So many Ancaps...

I forgot 'linguistically'.

I think there /could/ be some truth to this if you accept that basic state functions could fulfilled by private actors.

notrueanarchist, if you want an example of anarcho-capitalism, I suggest you look at the totalitarian company towns that existed in certain US mining communities in the 1800s. Private police, company stores, company scrip, company owned housing, company doctors and schools. State functions filled by private, profit motivated actors. That's the logical outscome of anarcho-capitalism. Have fucking fun.

plus a dozen different churches financed by the company

"If you think the market isn't coercive explain baliffs"

First of all I don't know what you mean, or what you want me to explain.

However, the bailiff as it exists today is a construct of the State. To say that the bailiff is coercive in today's world is completely correct. There are many ideas on how law can be accomplished in a "free" market (whatever the hell that means). The way I subscribe to is arbitration. Individual (A) has an issue with individual (B). Both A and B argree on an Arbiter they present their cases and the agreed upon arbiter gives his decision. The idea that there can be or should be a uniform code of justice is however fallacious. Is my way perfect? No but nothing ever is, nor will it ever be so. Utopia is a myth.

"[E]xplain how 'Pay my price for water and electricity or I'll shut you off' isn't coercive" In the world of today due to the extreme regulation, and the many barriers to entry created by State intervention, the utility companies have monopolies. The result of this is that there is no accountablity and often there is no where to turn if you aren't satisfied with your provider. In a "free" market without said barreirs to entry there would be more firms on the market, which gives you recourse. In other words you can go somewhere else. This is true of many things even today even though State intervention has greatly reduced your options. But you aren't even talking about options, you appear to be talking about something even more fundamental, entitlement. Does the fact that you exist entitle you to goods and services? Do you deserve X just because you are here, and you want it?

"How do you plan to deal with private prisons, private police, and private military, if you abolish the State and not the market" Again there are many schools of thought on this subject. Personally I don't think that private prisons will exist. With out government funding I doubt a prison could run. It's a waste of resources. My thoughts on private police is that they are unnecessary, personally I train in martial arts, and I carry a firearm because I believe in personal responsability. However other people disagree with me on that and they point out that competition between firms will give you the ability to leave one firm for the superior service of a different firm. Again the State monopoly on law has caused the issues that you and I both hate. What about private military then? The military and the police are the same service, that of defence, they're just specializations within that market. Again I personally favour the militia as a mode of defence. I'm working on a series of essay's right now talking about this, I'll give you some points. 1) The military of today doesn't provide defence. 2) Conventional Armies cannot provide defence. As a result convential armies that eat resources but provide nothing won't exist after the abolishment of the State. How do you intend to deal with private armies? After all, all it takes to create an army is a group of people to be united with a goal and arm and organize themselves. Do you think that after ya'll have abolished the State and market that armies won't exist? Do you believe that after the State and market are gone everyone will be happy? No one will resist, no will murder, rape, and pillage?

Now to get back on track. As Reddebrek has pointed out AnCaps don't have that many members. I suspect that there are probably less 100k world wide, and that is a very high estimate. Like Libcoms, the AnCaps simpley have a presence on the internet. As far as physical communities go, there is an AnCap colony in Cambodia sponsered by the DollarVigilante which smuggles people out of the US, there is an AnCap community in Acopulco Mexico, in the United States both New Hampshire and Wyoming have communities of AnCaps.

I'm not sure what you mean by "private" forces. But if you mean things like Black Water, I would lilke to point out that that firm gets most of it's money from government contracts to opperate in the middle east. Yes private armies can be just as oppressive as the State. The State is an organized crime syndicate just like the Hell's Angels, the IRA, the IRS, the Bloods, MS13 and the Mafia.

In order for liberty to exist anywhere it must be guarded. Evil Men desireing power are always going to exist. Murderers thieves, and rapists won't disappear from the world like magic, they will always exist. Like I said Utopia is a myth.

