Typo! I mean’t I wasn’t!
Statism does not mean order. Statism refers to systematic coercion which results in chaos and destruction.
An Ancap society does not state that it will coercively force everyone into participating into this capitalistic system. People are free to go voluntarily setup their own systems. We just doubt they will be very effecient.
You seem to be confusing the difference between positive enforcement, and negative enforcement dabba. It’s not that Ancaps will proclaim a free state! We won’t proclaim anything. It’s the lack there-of which puts anarchy into full swing. Whether people voluntarily chose to be a part of that system, go make their own communist compound, or live alone in their house hiding from it all is up to them.
The difference is we don’t put guns to peoples heads and force them to chose our way, or the highway.
Azure:
Dude…I don’t know how to make this any clearer. I’m not sure why you keep talking about the evils of statism…I agree with you on that.
To filc:
I never said that an ancap society states that they will coerce everyone into participating in the capitalist system. But nonetheless, you are presupposing a certain economic system (IE a certain method of production, etc.) within a given geographic area. Of course you say that people need not participate in it, but if a society becomes anarcho-capitalist, that IS the system they will live in. I personally would like to live in a capitalist society, but I’m not going to prescribe that order over a given area simply because I believe that it is voluntary and efficient.
You don’t put guns to peoples’ heads explicitly, but implicit in anarcho-capitalism is, “This economic order in this land. Love it or leave it. We won’t force you to participate, but you don’t have any other options in this given land claim.”
The assumption is that I will get to voluntarily chose who and what systems I want to participate in. Not that there is a single specific system for an entire geographical region. I think your mistaken on this position IMHO.
They can choose not to, they can even find other likeminded folks and start their own governance. They can even voluntarily establish a system of voluntary taxation, or perhaps a service fee for some offered governance service, IDK! The idea is that they cannot force everyone to do this against their will.
Anarcho Capitalism is not a positive argument, but it is a negative argument. Your conflating concepts here. We do not say that we have a positive right to push Anarcho Capitalism on everyone.
Yes Ancaps state that they must face the laws of reality, IE Scarcity, or suffer the consequences. Statism does not solve that problem. They only proclaim to solve that problem, then point a gun to your head while failing to solve the problem.
Honestly if you can’t ascertain the difference between violence and non-violence, then there is little we can talk about. The fact that your asserting that an Ancap society is the equivilent of a statist Regime, forcing it’s citizen’s into assimilation is absolutely ludicrous. absurd even.
wut?
If it is anarcho-capitalist, they can make anything they want of it within the ancap system, as long as they don’t utilize aggression.
So you wouldn’t prescribe that people act voluntarily?
It’s your land, it’s your economic order as long as you don’t aggress against others. You can start a commune, a factory or dig a hole to China. It’s your land. It’s your property. On your property, it is your order. No one can come in and tell you otherwise unless you aggress against their property. Then there is a claim to resolve.
First of all, what is the deal with the quote system here? Sometimes it works, sometimes it seems not to…
Ok, let me try to say it another way. I realize that you are not coercively installing a system in a given area, but you are still presupposing its existence in your philosophy. That is a fiat land claim. IE you are not imposing a coercive state, but you are imposing your ideal society (a voluntary one, whatever) in a certain area.
I don’t disagree with any of this, per se, but it has nothing to do with my argument. My argument is not that people can’t pool their resources and live communaly or in some other way in a capitalist society, my argument is that “anarcho-capitalism” is presuppositional in the same way that the state is, except without the large scale coercion.
No, but you do claim a certain economic system within a given area. That’s my only point. As for everything else, I’m basically an ancap.
I’m not making the claim that statism solves the problem of scarcity. Far from it. I’m not sure why you drew this conclusion.
When did I even mention violence? I am not saying that an ancap society is the equivalent of a statist regime. I’m saying that it has a similar feature of statism: a fiat land claim.
Ok, how about this: If anarcho-capitalism is not presuppositional, then why qualify it as anarcho-anything?. Why not just say you are an anti-statist? That’s the point I’m trying to make.
Pre-supposing the existence of what? “A System”? The only thing Anarcho-Capitalists are guilty of presupposing, is a very logically oriented argument that goods are scarce and need to be rationed/distributed in an efficient way. We may presuppose that man is intelligent and by working in his own interest he will find the best way with which to allocate these goods. A particular system need not even be identified, man in his own interest will find the best means to satisfy himself. All that matters is the facts of reality still exist, goods are scarce, time is scarce, and man must occupy scarce goods over time to create satisfaction. We don’t need to outline a framework and instruct people how to be “capitalist”. People are just naturally “capitalist” in nature. People want to trade, cooperate, and be social. It’s not like we wake up one day and say, ok everyone trade with your neighbor. Where as the day before people didn’t know they could do that. People do that because it benefits them. We didn’t need to spell it out for them.
