[atreestump]

More specifically, the title should read ‘Why Anarcho-Capitalism can’t function for very long’.

There are two types of An-Caps, there are those who want no state at all in favour of personal pusuit of profit, unfettered by law and regulation, then there are those who call themselves Minarchists – a ‘slim state’. There’s also the misreading of ‘voluntary exchange’, which is invariably interpreted in a similar way as ‘mutual exchange’ (if I give you X, I get Y, which is of equal value). This definition misses the profit motive of capitalism and exploitation, not to mention a sneaky way of hiding coersion.

Anti-State Anarcho-Capitalists

The problem with no state and capitalism, is the protection of private property – property rights and laws that the state executively enforces to back up claims of property. Without the state to guarantee property conventions, currency value and stocks would be too uncertain, confidence would be non-existent and it wouldn’t take long before gangs and mobs begin to take over. We are talking about a fast-track route towards Monarchy, which would be the person, or corporation that accumulated the most property and then makes everyone else their subjects. Or, you will have many competing gangs and mobs of private armies and security firms, as this will be the only way to ensure value of property. We would also expect to see a rise of landlords who would rent property to those who are outside of these factions, basically, we are talking about a slave system, debt-slavery, Tsarism and worse.

Minarchists

This term does not have to exist. We already have a term for this economic practice, it’s called Classical and Neo-Liberalism. When An-Caps figure out that currency is worthless without the state, they switch to this concept in no time at all. It’s like fighting for fresh air to be breathed each day, or staring an activist group for people to walk with their feet – it’s already bloody happening!

Those who advocate Anarcho-Capitalism, fail to understand exactly what capitalism is and the importance of the state to ensure property and law that protects property is fundamental to capitalism.

[Socrates]

@”TheMaskedAvenger”

Do you have anything to add here?

[Whisper]

Maybe Anarcho Capitalism has some legitimate basis in the idea that goods tend to be exchanged? Not defending private property as land rights, but rather resources.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atreestump]

Why not go for mutual exchange? I don’t get how there would be no profit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Socrates]

The Masked Avenger – do you have any thoughts?

Damn mentions don’t work on Crapatalk application.

[Whisper]

Why not go for mutual exchange? I don’t get how there would be no profit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Humans find ways to maximize self interest

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[atreestump]

True, but an-caps saying it’s just exchange without profit seems to brush that under the carpet.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Whisper]

Profit can be more freely redistributed under anarcho anarchism than possible with statist capitalism

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[hr]
Part of this is small scale resource bargaining in primitivist societies but the threat of rebuilding is why I see anarcho capitalism as under the threat of rebuilding to corporate capitalism.

Also crypto anarchist systems of capitalism on the web I see as becoming corporate such as trafficking guns drugs and human beings

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Socrates]

Capitalism always becomes corporate – shame how it’s become a reality.

[Whisper]

Capitalism always becomes corporate – shame how it’s become a reality.

Why does capitalism always become corporate? Moreover, what human activities aren’t fundamentally corporate?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Socrates]

Profit is the motive and monopoly is the means – therefore capitalism is corporate.

There are many for-the-sake-of-itself activities we perform that don’t seek expansion through exploitation.

[Whisper]

Are you implying that corporate activities are exploitation? I find that to be untrue in both research groups and groups of artists and architects. Otherwise yes profit as a teleology comes through monopolizing as a means I agree.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Socrates]

Groups no. Companies yes.

[Author]

Posts