Don't assume that because I don't buy into this crap that I haven't read it. I doubt there's anything on Mises that I haven't read (unless it was added in the last month or two). I probably read it when you were still wearing diapers.
I read a lot of political and economic theory (even the "bad" stuff like Marx). Frankly, I find "anarcho capitalism" or any other version of anarchy as unrealistic as Marx's ideology.
Regarding your "examples" of "anarchistic" societies. Even if I accept what you and Wikipedia call "anarchist" societies (thanks for not copying the entire article, it was rather lengthy), they were all tiny societies (and, in fact, not truly anarchistic), usually in backwaters where they wouldn't be threatened, and they all failed (and btw, the you seemed to imply that Hong Kong was in some way anarchistic- to which I reply "what have you been smoking?").
I didn't imply anything. I'm copy & pasting here, because I don't find debating people with closed minds - worth my time... I ALREADY STATED this from the get go... It's so far well and true. You've just brushed it aside...
If you actually CLICKED the link; you're find out they were AUDIO... you can't READ audio can you?
So you're not even bothering to click links because your mind is made up... you FAIL.
To think that translating what may have kinda sorta worked for a little while in colonial Albermarle or Rhode Island, in societies that consisted of only a few hundred people, will work in a modern nation is extraordinarily naive.
Your ideas on politics remind me of high school physics- you remember, where everything was supposed to work in a "frictionless, massless" world. Unfortunately, the world isn't frictionless, and humans aren't the kind of selfless drones that would be required for those types Utopian political ideology (anarchy, communism, or whatever) to work.
Could this stuff work in a VERY small, very homogenous, very isolated community? Maybe, for a while. But it certainly wouldn't work for a nation of tens or hundreds of millions of people.
I live in the real world, not ideal world.
You keep dreaming, the rest of us have work to do... And if you ever do succeed with this stuff, let me know where you're at, because I'm coming to take your stuff, lol.
1. What is anarcho-capitalism?
"Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that
1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.
Part one is simply the definition of "anarchism," and part two is soft propertarianism, known more generally as "a free market" or "laissez-faire." Let's look more closely at each of the two parts of our definition. Moral permissibility is a "minimum" position. Almost all anarcho-capitalists believe also that a laissez-faire economic system is generally better than alternatives. Some strong propertarians, such as objectivists, go further and claim that laissez-faire is the only moral economic system.
A typical dictionary definition of anarchism is: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished."Pf This definition follows the etymology of the word: "Anarchism" is derived from the Greek αναρχία meaning "without archon" (ruler, chief, or king.) This is the core meaning of the term - against the State. This means against it in principle, as an institution, not merely against certain policies or personnel."
Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalist" in the winter of 1949 or 1950. "My whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist."Pf
Ok you obviously have some emotional reaction to the word
"anarchy"....
PURE, FREE MARKET, LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM.... you call that Utopia & unachievable?
Just because a stateless society appears unrealistic at the moment, doesn't mean it's not achievable.
2. Why should one consider anarcho-capitalism?
First, there is the issue of self-ownership, as the abolitionists called it, or moral autonomy as the philosophers call it. Is your life your own moral purpose? Do you owe anyone obedience regardless of consent? In natural rights language: Do you have rights - moral claims to freedom of action? If you answer yes to any of these questions, then logic leads you to the position of philosophical anarchism.
The defining mark of the state is authority, the right to rule. The primary obligation of man is autonomy, the refusal to be ruled. It would seem, then, that there can be no resolution of the conflict between the autonomy of the individual and the putative authority of the state. Insofar as a man fulfills his obligation to make himself the author of his decisions, he will resist the state's claim to have authority over him. That is to say, he will deny that he has a duty to obey the laws of this state simply because they are the laws. In that sense, it would seem that anarchism is the only political doctrine consistent with the virtue of autonomy." - Robert Paul Wolff, In Defense of Anarchism.
A second more utilitarian reason is the dismal record of States. Considering all the war, genocide, slavery, and repression perpetrated by States through history, might humanity do better without this barbaric institution? As the young Edmund Burke wrote in the world's first anarchist essay (before he went conservative):
These Evils are not accidental. Whoever will take the pains to consider the Nature of Society, will find they result directly from its Constitution. For as Subordination, or in other Words, the Reciprocation of Tyranny, and Slavery, is requisite to support these Societies, the Interest, the Ambition, the Malice, or the Revenge, nay even the Whim and Caprice of one ruling Man among them, is enough to arm all the rest, without any private Views of their own, to the worst and blackest Purposes; and what is at once lamentable and ridiculous, these Wretches engage under those Banners with a Fury greater than if they were animated by Revenge for their own proper Wrongs - Edmund Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society.
That was written in 1756, long before modern weapons of mass destruction and long before 170 million civilian people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century. That's just civilian deaths perpetrated by their own governments; it doesn't count the deaths due to enemy States, deaths of soldiers, dislocated refugees, and so on. To quote Rothbard, "If we look at the black record of mass murder, exploitation, and tyranny levied on society by governments over the ages, we need not be loath to abandon the Leviathan State and ... try freedom."
5. Isn't laissez-faire capitalism exploitative?
No. Laissez-faire literally means "let us be!" It means absolutely no government intervention in the economy - a free market. Of course, this is an ideal. Certainly the statist quo is not laissez-faire capitalism. Even in so-called "capitalist" States (really mixed economies), the government engages in all sorts of intervention: taxation, regulation, protectionism, prohibitions, occupational licensure, monopolies on "command posts" of society.
The vital command posts invariably owned monopolistically by the State are: (1) police and military protection; (2) judicial protection; (3) monopoly of the mint (and monopoly of defining money); (4) rivers and coastal seas; (5) urban streets and highways, and land generally (unused land, in addition to the power of eminent domain); and (6) the post office. The defense function is the one reserved most jealously by the State. It is vital to the State's existence, for on its monopoly of force depends its ability to exact taxes from the citizens. If citizens were permitted privately owned courts and armies, then they would possess the means to defend themselves against invasive acts by the government as well as by private individuals. - Murray N. Rothbard, The Myth of Efficient Government Service
With the State - biggest, baddest exploiter of all time - out of the picture, exploitation, in terms of aggression, would all but vanish. It would be a voluntary society, an anarchy.
Some say that property and capitalism is automatically exploitative, because it allows profit and/or private property. We'll answer this claim in the section below called
What are the myths of socialism?.
Yes, I am, thank you for noticing.
I try to stay humble, though.
It does come in handy, though. For example, unlike some people, I have the ability to critically analyze the ideas of others, I don't just genuflect and assume something is correct just because its on "mises.org."
You've pretty much failed to address, nor provide any worthy criticisms that aren't already clearly covered by Rothbard. Go back to mises.org.. you completely missed his entire section it would seem. What books of his have you read / own? How long you been frequenting the site? You failed to address anything Nock said aswell. It's not all just Rothbard.
I think that anarcho-capitalism is too idealistic and unrealistic. We already have hard enough time trying to convince people to go for limited government.
Yeah, which is why I don't go around calling myself an anarcho-capitalist unless it's to annoy some socialist, who gets angry because I'm a libertarian... so why not tell him how I really feel?
