What is your opinion of anarcho-capitalism?

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

Just curious what public opinion on DU is regarding anarcho-capitalists.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism


Thanks.

[RandomKoolzip]

1. One great anarcho-capitalist rock critic: Joe Carducci.

Wrote a fantastic book on rock music, "Rock and the Pop Narcotic." The book is an overview of post-WWII American culture, with a specific focus on the effect that rock music has had on said culture. Carducci's years working for punk/independent record label SST also inform his work. Is very critical of progressive politics, but also very witty and writes with a ferocious aggression that transcends partisan labels.

I'd recommend this book to anyone, not just dorky record collectors like myself.

[buycitgo]

5. I'm a member of

an anarcho-syndicalist commune

does that count?

[UpsideDownFlag]

43. come see the violence inherent in the system!

see him repressing me? see it?

[BurtWorm]

59. Anarcho-Capitalism is a self-contradiction.

Capitalism needs government to legitimize property. Without property, no capitalism. Without government, no property. With government, of course, no anarchy.

[gold_bug]

2. my opinion

there's only a few examples of when it's worked well in the real world, and those were in frontier areas. Whenever the ideal of an unfettered capitalist system was approached in an industrialized nation it led to "industrial warfare" and nasty boom-bust cycles. Think of the railroads in the early 20th century USA. Also consider the "company town" and how the workers were essentially industrial peons whose legal rights (speech, reading material, right to assembly, etc) were determined by the company.

(The Senate LaFollette committee declared in 1939 that the company town "is an autocracy within a democracy... it is an offense against duly constituted authority.")

Here's a quotation that sums up my feelings on anarcho-capitalism:

"Most libertarians ignore the fact that all rights (including property rights) are created, maintained, and constrained by force or the credible threat of forceful retaliation. The few that admit this propose to use the market to distribute rights; but most people wouldn't like to see rights distributed as unevenly as incomes."
--Mike Huben

[Classical_Liberal]

3. an extreme form of globalist ideology

I think the downfall of so many neoliberal regimes has pretty much caste doubt on most varieties of libertarian or market fundamentalism. The only place I run into them anymore is on usenet.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. This bullshit has a NAME now?

That might, unfortunately, give it credence as a viable system.

Anarchy has always poppped up as a cool idea, but it's based on everyone doing the "right" thing. We know that doesn't happen.

There is always an authority controlling things, and that authority may or may not be a "government" but it takes on the functions we assume government has. It might be tribal custom defined by the elders, a corporation's directors and management, a religious priestly caste, or some combination of all of these with a formal government.

One way or the other, society will find itself controlled by some group-- the only question is just what group we want to be controlled by. Most of us seem to prefer a democratically elected overnment as one of the better ideas, even if it may be only the least evil.

What the anarchical/libertarian types always ignore is that power, be it economic, miltary, or political, always consolidates. This consolidation is rarely efficient or beneficial to anyone but the oligarchs and monopolists who are in control.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

7. One thing I think you may have failed to consider:

"The only important political issue , however, is that people are free from the threat of "illegitimate" violence no matter which community they live in, and that they can freely move from one community to another. As long as that is the case, there may be many arguments about fairness or virtue, but there are no arguments of legality."

[TreasonousBastard]

42. No, I haven't failed to consider it...

since the primary function of any sort of government is to preserve order. Removing the threat of physical violence is fundamental to maintaining order. Questions of physical movement and "legality" come much later in the process, and are in the province of defining "rights." Questions of rights only evolve after the tribe has managed to solve its more immediate problems-- like a steady food supply.

Any form of anarchy under any label tends to revert to some sort of Brownian motion. It can never reach equilibrium and can only be controlled by outside forces.

Without proper controls, economic and physical violence would be the norm. Strength rules.

All of our political and economic systems have been devised to control and direct strength to where it will be most useful to most people.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

45. Anarchy IS possible! It happens now!

"All of our political and economic systems have been devised to control and direct strength to where it will be most useful to most people."

