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.
- By Deutschmania
- By litwin