Anarcho Capitalism: A Definition and Guide on Why It Matters

--- "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."

Compliments on this salient observation.

This is part the issue of words. The article wants to use the technical jargon which includes "anarcho-" as a suffix, and that has its own baggage.

Probably better to avoid the baggage, and go directly to "small" versus "big," corrupt and hidden versus open above board, and so on.

What's sure to me is that your term "pro-archists" rather well captures the rioters from BLM and antifa and more. That sort of thing is not anarchy in a strict sense, but a parallel to the brown and black shirts, the enforcers and the intolerant zealots such as one finds in the headlines these days.

Good on you for your comment! Best wishes.

In reviewing arguments among anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, and Randian objectivists it seemed to me that all these groups were more concerned about justice than about freedom.

To varying degrees they felt that the imposition of constraints on human behavior by external entities was philosophically/morally unjustified.

They then seem to jump to the conclusion that if the constraints are eliminated it will be a more just society. They make a further jump believing that a more just society will necessarily be a more free society.

My own take is that anarcho-capitalism and its watered-down cousins libertarianism.and objectivism are MORE utopian than communism.

The communists at least realize that human nature is not made for anarchy (capitalist or syndicalist) and requires a period of forced reeducation to have any hope of success.

--- "My own take is that anarcho-capitalism and its watered-down cousins libertarianism.and objectivism are MORE utopian than communism."

An excellent observation. "Ideally...." So begins many thinkers' thoughts.

It is interesting that utopia comes from Greek and simply means "no place."

It is a problem for the "utopian" when one responds to their requirements and rules for a utopia -- any utopia -- is that fists can be so quickly clenched.

Men can be just, but men are not consistently just. Men can be moral, but men are not consistently moral.

But as to utopian thinking, Communism's final stage was written to be the so-called "withering of the state," wherein men learned to live wisely from the lessons of having been forced to. What amusement is that? A century of fists to "teach" morality.

Rather like that fardel, when at its center on places an axe making the bundle into a 'fascio' or fascist. in the Mussolini sense and image. Best wishes.

If there is such a thing as a proper German or Italian or Spaniard then at least the fascists claimed that the constraints they imposed were to cajole/encourage/force their citizens to be better specimens of their particular cultures.

The leftists, however, tried to force their citizens into some version of an idealized human being completely separated from human nature, e.g. the Soviet Man or the Chinese stripped of their culture via the Cultural Revolution.

Mussolini tried to force Italians back to Roman roots ignoring the huge part the Catholic Church played in Italian culture. Hitler was fixated on race rather than culture and couldn't see that the Jewish Germans were no more or less German than every other German. Franco seemed to be more adept at tying government action to supporting Spanish culture as it was.

I mention this because it seems to me that most of the monarchies that developed during the period we call Christendom could be said to be fascist in the way they enforced the law and public morals with the tighr bond between the governments and state churches. Yet no one refers to them as fascist.

Your comments are fair.

The best statement of the anarcho-capitalist position was written in the 1800s—and is a quick read—folks here will hate it for sure—but you cannot understand their view without reading it:

https://www.amazon.com/No-Treason-Constitution-Authority/dp/1979293074

---- '... it seems to me that most of the monarchies that developed during the period we call Christendom could be said to be fascist in the way they enforced the law and public morals with the tighr bond between the governments and state churches. Yet no one refers to them as fascist."

I agree with your assessment. Vocabulary means a lot, and so much economic and political vocabulary pretends the "new thing" isn't like the old. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

The various models rather world to enlist people into parties, factions and such. But there are well-meaning conservatives and well-meaning liberals who respect different views and opinions. Yet there are those who pretend to be conservatives or liberals who would enforce decisions and behaviors. Their urge to enforce betrays them. It is interesting that monarch, through the Latin and Greek -- mono + arch -- relates to today's oligarch -- olig + arch ) because rule is the game. Greater rule historically has always shown itself to become quickly brutal. "Tighter bounds" of course are as the adjective says, "tighter."

I suspect we both prefer the loosest possible bounds which may hold a society together. Less governance is greater freedom, and greater governance is less freedom.

As you say, "to cajole / encourage / force their citizens to be better specimens" falls back on the verbs for clarity.

Terminology can often confound, so I be comfortable with the notion that any monarch / oligarch / powerful individual or individuals will find me suspicious of them with good reason. Putting that ax in the middle of a bundle is all the difference in the world. Best regards.

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.