No they haven't. They've been devised such that the USA can maintain it hegemony over the rest of the globe, which is BY FAR the "most people". This such that the daily creation of more third world nations and the trampling underfoot of the already poverty-stricken masses of the world can simply be rationalized as "strength rules".

Unilateral invasions of foreign nations, staged coups d'etats in the name of democracy, thumbing of our collective noses at world opinion; there is anarchy in the truest sense of the word happening right now.

To all the naysayers claiming anarchy is impossible, just look to how your government interacts with other governments for counter-proof of your erroneous positon!

49. That's not anarchy

Unilateral invasions of foreign nations, staged coups d'etats in the name of democracy, thumbing of our collective noses at world opinion; there is anarchy in the truest sense of the word happening right now.

Sounds like the rule of the bourgeoisie to me. Capitalism in its prime.

The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his "natural superiors," and has left no other bond between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment." It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom -- Free Trade."



"All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere."

a couple of guys named Marx and Engels wrote that.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

50. "Marx and Engels wrote that."

Tyrants. All.

The Communist Manifesto is no more valid than, say, The Bush Doctrine.

51. They never had the chance to be tyrants.

people in their name did.
Just like people in Christ's name have.
Comment on the quote, not on the authors' or their disciples.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

52. I don't blame the bourgeoisie any more than I blame the working class.

IMHO, that's a copout. I refuse to consider that replacing our system of capitalism with one of communism would make the slightest difference in the world's plight.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

53. My quoting of Marx on the problem does not mean

I advocate Marx on the solution.
You're making that assumption.

You still haven't commented on the actual words in the quote, by the way.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

54. "haven't commented on the actual words in the quote"

Sorry if my response left you longing for more. But didn't see much meat there to comment on, other than vehement indignant outcries over the machinations of the "bourgeousie".

55. I'm not longing for more

& I don't feel like connecting the dots anymore than I already did.

If you don't see the meat and can't connect the dots, it's not my problem.

There's meat there though.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

56. I've read the Communist Manifesto...

and there's not much meat to it. It's nothing more that the vituperations of a whack-job that seeks to disembowel the middle-class.

My appologies if you've take offense, but my studies of Marx have left me with no higher regard for him than I have for Bush.

57. I don't take offense at all

I think you might have misread Marx though.
Actually the middle-class that we describe today in Marx's terms would be considered the proletariat.
So he's not out to disembowel the middle class.
It's a common confusion to think the bourgeoisie of Marx's day is the middle-class of today.
I was getting mixed up about that too. That's why I went back to investigate.
What I'm basing this on and where I think the confusion lies I get from a footnote by Engels at the beginning of the C.M.

"In French bourgeois means a town-dweller. "Proletarian" comes from the Latin proletarius, which meant a person whose sole wealth was his offspring (proles).

(Note by Engels) By "bourgeoisie" is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage-labor; by "proletariat, the class of modern wage-laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live."

By that definition a lot, probably most of the members of today's middle-class are proletariat. Really only the upper middle-class would be considered bourgeoisie.

At least that's the way it looks to me.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

60. Thanks for explaining that.

After reading the Communist Manifesto, I pretty much took offense to Marx myself, being that I'm in the middle-class.

But it would seem to me his anger would have been more appropriately directed at the plutocrats, elitists, government, and the system itself, not the upper middle-class.

In any event, I can't really see how blaming people, individuals, regardless of their status in the current system, serves to do anything but exacerbate.

My personal preference is for a gradual shift towards smaller government. I'm not really an extremist.

Seriously though, thanks for pointing that out about Marx's work.

61. I think his anger was directed at

at the plutocrats, elitists, government, and the system itself, not the upper middle-class.

Maybe not in the quote I cited, but at other places.
I think he's really talking about the system, not individuals.
I'm getting busy at work now, so I can't point you to a specific source tha moment.
Maybe later, if you're interested.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. In international affairs it does...

but that's not what we're talking about here, since there has been little attempt to get a functioning world government. Anarchy in world affairs is to the benefit of many currently in power.

