Anarcho-Capitalism

I am starting a new thread based on the discussion in the latter page of the What made You an Anarchist thread. I am starting a new thread as this topic is not relevant to the topic in the other thread.

I define my political philosophy as Anarcho-Capitalist. This, to many, is an oxymoron, but I hope to clarify how this is accurate.

I opened my bookmarks and found this link to an article that is a rebuttal to the claims that Anarcho-Capitalism is not Anarchism.

HERE is the full article The article is written by Richard A. Garner.

The first argument that Anarcho-Capitalism is not Anarchism that is put forward in the article is in essence.
Anarcho-Capitalism does not follow traditional Anarchist philosophy. Traditionally Anarchism is opposed to Capitalism.

Mr. Garner puts it more eloquently then I so

The trouble with this argument, though, is that it says that the reason anarchists cannot be capitalists is because other anarchists in the past weren't, and thus implies that an effective definition of what it is to be an anarchist is "to be like other anarchists." This, obviously is no definition, merely a tautology - "to be an anarchist is to be an anarchist" - so trying define anarchists by how easily they can be fitted into an anarchist tradition is self defeating. If I wanted to know what a plate is, I would expect to be told that is is a shallow flat dish used for eating off, not that a plate is something similar to what people have used as plates in the past. You see the point? Anarchism is a political theory, granted, but political theories change. In order to identify a political theory including its changes, one has to throw off historical anomalies and use an essential and objective definition: "The desire for an absence of government" is such an objective, ahistorical, definition, and such is the dictionary definition that anarcho-capitalism is consistent with.

On top of this, he goes on to explain that at one point (1880s) communism and Anarchy was mutually exclusive until people decided to change that. Now Communist Anarchy is a commonly held belief in social anarchy.

The first point he makes is the basis for the rest of his article. He goes on to explain Wage Labor, Money Lending, and the Employer/Employee Relationship in an Anarcho-Capitalist system. I you are interested, read the link. I am trying to make this as short as possible because I know PTSers have ADD

Another good point made in the article is given in a quote by David Friedman is his "The Machinery of Freedom: A guide to Radical Capitalism"

"I have described what should be done, but not who should organise and control it. I have not said who should command the libertarian legions.
"The answer is, of course, no one. One of the central libertarian ideas is that command, hierarchy, is not the only way of getting things done; it usually is not even the best way. Having abandoned politics as a way of running the country, there is no reason for us to accept politics as a way of running the country, there is no reason for us to accept politics as a way of running the conspiracy to abolish politics." (pp162, my emphasis)

Friedman goes on to apply the idea that "command, hierarchy, is not the only way of getting things done; it usually is not even the best way" to the organisation of industrial relations:

"Libertarian anarchy is only a very sketchy framework, a framework based on the idea of individual property rights - the right to one's own body, to what one produces oneself, and to what others voluntarily give one. Within that framework there are many possible ways for people to associate. Goods might be produced by giant, hierarchical corporations, like those that now exist. I hope not; it does not strike me as either an attractive for people to live or an efficient way or producing goods. But other people might disagree; if so, in a free society they would be free to organise themselves into corporations.
"Goods might be produced by communes, group families, inside which property was held in common. That also does not seem to me to be a very attractive form of life. I would not join one, but I would have no right to prevent others from doing so."

Ultimately, Anarcho-Capitalism gives people the freedom to create communes, or even live in a Social-Anarchist society as well as unite into corporations, lend money, and own their own product. To this point, a social anarchist society creates in itself a form of rules. It opposes what the ideology deems "oppression" or "exploitative". In essence people are not free to own land or even the product that they produce. This is not freedom because how would the society enforce these rules?

Flame on!

Nice post.

I am very interested in your points. I will have to do more reading before I am able to discuss it intelligently, but it has me thinking. I am also interested in learning more about in a controversial perspective I have just been made aware of, Liberal Fascism.

