[EastCoastAmerican]

Specifically, not well-liked by other Anarchists.

Anarcho-capitalism is unique in that it supports big business, unlike the other anarchist models, who usually oppose capitalism. However, there is also egoist anarchism (do whatever you want to whoever you want), and Christian anarchism (acknowledge no Earthly authority); despite the fact that Egoist Anarchism can be used to justify oppressing others, or that the Bible is quite authoritarian, neither seems to earn as much consternation or criticism as anarcho-capitalism.

There's also the fact that many prominent Anarchist writers and theorists grew up in an era where corporations exploited workers in dangerous, low-paying conditions with no economic alternatives (Emma Goldman's a prominent example). So many Anarchists wold look to the Anarcho-Capitalists as essentially defending an economic model which can lead to another form of tyranny.

There's also the fact that the term 'libertarian' was originally synonymous with anarchism (and still is in some European countries), but in the United States the term has been adopted for a laissez-faire capitalist model.

I'm quite sure there's more to it than this. Enlighten me!

[Sithsaber]

The fact that anarchocapitalism is nonsensical and ignores the power of the system is the main reason for this. Christian anarchists are just vague enough to avoid derision (giving freely to each other and following the dictates of the non physical church is idealistically permit-able. American libertarianism is just anti politics condensed for 3 year olds.

[RhetoricThug]

Specifically, not well-liked by other Anarchists.

Anarcho-capitalism is unique in that it supports big business.

Yes

So many Anarchists wold look to the Anarcho-Capitalists as essentially defending an economic model which can lead to another form of tyranny.

This is the answer. You know this. Still, what is the real difference between the state and big business? Both force you to operate within certain constraints and opportunities. As any sociological system does, this only results with a form of oppression. That repeated sentiment is well-known & borderline redundant.

unlike the other anarchist models, who usually oppose capitalism.

We oppose Capitalism (I may not form the whole opinion of we) because it makes all people under its umbrella follow collective norms constituted by rational/irrational decisions within a market economy. It is not a free system, it does not value resources, rather monetary funds. The invisible hand that Adam Smith described is essentially an invisible collective that forces people into a society (unknowingly, without consent) giving them a false identity in a system larger than the constituent.

I support the exploration of a resource based economy model. We need to economize and consider the real definition and the real value of the things we place on the market
Where do we draw the line? hard to say, wants are blurred with needs in a capitalistic market.
We must get away from such fallacy.

the Bible is quite authoritarian

Hierarchical religion (not spirituality in general) is just as dangerous to people's inherent freedom to the degree that it can be compared to big business and the state. A moral standard is an imperative, it should never be dictated by formal indoctrination. Not to take Mr. Marx out of context but morals should be defined with his slogan in mind- "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
There is no reason to stranglehold an entire population with pollution, which will afflict others through social contagion. This particular social contagion, religion, should not emphasize uni-centric means of epidemic (social, through the people, not biological, if you will).

There's also the fact that many prominent Anarchist writers and theorists grew up in an era where corporations exploited workers in dangerous, low-paying conditions with no economic alternatives (Emma Goldman's a prominent example).
There's also the fact that the term 'libertarian' was originally synonymous with anarchism (and still is in some European countries), but in the United States the term has been adopted for a laissez-faire capitalist model.

See, the evolution of liberty and the ideals of freedom intend to be reactionary. It is a response, some may say natural, to authoritarian life. People strive to break the chains, even when the chains are not fundamentally visible- men and women seek redemption. I think Mikema once pointed out that the human "God-complex" ironically thinks freedom is necessity, but nature will always shackle our feet. I, of course- paraphrasing what he said.

[Red Barn]

Anarcho-capitalists don't seem well-liked . . . . . Specifically, not well-liked by other Anarchists.

Well, of course not.

Those clowns have appropriated two perfectly wonderful words - that is, "Anarchism" and "Libertarian" - and turned them into meaningless, self-contradictory gibberish. They're not anarchist or libertarian, so of course this rankles.