Every attempt to rule the world has eventually failed. Some faster than others.

Alexander, Pax Romana, the Khans, the Ottomans, the British Empire, Napolean, Hitler... Now there is the Pax Americana.

In each case, it was strength and war, not order and wisdom, that attempted to run things, and it was the same disorder that brought them down.

Our system of government was brilliantly designed to avoid giving too much power to any branch of government, and maintain a balance of power. Whether or not it lends itself to world domination is irrelevant. Any nation or power can attempt to dominate the world when it feels the strength to do so. The lack of a world government controlling things simply allows the strongest to survive-- until someone else a bit stronger shows up.

Yes, the planet itself is in anarchy. There is no authority strong enough to stop the murders in Africa, the rights abuses in China, the flood damage in South Asia, or the attempted hegemony of the US, Japan, or the EU.

The question is-- is this a good thing? Would we want individual countries to suffer the insecurities the planet is suffering?

And, isn't it about time for a planetary government?

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

37. To me, Libertarians are kind of like anarchists.....

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. The ultimate oxymoron. Laughable.

Kropotkin, Goldman, Haywood, Bakunin, Proudhon, Gandhi, Tolstoy, would be spinning in their graves.

[MisterP]

8. corporate rule; glory be and hallelujah!

instead of merely taking over water, utilities, essentials, voting, and every other damn aspect of life imaginable, they take over government! Oligarchy stripped free of hindrances! Hail Thatcher and the Friedmans!

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

10. Actually, it's not corporate rule at all.

It's quite different. Corporations have the rule of law on their side. Under anarcho-capitalism they would receive no de facto favoritism under law whatsoever. Forcible coercion is met with violent opposition.

[rman]

64. "violent opposition" you mean the people vs. corporations?

take a guess who'd be able to muster most violence, the people or corporations?

"Under anarcho-capitalism they would receive no de facto favoritism under law whatsoever"

because the would be no law (since there's no government anymore).

so far is has turned out corporartions will violate any law if that benefits them and if the think they can get away with it.

ie environmental protection and minimum wage are laws which benefit not corporations but the people. and now you're argueing it'd be better if there are no laws?

[NashVegas]

9. Equal and Opposite of Anarcho-Socialism

Same kool-aid, different flavor. Although I prefer the latter, both groups are looking for a Utopian ideal that's simply not possible on a mass scale, outside of theory. It could only come about through applied pressure, contradicting what anarchy says its all about. It would be miserable for many.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

11. "looking for a Utopian ideal that's simply not possible"

the duplicitous argument of the oligarchs. "One can never be free of government! Government is necessary!!"

They have successfully reduced your choices to two: Liberty vs. Egalitarianism. This is a false dilemma argument. There are more than two options available.

[NashVegas]

12. Welcome to DU, Rusty

I hope you'll enjoy it here.

I'm not interested in a debate, however.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

13. Thanks for the welcome! n/t

[kiahzero]

19. Power vacuums always come out well for the little guy

Nobody ever ends up manipulating the vacuum to seize power... nope. Never happens.

:eyes:

The outright idiocy of some political ideologies never ceases to amaze.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

25. No "power vacuum" necessary.

Power would rest where it belongs most: in the hands of the people

[kiahzero]

29. Power vacuums occur whenever there is no government

And sometimes, even when there is (a la Afghanistan).

Power wouldn't rest in the hands of the people - it would rest in the hands of the oligarchy that was best able to take advantage of the vacuum.

Part of the reason why "anarcho-capitalism" seems so silly to me is that both anarchism (defined simply as the composition of "without" and "ruler" - "without a ruler") and capitalism are self-destructive systems.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

40. Public education and too much TV results in brainwashing.

Free your mind. Humanity does NOT require government in order to function. It doesn't even require government in order to function efficiently. Do you require day-to-day government intervention in order to function? There are MANY forms of "government" that work. The question is one of efficiency and equality. Those are the most significant issues when determining government, or absence thereof.

