3 ms·

Capitalism is a purely economic concept. Anarcho-capitalism (literally: “no authority (state), just capitalism”) is the result of applying capitalism to everyth

by maaku 14y ago

Capitalism is a purely economic concept. Anarcho-capitalism (literally: “no authority (state), just capitalism”) is the result of applying capitalism to everything, including politics. What then is your capitalist political system?

javert 14y ago
Capitalism is the economic and political system in which no one may initiate force against anyone else. The only way to institute such a system is to have an institution that holds a self-enforced monopoly on retaliatory force, which is the government. Under any form of anarchism, the gang that is most successful at weilding force gains control. "Market anarchism" is an oxymoron, because markets (freedom) and force are opposites. Likewise, "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.
- illuminate 14y ago
  They'd replace the "jackbooted thugs of the state" with the jackbooted non-union or pensioned thugs of the lowest bidder.
- maaku 14y ago
  The popular association of mob violence == anarchy is just that, an ungrounded popular interpretation. "anarcho-capitalism" (or the term I prefer: libertarian-anarchist) is the political philosophy of bringing freedom of choice to government, breaking the monopoly on retaliatory force and allowing free-market mechanisms to select the best system of government which does the job while staying out the way. I suggest doing some reading on the history of Anarchism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
  - javert 14y ago
    > The popular association of mob violence == anarchy is just that, an ungrounded popular interpretation. You're talking to someone who has studied the issue in depth. I'm not just going from an uneducated assumption. I honestly think that a "market for force" would quickly result in something akin to feudalism at best. Can you explain the mechanism whereby different groups weilding force would just agree to disagree and co-exist? What would happen in practice would be that some groups are defeated, and the others pledge fealty in a kind of feudalistic system which just ends in a dictatorship. Of course, it would be likely that some particular group (which might even win) would represent some specific ideology, and just turn back into a regular government (such as a constitutional republic). I'd definitely be supporting the "competing government" in favor of establishing a constitutional republic.

by maaku 14y ago

javert 14y ago

Capitalism is the economic and political system in which no one may initiate force against anyone else. The only way to institute such a system is to have an institution that holds a self-enforced monopoly on retaliatory force, which is the government. Under any form of anarchism, the gang that is most successful at weilding force gains control. "Market anarchism" is an oxymoron, because markets (freedom) and force are opposites. Likewise, "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.

illuminate 14y ago
They'd replace the "jackbooted thugs of the state" with the jackbooted non-union or pensioned thugs of the lowest bidder.
maaku 14y ago
The popular association of mob violence == anarchy is just that, an ungrounded popular interpretation. "anarcho-capitalism" (or the term I prefer: libertarian-anarchist) is the political philosophy of bringing freedom of choice to government, breaking the monopoly on retaliatory force and allowing free-market mechanisms to select the best system of government which does the job while staying out the way. I suggest doing some reading on the history of Anarchism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
- javert 14y ago
  > The popular association of mob violence == anarchy is just that, an ungrounded popular interpretation. You're talking to someone who has studied the issue in depth. I'm not just going from an uneducated assumption. I honestly think that a "market for force" would quickly result in something akin to feudalism at best. Can you explain the mechanism whereby different groups weilding force would just agree to disagree and co-exist? What would happen in practice would be that some groups are defeated, and the others pledge fealty in a kind of feudalistic system which just ends in a dictatorship. Of course, it would be likely that some particular group (which might even win) would represent some specific ideology, and just turn back into a regular government (such as a constitutional republic). I'd definitely be supporting the "competing government" in favor of establishing a constitutional republic.