Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarchy

[demonon]

Hello,

This came to my mind a few days ago.
How can one who desires an anarchic society desire capitalism.
In a state with capitalism there always will be workers and their bosses.
Isn't a hierarchy something that a anarchist wants to avoid?
My view on anarchism is that it opposes any form of authority and a whatever-archy.
So my question is: How can a anarchist be a anarcho-capitalist?

 

[DropKick Murphys]

Straw man...
I'm not opposed to leaders or laws, I just oppose giving one class of leaders privilege to coerce.

 

[demonon]

Straw man...
I'm not opposed to leaders or laws, I just oppose giving one class of leaders privilege to coerce.

I understand, but my question is how there can be anarcho-capitalists?
To me it's a oxymoron.

 

[Datsyuk4242]

I understand, but my question is how there can be anarcho-capitalists?
To me it's a oxymoron.

(Monopoly-free/coercion free society) - (free/voluntary trade).

Care to point out why/how exactly the two terms are considered to be polar opposites?


Btw: My question to you is: how can an anarchist not be an anarcho-capitalist? Why shouldn't individuals have the ability to voluntarily trade their labor in exchange for wages?

 

[demonon]

(Monopoly-free/coercion free society) - (free/voluntary trade).

Care to point out why/how exactly the two terms are considered to be polar opposites?


Btw: My question to you is: how can an anarchist not be an anarcho-capitalist? Why shouldn't individuals have the ability to voluntarily trade their labor in exchange for wages?

My view of a anarchic society is one without social status or any form of hierarchy. My view of a capitalistic society based purely on production and consumption is one where there are labourers and their bosses.
This capitalistic society where there is practically no government who enforces taxes on people and other unnecessary laws which just take away the freedom of the people. This society has a anarcho-capitalistic system.
I think this is wrong because a labourer still will be exploited because his boss wants lot's of profit. If this happens, it doesn't matter how much freedom you will have because you still are exploited.

Btw: I don't think capitalism is that easy because it leads to allot of exploitation.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Btw: My question to you is: how can an anarchist not be an anarcho-capitalist?

To quote Rothbard:

"If the State may be said to properly own its territory, then it is proper for it to make rules for anyone who presumes to live in that area. It can legitimately seize or control private property because there is no private property in its area, because it really owns the entire land surface. So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property."

What objection might many an-archists raise to this?

I'm not opposed to leaders or laws, I just oppose giving one class of leaders privilege to coerce.

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron because adherents, while opposing state regulation, support private regulation (of an individual's behaviour). Anarchists oppose both.

 

[Datsyuk4242]

My view of a anarchic society is one without social status or any form of hierarchy. My view of a capitalistic society based purely on production and consumption is one where there are labourers and their bosses.
This capitalistic society where there is practically no government who enforces taxes on people and other unnecessary laws which just take away the freedom of the people. This society has a anarcho-capitalistic system.
I think this is wrong because a labourer still will be exploited because his boss wants lot's of profit. If this happens, it doesn't matter how much freedom you will have because you still are exploited.

Btw: I don't think capitalism is that easy because it leads to allot of exploitation.

Oh jeeez.

A worker is not exploited if he wishes to VOLUNTARILY exchange his labor for other goods/wages.

So what if his boss wants profits? How does a boss wanting profits, exploit workers if they voluntarily choose to exchange their services for some form of return?

You have also failed to answer my previous question: why should anyone prohibit myself or anyone else for that matter from exchanging labor for wages?

 

[demonon]

Oh jeeez.

A worker is not exploited if he wishes to VOLUNTARILY exchange his labor for other goods/wages.

So what if his boss wants profits? How does a boss wanting profits, exploit workers if they voluntarily choose to exchange their services for some form of return?

You have also failed to answer my previous question: why should anyone prohibit myself or anyone else for that matter from exchanging labor for wages?

How can you say it's voluntarily in the first place? One needs to work in order to buy food, clothing and other things to live.
I don't think one should prohibit him or herself from exchanging labour for wages. It's only so easy to get exploited.
Just look at classical liberalism. It is somehow similar to a pure capitalistic system. The life of the labourers were very rough.
How can one desire a anarcho-capitalistic system if it does not lead to maximum self realisation of EVERY human being?