Anarcho-capitalism might just be considered an alternative.

[Monte Carlo]

14. It's not great; IMO, it's one step away from the Mafia.

The only thing that seperates 'anarcho-capitalism' from all out mob rule is the extent that the participants are willing to go for their business. The Libertarian notion of a free-market place, I find, is unstable. What's to stop someone from jamming a gun in your face and saying "I'm your business partner"?

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

15. "What's to stop someone from jamming a gun in your face"

I envision that ad hoc defense agencies would be used to prevent coercive monopolies.

Tell me. What prevents someone from doing that under the present system?

[Monte Carlo]

16. Well I don't.

What prevents someone from doing that now? Things like RICO, the FBI, and other connected law-enforcement agencies funded with government tax revenue. They're not perfect, but no private agency is capable of it all.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

21. Those same tax revenues to which you refer...

have been responsible for such things as COINTELPRO, Waco, Ruby Ridge, and numerous other forms of government induced mafioso despotism.

You're absolutely right, though. They're not perfect.

[Monte Carlo]

23. Maybe so...

... but they're OUR forms of gov't induced mafioso despotism.

When I think anarcho-capitalism, I see modern Russia - zero effective gov't regulation, practically no taxes, and mob rule.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

24. "they're OUR forms of gov't induced mafioso despotism."

Speak for yourself. Anyone that sanctions despotism in any form should reconsider his/her position.

[Monte Carlo]

27. If you're an American, I am speaking for you.

Because those things were carried out using American tax dollars underneath the American flag. My sanctioning has nothing to do with it - I'm part of it whether I like it or not.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

33. How presumptuous!

Yet again my freedom of speech as an American is abridged by someone claiming to speak for me!

Just because you choose to condone the current system of government does not mean we all must.

[leftofthedial]

17. worse than fascism

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Anarchism and capitalism are diametrically opposed.

Anarchism, as proposed by Anarchists, is based on communal ideals. Capitalism, because of it's need to feed, is naturally against communalism which involves sharing of wealth rather than accumulation of wealth.

Anarcho/Capitalism is like saying Genorously greedy.

[Vladimir]

20. Depends on the anarchist

I have in fact never seen a term which you could prefix and suffix with so many different, often contradictory, words. Once you decide to fuck the state, the road is wide open...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. Depends on who perverts the term.

Kind of like "installing democracy" in Iraq, or "honor killings", or "happy slaves", or "honest politician", or "military intelligence".

[Vladimir]

31. Looking for purity of language in politics

seems to me a futile pursuit...

[LoZoccolo]

34. A government issues currency and enforces laws surrounding it.

That would seem to run counter to what anarchists want.

[kiahzero]

26. Then "anarchy" is a bad term for what they're describing

Looking at the etymology of the word (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=anarchy), you can see that it stems from the Greek meaning "without a ruler." The meaning of the word has nothing to do with "communal ideals."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. I guess Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, etc didn't read the dictionary.

Anarchism is based on communalistic ideals. Or, you can consider that "without a ruler" is like "without a boss" whether it be the "government" or a capitalist.

[kiahzero]

58. They chose a bad term

Just like "satanists" chose a bad term, seeing as they don't actually believe in the Satan of Christianity.

[Noodleboy13]

39. Yup

The punk-rawk biker coffee shop I frequented, Bob's Java Hut, had stickers around with the Anarchy symbol and the words
"Improbable at best"

[baldguy]

28. Republican heaven

In other words: Somalia

[theboss]

30. I am afraid of spiders.

Oh, wait, that's arachna-capitalism.

[Cats Against Frist]

32. This argument needs to be "turned around"

By using the word "anarcho-capitalism," it frames a much broader argument in favor of (or against, depending on who is doing the critique) capitalism, and gives creedence to the idea that abolishing forms of government necessarily leads to plutocracy, or mob rule, etc.

