Anarcho Capitalism: A Definition and Guide on Why It Matters - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15329539
wat0n wrote:He meant selling the child.

Exactly. Under anarcho-capitalism, a child is its parents’ private property, to dispose of as they wish. A slave, in other words. Rothbard was nothing if not consistent in his beliefs. He took capitalism, and then followed all of its implications to their logical conclusion. And then adopted those implications as his own personal credo. Rothbard was an idolator - he worshipped capitalism, which he substituted in place of God, discarding the laws of man and of God in the process.
#15329541
Potemkin wrote:Exactly. Under anarcho-capitalism, a child is its parents’ private property, to dispose of as they wish. A slave, in other words. Rothbard was nothing if not consistent in his beliefs. He took capitalism, and then followed all of its implications to their logical conclusion. And then adopted those implications as his own personal credo. Rothbard was an idolator - he worshipped capitalism, which he substituted in place of God, discarding the laws of man and of God in the process.


I think more than capitalism, he took property rights to their utmost conclusion:

Rothbard via Mises Institute wrote:Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge.10 This means that we now indeed have a child-market, but that the government enforces a maximum price control of zero, and restricts the market to a few privileged and therefore monopolistic agencies. The result has been a typical market where the price of the commodity is held by government far below the free-market price: an enormous “shortage” of the good. The demand for babies and children is usually far greater than the supply, and hence we see daily tragedies of adults denied the joys of adopting children by prying and tyrannical adoption agencies. In fact, we find a large unsatisfied demand by adults and couples for children, along with a large number of surplus and unwanted babies neglected or maltreated by their parents. Allowing a free market in children would eliminate this imbalance, and would allow for an allocation of babies and children away from parents who dislike or do not care for their children, and toward foster parents who deeply desire such children. Everyone involved: the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing the children, would be better off in this sort of society.11

In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price.


He was also okay with something even worse than selling your children: Starving them

Rothbard via Mises Institute wrote:Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die. (Though, as we shall see below, in a libertarian society the existence of a free baby market will bring such “neglect” down to a minimum.)


The argument is that, since it's impossible to objectively determine when should a child be deemed to be autonomous enough to be responsible for its own life - be this while in the bomb, while a baby, an infant or an adult - then we should just do away with it altogether. This is the paragraph written just before what's quoted above.

Rothbard via Mises Institute wrote:But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or “runs away” from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child’s ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.


Of course, where he's wrong is that children do not in fact possess that capacity of self-ownership. They are just not mature enough to do so.

His position is far, far more extreme than the pre-industrial and early Industrial Revolution position that children can work just fine. No, children can't really work just fine, there are jobs they just can't perform as well - both from the perspective of the child's physical security and general welfare, and also from a purely productive/economic point of view since children were shown to just lack the physical ability to be as productive as adults. The only reason why children are called on to work is because their participation in productive activities was necessary in a subsistence economy, and only once the child reaches a certain age it might be justified to train him to work on the family business or as an educational and life experience of what working actually is both good and bad which can actually be part of a teenager's education (and even then it's not a full time job, not even in Anglo countries which generally have a softer attitude on child labor than the rest of the Western world).

But even if you believe children can be expected to work just fine, Rothbard is the only person I've ever seen arguing parents should have the right to starve their children until they run from home regardless of age (can a 3 year old even do this?), even if the child starves to death.
#15329542
Potemkin wrote:Exactly. Under anarcho-capitalism, a child is its parents’ private property, to dispose of as they wish. A slave, in other words. Rothbard was nothing if not consistent in his beliefs. He took capitalism, and then followed all of its implications to their logical conclusion. And then adopted those implications as his own personal credo. Rothbard was an idolator - he worshipped capitalism, which he substituted in place of God, discarding the laws of man and of God in the process.


I am going to make a prediction about how I feel about Rothbard without reading him? Hate him. Hate him and hate him.

Lol.



Rothbard is not my man.

He is the anthesis of @Potemkin

How do I feel about el Potemkincito? Well, here comes the two tunes that express my feelings about you Potemkincito.