After reading ya'lls "Introduction to Capitalism" essay I understand why ya'll hate it so much. But I have to say that this hatred stems from grossly misunderstanding what Capital is, what drives the market, the role of labour in the market etc... I wonder if I came to the right spot for what I had in mind. We'll have to wait and see.

Peace be with you!

"However, the bailiff as it exists today is a construct of the State."

The enforcer of the debt collector is the construct of the state? Is the shop security guard and the celebrities bodyguard also the product of the state?

"To say that the bailiff is coercive in today's world is completely correct."

Indeed it is thats why its presence as common support role for private transactions shows the absurdity of your "Markets are free of coercion".

"There are many ideas on how law can be accomplished in a "free" market (whatever the hell that means)"

?If you yourself don't know what your ideology means then how are you fit to explain it to anyone else?

"The way I subscribe to is arbitration. Individual (A) has an issue with individual (B). Both A and B argree on an Arbiter they present their cases and the agreed upon arbiter gives his decision."

You are aware that what you've just described is the Fascists method for dealing with conflict right? Oh but then you believe in class collaboration just like they do so that really shouldn't be a surprise.

Leaving aside your fellow travellers how on earth do you propose these "mediators" can be found and to be capable of viewing disagreements objectively in sufficient numbers to cover all potential areas of dispute? And since the state is gone how could you enforce decisions made by arbitration?

"The idea that there can be or should be a uniform code of justice is however fallacious."

.... But you have just proposed a uniform code of justice albeit a very thin one.

"Is my way perfect? No but nothing ever is, nor will it ever be so. Utopia is a myth."

? I never asked you for perfection I asked you to explain your notion that Markets are not coercive, so far you haven't even bothered addressing it.

"[E]xplain how 'Pay my price for water and electricity or I'll shut you off' isn't coercive" In the world of today due to the extreme regulation, and the many barriers to entry created by State intervention, the utility companies have monopolies."

Well for a start that simply isn't true there are many energy and water companies. But even if it was true with the state, its irrelevant because that has nothing to do with what I asked you. I asked you to explain how such a power dynamic isn't coercive, blaming it on the state or the shadowy Cabal of Elder Water Buffalo's doesn't answer that question accept to admit in a roundabout way that it actually is coercive.

"The result of this is that there is no accountablity and often there is no where to turn if you aren't satisfied with your provider. In a "free" market without said barreirs to entry there would be more firms on the market, which gives you recourse."

Okay instead of repeat myself again I'll try this another way, you accept the premise that the state is coercive yes? And you advance the premise that markets are not coercive yes? Your evidence that they are not coercive is that in the event of coercion taking place the consumer can go elsewhere yes?

There is more then one state in the world, many have differing degrees of authority and coercion therefore you and me and everybody have recourse to go to a state much freer then the one we live in. That is an indisputable fact.

So we have two conclusions to draw from this, either States are not actually coercive since those who remain in the nasty ones do so by choice, or a market can still be coercive if it is shown to be and the volume of choices available in either case is irrelevant.

"In other words you can go somewhere else. This is true of many things even today"

In deed like countries, that still doesn't change the fundamental coercive nature of the relationship between the state and the citizen. Your argument is nothing more then the moneyed version of the "go to country X"

"But you aren't even talking about options,"

Because options no matter how many or how few do not in anyway change the coercive relationship, they are differences of degrees not kind.

To give you another example, lets take knife fighting and boxing, both are fundamentally violent, one is more violent then the other, but that does not mean the less violent one suddenly stops being violent.

If you are compelled to do something, or made to consent to it out of fear of consequences the relationship is a coercive one.

The fact that there was choice does not in anyway negate the coercion being applied.

"you appear to be talking about something even more fundamental, entitlement. Does the fact that you exist entitle you to goods and services?"

The fact that you ask this question proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are nothing like us.

"Do you deserve X just because you are here, and you want it?"

I notice you are suddenly talking about abstract X when I and you were talking about actual examples. But to answer your question Yes every human deserves life and the access and use of the things that guarantee that life. Are you seriously saying in a case of a person not being able to afford water or heat in the winter (which were the specifics we were discussing) you would support shutting them off and allowing them to perish?