When people talk about getting rid of the courts, police, etc. -- they're fucking crazy. But applying an "anarchy critique" to these institutions to streamline them, while keeping the Bill of Rights and the basic structure of governance, in place -- could help people to gain civil liberties desired by both the right, and the left.

First a disclaimer: I am a Democrat, in practice, make no mistake. I have been a Democrat, since I was nine, and have never casted a vote for the GOP, and will continue to never do so. Why? Though they claim to be about "government restraint," and "freedom," they've failed to notice that the other part of conservatism implies an idealized social and traditional order that they, themselves, are willing to enforce through the rule of law. This is inseparable from their ra-ra free market bull, which makes the entire philosophy, in my opinion, a contradiction in terms -- rank hypocrisy.

And the left? It's there too. Identity politics, bureaucracy and the welfare state also do not "jive" with the "liberty" argument. It too has an incongruence between philsophical tenets, though WITHOUT a LIMITING cultural narrative, which, makes it, in my opinion, far less dangerous.

Now, I have bought into, after months of fighting against it, the Libertarian idea that the government is used to both protect and promote the concentration of wealth, as much as it is to establish entitlements and help people out. I also believe that the rich were and are not singular perpetrators in concentrating their own wealth. Without willing consumers and laborers, wealth concentration would be impossible. I also agree that all wealth concentration is not bad. There are other ways to do it, some worse, some better, but it is capital that has consistently pushed forward technological development.

So those parts in the IDEA of "anarcho-capitalism" I can agree with. But I prefer to tilt the picture, slightly, using the same argument in favor of the worker, rather than the holder of production and distribution, and call it "anarcho-syndicalism," which is another form of anarchy where the well-being of the WORKERS frames the discussion. It is a union-like philosophy, where solidarity is a central component of keeping companies honest. Without labor -- they don't have power. Combined with the idea of the consumer with "perfect consumer knowledge," these are both (were there not anti-union laws) non-governmental ways to police and prohibit both the concentration of wealth, and keep wages fair and working conditions safe.

Problem? People are stupid. People are greedy, lazy, they want "bread and circuses" and instant gratification. It is much the nature of apathy at the center of the "downtrodden" that is to blame, as the rampant greed of the rich. No?

This is central to my argument, because this idea of societal organization is possible, granted you take a few things into account: The Constitution and the Bill of Rights -- particularly the little-championed ninth Amendment, which should effectively neutralize all appeals to "tradition" in lawmaking, plus the establishment of a governmental police, court (with the right to civilly sue for recourse) and infrastructure system, which are all Constitutional. I would add, in my fantasy world, the nationalization of natural resources and medicine.

And then make everything else, basically a free-for-all, or at least leave most lawmaking to state and local governments.

But the thing is -- it's too damn late. Wealth has already been concentrated. The wealthy own the government. Any destabilization of this system would also threaten the technology that saves our lives, powers all of our homes, and allows us to wax political on the computer.

So my primary concern is keeping things from going fascist, which is the "final solution" of the right-wing, big-government, big-tradition scenario -- no less threatening to our liberties as the "communism" they are so vehemently against. What scares me is that they apparently fail to see it, and yet, still, label themselves as "the party of LESS government." And "less government" means significantly different things, in different contexts. In my anarch-syndicalist ideology, with the perfect consumer, less govenment is good. In a situation wherein wealth is concentrated, and the wealthy influence the "less governance" of governance, in effect, giving themselves MORE power to be the "shadow corporate government" -- it's BAD. VERY BAD.

So this talk is fun, but it don't mean much.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

36. Thanks for that well thought-out response.

Regardless of ideologies, I feel we're on the same side.

