4 ms·

Some ancaps prefer the term 'voluntaryist' to describe their position. Though I think it is fair to call Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism because it posit

Some ancaps prefer the term 'voluntaryist' to describe their position. Though I think it is fair to call Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism because it posits no state and no rulers, though laws would still exist.

ultrastable 5y ago
anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchism, in the sense that anarchism is historically opposed to wage labour & private property because it represents a form of coercion. I don't just mean this in a normative sense - whatever you think of the merits of either, anarcho-capitalism doesn't have much historical or theoretical continuity w/ anarchism.
- HeckFeck 5y ago
  It depends where you land on the semantics vs etymology debate. Well, we'll agree not to coerce anyone to adopt a particular definition. ;)
jokethrowaway 5y ago
I like the voluntaryism rebrand. When you talk about anarchy people mainly think of anarcho-communists (because historically they had the name first). Semantically an - arkhos just means "without rulers"
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, because anarchism opposes all hierarchies, and private property (and corporations, and everything that stems thereof) is a hierarchy.
- HeckFeck 5y ago
  As has been said elsewhere, anarchism means 'without rulers' and anarcho-capitalism fits this definition as it strives to remove the state, while individuals will retain their property rights. Private and voluntary institutions (both for-profit and non-profit) will supersede the role of the state. However, if we limit anarchism to its more historic meaning, which is anarcho-communism and related ideologies, then you'd be correct. To avoid confusion this is why ancaps are using the term 'voluntaryism' to better describe their position. Corporations wouldn't exist in an ancap society, as they rely on limited liability, meaning their executives are not legally responsible for their decisions. Such an arrangement can only exist under a state. (cf. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/corporate_responsibilities_4605jsp/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/corporate_responsibilities_...) Holding directors accountable to their lenders, customers, investors, etc will strongly disincentivise the short-term mindset we see in corporations today.
cloudfifty 5y ago
> Though I think it is fair to call Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism It's just not. There's no way using the historical understanding of Anarchism where the following scenario wouldn't be seen as completely absurd: "Hi HeckFeck! Yeah, this is an anarchist society, we have no state and no rulers, well, except for Fred. He owns all the Water. He inherited the rights from his great grand father that bought it for grains from the starving citizens, yeah, he owns all the land too. Anyway, welcome to Fred's coal mine, grab your hat."

ultrastable 5y ago

anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchism, in the sense that anarchism is historically opposed to wage labour & private property because it represents a form of coercion. I don't just mean this in a normative sense - whatever you think of the merits of either, anarcho-capitalism doesn't have much historical or theoretical continuity w/ anarchism.

HeckFeck 5y ago
It depends where you land on the semantics vs etymology debate. Well, we'll agree not to coerce anyone to adopt a particular definition. ;)

jokethrowaway 5y ago

I like the voluntaryism rebrand. When you talk about anarchy people mainly think of anarcho-communists (because historically they had the name first). Semantically an - arkhos just means "without rulers"

Ar-Curunir 5y ago

Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, because anarchism opposes all hierarchies, and private property (and corporations, and everything that stems thereof) is a hierarchy.

HeckFeck 5y ago
As has been said elsewhere, anarchism means 'without rulers' and anarcho-capitalism fits this definition as it strives to remove the state, while individuals will retain their property rights. Private and voluntary institutions (both for-profit and non-profit) will supersede the role of the state. However, if we limit anarchism to its more historic meaning, which is anarcho-communism and related ideologies, then you'd be correct. To avoid confusion this is why ancaps are using the term 'voluntaryism' to better describe their position. Corporations wouldn't exist in an ancap society, as they rely on limited liability, meaning their executives are not legally responsible for their decisions. Such an arrangement can only exist under a state. (cf. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/corporate_responsibilities_4605jsp/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/corporate_responsibilities_...) Holding directors accountable to their lenders, customers, investors, etc will strongly disincentivise the short-term mindset we see in corporations today.

cloudfifty 5y ago

> Though I think it is fair to call Anarcho-capitalism a form of anarchism It's just not. There's no way using the historical understanding of Anarchism where the following scenario wouldn't be seen as completely absurd: "Hi HeckFeck! Yeah, this is an anarchist society, we have no state and no rulers, well, except for Fred. He owns all the Water. He inherited the rights from his great grand father that bought it for grains from the starving citizens, yeah, he owns all the land too. Anyway, welcome to Fred's coal mine, grab your hat."