"Again there are many schools of thought on this subject. Personally I don't think that private prisons will exist."

But earlier you were saying that the greatest obstacle for market entry was the state, so under that thinking we should have more prisons not less.

"With out government funding I doubt a prison could run."

And why won't they secure other sources of funding? if businesses are willing spend money on there own security why wouldn't they be willing to fund or enter in contracts with a prison service? To me if nothing else it sounds like a good way to solve the problem of ineffective mediation.

"It's a waste of resources."

Sorry but markets work on supply and demand if theres demand and no obstacle (which according to you was the state) there will be someone offering there services.

"My thoughts on private police is that they are unnecessary, personally I train in martial arts, and I carry a firearm because I believe in personal responsability. However other people disagree with me on that and they point out that competition between firms will give you the ability to leave one firm for the superior service of a different firm."

? You know what since I don't have all day I'll ignore the blatant narcissism at the start. Private police forces have the same role and responsibilities as state police. Therefore they would have all the capabilities of that force, under your society there is only the Market. The market works on supply and demand, there will be a demand for such a force since property and inequality remain. So by what justification does it have to exert power over its targets? And how could you keep such an entity in line?

"Again the State monopoly on law has caused the issues that you and I both hate."

How? You've completely ducked the issue, by your own admission all the State does is limit options, if something is fundamentally coercive how does increasing its number change that?

"What about private military then? The military and the police are the same service, that of defence, they're just specializations within that market. Again I personally favour the militia as a mode of defence."

And how exactly would you keep this militia in line? The state is gone and you have provided no alternatives. Again you haven't answered what I've asked how would a private militia not be coercive?

The Irish Militia was not above enforcing landlord eviction notices, even during the famine, in fact they helped guard food exports out of Ireland during the period. To give just one example.

"but provide nothing won't exist after the abolishment of the State."

1) Private military groups do exist and operate independently of states so we know that's not true.
2) A coercive entities use is its coercive effects so it does in fact provide something.
3) Other private groups make use of state armies to fulfil there agenda's so why on earth wouldn't at least atempt to find an alternative in a post state world?
4) Actually that question isn't really necessary since even now with the option of state armies many turn to the private sector for their guns and boots.

"How do you intend to deal with private armies?"

By the abolishing of state and capital. With absence of public and state funds and infrastructure no large armies can be formed.

"After all, all it takes to create an army is a group of people to be united with a goal and arm and organize themselves."

Yes but for such a group to be capable of actually oppressing others takes a vast logistical network, otherwise Guerilla movements would have far more success. The only other alternative to State or corporate support would be if that groups aims were shared by a large section of the population. Thats how the few Guerilla movements that managed to succeed without major external assistance did so.

But if that were the case why even bother forming an army? most groups turn to armed conflict because they oppose the state or its current leadership with a large military presence of its own.

"Do you think that after ya'll have abolished the State and market that armies won't exist?"

Actually yes. There were no standing armies before the state and market, the first recorded instance of a standing army was after the formation of the Babylonian states. Because armies need a lot of backing, they can't function independently.

"Like Libcoms, the AnCaps simpley have a presence on the internet."

Sorry but that's simply false if by "Libcoms" you mean the groups that fall under that banner then most do have strong physical presences in some parts of the world so your comparison is untrue.

"I'm not sure what you mean by "private" forces. But if you mean things like Black Water, I would lilke to point out that that firm gets most of it's money from government contracts to opperate in the middle east."

Most, not all. By your own admission groups like Black Water receive funds from non state actors. So if we were to abolish the state that would simply mean their funding was exclusively private, so there is in fact coercive forces within the market.

"Yes private armies can be just as oppressive as the State. The State is an organized crime syndicate just like the Hell's Angels, the IRA, the IRS, the Bloods, MS13 and the Mafia."

Yes which is why your assertion that markets aren't coercive is absurd.