I am wondering if your love is still strong? Lol. Signed sealed and delivered. That one time I said good bye...

#15329546
Tainari88 wrote:I am going to make a prediction about how I feel about Rothbard without reading him? Hate him. Hate him and hate him.

Lol.



Rothbard is not my man.

He is the anthesis of @Potemkin

How do I feel about el Potemkincito? Well, here comes the two tunes that express my feelings about you Potemkincito.





I am wondering if your love is still strong? Lol. Signed sealed and delivered. That one time I said good bye...



I am with you on this Rothbard guy. I read two sentences about him. That was enough. An Ayn Rand type.
#15329547
annatar1914 wrote:As did Abraham Lincoln's father. This is the root of Lincoln's deep hatred of slavery, because he was one de facto.

So yes, this is partly where i can see things going from here, Anarcho Capitalism, in the minds of some


IIRC Lincoln spent his childhood with his father... Am I missing something here? :?: :?:
#15329548
Hakeer wrote:I am with you on this Rothbard guy. I read two sentences about him. That was enough. An Ayn Rand type.

Even Ayn Rand despised him. Rand understood that capitalism requires a strong and stable central government with a monopoly on the use of violence in order to enforce contracts. If anarcho-capitalism were ever to actually be implemented, the capitalist system itself would collapse shortly thereafter.
#15329550
Potemkin wrote:Even Ayn Rand despised him. Rand understood that capitalism requires a strong and stable central government with a monopoly on the use of violence in order to enforce contracts. If anarcho-capitalism were ever to actually be implemented, the capitalist system itself would collapse shortly thereafter.


I read Rand a long time ago, I recall the other purpose was to have a military to defend against foreign invasions. I can’t remember whether it was her or Nathaniel Branden who proposed private armies to enforce contracts and protect private property. Anyway, all these people suck.
#15329552
Tainari88 wrote:I am going to make a prediction about how I feel about Rothbard without reading him? Hate him. Hate him and hate him.

Lol.



Rothbard is not my man.

He is the anthesis of @Potemkin

How do I feel about el Potemkincito? Well, here comes the two tunes that express my feelings about you Potemkincito.





I am wondering if your love is still strong? Lol. Signed sealed and delivered. That one time I said good bye...


Stevie Wonder hit the nail on the head, querida. Signed, sealed and delivered. <3

Oh, and Stevie nailed guys like Nixon and Rothbard too….



:lol:
#15329579
Potemkin wrote:Even Ayn Rand despised him. Rand understood that capitalism requires a strong and stable central government with a monopoly on the use of violence in order to enforce contracts. If anarcho-capitalism were ever to actually be implemented, the capitalist system itself would collapse shortly thereafter.


I never liked people who love Ayn Rand. Individualism if taken to extremes is really about egotism and selfish dysfunction. You make that the central value in a society? It becomes a society of drug addicts.

How do drug addicts act? Can they hold on to marriages? Pay taxes? Go to work consistently and raise kids well? Refrain from lying? Cheating? Stealing? Pawning things? Stealing from their mothers and relatives in order to get their next drug fix? Follow basic rules of hygiene? Follow basic rules of any sort? Cope with long term relationships well?

The reality is they can't. Yet they emphasize individualism as the greatest base for a group of humans? The group is eternal and the individual is not. The individual only lives due to a more than one person act. Sex is not a one person act. A one person act has no reproductive power (it is called masturbation not reproduction), one is designed to relieve sexual tension and the other is made to create new life. One is about only one person involved and the other is about a group act that has enormous consequences. All of us are a product of the combination of opposing sexes doing an act that is not about a single individual only involved. It should be logical to realize politics is about polity. A polity of people. Not individuals. Why adopt a philosophy based on single individuals unless it is about drug addiction stuff? Where you are focused on your own needs and are willing to lie, cheat and steal to get the next fix. Responsibility. Sacrifice. Service and willing to make sure the group goes on without you in it? That should be the top priority about what a good public servant and political philosophy should be.

