There seems to be some anti free market libertarian or anarcho capitalist biases within other anarchist or libertarian movements, in general rejecting free market ethics in a limited or no government society. Example is this wiki website (which means we can change the site if we wish), it doesn’t even mention anarcho capitalism, and the page of it has a clear and rather humorous bias against free markets. This is rather confusing to me, especially as a person who previously follow libertarian socialism, the step from each other seemed rather small, and not to big, so why is there such a clash?:
The left panels says it all, all these smaller groups of anarchists and no mention of anarcho capitalism
It’s simply their hate and jealousy of anyone who has a penny more than they do. They have no concept of what capitalism is outside of their tantrum-throwing brainwashing pamphlets. Let them have their stupidity.
The problem was calling it anarcho-capitalism in the first place. We have nothing in common with anarchists. Just another one of Rothbard’s misguided alliances.
Other than the desire to not have a government, as it is an unjustifiable entity, which, coincidentally, just happens to be the definition of anarchist. Fancy that!
While all anarchists should, by definition, oppose the state, there are severe disagreements as to what the state stems from:
Libertarian anarchists see it as a harmful form of monopoly, rooted in fallacious beliefs about the virtue of violence. Many collectivist anarchists, on the other hand, tend to see it as an outgrowth of bourgeois culture, along with its brethren private property, religion and (one man, one woman) family.
So, each group thinks that the other group’s anarchism will lead to even greater calamity: libertarians dread the unchecked tyranny of the majority while collectivists fear private tyranny.
With some variation in the wording, I’ve used the definition of anarchy against the ‘regular anarchists’, to which they nearly always reply that any hierarchy (even if voluntary) is still nominally a ‘ruler’.
It seems that you define the word “monopoly” to describe an institution which alone provides some service. I, contrariwise, define the word “monopoly” to describe an institution where physical force or threats of physical force maintain the existence of a certain portion of its customers. If we were to use that definition, which I believe, atleast in our circles, to be the standard definition, your comment would be incorrect.