The existence of markets(anarchy) is not something that either exists, or not exists. Its not something you can turn on or off with a light switch. It ALWAYS exists. Markets(Anarchy) always exist. The only difference is by what degree is the anarchic system perverted/distorted by a coercive hand.
IE my system, as you call it, does not come or go simply because we create a “system” to support it. The system is there always, just as gravity is. We can only disrupt it. If left alone it will continue to operate, whether we choose to identify it as a system or not.
So we arn’t making any kind of claim other then a claim over facts of reality outlined by various laws of economics.
Beyond my own private property, how am I dictating what anyone does on their land?
Again how am I imposing anything?
And what are we presupposing exactly in Anarcho-Capitalism? That some people may choose to act socially, and voluntarily collaborate, trade, and create markets on their own?
No such claim is made. Again we are not forcing anyone to do anything, there is no such claim over anyone or anything.
Well your saying that Anarcho-Capitalism pre-supposes pre-existing conditions that must be dealth with. One for example is the fact that goods are scarce. In a way your correct, but it’s not Capitalism or markets which forces man to become productive in order to sustain himself. It’s more an inconvenient fact of reality. So yes, we presuppose man must become productive in order to sustain himself. Food won’t fly into his mouth by way of magic.
Ok maybe you missed my point, and perhaps my point was misguided. Still, what claim are anarcho-capitalists making? Over whom are they making this claim? How do they enact such a claim?
Because people like names to help them quickly understand someone’s position. 
Just because a certain series of beliefs has a name, does not mean it is making a claim over any one person or any one thing.
Dabba you should define aggression or coercion if you want to imply anarcho-capitalism forces or coerces anyone into doing anything. In lockean private property theory, it’s just not the case. Which is why ancaps don’t say property is coercion. Socialist anarchists say it is, but they lack a formal private property theory of their own, and it just seems to be purely arbitrary moral sentiment or envy.
So as ancaps have theories to discern what coercion and what isn’t, you have to do the same if you want to debate the justification of private property… properly.
How insightful.
Dude, I’m not arguing about the economic efficiency of anarcho-capitalism. I agree that it is a better, more productive state of affairs. I am arguing the presuppositional land claim. I agree with you that people tend to be “capitalist in nature”, in the sense that capitalist institutions would likely arise in the absence of any sort of presupposition. For example, anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, AND anarcho-capitalism are ALL presupossitional. The reason is that they all presuppose their own economic system within a given area (be it collectivist or individualist). Anti-statism is not presuppositional. Anti-statism is the belief that the state is ineffiicent, aggressive, coercive, unnecessary, AND presuppositional. IE the reason that the state has almost always been in existence is not because it is an inevitability or that it has “stood the test of time”. It is because it is presupposed as being the right thing.
Agree, but the free market and capitalism are two different institutions. Free markets need not necessarily yield capitalism.
Again, the problem is not your economics or your belief about the market, it is the belief that CAPITALIST institutions must replace the state in a given area.
By saying that, when the state collapses, X economic system will be in Y land.
The existence of anarcho-capitalist institutions.
No? Then, again I must ask, why qualify yourselves as anarcho-capitalists then?
Again, you miss the point. Production need not be done in a capitalist way. Though I would agree with you that socialism is less productive and efficient than capitalism, it is still production and it still attempts to combat the problem of scarcity.
They enact this claim the same way statists do, by presupposing an institution’s existence.
It may not be making a physical claim in the same way that, say, Fascism, or state capitalism is, but it is still claiming a unit of land for its desired economic system. That is, at its core, what the state does. Only the state uses coercion to maintain it.
I base my anti-statism on the belief in what is sometimes referred to as “emergentism”. I believe that, in the absence of a state, the “natural” forces of the market will create something very similar to what anarcho-capitalists envision. I do NOT, however, presuppose the existence because I PREFER or desire capitalism to be in a certain area. I merely think that it would happen that way and I think it would be far more efficient.
Again, the reason I can still identify with anarcho-capitalists is because they are far more tolerant than traditional anarchists. They still presuppose their own economic system (yes, even though the market can never fully be erased, even in an ideal communist society, it is still presuppositional…it just happens to be right), but they also tend to allow for other systems and they are more realistic and economically correct.
It only coerces them insofar as they reside in the land area that is claimed to be “anarcho-capitalist”. Coercion is the act of using physical force to make a person do what you want. Aggression is a very vague term, which is why I don’t use it all that often. I’d say that aggression is using physical force period, perhaps with an emphasis on explicit force, instead of largely implicit force which the state uses. For example, the state coerces you into paying taxes. It only aggresses on you after you have not paid those taxes…at least that is how I see it.