Anarchy only works when you have extreme cooperation and perfectly integrated systems of power. Most ingelligent anarchists are also socialist anarchists. Or syndicalists. Like Chomsky is. They are experts on criticizing abuse of power of all systems. A great thing. But unless you have truly humane and balanced and cooperative people who are good workers and generous in all aspects? Anarchy can be chaotic and dysfunctional.

A state that is about authoritarian egotistical stuff is never going to be good over a long period of time. That is reality. The very idea that all of society relies on one individual who is the all knowing powerful leader who is God himself has been found to be flawed. You remember the times when that was the belief? The Egyptian Pharoahs, the Royal Houses of Europe, the Tsars of Russia, the Kingdoms of the Gods that were just abusive monarchs. All that shit is in the past. For a reason. They fail to bring a functional system that is working for most of human societies due to a change that made them die off. You got die hards that are kind of only symbolic powers like the Royals in the UK. Lol. I wonder if you like those @Potemkin ? The USA should know to steer clear of dictators. But they have been installing them allover the world and now they think they can do the same at home. VIolated their own rules. Not surprising. What you do far away from home consistently you wind up doing at home too. Bad habits are what that is called. :lol:

I find it interesting that what is so obvious escapes so many intelligent people Potemkin. It is the truth of illusions of grandeur political philosophies like the Anarcho Capitalists and the Fascists and many others who either abuse the powers of the state or break down all human relationships into dehumanized crap transactional relationships. Community is destroyed in such mentalities. They need a reality check when they hope to be shaping politics that are lies from the beginning of that philosophy until its conclusion.

All they do is massive damage.
#15329630
annatar1914 wrote:@Tainari88 . @Potemkin . @wat0n . @Hakeer :

And so it begins:

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/12/g-s1-339 ... deep-state

Thoughts?


It is a Twitter sweep of government. Once they can fire most career government employees and leaders within different departments? They then can put in loyalists. That will just obey Trump outright.

I think with time? More into the third or fourth year? There might be more fat cut out of government. It might mean no more tax refunds because the IRS becomes dysfunctional for the IRS agents. And the beginning of all small businesses as permanently shuttered. The corporations have to consolidate and only the few gigantic agencies are left standing.

What is happening in the PRC? Well you have Starbucks losing market share in the Chinese market to a local competitor called Lukin Coffee. They slash the coffee price by half.

Luckin Coffee is growing enormously while Starbucks shrinks a lot. Same with a ripoff version of McDonald's. A Chinese equivalent. It is happening all over the PRC. Why? The Chinese are going to replace these American rooted corporations with state owned capitalism capitalist businesses. The Chinese government will make them work for the PRC. The inverse move that the US does.

Musk and Rhamaswamy are going to clean house with government in the USA. They also plan to control information and media directly and by defunding the traditional news sources they will have a large market share of the information that people will be listening to and reading.

The future generations news sources will be carefully edited for content that favors the dictatorship and authoritarian forms of control.

It is not going to be government for the people. By the people. I happen to think it never truly reflected the people. But the facade of being a free press is going to fall away. It is just going to be direct control by the Project 2025 group. An America for real Americans.

After that it may be they do not adopt a strictly racist criteria but instead a criteria about if you are a follower of the ideology from Project 2025.

The issue with that is that many of the power hungry sorts of leaders and their minions eventually have fissures within their own ranks. And then you have that problem that happens, Internal strife. An inevitable fallout of an inability to be altruistic and or not selfish. The ego makes you unable to see what has to happen to serve the society in a functional way.

No, this looks like a total annihilation of traditional forms of governance.

The PRC is going to harness the power of profit but fuel a government that then has massive influence in commercial markets. And if the American government aka Private Corporations who control the USA, gets upset about being pushed out of Chinese markets? They might get crazy and decide to go to war with the PRC.

If that happens? Buckle up. Because the PRC owns a lot of US debt. And if pushed hard will call on the debt to be repaid with interest.

A trade war. And the devalued currency is going to be the US petro dollar.

That is what happens when you have a system that is undermined in the extreme by the individualistic players who love fascist philosophy.

