[Joben]

So, I guess I'm a n00b, but I'd like to better my understanding of Anarcho-Capitalism. If anybody is willing, I'd appreciate information on the pros and cons of it, as well as other comparable Anarchy styles that you perhaps prefer.

Thanks in advance,

Joben

[Melodramatic]

Lets see now...

Anarcho-Capitalism is in many ways an extension of libertarian logic, so I will explain it form a libertarian perspective. Usually libertarians aim to reduce government intervention, in the economy and personal life of its citizens. One field libertarians avoid applying this logic to is defense. Defense, both external and internal, is a monopoly, only the government has a right to supply it (in most of its forms) and is fueled by a coercively collected tax. The obvious question is, why not use the same values used on, say, health-care in the field of defense? why not privatize defense?

of course by doing so, one would effectually nullify the power of the state, take away its legitimacy for violence and abolish the legitimacy of the democratic tyranny of the majority. One would abolish aggression and theft simply by letting the people defend themselves. That is the goal of Anarcho-Capitalism. to free individuals of all coercion. They believe that if defense was a market companies would supply the people with defense, probably better than the state, like all commodities. if you have more questions about this movement, I will do my best to answer.

My personal Anarchism is somewhat similar to Anarcho-capitalism, but also very different. My views are similar to the Mutualist school. Mutualism differs fundamentally form Anarcho-capitalism in to ways. The first is perception of society. Mutualists view society somewhat similarly to Marxists, we believe in the labor theory of value and that workers are being exploited by the ruling elite. We seek to create an egalitarian society and end exploitation. but we differ form the Marxists on how this will be achieved. "Socialism via laissez-faire" is the best way to explain it. we believe that exploitation is utterly dependent on the state (our main disagreement with libertarian socialists), and by removing the state and its intervention every worker will get the full value of his labor. this also includes a distrust of the economical elite, which I consider the greatest foes of liberty.

The other, much more grave, difference is in the legitimacy of land as property. Land is a subject taken for granted in most libertarian writings, but a critical one. after all, all property comes from land. Think about it, today land is distributed by the state. without the state, what gives legitimacy to your claim on a piece of land? Mutualists offer a theory that claims property to be based on use, which I am myself not entirely certain of. Anarcho capitalists offer a system based on homesteading and labor, which makes no sense to me. It seems more like a system created to preserve current land distributions, and one that will eventually depend on the state. this attempt to preserve status-quo is their greatest failing, in my opinion.

this are the basics, if you have any question, I would be happy to help.

[SecretSquirrel]

the issue of land ownership is not central to anarcho capitalism, Melo. It can go both ways there.

Anyways, anarcho capitalism, by seeking only to remove all coercion, seems to me indistinguishable from simply "anarchism"

[Melodramatic]

the issue of land ownership is not central to anarcho capitalism, Melo. It can go both ways there.

I would hope so, because it is critical to me. He who controls the land controls the economy...

but it does not seem that way to me, it seems to be the main difference from other strains of Individualist anarchism.

Anyways, anarcho capitalism, by seeking only to remove all coercion, seems to me indistinguishable from simply "anarchism"

Ignoring including the land issue it seems so, there is the different perception of society. But this is not great diver of the anarchist movement, its still the same anarchism, simply an ideological difference. it does not create any policy that would affect other strains...

[Joben]

I understand. I personally would rather not fend for my own land. I would prefer to hire somebody to do that for me, and I entrust the State to do so. That is the only thing that I believe is a properly functioning government's job - to protect its citizens. I don't trust others enough to allow total anarchism to take place, because I know there are enough evil doers in this country to exploit the opportunity of freedom.

In a utopia of honest men, anarcho-capitalism would be the best system of government IMO, but unfortunately we must deal with reality.

[Melodramatic]

I personally would rather not fend for my own land.

No one asked you to. in reality there will be little difference on the "how defense will function".

I would prefer to hire somebody to do that for me, and I entrust the State to do so.

Well from a libertarian perspective, I would ask what gives you the right to force others to do so as well? can't a man, by your logic, say he wants to hire the government to distribute his charity to the poor, force others to use it as well, and call it welfare?

Why privatize one but leave monopoly on the other?