"In order for liberty to exist anywhere it must be guarded. Evil Men desireing power are always going to exist. Murderers thieves, and rapists won't disappear from the world like magic, they will always exist. Like I said Utopia is a myth."

And if you have guards you must therefore have coercion. Like I said I didn't ask for utopia I asked you to justify you assertion that markets aren't coercive. You instead wasted many paragraphs dodging the question and are now actually undermining yourself. Bringing out the old Utopia strawman wont help you.

"After reading ya'lls "Introduction to Capitalism" essay I understand why ya'll hate it so much. But I have to say that this hatred stems from grossly misunderstanding what Capital is,"

The private ownership of the means of production. That is what capitalism is

"what drives the market,"

supply and demand.

"the role of labour in the market"

To produce goods and services that generate profit for the owner i.e. the Capitalist.

"I wonder if I came to the right spot for what I had in mind."

Well it seems to me what you had in mind was stunning us all with your intellect and winning us all around to your half baked ideas. If that is the case, then yes you did.

On one hand, I'm dissapointed you didn't respond to any of my posts. On the other hand, I'm busy and have better things to do, plus I think it means you're probably less likely to stick around on libcom.

It mean, what if someone decides to stop paying rent? A bailiff is needed to evict that person or the whole premise of capitalism falls away. If I have to stop paying for housing, you can bet I'm going to stop working. And if I can get away with not paying for housing, I'm going to bet I can steal shit from the store or from work. This mean the ideas of commodities cease to exist and that accumulation of capitalism will be be arrested.

That inherent coercion (be it private/state bailiff or private/state security) is needed if the very basis of private property is to continue.

And this is the point, state or no state, capitalism which needs coercive force to protect private property. I guess theoretically it's possible to abolish the state, but the repressive functions of the state will be taken over by private actors a la the company town example I already gave.

Finally, screw you on "entitlements" you right-wing reactionary ball-bag. Productive activity is social, therefore the fruits of that activity--what's commonly called the economy--should be socially distributed. This is the problem with capitalism: what are fundamentally relationships between people are obscured as relationships between things. That allows for the stupid shit idea of 'entitlements'.

As for you shit about 'utopia', that's a sad excuse for an argument. You want utopia, look at the proponents of fucking capitalism. Not to mention that, again, all you have to do is read some basic anarchist texts to realize that anarchists don't advocate some perfect blueprint for society, but rather suggest of series of principals along with some prefigurative structures for how we can build direct democratic and non exploitative social relations.

Also,

Now please stop calling yourself an anarchist.

Why are we even arguing with this moral degenerate? I was ignoring hin perfectly fine, why can't we all? Seriously, Reddebrek, the time it took you to make fun of this introverted white middle-class right-wing extremist could have been better spent just staring slackjawed out a window!

Also, I'm glad this reactionary's going to preach about entitlements to a bunch of working-class communists, that's going to get him places! I hope he becomes a regular poster, that'll really electrify the forums!

Ancaps call themselves anarchists trots call themselves socialists. What's the difference. I'd work in coalitions with ancaps or trots. If I had to

Indeed I see exactly where ya'll are coming from. If you define private property (it's enforcement) as coercive than it makes sense. We don't see eye to eye on that, but we don't have to. Here is why:

Do you believe in voluntary association? Furthermore do you believe in self ownership?

I do and for what I had in mind you do too. If you don't there is no need for you to waste your time reading the rest of this post as the rest of this assumes that you do. If I am wrong, and you don't believe in voluntary association, just quote this line and say you don't so that I don't waste anymore of my or your time. Thank you.

Let's say that I am morally bankrupt, if you believe in voluntary association, you don't have to associate with me, or my ilk. Furthermore I do not believe that Men are equal, am I equal to Stephan Hawking? No, not in the slightest. First physically due to chance of my birth I am lucky enough to not have motor nuerone disease. Secondly I know very little of physics, the man is far more intelligent than I will ever be. If my acknowledgement of these observable facts makes me morally bankrupt, fine. Just don't associate with me. Personally I have no "beef" with communists. I believe in private property, yes I will fight to defend what I conisder mine, I have before, I will do it again. I don't believe that I am my brothers keeper, I do not believe that I have any obligation to anyone that I do not make myself. I do not believe in the "social contract". Like iexist I have no issue with working with communists to abolish the State. We can work together where we see fit. And we do not have to associate past the advancement of our common interests.