 

[Datsyuk4242]

How can you say it's voluntarily in the first place? One needs to work in order to buy food, clothing and other things to live.

But you do not necessarily need to work for someone else to obtain such items.

I don't think one should prohibit him or herself from exchanging labour for wages. It's only so easy to get exploited.

So you don't think anyone should prevent me from exchanging my services for wages?

Just look at classical liberalism. It is somehow similar to a pure capitalistic system. The life of the labourers were very rough.

You seem to be forgetting that people chose to work in factories and other settings during the Industrial revolution (at least that is what I believe you are referring to). If they were better off on their farms and whatnot, why leave in the first place?

How can one desire a anarcho-capitalistic system if it does not lead to maximum self realisation of EVERY human being?

I honestly have no idea what you are saying here.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

I think anarcho-capitalism is a stupid label anyway, because it associates us with collectivists.

I think this is wrong because a labourer still will be exploited because his boss wants lot's of profit. If this happens, it doesn't matter how much freedom you will have because you still are exploited.

Define exploitation.
It's a voluntary agreement - the worker values his wages more than his labor, and the owner values the workers labor more than the wages he pays him.

One needs to work in order to buy food, clothing and other things to live.

You can grow your own food, or make your own food. You don't have to go be exploited by the big bad capitalist.

Just look at classical liberalism. It is somehow similar to a pure capitalistic system. The life of the labourers were very rough.

Can you be more specific? Are you looking past the steady rise in the standard of living people enjoyed since the start of the industrial revolution?

 

[FreedomFight]

Oh jeeez.
A worker is not exploited if he wishes to VOLUNTARILY exchange his labor for other goods/wages.

Yes, let's go to the fairy-tale land where jobs are a matter of optional leisure.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

Yes, let's go to the fairy-tale land where jobs are a matter of optional leisure.

Jobs aren't leisure, but they certainly are optional.

 

[FreedomFight]

@OP

Anarchy - State of no government does not mean a total denial of the basic units of hierarchy. The basic "family unit" would be an example.

Capitalism - Hierarchy doesn't define capitalism; it's the result of human nature.

Jobs aren't leisure, but they certainly are optional.

If you have a house and full plate of food everyday, sure.

 

[demonon]

So you don't think anyone should prevent me from exchanging my services for wages?

You seem to be forgetting that people chose to work in factories and other settings during the Industrial revolution (at least that is what I believe you are referring to). If they were better off on their farms and whatnot, why leave in the first place?

People stopped working on farms and started to go to factories because of the industrialisation. It was no longer necessary to work on a single farm with 100 others because there was mechanisation.

Capitalism - Hierarchy doesn't define capitalism; it's the result of human nature.

And it's human nature to when one wants to control others. But I as an anarchist oppose that, and I oppose capitalism to because it has a hierarchy.


Guys,

the sole reason I made this topic is because I think that anarcho-capitalism should be avoided because it creates a strong hierarchy. Something that I, as a pure anarchist, want to avoid.
I am not trying to convince anyone to not work for a boss, but one way or another, you will get exploited.

 

Anarchy simply means 'without rulers'. It does not refer to a lack of rules, a lack of laws, or a lack of morals, just a lack of rulers -- in otherwords: no Government. (But not necessarily no governance.)

It is the nature of property that someone owns it. Anarcho-capitalism is a world of owners, not rulers. You can own property, you can control property, but you cannot own or control people.

It's only contradictory if you have screwed up notions of what constitutes a ruler. If you think your boss, with whom you have voluntary employment, is your ruler, or your landlord, with whom you have voluntary living arrangements is your ruler, then your notion of ruler is actually that of owner, which is naturally why you would run into a contradiction.

 

[lacuna]

anarchy is like, You make up your own rules, go all out, dont care...stuff like that

 

[demonon]

anarchy is like, You make up your own rules, go all out, dont care...stuff like that

No it's not.
Please prove to met that without a government every human being would be immoral.