[SolarCross]

Until I found this forum I had never heard of anarcho-capitalism. At first it seemed a contradiction in terms - anarchy means without rulers - capitalism is the rule of the moneyed, essentially neo-feudalism. The wage-slave is a neo-serf.

It is now my suspicion that an-caps are really just capitalists that resent the institution of the state for being not quite exclusively loyal to the tyranny of the moneyed. The state in the modern world is at least notionally if not actually for the public good. Elections however carefully managed by the moneyed sometimes allow populists into power. Meaning the state as an institution is not a reliable tool of the capitalist, it is a tool of oppression that is always in danger of turning in the hand of its weilder. The an-cap would do away with such a tool and replace it with private institutions to enforce wealth extraction from the working man. They would privitise the tyranny of the state.

[Soixante-Retard]

Until I found this forum I had never heard of anarcho-capitalism.

Well now you have. Go forth and explore the literature of Murray Rothbard and David Friedman (to name two AnCap authors).

anarchy means without rulers

Correct

- capitalism is the rule of the moneyed.

Wrong. Capitalism simply means the private ownership of capital. It says nothing, in itself, on how the capital is put to use. If you have savings in your possesion (i.e. you have at one point under-consumed), then you my friend are a capitalist.

It is now my suspicion that an-caps are really just capitalists that resent the institution of the state for being not quite exclusively loyal to the tyranny of the moneyed. The state in the modern world is at least notionally if not actually for the public good. Elections however carefully managed by the moneyed sometimes allow populists into power. Meaning the state as an institution is not a reliable tool of the capitalist, it is a tool of oppression that is always in danger of turning in the hand of its weilder. The an-cap would do away with such a tool and replace it with private institutions to enforce wealth extraction from the working man. They would privitise the tyranny of the state.

How can you make such claims based on "suspicions". I have suspicions on a lot of things. That doesn't mean these suspicions are right - they're baseless - hence they are suspicions. If you want to inform your opinions I suggest you drop your "suspicions" and take some time to read some AnCap literature. You don't have to agree with it (I don't) - just understand it, before you make such groundless suspicions. And guess what? Most AnCap literature is free (or zero-price to be specific) - talk about the rule of money, eh?

Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman.
Power and Market by Murray Rothbard

Molinari Institute's Resources of Market Anarchism

[SolarCross]

You can say that anyone that has in his possession some surplus is a capitalist but in practice capitalism as experienced by the majority of people is just where a few flabby old men use the spurious claim of ownership, backed by hired thugs, to extract wealth from those who produce the wealth through their labour (both skilled or manual). It is indeed the rule of the moneyed, it is indeed neo-feudalism. The difference between the feudalist and the capitalist is only the nature of the 'capital' they use to parasitise the workers; the feudalist monopolises land, the capitalist monopolises fiat currency.

[SecretSquirrel]

There is a difference between "capitalism" and "free market," and it is a very large difference. Capitalism is when the State creates special privilege for private interests who in turn exploit it for monopoly and personal gain at the public's expense, and pay off the State for their gift. Capitalism is what we have and it's fucked up.

Free Market cannot exist with any State intervention in any area of interpersonal economics. Any intervention anywhere distorts the market mechanism everywhere. Free Markets are what we need -- they are the elusive dream.

[SolarCross]

Quite so I am in favour of free markets its a nice idea one day someone will try it. The ultimate free market would be the gift economy.

[Eran]

In which case we have much in common that is obscured by semantic differences.

It seems like we are all in favour of free markets.

SecretSquirrel, Soixante-Retard and I are in favour of societal backing for the institution of private property, with the important caveats that (1) private property has to be justly (i.e. peacefully) acquired, and (2) that enforcing private property rights should be done without violating the private property rights of others.

We all object to the mixing of wealth-owners and government, but might differ on whether that should be called capitalism, crony-capitalism or plutocracy.

taxizen just expressed support for free market, although the position on private ownership of property is not clear.

Btw, due to the very common association of "capitalism" with plutocracy, I now prefer referring to myself as a "market anarchist", rather than "anarcho-capitalist". Nothing of substance changed - just the name.

[SolarCross]

@eran

The more I learn about an-capism the more realise it is definitely something different from what you call crony-capitalism. For an awful lot of people the experience of capitalism is such nakedly nasty, mean-spirited and brutish thing that I think it is wise to effect a name-change. Market anarchism will do fine.

Anarchism if it implies an absence of coercive monopolist institutions like government is de facto a market-anarchism since people inevitably trade and there would be no institution to say they can't trade or should do it only in a particular way.

I favour a gift economy myself which i see as the ultimate free-market but I wouldn't be much of an anarchist if I insisted on it. If people want to do the bean-counting thing when they help each other out so be it.

[mikema63]

^I count this a victory.

SecretSquirrel, Soixante-Retard and I are in favour of societal backing for the institution of private property, with the important caveats that (1) private property has to be justly (i.e. peacefully) acquired, and (2) that enforcing private property rights should be done without violating the private property rights of others.

I am forgoten.

[Eran]

Sorry mike. As is often the case, I lazily only scanned the most recent page of posts...

I certainly consider you a member in good standing of the PoFo libertarian / market anarchist community

[mikema63]

Good to hear .

[Soixante-Retard]

Is there time for a group hug?

[mikema63]

Says the guy with an avatar that's flicking me off.

Oh well what the heck .

[SecretSquirrel]

Voluntaryism -- or evil, tyranny, and sorrow. There is no middle ground.

You either do the right thing or you don't.

[truth_seeker]

They may have invented the word but the word has a specific meaning in the english which their political ideology doesnt fit with, the left-anarchists do not want a anarchist society without rulers, you are not free to do what you want in your own house in their ''anarchistic society'', if you disobey their crazy rules by for example shock horror giving your brother or sister a job producing lets say gummy bears in your barn (that they themselves preferred over their previous self-employment), then they will invade your house and arrest you. That is force and effectively a government IE not anarchism.

One could only think this if they were reading anarchist books while smoking crack