I think that more and more people will be researching different idealogies as they emerge, as it would seem that unchecked Capitalism is not exactly healthy for society.

As you said, flame on ATS...

I'll check back with this thread later.

[edit on 23/2/08 by kosmicjack]

I am also interested in learning more about in a controversial perspective I have just been made aware of, Liberal Fascism.

Referring to the new book Liberal Fascism .

From what I gather this book goes through the historic 'progressive' and liberal movements in America. I did sit through an hour long interview of the author. Much of what the author said is true, although the book has a definite conservative bias. This bias presents two issues.

1. Many people will disregard the authors research as untrue due to his bias, but the fact remains, many historical issues he discusses are completely irrefutably true. From Planned Parenthood to the Eugenics movement to socialist economic policy these movements show an obvious Statist position.

2. Because of his bias, the author hints that conservatism is devoid of fascist and authoritarian ideals. This is not the truth, as one can obviously see from our current administration. McCarthyism and censorship are prime examples of this.

No more biters. I guess this topic isn't controversial enough. What if I said... 9/11 is a COVER UP!!1!1!!!

Ok, maybe not.

heres a quote that may stir debate.
"Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history."
- Noam Chomsky

Obviously I disagree with this but it may add some flair to this discussion if anyone wants to take part.

I think the ideas presented here are pretty good. Perhaps you should rethink using the actual terms Anarchism and Capitalism though. Those words have established connotations that are going to be hard to erase. Using them may give people certain preconceived notions (accurate or not). I think that coming up with an alternative nomenclature may help “sell” the concept (which I agree with by the way).

In order to justify the principals set forth, I don’t think you have to look very far to find examples where this sort of societal structure can work: The American Frontier, for an extended period of time, basically operated under the principals set forth here. Pioneers and Native Americans often operated in a chaotic and unstructured economic setting. Absence of central control was usually a given. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. But when it did work, it showed that people can establish their own methods of structure and economic interaction without direction from above. Other examples abound throughout history: Various areas of the world operated under ad hoc decentralized systems when their respective systems suffered collapse. People came together of their own volition – no government needed.

Was it better or worse? I would submit that it does seem better in principal but it has a fatal flaw; as evidenced by the fact that such ersatz systems have always been superceded by more centralized and controlled systems. Therefore, I would hold that such a system would not be that hard to establish but would be almost impossible to sustain.

In order to justify the principals set forth, I don’t think you have to look very far to find examples where this sort of societal structure can work: The American Frontier, for an extended period of time, basically operated under the principals set forth here. Pioneers and Native Americans often operated in a chaotic and unstructured economic setting. Absence of central control was usually a given. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn’t. But when it did work, it showed that people can establish their own methods of structure and economic interaction without direction from above. Other examples abound throughout history: Various areas of the world operated under ad hoc decentralized systems when their respective systems suffered collapse. People came together of their own volition – no government needed.

ThE not so WILD WEST

That book shows a good example of how this system worked in the American frontier. The only problem with the frontier was the fact that a very statist and centralized regime (the US government in the East) reclaimed it and 'civilized' it.

I think the ideas presented here are pretty good. Perhaps you should rethink using the actual terms Anarchism and Capitalism though. Those words have established connotations that are going to be hard to erase. Using them may give people certain preconceived notions (accurate or not). I think that coming up with an alternative nomenclature may help “sell” the concept (which I agree with by the way).

I guess you are correct, but the focus that I try to bring to a discussion about this is that Anarchy and Capitalism should not be demonized as they have been by the statist propaganda machine (from the far left to the far right). Somehow anarchy=chaos and Capitalism=exploitation, but this is the heart of the debate. Anarchy does not mean chaos, in fact, anyone with any knowledge of how it works can see order and freedom. Capitalism does not mean exploitation and the emergence of mega-corporations, because this can only be done if a centralized state is in power to support it. Capitalism brings prosperity and opportunity to all classes of people, along with economic freedom.