[Joben]

No one asked you to. in reality there will be little difference on the "how defense will function".

I'm uneducated on that particular topic. Could you explain the process of defense from an anarcho-capitalists perspective?

can't a man, by your logic, say he wants to hire the government to distribute his charity to the poor, force others to use it as well, and call it welfare?

By my logic, sure. But no man of reason and logic would do such a thing.

[copaceticmind]

Could you explain the process of defense from an anarcho-capitalists perspective?

There are a couple ways of handling defense. One would be through the hiring of a mercenary force paid for by those who desire to contribute. I don't really like using the word mercenary as it has negative connotations, but that's the best way to describe it. Some claim the problem that a well-armed private army could just take over the community and install their own government, but I don't see this as a huge issue. There would be reputable companies who's interest is making money through contracts to defend individuals and communities rather than a mafia style protection/theft. These companies could ease customer's concerns with contractual provisions that deal with the unlikely event of a take-over.

The people requiring defense could also just do it themselves. Isn't this how the American Revolution was fought?

[Leon Trotsky]

"Anarcho-Capitalism" is a misnomer, for it has nothing to do with anarchism, nor with anarchy.

Anarchism is a form of socialism that developed in the first international. Anarcho-Capitalism not in any of the two. Not in any way.

Anarchy is incompatible with capitalism because the people are divided into classes, and as long as there is a capitalist ruling class and a working class, the owners of capital form the state, if it's in the form of a bourgeoise democracy or a dictatorship of capitalists. They make the rules, not the people. It's inherently contradictory.

In addition to this, "anarcho-capitalism" breaks down into ~20 people operating from their computers. There is no anarcho-capitalist movement.

[Joben]

So, copacetic, you're basically talking about hiring private defense companies or form a militia? Why go through such a hassle? Trust me, I'm strictly opposed to taxation for nearly all purposes, but defense is one I am not against.

[copaceticmind]

What do you see as the difference between a tax-paid army and a privately paid or privately formed army?

[Joben]

I prefer a publicly (i.e., tax) funded military because the fee is evenly assessed throughout the population. Police are necessary in virtually every community, and the State would guarantee uniform protection for all communities. That is not the same truth for private defense, because some communities simply cannot afford [or do not desire] such excess expenditures even without any tax burdens.

There are very few services that I believe we are entitled to, but common defense is most definitely one of them (see: Preamble). In fact, internal and external defense are really the only two powers I entrust the Federal government with, with the addition of disassembling monopolies. All in all, defense is the only service We the People do not have the freedom to choose.

[copaceticmind]

I like your answer

[copaceticmind]

Back to the OP:

By far the biggest reason for Anarcho Capitalism (well, any kind of anarchy, really) is the issue of morality. The core principles are the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression. As it pertains to taxes, any form of taxation for any reason is equal to theft. Are you familiar with this much?

[Joben]

Indeed I am. Look, if we all actually lived by moral standards, we could live in an anarcho-capitalist society. The problem is, thieves are commonplace in America. Yes, taxation is thievery in itself, but the end result is desireable in my opinion. I believe that we should have the right to do as we please, so long as our actions do not impede upon the rights and freedoms of others. Police are a necessary evil to ensure that our actions remain unharmful towards the freedoms of our peers.

With the police comes the court system, which is paramount to any Libertarian philosophy: courts are used to uphold contractual obligations between businesses and consumers, thus there is no need for government intervention. Police, the court system and the military are all justifiable reasons to pay taxes. Any other form of intervention (save disassembling monopolies) is unjust.

Anarchy falls short to provide for the common defense and fails to uphold contracts between interested parties.

[Melodramatic]

There are a couple ways of handling defense. One would be through the hiring of a mercenary force paid for by those who desire to contribute. I don't really like using the word mercenary as it has negative connotations, but that's the best way to describe it. Some claim the problem that a well-armed private army could just take over the community and install their own government, but I don't see this as a huge issue. There would be reputable companies who's interest is making money through contracts to defend individuals and communities rather than a mafia style protection/theft. These companies could ease customer's concerns with contractual provisions that deal with the unlikely event of a take-over.

That is how a-caps deal with it...

