Any Anarcho-Capitalist Autistics?

Post Reply New Topic

I am currently figuring out my political ideology and Anarcho-Capitalism does sound kind of like a nice thing if consumers and workers know if businesses are doing the right thing. I socially believe in a mix of Pragmatism, Rationalism, and Individualism.

I'm more of a socialist, democratic socialist to be specific...as I am aware socialism can be combined with authoritarianism which I do not support. I have thought of anarcho-capitalism before, and there are good parts about it, but over-all it doesn't seem like it would work out too well.

I am. Or at least it sounds good to me.

No "an"cap here. Just one of the traditional anarchists who reject capitalism.

Not an anarcho-capitalist, although I'm probably considerably closer to that extreme than any other political philosophy.

Basically, I believe that people should be free as possible both economically and socially with the stipulation that some practical considerations requirement an intervention outside market forces.

I call it pragmatic libertarianism, and any inconsistencies in my views can be attributed to the inherent conflict between those two ideologies.

Logically I don't understand this. Anarchy is the lack of any government. If there is no government to prevent free exchange of goods and services, you by definition have a capitalist system...

My goal isn't to prevent free exchange of goods and services.

As an anarchist I oppose, all forms of unjustified hierarchy, authority and domination. I apply this position everywhere, including the workplace. Private ownership of land and our means of production is unjustified and authoritarian in nature.

Putting aside I strongly disagree with this statement. How does this system of yours work? Because it seems completely contradictory to me: Let's take the very basic idea of farming food.

Let's assume everyone gets along and doesn't do nefarious things like burning each others crops. It's planting season. I as a farmer get up early and go to the non-owned land. I pick out a stretch of land. I plant my crops there. Because I got up earlier than everyone else I have the largest amount of land planted. Come harvest time I have the most corn.

It's the next year before planting time. I still have a lot of corn leftover after the winter. There's a prime piece of land I want to plant on. I go to my fellow farmers, and I say. Let me plant on this land and I'll give you 10% of my corn. They agree, because they know I'm a good farmer and they can get more corn by taking the deal.

10 years pass, same deal has been made every year. Each year I have been producing more and more corn. I have used my excess corn to trade for a tractor. I go to my fellow farmers. I say "For 10 years you've all agreed to let me plant on this prime land if I gave you 10% of my corn. Now I have this tractor, that makes corn farming a lot easier. How about instead of me giving you corn every year, I give you this tractor and you let me plant on this land forever after." They agree because the tractor will greatly increase their corn production. I now own the land.

The only way to prevent this, is if you has some form of government that prevents me making these contracts with my fellow farmers.

Socialism requires state control. Capitalism is freedom or private contracts.

In my preferred system, anarcho-communism, the whole community manages land and production. In exchange for my labor, I gain direct access to goods and services the community provides. From each according to ability, to each according to need.

In anarcho-collectivism, community manages land and production. In exchange for my work I receive labor notes. These labor notes can be used at communal stores and are destroyed after transaction.

In mutualism land and production is allocated in accordance to occupation and use norms. I work for market exchange.



In anarcho-communism (my preferred system) this attempt at empire would fail instantly. Because the community wouldn't be interested in market exchange!

In anarcho-collectivism you could possibly accumulate some labor vouchers, but no communal store would give you tractor as personal property.

In mutualism you would earn some cash, maybe a tractor (disclaimer: I'm not a mutualist and I don't know the the details in regards to mobile tools of production). Lets just assume, for the sake of argument you get the tractor.

Why would any of the mutualists accept your contract? They have options. It's not as if you have the only tractor on earth. Under their system, you would be entitled to the land as long as you are actively using it anyways. If you were abandon it for a long period of time, it would be up for grabs.

My point and perhaps I'm getting bogged down in semantics is that none of those are actually anarchy systems. All of them put significant restrictions on what people living in the community's can and cannot do. This has to be enforced collectively by the community. Presumably disputes are settled by majority rule. In effect this is a state controlled society where the state is a direct democracy.

Anarchy is defined by a lack of all authority and rules. In many ways being Anarcho-capitalist is redundant because there is no restriction on private ownership and private trade in anarchic system. The reason I'm not an anarchist, is I think all anarchy systems ultimately devolve into a form of feudalism.

My support is in the actual history of mankind we started from anarchy (no one can claim our biological ancestors had a political system), and pretty uniformly formed feudal systems across the entire world. Perhaps it would be different with modern technology, but I doubt it. I think human nature tends towards hierarchy.

There are very few animals who don't practice some form of "hierarchy"--humans included.

Yes they are.

Every economic system puts restrictions on what people can and cannot do. Communists surrounded by capitalism are going to have a tough time, just as a capitalist surrounded by communism would.

People pretty much have to participate in the economic systems that surround them. The argument isn't that we would have absolute freedom in an anarchist society. But that we would have more freedom in an anarchist society.


A state is a military that has a monopoly of legitimate force in a given territory, and is controlled by a central administrative body.


Anarchy


So you don't want to talk about anarchy or anarchism anymore? Just "anarchic" systems?


"Anacho"-captialism would basically be neo-feudalism. There have been many successful anarchist experiments, the issue is that they have historically been attacked by outside forces.

Last edited by RushKing on 21 Mar 2019, 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How does mob rule make an efficient system? When I think about that it seems like it would be pretty chaotic and constantly changing, as people are very opinionated and their views shift throughout life, everyone isn't going to agree with what is ok to do and what is not ok to do. Seems like in a system like that, war and death would be pretty common, isn't that why government bodies formed in the first place, to organize the chaos?

Would this have a voting system? Would trust-able people be elected to count the votes? Or is it just a mob rule system?

Wikipedia while a fine source many things can be a bit tampered with when it comes to politics.
Dictionary definition of anarchy: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
1. a. absence of government
b. a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to absence of government authority
c. a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

2. a. absence or denial of any authority or established order
b. absence of order

I do not think it is accurate to describe the collective communities you describe as anarchy.




No idea how you got that from that comment.



Again I believe these are collectivist societies, not anarchist societies. My focus on definitions may seem pedantic, but it is important that:

1. You realize when you and I are talking about anarchy and anarchist society we are talking about different things.

2. The definition of anarchy you are using is not the standard definition most people will understand. Most people associate anarchy with a lack of rule, and complete freedom. Not collectivism.

Now for a definition of State:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state
5. a. a politically organized body of people usually occupying a sovereign territory

b. the political organization of such body of people

c. a government or politically organized society having a particular character


I understand that definitions are fluid over time. I also understand that dictionary definitions may be a bit more "antiquated" in some political discourse. However, they are the standard definitions that most people will use. It's also important if we debate ideas that we know what definitions the other person is using. If you refer to anarchy in the future I know you don't mean a free society, you mean a collectivist non-hierarchal society.

Keep in mind when I refer to anarchy I mean a lawless, non-governmental society. This is a "pure freedom" society and would have 0 restrictions on capitalism. We both agree it would quickly become neo-feudalist.

Isn't Anarcho-Communism an oxymoron. Communism is authoritarian by nature.

Its not authorotarian consumers amd workers choose what company to buy and work for.