Posted on 05/18/2022 11:19:30 PM PDT by libertasbella
Anarcho Capitalism refers to the philosophy that calls for the abolition of centralized states. In its stead, the state will be replaced by a system of private property which will be maintained by private institutions and civil society.
Anarcho-capitalism is truly radical in the sense that it strikes at the root of societal problems and attempts to offer solutions to these problems through market forces. Given the philosophy’s relatively young age, anarcho-capitalist thought merits a proper analysis in order for novices to fully comprehend it.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.libertasbella.com ...
The concepts of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle largely define anarcho capitalism. Individuals have full control of their lives and can pursue their own goals as long as they do not transgress on other people’s rights. The non-aggression principle makes it clear that individuals cannot encroach on the person or property of any other individual.
The initiation of force against others is categorically rejected under this philosophy’s precepts. This does not only apply between regular individuals but also between the relationship of the individual and state.
The state itself is viewed as a coercive institution that is centered on said aggression through its practice of taxation and monopoly on violence. In addition, state activities such as economic and social regulation, prohibitions, and other forms of government intervention in people’s private affairs are categorically rejected by proponents of this philosophy.
It is my understanding that the basic teaching of anarcho-capitalism is to allow so much freedom that society becomes unmanageable so that we beg for communism.
I believe you nailed it.
I think this an incorrect conclusion, as the notion that "so much freedom becomes unmanageable" is itself fallacious. A basic view of the dissonance between the state (and its ability to coerce) and freedom is that of a range of definitions as to what a state is and how pervasive and powerful it can become.
The State -- capitalized -- becomes its own reason for being under various forms of rule. Slavery and feudal systems through to that pretend democracy which is majoritarianism have historically shown a range of evils and corruption.
Many have seen the State as that entity in which abuse too easily takes place, and so some theorize that one can do without a state (in the lower case). But the various forms of Communism are all statist, such that to say the anarcho-capitalist thinks "too much freedom" will collapse is itself a camouflaged statist accusation.
Some in the 20th century posited that there is a ratio. More state means less society, and more society means less state, so to speak. What is certain is that some minimum elements of a state are necessary. So one cannot easily live as a purist anarcho-capitalist. Basically it's a lot of verbiage to theorize a bit.
More power to the state? Less power to the people. And vice versa. The work of Elinor Ostrom in this regard (see her 2009 Nobel speech) suggests that localizing decisions is the best form of "management" in solving the so-called problem of the commons. Certainly, centralized control as in National Socialism, Italian Fascism, and Soviet and Sino-Socialism (Communism) is by default does not deliver either local control nor greater freedom. The smallest possible state, restrained from becoming a State, is the dream and as best I see it was the dream of the Founding Fathers. Therefore its Republic is intended to guard against majoritarianism.
I don't think one can find many anarco-capitalists advocating for Communism. If you could cite some, this could become an interesting discussion. Best wishes.
Anarcho-capitalism is a tool of the left.
The Founding Fathers wanted maximum freedom, but their understanding of this maximum freedom was based on the existence of a moral people.
Absent morality, and you’d have men like Bill Gates buying up the world and charging us a fee to exist on this world.
My understanding is that it is a leftist response to the marketplace, where the leftist says, “Oh you want freedom. I now own your water. Pay me $100/glass if you want access to the water.”
It’s basically giving it good and hard to those who claim that the marketplace should be free from government interference, which creates the argument that we need government to prevent that and that’s where the leftists come and say, “Oh, now you want government...”
A collective will always defeat the lone individual.
The white Christians who founded the U.S. were individualists with a strong libertarian bent. But increasingly, the people coming into the U.S. are tribal.
They vote their own people into office, distribute government jobs and benefits to their own people, slant the judicial system to benefit their own people, pressure companies to hire and promote their own people, pressure colleges to admit their own people. They do much of this in the guise of "fighting discrimination and white supremacy."
It's not just one ethnic or religious group doing this. It's most every group other than white Christians. The U.S. is becoming a tribal battleground. In such an environment, the Radical Individualist will be steamrolled over.
its back to the feudal system for us...
A citation or two to support this would be appreciated. Whatever the "Left" is or may seem to be, it is "State" statist by degree with the worst of the statists being historically the most murderous, as Rudolf Rummel's work identifies in copious detail.
One could recall that the cheerleaders and apologists for Chinese Communism call that government's handling of its economy "state capitalism." That does not sully the word "capitalism" but simply proves that the Left lies and misuse vocabulary on a regular basis.
Certainly this nation could use greater freedom, far less debt and a smaller and much less expensive governance, made up of so many tiers of government.
It doesn’t make sense to me.
I can’t see it being anything other than a brief transition period to something else.
Basically, anarchism and marxism are both classless systems.
They both use violence to get to their classlessnes.
And when the thugs steal your stuff what ya gonna do?
Mankind is fallen and sinful
Left to their own d vices they will always do evil
Your assumption is based on mankind being good. They aren’t
Precisely
Bkmk/anarcho
And this wonderful, utopian plan falls to dust with the first violation of property rights or other criminal activity.
.
It disturbs some liberals I know when I describe the government as "force and violence". Those underlie everything else the government does. Nice, friendly welfare program? Watch the violence come out when you refuse to pay for it. Let's order everyone to wear bike helmets for their own good? Well, maybe you'll wish you had that helmet when you refuse and a cop is nightsticking your head to enforce compliance for your safety.
I'm more amazed by the nerve of leftist who want to break glass and set fires to replace the current government with an even more powerful one calling themselves "anarchists". Those anarchists are actually very pro-archists.
Much of what he says is correct, but this almost 10 minute video posted on 4 October 2008 has had but 2,837 views in fourteen years. The lecture is not about what some call anarcho-capitalism but about anarchism. There was nothing in it I had not known.
The YouTube channel is this one fellow. RadioHogan's "about" in YouTube yields a "coming soon" message, though the about page says he joined YouTube on "Apr 25, 2007."
Source: http://www.radiohogan.com/
I am not advocating anarco-capitalism, and note that like Hogan, the fellow who posted the original article is promoting his own website and -- ta-da -- online store. So both are a bit self-promotional.
Rather than be bogged down in minutiae, I would simply image a spectrum from freedom to slavery, which rather parallels the size of government from small (even mostly absent) to enormous.
I come down on the side of the smallest and least costly government possible, and the one most local rather than distant.
This is why I cheered Elinor Ostrom's actual solution to the so-called "problem of the commons" being local, local, and local. Away from the central planners, distant technocrats and poobahs. Words sometimes fumble with ideas, and technical language fumbles a lot, while political language so easily lies outright.
The closest one comes to an actual theory of capitalism is something like those who write about freedom and a free market. It is amusing to note that the "big" voices about capitalism were the jackass that wrote "Capital" and the modern day, parlance fattened Piketty, a latter day anti-capitalist.
Making it simple, I advocate for your freedom from too onerous a government and too duplicitous a political party. Hope you'd do the same for me.
I made no assumption about mankind being good. I agree that humans are capable of inhumanity. And on an enormous scale.
My response was simply to reply to the assertion that anarcho-capitalism was anarchism. As technical terms proliferate, clarity can become an early victim.
Freedom is such an interesting word, for it becomes clarifies when the preposition is added. "Freedom from." I think freedom from too much government is something to cheer. Why? Because governments are made of men, and men are NOT "good."
We agree on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.