This seems critically unwise to me. A company based on profit is the worst defender I can think of. Defense isn't a simple commodity, it is much more complicated than that. A million problems can arise, the simplest one being the corporation deeming those who don't pay for it dangerous...

It seems like a generally bad move that would not ensure safety for the majority of men (it will ensure such for those with deeper pockets, however).

an alternative is basically this:

The people requiring defense could also just do it themselves. Isn't this how the American Revolution was fought?

But taken a step further. Communities can establish and fund their own defense, and, theoretically, if the communities work together this can easily resemble the defense of modern nations. this will be funded by taxation, but when one does not pay rather than being killed or displaced he will be excommunicated, which is practically a non-violent death sentence based on the right of association.

People can't survive alone. Or at least the clear majority of them can't. and if they want to be a part of society they will have to contribute to its defense, they will probably even want to.

"Anarcho-Capitalism" is a misnomer, for it has nothing to do with anarchism, nor with anarchy.

It is more like a misnamed movement with a wrong analysis of how their policies will handle reality. I agree it is far from pure anarchism, it has yet to divorce some of the most critical foundations of state. but in reality policies very similarity to their own will not logically result in capitalism at all, but rather a more egalitarian society.

capitalism is slavery. but without a state there will be no slaves.

Anarchism is a form of socialism that developed in the first international. Anarcho-Capitalism not in any of the two. Not in any way.

Incorrect. Red anarchism is a form of socialism that developed in the first international.

Individualist anarchisms have different sources, including writers such as Proudhon.

Anarchy is incompatible with capitalism because the people are divided into classes, and as long as there is a capitalist ruling class and a working class, the owners of capital form the state, if it's in the form of a bourgeoise democracy or a dictatorship of capitalists. They make the rules, not the people. It's inherently contradictory.

You have reversed the order. The state predates the capitalists. the capitalists are a modern, or to be more accurate industrial, version of others forms of the ruling class, such as warlords and kings. these all depend on the state, on slavery, from the moment they conquered another clan to the moment they gave people "liberties". Without the slavery you will have no slave-masters. but destroying the slave-masters alone will not help you much.

Slaves need a master, and until slavery, the state, is abolished they will always find one, whether warlord, king, capitalist, or bureaucrat

[Joben]

But taken a step further. Communities can establish and fund their own defense, and, theoretically, if the communities work together this can easily resemble the defense of modern nations. this will be funded by taxation, but when one does not pay rather than being killed or displaced he will be excommunicated, which is practically a non-violent death sentence based on the right of association.

That is simply a word-around. A technicality. You're calling it voluntary taxation, but it's taxation at the core. You're justifying by labeling it as 'voluntary.'

Funny thing is, there are anarchists among us living that very dream: illegal aliens. They don't pay taxes, thus they don't receive the benefit of local defense, e.g., the police.

[copaceticmind]

Yes, taxation is thievery in itself, but the end result is desireable in my opinion.

This is "two wrongs make a right." It is "the ends justifies the means." It is also the dangerous philosophy that led the United States where it is today. When you say this it is no longer a matter of right and wrong according to axiomatic principles, but a matter of what subjective benefit can be achieved when you sacrifice morals.

I do not believe that the ends ever justifies the means. If theft is immoral then any results as a consequence of theft is also immoral.

[pugsville]

Ancharo-Capitalism is mis-named it's just the extreme right wing of the "Libertarains" (the rugged right wing individaulist variety) There has never been a movement or political thought as the the basis is extreme individualism incapable of recognising others to the extent nessacry to work together or communicate. It has nothing in common with the traditional anarchist movement. They dont even speak the same language. Chritain-Anarcharism makes more coherant sense, and thats a inherant contradiction. I would call it "Mono-Solipistic Egoism". It's the philosophy of choice of people who are deluding themselves, under capitalism

The Foundation belief that somehow interferring Governments and Capitalism are in some way opposed to each other. Capitalism requires central authority.

[Melodramatic]

That is simply a word-around. A technicality. You're calling it voluntary taxation, but it's taxation at the core. You're justifying by labeling it as 'voluntary.'

So its the same? even if I use no force to obtain it? if I apply the same for welfare would it also be the same?

If so I guess charity is very unlibertarian .