In what I consider my ideal world there is room for communists to go and live in communes, ya'll would be free to do your own thing. Because of voluntary association. The question is, is there room for me, and mine in your ideal world?

I offer you this hypothetical as an example.

An anarcho-communist run ship crashes into the South side of a deserted island. They set up their commune and you run things how you guys think they should be run. Through your democracy (I fail to see how democracy isn't a State, but we can talk about that later if you wish). But Oh NO! An AnCap (I will defend my title of anarchist latter if you wish) run ship crash lands on the North side of the island. The AnCaps set up their system and run things how they see fit. What motivation do the two groups have to fight eachother? Seems to me that we can leave eachother alone just fine. Maybe I'm crazy. Now if we all believe in voluntary association then people would be able to leave the AnCap territory and go to the AnCom territory and vice versa. If no one is forced to stay at either location against their will, which is coercive if they own themselves, then if you guys are right and the AnCap system is morally bankrupt, evil, and reprehensible. Then the morally right, good, and just AnCom system is going to take the exploited workers from us evil capitalist exploiters, and thus the superior merit of your system wins, without violence. Because without the workers to work to produce capital, and then to work in the capitalist factories, no goods and services are going to be produced under the AnCap system, and we will either acknowledge defeat or die. And if we do decide to come and conquer you instead of dieing, holding on to our beliefs, you are fully justified in killing us. If the reverse happens and your system fails, you will be faced with a choice, acknowledge defeat and join us, earning your way based on merit, or you can choose to die, or you can choose to come and take our stuff. In which case we will resist.

Of course there is always the third option, and that is, neither of our systems fail and we just ignore eachother, except when someone desires to immigrate to one or the other of our colonies. Which seems to me to be reasonable.

There is absolutely no need to fight eachother if we both believe in voluntary association.

Pleace correct me if you think I'm wrong. If you believe in voluntary association, then we have common ground. Otherwise we don't, I might stay and post somemore just to see what ya'll think about things, but if you don't believe in voluntary association I don't see us working together. I just don't see why we would have to fight if you do.

Peace be with you all!

PS Nanner I'm sorry you feel left out, maybe after I see how this post goes I'll come back and address the things you asked, and the challenges you presented.

PPS Even if we don't have common ground and you guys want me to stick around and give ya'll an alternative view point, let me know and provided things don't degrade into childish name calling, something that shouldn't happen to intelligent and mature adults, I will stay and do so.

Again, peace be with you all.

First off, you can't have free association under capitalism. The market is coercive, therefore truly free association is impossible.

Two, communism is about material interests not morals. So you can cut that shit out right now.

Three, under communism you'd be entitled to live as a free, self-sustaining individual. I mean, if you don't contribute anything to the collective, don't expect anything in return. But if you want to live in the woods or whatever, have fun.

However, should you choose to exploit others (i.e. employ them) you can bet we'll use force to prevent that. If the working class is willing to have a revolution to overthrow capitalism (which is how communism will come about, not through communists outcompeting/morally convincing capitalists as you seem to suggest), you can bet it's going take steps to prevent any would-be exploiters from setting up shop.

Four, anarchism is about social, political, and economic equality. It's precisely because all humans are not equal in terms of intellect or physical ability that it's so important to establish a society in which solidarity and mutual aid are the defining characteristics.

Also,

Now please stop calling yourself an anarchist.

- notrueanarchist

- Margaret Thatcher

And you think you can make common cause with anarchists!?!

Seriously, f*ck you.

Chilli Sauce, thank you for your prompt response!

Your first paragraph I'm going to ignore for now because I'm sure your literature will explain why that is the case. I hope it does a better job than your "Introduction to Capitalism" essay here, I may write a critque of it at some point in the future.

