[ThePublicOpinions]

lubbockjoe, there is no such thing as a society without authority, anarchist or otherwise. Your definition, being as broad as it is, implicates any ideology. Your inclusion of an-cap isn't that significant.

I don't think he's interested in intellectually honest discussion.

[grassroots1]

lubbockjoe, there is no such thing as a society without authority, anarchist or otherwise. Your definition, being as broad as it is, implicates any ideology. Your inclusion of an-cap isn't that significant.

But I think it's an important point to be made that people often overlook that there have been in the past and could potentially be authoritative aspects of capitalism and ownership by a few individuals. Money IS power.

Social democracy is nice until you realize that people are not created evenly in the first place.

If you're looking for something to blame for unfair inequality, don't blame capitalists. Blame nature.

Unless you're suggesting that the rich are rich because they're genetically inferior, this is basically an irrelevant point. My own intention is to create a more egalitarian society where people can fulfill their potential as human beings. When you look at all the people who are lost to terrible circumstances (starvation, violence, disease, drugs, etc.), it is tragic because of what these people COULD have possibly done in other circumstances. We should foster the development of everyone and allow people to compete on that initially more "fair" playing ground. This isn't only for the sake of fairness but just for the sake of general human productivity, education, and development.

Every nation has had taxation and regulation, they aint all prosperous.

What's your point? Find a country with a democratic system that has universal systems of health care and education and you'll find a country with a relatively high standard of living. It's almost universally true.

[ThePublicOpinions]

What's your point? Find a country with a democratic system that has universal systems of health care and education and you'll find a country with a relatively high standard of living. It's almost universally true.

That does not prove causation. The reason why these countries, such as France, Sweden, the USA etc. grew so rich is because they once subscribe to laissez-faire capitalism. Do you think a poor African nation could on it's own institute health care and education (to the degree their governments are able) and they would magically become rich? Yet Botswana instituted limited government and it was the worlds fastest growing economy for 50 years.

You cannot ignore economic history and expect to accurately understand present economic conditions.

[lubbockjoe]

lubbockjoe, there is no such thing as a society without authority, anarchist or otherwise.

I never said there was.

Your definition, being as broad as it is, implicates any ideology. Your inclusion of an-cap isn't that significant.

How is asking if capitalism is authoritarian implicating an ideology?

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the anarcho-capitalist conundrum.

[lubbockjoe]

I don't think he's interested in intellectually honest discussion.

How have I been dishonest?

[ThePublicOpinions]

You have been intellectually dishonest - not the same thing as being 'dishonest'. You are not interested in reasoned debate; you are here to score cheap political points. Why do you keep repeating the same tired question that has been answered already? Why don't you try to understand what I am saying?

[grassroots1]

That does not prove causation. The reason why these countries, such as France, Sweden, the USA etc. grew so rich is because they once subscribe to laissez-faire capitalism.

No, it's because they allow markets to develop at the same time as they set up social services to ensure a basic standard of life and some level of social mobility. They aren't mutually exclusive. This is what I keep saying. No one is suggesting that markets be ELIMINATED (maybe some people are, but I'm not), what I'm saying is that these societies decided that they would essentially create a baseline. Every person gets a certain amount of education, and everyone gets decent health care, paid for through taxes, and this was decided through the democratic system, which the people own. It has resulted in a higher quality of life, a more educated and healthy population, and a healthier democracy.

Do you think a poor African nation could on it's own institute health care and education (to the degree their governments are able) and they would magically become rich?

Well to some extent the governments of African countries could use their resources more wisely and education and basic health services would be a step along the road to creating a robust economy. I don't think the only path to a developed economy is through vast inequality of wealth, the extreme poverty of some, and the extreme wealth of others.

Yet Botswana instituted limited government and it was the worlds fastest growing economy for 50 years.

And China freed up their markets, which resulted in the improvement of the lives of millions of people. There's no question that market-friendly policies and market liberalization have their place in the toolbox of policy, but it's dogmatic and untrue to suggest that any form of government involvement is negative. Finland's educational system alone proves this, as to the NHS's of Canada and the UK, etc.

[myrmeleo]

I never said there was [a society without authority]. How is asking if capitalism is authoritarian implicating an ideology? The purpose of this thread is to discuss the anarcho-capitalist conundrum.

By acknowledging that there can be no society without authority, there is little point to your "anarcho-capitalist" conundrum. What would your ideal conclusion be? Anarcho-capitalism is, by your definition, authoritarian. That's fine, but if every other society is at least as authoritarian, then what's the point of your statement? Water is wet? You may have "proven" that an anarcho-capitalist society has authority in it, but the rhetorical tools you have used to do so have simultaneously de-fanged any conclusion you could draw from it.

[lubbockjoe]

By acknowledging that there can be no society without authority, there is little point to your "anarcho-capitalist" conundrum. What would your ideal conclusion be? Anarcho-capitalism is, by your definition, authoritarian. That's fine, but if every other society is at least as authoritarian, then what's the point of your statement? Water is wet? You may have "proven" that an anarcho-capitalist society has authority in it, but the rhetorical tools you have used to do so have simultaneously de-fanged any conclusion you could draw from it.

This thread helped me understand anarcho-capitalism. Here is what I learned:

The defacto authority in an anarcho-capitalistic society would be the capitalist.
Ancaps are primarily capitalists who seek to profit from the lack of power of a minimalist state.
Ancaps are not anarchists in principle. They are anarchists because it is expedient for achieving their capitalistic goal of personal profits.

