I’ve been talking with some fellows and they have pointed out that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron because you need governement to support private property.
Can someone help me out on this one?
EDIT: this is the link I’ve been recommended.
http://www.indiegogo.com/Anarchism-A-Documentary
anyone?
Private property can be upheld through contracts.
Edit: There would still be private courts without the government that would hopefully uphold property rights, seeing as they (property rights) are based on contracts.
Um, no. Private property is currently protected by the state, that does not mean the state is needed to enforce contracts. There are plenty of historic examples of private property being enforced without a state, and libertarian literature amply explains how a stateless propertarian society would work.
Anarcho-communism, on the other hand, is an oxymoron. Whatever communes or syndicates these people envision would be monopolies on the means of production, and therefore miniature states.
I haven’t finished all the libertarian litterature.
I’m having a headache recently, been arguing with a lot of “real anarchists” recently because of the Montreal manifestations. see here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPPBWqi4wJY&feature=player_embedded, I just noticed this on the news just now and googled it. Incredibly weird people.
I get an enourmess headache when anarcho-communists fail to answer your argument and simply nitpick without offering any coherent structured answer.
The state is not needed to define or defend private property. One might say that the anarcho-capitalist society still has government(s), with individuals purchasing defense and adjudication services from competing firms, but this is clearly distinct from the state and can arguably be called anarchism. But if people still whine and complain that it’s not really anarchism, fine. Who cares? Names like “polycentric order” or even “free market” are less problematic (and, imo, more accurate) anyway.
How Could A Voluntary Society Function?
As somebody previously pointed out, anarchism is a social philosophy and capitalism is an order of production. They’re not mutually exclusive terms.
Anarcho-(I-don’t-want-my-stuff-on-fire)ism is an oxymoron because you need the government to support fire fighting and prevention.
Why can’t the market provide fire fighting services? Why must government do it?
“Private property is currently protected by the state”
How can you say something is protected, when it must be violated to exist?
I believe the OP was being satirical, extending the logic that government is needed to protect property rights into the idea that government is necessary for most anything (e.g. I want fire protection thereby I cannot be an anarchist) 
The idea that private property is dependent upon government is absurd, even if we don’t have a serious account of existent anarcho-capitalist societies in the past with robust property rights apart from government–I personally don’t know if there are any accounts as I haven’t really explored it.
But private property depends on rigorous philosophical, moral, and pragmatic justifications, not the appeal to Leviathan.
Most people that whine about private property as being only conducive to the interests of the capitalists clearly have no idea what private property entails, since their schemes to replace capitalism inevitably invoke notions of alienation and excludability.
Public property in the strictest sense is just private property–its status does not change simply because you add a bunch of names to the title or claim that you’re holding it in ‘trust’ for “your” serfs in a defined area.
I would argue that private property is impossible under the state, especially a state with property taxes.
Joe is obviously right; you’re never going to get the kind of absolute property rights under a governmental system as you would under anarcho-capitalism.
Joe and MrSchnapps-
That is exactly my thought as well. Ultimately, with the state, the state will have final say regarding property.
Thank you guys for the answers they were really helpfull.
Private property is not protected by the state. The interest of the state is protected by the state.
You’re obviously not referring to any specific individuals in government, since they, without government, would still be around to put out fires. You must be referring to the system, which is a monopoly. So what you are saying, if I understand correctly, is that there is automatically a market failure in the production of the service of putting out fires, and that a monopolist with taxing power is needed to get the job done.
If I have understood you correctly, please go on to explain why this is so. If I have not understood correctly, please point out there error in my understanding.
I have a hunch he was joking.
I was, in fact, joking. Apparently poorly. =P
I’m still trying to re-find the comic with the old women in the Soviet Union waiting in a bread line, freezing their babushkas off. “But think!” one says to the other. “In the capitalist countries, the government doesn’t even distribute the bread!”