Now, if they called themselves something reasonably accurate, like maybe "Post-Democratic Oligarcho-Fundamentalists" I'd feel a bit better about them. (Not much better, but better.)

[SolarCross]

Anarchy means "no rulers" - libertarian means "one who advocates maximising individual rights and minimising the role of the state". So an-caps are entitled to use both terms as that is exactly what they advocate. Leftard "anarchists" if you take them at their word want to use violence against people to prevent them trading and conducting business as they see fit even if it harms no one, they want to impose a centrally planned economy, monopolise law and enforcement to prevent the use of money and independent action. Leftard anarchists are militant statists in terminal denial of their schizophrenic authoritarianism. For them "no-rulers" means "no rulers except for us", because for them "some animals are more equal than others". I'd say left anarchists are the least entitled to call themselves anarchists, they are really just slightly liberal authoritarian marxists.

Myself I am a voluntaryist; I like co-ops, communes, companies any kind of voluntary free association. Voluntaryism is the moral foundation of anarchism and an-caps are more consistent voluntaryists than anarcho-commies or even anarcho-syndicalists. The only left anarchists consistently voluntaryist are the mutualists and arguably they are really slightly right of centre on the economics.

[Sithsaber]

No anarchocapitalists are stupid because they cannot realise that the state is more than a flag, it is a system. Eliminating the IRS won't solve the world's problems.

[Decky]

Anarchy means "no rulers" - libertarian means "one who advocates maximising individual rights and minimising the role of the state". So an-caps are entitled to use both terms as that is exactly what they advocate.

Ancaps do believe in rulers though.

A hugely rich and powerful oligarchy who would use their "privite security forces" (armies) to oppress the fuck out of the impoverished peasantry.

Their ideal society would make Tsarist Russia look good!

[EastCoastAmerican]

1. Leftard "anarchists" if you take them at their word want to use violence against people to prevent them trading and conducting business as they see fit even if it harms no one,

2. they want to impose a centrally planned economy, monopolise law and enforcement to prevent the use of money and independent action. Leftard anarchists are militant statists in terminal denial of their schizophrenic authoritarianism.

3. Myself I am a voluntaryist; I like co-ops, communes, companies any kind of voluntary free association. Voluntaryism is the moral foundation of anarchism and an-caps are more consistent voluntaryists than anarcho-commies or even anarcho-syndicalists. The only left anarchists consistently voluntaryist are the mutualists and arguably they are really slightly right of centre on the economics.

1. If it harms nobody, and all parties consent, then consistent anarchists would not visit violence upon them. Anarchists are concerned where coercion is involved.

2. I've never heard of any anarchist advocate this. This is quite a broad generalization you're making towards Left Anarchists.

3. All anarchists believe in voluntarism, from what I've seen.

[SolarCross]

Ancaps do believe in rulers though.

A hugely rich and powerful oligarchy who would use their "privite security forces" (armies) to oppress the fuck out of the impoverished peasantry.

Their ideal society would make Tsarist Russia look good!

Translated into reality:- Decky (impoverished peasentry) stole some penny sweets from a corner shop and the proprietor Mr Patel (hugely rich and powerful oligarchy) told Decky's mum (private security forces) and she slapped his legs and sent him to his room for the whole afternoon (oppress the fuck!).

[Red Barn]

Ancaps do believe in rulers though.

A hugely rich and powerful oligarchy who would use their "privite security forces" (armies) to oppress the fuck out of the impoverished peasantry.

Their ideal society would make Tsarist Russia look good!

Pretty much.

How can anyone say that they believe in "no rulers" when the capitalist corporation - the very model of tyrannical, antidemocratic, totalitarian rule - is the lynchpin on which their entire socio-economic structure depends?

Really. It's the stupidest construction ever.

[SolarCross]

The world doesn't owe you a living. You can't vote yourself a piece of my pie. LTV is a fiction. If people choose to do business with mega-corp, then there is no problem. If people are forced to join your smelly collective then there is a problem. Conditions are irrelevant, consent is everything.

