Let's put it another way.

What obligation would the private mercenaries and private court in your ancap society have to you, the purchaser of their services?

Back to this? I don't argue for PDAs.

IRT stolen gum, I have a small business. In the last 20 years, I've been beat a handful of times. Never took anyone to court. I simply won't trade with them again. It's a cost of doing business. Ironically, the worst offender was a church.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I knew someone was going to say that. So basically what you're saying is, because our system is being subverted and turned into something it was never supposed to be, we should throw out the baby with the bathwater and go to a system that is also going to end up subverted and turned into something it was never supposed to be... Except that in your AnCapLand, you are starting out without a true foundation, but with an illogical, contradictory idea that won't work longer than a few days. Makes loads of sense. :o

zactly. I owe ya a rep.

 

[undergroundrr]

Yes. What If I don't pay?

What purpose does a contract serve? Does a contract not obligate me to be held liable if I refuse to hold up my end of the contract?

Was the contract signed under compulsion? If not, the obligation was taken on with no compulsion having taken place.

If somebody cheated somebody, boo-hoo. The state hasn't made us immune to this. Are you suggesting that somehow the state will seal up the gaps on unethical trade eventualities? If somebody lowers the Super Mario Hammer on a thief on my behalf, or on a vendor due to non-compliance, things didn't get more capitalistic.

You still haven't solved the problem that true free trade requires the absence of the state from the transaction.

If capitalism to you means big corporate artificial men with their individual human agents protected from recourse, yeah, anarchy isn't going to work out for you, because anarchy is capitalistic by its nature.