Trump did not read most of the CIA intelligence reports. He had zero interest in reading about who was doing what there. His real interest was making sure that if other leaders around the world wanted a piece of the USA market or government funtioncal actions they would need to go through him. The King. In so doing? He wrote the USA's power position in the world OFF.
#15329632
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

— Frédéric Bastiat

To save your blushes, Bastiat is arguing against the redistribution of wealth here.


:lol:
#15329638
annatar1914 wrote:@wat0n :

This article should help with understanding this sad part of Lincoln's life:

https://www.newsweek.com/abraham-lincol ... ave-456333

He was a Slave, and even one of a type you would have under Anarcho Capitalism.


That's not what I meant. He wasn't sold to anyone, like Black slaves were.

His childhood as you said was common, even after slavery was abolished... But he wasn't literally sold to another family.

As for the DOGE, you're looking too much into it. It seems to be a glorified consultancy, this can either be:

1) A real effort that will be done competently and provide advice for effective reform
2) A real effort that will be done incompetently and cause a mess if their advice is taken
3) A fake effort that will be used to let them be handsomely compensated (directly or indirectly) just like those politically connected consultants hired by cities like San Francisco that are known to issue reports that are never implemented (possibly even read)
#15329651
ingliz wrote:"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

— Frédéric Bastiat

To save your blushes, Bastiat is arguing against the redistribution of wealth here.

Yep. Blissfully ignoring the fact that the unjust distribution of wealth he is defending was effected precisely through plunder as a way of life, by exactly such a group of men, who were then and still are called, "landowners" (now joined by IP monopolists, banksters, and other privilege holders),
#15329661
libertasbella wrote:Anarcho Capitalism refers to the philosophy that calls for the abolition of centralized states. In its stead, the state will be replaced by a system of private property which will be maintained by private institutions and civil society.

I.e., feudalism.
Anarcho-capitalism is truly radical in the sense that it strikes at the root of societal problems and attempts to offer solutions to these problems through market forces.

I.e., the force of the slave market.
Given the philosophy’s relatively young age, anarcho-capitalist thought merits a proper analysis in order for novices to fully comprehend it.

So I will now demolish it utterly. Pay attention:
The concepts of self-ownership and the non-aggression principle largely define anarcho capitalism.

No, those are just disingenuous absurdities.

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." -- Voltaire

Self-ownership is absurd and logically impossible because ownership includes the right to dispose of -- especially to sell -- what is owned, but the self is immutably under the control of that same self, and thus cannot be sold to anyone else.

Anarcho capitalists do not advocate non-aggression. They advocate violent, forcible, coercive physical aggression to remove people's natural individual liberty rights to sustain themselves by using the resources nature provided -- the right that our remote ancestors exercised to survive for millions of years -- and the conversion of those liberty rights into the private property of those who claim somehow to have obtained ownership of such natural resources. Anarcho capitalism consequently advocates violent, forcible, coercive physical aggression by natural resource owners to prevent their victims from either exercising their natural individual rights to liberty or their right of self-defense against the natural resource owners' aggression.

A market in which people's natural individual rights to liberty are owned and bought and sold by other people is not a free market. It is a slave market.
Individuals have full control of their lives and can pursue their own goals as long as they do not transgress on other people’s rights.

No; under anarcho capitalism, the control of individuals' lives and goals is forcibly removed by the violent, coercive physical aggression of natural resource owners because their "rights" include ownership of other people's liberty rights to use what nature provided for all to survive. An individual who must pay some other individual rent for permission to exist is effectively the slave of that other person.
The non-aggression principle makes it clear that individuals cannot encroach on the person or property of any other individual.

But if actually implemented, the non-aggression principle would prohibit private property in natural resources because it inherently encroaches on everyone else's liberty rights to use those resources. But anarcho capitalism definitely advocates private ownership of natural resources, and therefore advocates the initiation of violent, forcible, coercive physical aggression.
The initiation of force against others is categorically rejected under this philosophy’s precepts.

