Yes, I agree, with this logic and information, Rothbard could be considered the Father/Founder of ancap.
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to further a discussion.
The one thing I respect most about this community is that it is, for the most part, a safe and encouraging place to discuss and scrutinize the reasoning and information of each and everyone one us, in pursuit of a deeper understanding of economics and political theory. I do not know everything, and I would venture to say none of us here do too. All of us have a piece of this puzzle, NOT to discourage and demean, but to share and enlighten each other.
Thanks to members like you. [:)]
Exactly, and the spirit of that statement was excellently exemplified in our exchange. We both evinced humility and respect, and were thus able to find common ground, mutually aid in discovery, and mutually correct error.
If you have the ability to act under your own will, free of interference apart from natural law, then I submit you are under no authority/ruler. Anarchy does not imply that everyone is forced to make their own shoes.
For the anarchists, it does. This is why they will often claim that capitalism is the beast, and the state is the cage.
The problem with your view is that there is no way, in a world of capitalism, for the lone individual to act under his own will. There are organizations that can concentrate overwhelming force on him at any time for any reason. The only reason they would refrain from doing that is if this individual was protected by another organization, in effect under the organization’s authority.
Obviously not all anarchists. We are discussing the validity of anarcho-capitalism [ free market anarchists ]. Such a statement already assumes that free market anarchists don’t exist or aren’t anarchists.
Ok so not only have you said that capitalism is an authority based system but you have also said that we cannot employ means/ends.
That is pure nonsense. Who are these organizations? What is their ‘force’?
Why? Why do you need to thoroughly understand capitalism to be an anarcho-capitalist? I cannot recally any definition requiring such a pre-requisite. Perhaps you can point one out to me. Suppose in 100 years the economic understanding of capitalism has radically improved even further, can they go “Actually, Rothbard wasn’t a real anarcho-capitalist, he was only a market anarchist, as he didn’t have a thorough understanding like we do?”
Any team of more than one person can easily take down a lone individual, no matter how many weapons he packs.
So you are postulating that under a capitalist system, which we are talking about since the topic is whether or not capitalism is compatible with anarchism, that people are threatening violence or enacting violence in order so they may exert force for reasons you have yet to specify.
To steal.
Stranger, your arguments only have force for the most naive of anarchists who can’t tell power from liberty
Probably Lao Tzu.
Epicurus
What about PDAs and private courts, wouldn’t they stand in the way?
Only if they have authority in the dispute. That means organization, hierarchy, and so on.
You don’t seem to realize what the anarchist argument is. They believe that without the state no man would ever be evil, we would all live in communism and there would be a superabundance of all goods.
Are we talking about An-Cap or An-Syndicalism here?
They is who? Source this please.
About anarchists as de Molinari would have known them.