Ancaps don’t personally advocate large scale coercion, but if you want to reside in the land that is anarcho-capitalist, you have to abide by that economic system. In that sense, they are coercing people from practicing other economic systems within a given area. If you answer, “No, people can set up their own communes or the like.”, then fine, but call yourself an anti-statist and don’t presuppose your own preferred economic system then.
Also, I’m not debating the justification of private property. I am debating the justification of people presupposing certain property norms in a given territory.
Well, but the justification of private property has everything to do on whether it is coercion to force/threaten people out of your property.
If you respect private property, then it isn’t coercion.
If you don’t, then it is, but at the same time, you should have no moral ground to object people taking away your property (unless you argue your own brand of private property theory)
Anarcho-communists can’t dodge this question either. Everyone is always prone to the discussion of private property theory for as long as there are disputes on use.
“I would say that conservatives have a destructive social policy (wars, prohibition), while new liberals have a destructive economic policy (regulation, redistribution). It comes down to which axis (social or economic) that you value more.”
democrats have been more warlike than republicans in the 20th century. why do people think otherwise?
anyhow, I don’t see how wars/prohibition is not also considered destructive economic policies and how regulation/redistribution are not also considered destructive social policies. lbj’s ‘great society’ absolutely demolished any hope blacks had in america just as any of our world wars brought about so much destruction of wealth that even bones were rationed.
something tells me you are fresh out of public school and fresh into public university.
don’t worry, though, this place will set you straight.
“The blatant racism of some neocons piss me off.”
yeah dude, totally.
“As a group, they seem to be the most ignorant.”
I know, they didn’t even go to college or anything. I had this old lumber worker of 40 years try to argue with me about the best way to clear property and I was thinking ‘dude, you don’t even have a degree in forestry or any experience working with the local wildlife buearacracy, lol.’
“I’m okay with a lot of liberals. Just because I can always find something I agree with them with.”
I know bro, I watch the daily show with my liberal friends all the time. it’s just so nice to be around open minded people. we can all get together and smoke some marijuana cigarettes at the end of a day of debating and it’s all cool.
“That’s a failing we all have, of course, but the symptom becomes especially apparent when rigid pigeonholing manifests (e.g., disqualifying large amounts of libertarians as “statists”).”
do they support the existence of the state?
if the answer is yes, then they are statists.
“dividing intellectual opponents into black and white groups for example when reality is much more complicated”
this has always been the bitchiest thing someone can say in an argument.
anyhow, back to the thread topic.
my answer: anyone who considers themselves a progressive.
yeah dude, totally.
“As a group, they seem to be the most ignorant.”
I know, they didn’t even go to college or anything. I had this old lumber worker of 40 years try to argue with me about the best way to clear property and I was thinking ‘dude, you don’t even have a degree in forestry or any experience working with the local wildlife buearacracy, lol.’
“I’m okay with a lot of liberals. Just because I can always find something I agree with them with.”
I know bro, I watch the daily show with my liberal friends all the time. it’s just so nice to be around open minded people. we can all get together and smoke some marijuana cigarettes at the end of a day of debating and it’s all cool.
I smell a hint of sarcasm here…
I was smokin weed with my friends watchin the Daily Show the other day (haha Im watching it right now, and I’m high, true story) and we were discussing this exact issue. See, a friend of ours is an anarchist who believes we can never beat the state, and has a very cynical view of people’s movements. He’s a hardcore leftist who feels defeated, strange phenomenon. Our answer was that defeatist attitudes do nothing to progress society…
my answer: anyone who considers themselves a progressive.
oh crap…
^I was much more cynical when I was a leftist anarchist too. The market can be such a positive source though.
Depends on the ruling party and which country.
In my country,the UK- right now it’s the conservatives (who are trying to appear small government) and Liberal democrats.
In the US, Obama and the democrats though the right is always a pain.I still cannot stand the way Obama is still worshipped.
But forgetting all of that I go with what someone else said.I hate the sort of people who claim to be libertarian but (1) do it as a fashion statement and know very little about it (2) think it means being anti- X or Y party which is usually the ruling party e.g. many of the tea party (3) Ignore the NAP (4) like mentioned above are wishy washy like Hayek or some other like figure and are ok with welfare state,minimum wage etc.Fact is if you like those sorts of things, you aren’t a libertarian.There can be no doubt about it.I think we have to beware of trying to be too big tent.
I don’t know about anyone else but as I read more on other sites, I’m getting increasingly less tolerant of the minarchist side…
Oh and another annoying group is left wing anarchists who agree with us except when it comes to capitalism or think capitalism constitutes a state or who want the state to disappear slowly ,welfare state last.
Populism annoys me more than anything else, especially the right wing variety.