[wadestock]

44. It's the "politics of business" that really matter....

"....It is a union-like philosophy, where solidarity is a central component of keeping companies honest. Without labor -- they don't have power. Combined with the idea of the consumer with "perfect consumer knowledge," these are both (were there not anti-union laws) non-governmental ways to police and prohibit both the concentration of wealth, and keep wages fair and working conditions safe."

Corporations and business are the real political "systems" we now live in today. The question is, can government help provide tweaks to this incredible force to ensure that the middle class doesn't dry up? The only thing we're holding onto at this point is that we still have "purchasing power"...ie ....we're still spending. Stop that spending and everything comes to a screaching halt. Problem is, the top is exploiting the bottom because it has found ways for the middle class to further FINANCE their spending.....with the ultimate worse case scenario meaning you own nothing...and simply buy on credit. Many at the top would just love that model.

There's another force at work in corporations that helps tilt things the other way...which is Total Quality. Deming brought this to the US after the Japanese had embellished it and still the US is wrestling with the idea. In its purest sense it means everyone works together for products which truly deliver and satify...with profits being secondary. It's a wonderful theory with teamwork and empowerment of the people whereby they should share in the profit.
And believe it or not...every company that truly embraces it has found it works. Ironically, this form of corporate culture could theoretically exist without government involvement, because the "good of the people" would be theoretically built into the businesses themselves.

Problem is....the corporate greed has become a culture in America, and it will take some doing to turn it around. Quality should result from overall competition, but until competition directly affects those that practice corporate greed...we'll be stuck with corporate greed.

The other reality is that we can see in other countries, particularly China, that SMART government CAN make a profound positive influence on the overall business scene and corporate wealth of the nation. Yes, the body can function wonderfully without a brain if all its systems are working fine, getting the right nutrients and interaction, but there's no substituting for a good brain.

Now this is where the government HAS to come in...especially because of the times that we live in....to make a number of small tweaks that might help turn around the runaway culture of greed. First it would TWEAK the tax rate in such a way to free up money for infrastructure and to ensure the middle class has reasonable benefits. Then it has to work on the corporations to the extent that hopefully we can get away from outsourcing and rampant greed.

The middle class has to get smart to the extent that it shouldn't "mortgage away its future" by constant spending....especially on products that don't matter. We've developed a culture of spending everything we have. Buy smart, and save, and this puts more power directly into the middle class.

Meanwhile....I view the real stupidity of the people today as not realizing just how successful our capitalistic system has become....how much capital it HAS produced, and how much there really is to invest in programs that would benefit all. There's as much as 50 Trillion on the top...plenty to invest in smart things.

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

46. "how much capital it HAS produced"

Yes. Amazing what you can do when you keep the printing presses running night and day. You can print as much fiat currency as you like, and claim victory over the civilized world!

But eventually, perhaps sooner than you think, the rest of the world may just wise up. When THEY lose faith in your "Federal Reserve System", your wonderful system of capitalism, and it's government, propped up by hollow stilts, may just be forced to declare bankruptcy.

Rome lasted a thousand years. We'll be lucky if we make it 300.

[wadestock]

47. Granted....

As our technology gets "sold" and as our manufacturing moves out....and as all the "service industry" becomes more efficiently run by other countries on their own....what the F will we be left with?

I personally believe that within the next 20 years we'll have lost the edge in microcircuits and/or the edge won't be as significant....and when China or other nation gets smart enough to sell non-microsoft computers and other electronics that don't dove tail what we do....then it's pretty much over.

If the country had a brain on its shoulders it would get the edge in renewable energy technologies.

Let's just hope that they take it easy on us when it's "over"....

[RUSTY SHACKLEFORD]

48. "Let's just hope that they take it easy on us when it's "over"...."

Heh heh. Hello fried rice and egg drop soup!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. A link to what Anarchism is.

Not "Anarchy", but "Anarchism".

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/britanniaanarchy.html

[Cats Against Frist]

41. But that's anarcho-anarchy

;)

[rowire]

62. Is that anything like a "random pattern"?

eom