No, that's false. Anarcho capitalism advocates initiation of violent, forcible, coercive physical aggression by the owners of natural resources against all who seek to exercise their natural individual liberty rights to use said resources.
This does not only apply between regular individuals but also between the relationship of the individual and state.

The state is necessary to the institution of private property in natural resources. Without it, there is only brute, animal territoriality. Primitive hunter-gatherer and nomadic herder economies can do without a state, but as soon as you have a settled agricultural economy with significant fixed improvements to land, the state is needed to administer possession and use of that land. That is what a state IS: the sovereign authority over a specific area of land. There is no way to allocate or maintain exclusive private tenure to land but by force. It is impossible. Anarcho capitalism merely advocates that each private landowner operate his own force-based, violent state: i.e., feudalism.
The state itself is viewed as a coercive institution that is centered on said aggression through its practice of taxation and monopoly on violence.

Which functions are thus performed by private landowners. Feudalism.
In addition, state activities such as economic and social regulation, prohibitions, and other forms of government intervention in people’s private affairs are categorically rejected by proponents of this philosophy.

Except when performed by private landowners to control every important aspect of their tenants' lives, that is...
The anarchism of 19th century European radicals viewed private property in a negative light and were skeptical of capitalism.

Because they could see that capitalism was based on legalized stealing by landowners enabled by the institution of private property in land.
Mr. libertarian himself, Murray N. Rothbard praised de la Boétie’s work for its emphasis on civil disobedience against unjust state actions.

Except the most unjust state action of all: issuance and enforcement of private titles of ownership to land.
The French intellectual Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) played an unheralded role during his career making the case for capitalism. His political theory of liberty was spelled out in his magnum opus, The Law, in which he made the case for a laissez-faire economy and viewed the use of state power in economic affairs as an immoral act.

Except when it forcibly removes the landless's right to self-defense against violent, forcible, coercive physical aggression by landowners.
In his work, the Production of Security, de Molinari made the case for private defense and property rights and railed against state monopolies.

I.e., he claimed that feudalism would produce security, something it has never done in the entire history of the world.
Modern anarchist figures such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe have lauded de Molinari’s work for being ahead of its time in pushing for anarchism with capitalistic features.

Hoppe is even more dishonest than Rothbard -- and that's saying something.
#15329663
Hakeer wrote:I read Rand a long time ago, I recall the other purpose was to have a military to defend against foreign invasions. I can’t remember whether it was her or Nathaniel Branden who proposed private armies to enforce contracts and protect private property.

Neither of them. You are thinking of someone else, like Rothbard, Hoppe, or David Friedman (Milton's son).
#15329667
wat0n wrote:That's not what I meant. He wasn't sold to anyone, like Black slaves were.

His childhood as you said was common, even after slavery was abolished... But he wasn't literally sold to another family.

That's not the definition of slavery. Slavery is labor compelled by force, not property in human beings. Chattel slavery is only one form of slavery -- and perhaps one of the less destructive ones, because a slave that is property is a valuable asset, and cannot be mistreated too severely without jeopardizing his value. Other forms of slavery are:
1 penal slavery, such as France used well into the 19th century, and the USA still uses
2 military slavery, such as the press-gang slavery that abducted men and forced them to labor as ships' crew, and the modern military draft
3 industrial slavery such as the Spanish conducted in Latin America, forcing the indigenous people to labor in mines, or Nazi Germany forcing Jews and others to work in factories, in both cases without ever going through the formality of making them into anyone's property

In the time of Lincoln's childhood -- which lasted legally until he was 21 -- parents had virtually total authority over their offspring until they reached the age of majority. Lincoln was literally forced to labor for local employers -- his father was legally entitled to beat him if he did not -- so he was indeed a slave until he reached the age of 21.
National debt…

@Hakeer : I note that you didnt mention the Fr[…]

Jihadists attack Syria, Again

https://twitter.com/SprinterFamily/status/1867591[…]

A mayor of a township in Ontario, Canada, reported[…]

Where at the border? Ask anyone from El Paso, a ma[…]