[Rothbardian]

I don't even know if I'm an anarcho capitalist. I don't necessarily 'support big business', whatever that is supposed to mean. I do not, however, create made up justifications for violating the rights of others. An example would be 'property rights are good....unless its the "means of production"'.

People can get as rich as they want, as far as I'm concerned, as long as they do so on the basis of voluntary association.

[RhetoricThug]

The point is, anyone living in a transparent free society needs to eliminate wage/debt slavery.
Banks love debt. Today's capitalism loves to regulate the market, therefor banks are needed. Debts are needed.
Don't give me laissez-fair market theory. Bull market is a consumer market- regulation is needed to have that engine run smoothly.
There shouldn't even be a debate.

The resources are far more important, that is real wealth. Not some unit of purchasing power. Shit.

[anticlimacus]

Conditions are irrelevant, consent is everything.

I'm glad you admitted this, because this pretty much explains why ancaps are not liked and are not taken seriously intellectually. How one can actually make this claim, with intellectual integrity, is beyond me. Certainly you don't mean this, Tax. Certainly you are able to understand, for instance, that consenting to poisening the water supply under conditions of durress is not really a free consent. Consent is meaningless without understanding the conditions under which agreements are made.

The fact that ancaps cannot seem to grasp this is the reason their whole idea of "freedom" is a joke. "Agreeing" to give yourself over to wage slavery because you would otherwise starve is not the kind of "consent" somebody interested in freedom should applaud. The fact that you cannot see the actual force of the economic system exerted on people within capitalism is what makes the ancap notion of "freedom" a complete fraud. Put simply: Adequate conditions are what makes consent meaningful--anything less is tyrranny in disguise.

[Red Barn]

The world doesn't owe you a living. You can't vote yourself a piece of my pie. LTV is a fiction. If people choose to do business with mega-corp, then there is no problem. If people are forced to join your smelly collective then there is a problem. Conditions are irrelevant, consent is everything.

Look Taxizen, I don't want to be rude to you, because I actually used to like you quite a lot.

But the truth of the matter is that you don't really know much of anything about Left Anarchism - a circumstance that's all the more distressing since you actually claimed to be one fairly recently. It's plain to anybody who does understand the subject that you're just jumbling up a bunch of half-digested hogwash and spitting it out at random.

But why? I don't understand the rage factor here, and I'd much prefer that you direct your bile elsewhere in future.

[Soixante-Retard]

EastCoastAmerican, I think you'd like this, especially this part.

It is ironic that those who wish to deny 'anarcho-capitalists' the mantle of 'anarchism' have to confront that Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, arguably one of the most influential anarchists, is a ideological forefather of anarcho-capitalists.

[anticlimacus]

Except for the fact that Proudhon believed that property is robbery....

[Red Barn]

Except for the fact that Proudhon believed that property is robbery....

. . . and detested capitalism.

But then, you're arguing with a guy who claims that Bastiat, Proudhon's arch rival, was a Leftist, and once had Noam Chomsky as an avatar.



Something is definitely going haywire in the An-Cap blogosphere.

[anticlimacus]

Indeed, Red Barn



And in the spirit of Tax's "conditions are irrelevant" and Soixante's odd statement, I quote Proudon from "What Is Property?":

Just as the commoner once held his land by the munificence and condescension of the lord, so today the working man holds his labor by the condescension and necessities of the master and proprietor: that is what is called possession by a precarious title. But this precarious condition is an injustice, for it implies an inequality in the bargain. The laborer's wages exceed but little his running expenses, and do not assure him wages for tomorrow; while the capitalist finds in the instrument produced by the laborer a pledge of independence and security for the future

Conditions meant something to this so called forerunner of ancapism

[Red Barn]

Thank you, Comrade Anticlimacus.

For a minute there I was afraid I'd fallen into some sort of alternate universe.

But what do you think is happening here? Is this just An-Cap Newspeak, or what? It's hard to believe that people who can read and write could somehow come to believe this stuff by pure accident.