[ThePublicOpinions]

No, it's because they allow markets to develop at the same time as they set up social services to ensure a basic standard of life and some level of social mobility

Except the prosperity predates the development of these institutions by a long shot. It's a nice theory but it's got no basis in reality.

[ThePublicOpinions]

As a Canadian I have some insight into our health care system. When politicians get really sick, do you know where they go? It's not to the hospitals here. They take the first flight to the states. Yes, they criminalize private health care here in Canada, but are the biggest medical tourists of them all.

[myrmeleo]

The defacto authority in an anarcho-capitalistic society would be the capitalist.

As I understand it, the de-facto authority in an An-Cap society would be the employer you work for (voluntarily).

Ancaps are primarily capitalists who seek to profit from the lack of power of a minimalist state.

Capitalists only in the broadest sense of the word, but sure.

Ancaps are not anarchists in principle. They are anarchists because it is expedient for achieving their capitalistic goal of personal profits.

You developed the ability to read minds, I see. I'm quite sure plenty of people associate with anarcho-capitalism for a variety of reasons. Some because they think it would maximize their profit... but honestly, you'd be better off just being a banker for a state-capitalist society now. All the money and power, without half of the competition... not to mention your implication that all other anarchists are "anarchists in principle," which means a whole lot of nothing when you've already noted that even a "principled" (whatever that means) anarchist society still requires authority...

[ThePublicOpinions]

I am not an anarchist because of a desire for profits - though I desire profit - I am an anarchist because the state is evil, because I recognize that it is immoral to use violence and coercion to bend another to your will.

[lubbockjoe]

lubbockjoe
The defacto authority in an anarcho-capitalistic society would be the capitalist.
Myrmeleo
As I understand it, the de-facto authority in an An-Cap society would be the employer you work for (voluntarily).

We agree.

lubbockjoe
Ancaps are primarily capitalists who seek to profit from the lack of power of a minimalist state.
Myrmeleo
Capitalists only in the broadest sense of the word, but sure.

We agree.

lubbockjoe
Ancaps are not anarchists in principle. They are anarchists because it is expedient for achieving their capitalistic goal of personal profits.
Myrmeleo
You developed the ability to read minds, I see. I'm quite sure plenty of people associate with anarcho-capitalism for a variety of reasons. Some because they think it would maximize their profit... but honestly, you'd be better off just being a banker for a state-capitalist society now. All the money and power, without half of the competition... not to mention your implication that all other anarchists are "anarchists in principle," which means a whole lot of nothing when you've already noted that even a "principled" (whatever that means) anarchist society still requires authority...

Ancaps cannot be anarchists in principle because they accept capitalistic centralization of power.

See, no mind reading necessary.

[myrmeleo]

Ancaps cannot be anarchists in principle because they accept capitalistic centralization of power.

In my mind, nearly any form of anarchism requires a degree of centralization/authority. All anarchists I have spoken to try to use "direct democracy" or "consensus" as some kind of magic bullet, but they all end up either promoting the majority at the expense of the minority or forcing individuals to say silent through methods like social pressure. So I would say few to none of the anarchists are what you'd called "anarchists in principle."

[lubbockjoe]

anarchists in principle

Anarcho-capitalists are capitalists in principle and in every sense of the word "capitalist." They are anarchist to the degree that it suits their capitalistic goal of personal profit.

Note: No one defended the integrity of anarchism. On the other hand, I was falsely called "intellectually dishonest" for questioning the authoritarian nature of capitalism.

[myrmeleo]

Anarcho-capitalists are capitalists in principle and in every sense of the word "capitalist." They are anarchist to the degree that it suits their capitalistic goal of personal profit.

Even if this is so, what difference would it make? If anarchism provides no solution to the problem of hierarchy or authority as it is so defined, then what is the difference?

[lubbockjoe]

Even if this is so, what difference would it make? If anarchism provides no solution to the problem of hierarchy or authority as it is so defined, then what is the difference?

No difference. I now have more meat on the bones of the concept "anarcho-capitalism." The concept is new to me.

[ThePublicOpinions]

It is in fact impossible to be a critic of capitalism - the greatest thing to happen to humanity, the source of all modern prosperity and freedom - and also be intellectually honest. It baffles me that people can argue so strenuously against good and in favour of evil.

[grassroots1]

Except the prosperity predates the development of these institutions by a long shot. It's a nice theory but it's got no basis in reality.

The prosperity does not. We can have the highest GDP growth rate and the highest GDP out of any nation in the world, but if that wealth is not spread out among the population then people will still be living in stark poverty. The reason we have a decent quality of life in this country, and the reason you have a decent quality of life in your country, is because of democratic government and taxation. These things allow for there to be safe roads, fire and police services, libraries, health care, education, environmental regulation, etc. This is not rocket science. There is not some weird abstract complicated reason why we have these things. It's because there was a demand for them precisely BECAUSE the market was not filling the role of effectively providing those different things for every section of the population. I'm telling you, all you have to do is examine the history of labor movements in this country and maybe your own as well.

It's a simple matter of history. You might have knowledge of the Canadian health system, that's great. I'm sure their abuses are nothing compared to what I've seen in the American health system.

When politicians get really sick, do you know where they go? It's not to the hospitals here. They take the first flight to the states. Yes, they criminalize private health care here in Canada, but are the biggest medical tourists of them all.

That's because they have the money to do so. Most people don't.

It baffles me that people can argue so strenuously against good and in favour of evil.

I see the views you hold as the ones that could create the most undesirable outcome. I know you don't intentionally want to bring those things about, which is why I'm trying to explain this to you so 'strenuously...'