Second the reason why I refer to morallity is because I have been accused of "moral bankruptcy" I did not bring up morality, other posters did.

Next you say if I want to live in the woods or whatever have fun. That is precisely my option under today's rule. That or submit, I don't find either notion appealing in the slightest.

If employment is exploitative, who exactly makes the goods, and provides the services? Are they expected to do so out of good will, and alturistic benevolence? If I am the manager of say a store, I don't own the store, and I put out a sign saying "Help Wanted" is it coercive for me to employ someone who comes in looking for a job? Furthermore let's say I run a store in your communist society, and I put out a sign saying "Help Wanted" is it coercive for me to put someone to work who comes in looking to help? If I don't pay them, they merely volunteer?

Next question who gets to decide where people work, in your communist society? Do they do so themselves, what's the difference between doing so because they want the benefit of say a wage, or them doing it as a volunteer. If the difference is that it's exploitative to pay someone but not exploitative if they do the work for free, I'm not sure what to say to that.

Let's say that me and a group of AnCaps decide we want to go off and live in the woods, our way. Are you going to stop us from doing so? As our way involves capitalists, entrueprenurs and works. And the division of labour.

Again thanks for the time.

PS Out of curiosity how is not working and getting nothing back in a communist society, different from not working and getting nothing back in a capitalist one?

So "fuck me" eh? Intelligent discourse goes right out the window. And I thought that there were adults on the internet. I guess I'm just too optimistic.

Furthermore I have no idea who Margret Thatcher is, or was.

But I do agree that people throw too much shit on the government. The fact that they think they need it is why it exists in the first place. Is that the part you take issue with? If so I question how you can call yourself an anarchist, seeing how you want the State.

If the issue you find in that quote is the part about how there is no society, then you and I are in agreement. The woman clearly doesn't understand what civilization is. Society is a very real thing, that is if we are defining society as a network of relationships between people. However that doesn't change the fact that society is made up of individuals.

Chilli

I think this guy is just wanking off on here and doesn't really want a debate at all. Still, it's no skin off my nose - he'll disappear soon enough I dare say.
How about in a post revolutionary world though? I like to think that the vast majority would see the benefits of being a part of the community but is that an unrealistic viewpoint? Will there be innumerable assholes trying to fuck things up for us and trying to exploit others and if so, then what? Terrorism, war? Personally, I take a less gloomy view but I think that it's a point worth addressing.

Webby,

I am here trying to understand your point of view. However you're probably right and I probably will disappear seeing as presenting a conflicting view on here is met with pejoratives and explatives. Not that I'm sensitive to all that I don't particularly care other than the fact that when people result to it, there's no discussion to be had. The result is that people just degenerate into pathetic wailing children. If I wanted to put up with that nonsense I'd have kids.

However you ask a pertinent question. That about "what about in a post revolutionary world" I seriously doubt that everyone is going to be happy with your system. Just like I doubt everyone will be happy with mine, just like people aren't happy with the current state of affairs. This is because value is subjective, not everyone has the same priorities, values, goals, ethics etc... So the question is what do you do with such dissenters?

I say let them go and do their own thing. Who cares? If people want to go and have a God-Emperor I say all the power to them. It's like shooting up herion. Do I think it's a good idea? Absolutely not! But you can't save people from themselves. This is called voluntary association. Do I want to end the State here in the US? It would be nice, but overall I don't care that much, I'd be content to go and live with like minded people on an island somewhere.

For that matter I think it would be really cool to colonize and terraform so extraterristial body. But I think the prospects of that happening are far less likely than finding an island, and being left alone.

So here is a question I have for you.

You guys obviously have numbers as demonstrated by the pictures ya'll posted. You obviously have organization, so why don't you guys pool your resources, make a one time purchase of autonomy somewhere, or create a Seastead whatever and go there and live?

It seems to me that paying the man one last time for such autonomy and then creating your society has got to be superior to being exploited for the rest of your lives? Unless I'm missing something here...

Notrueliberal

If by 'your point of view' you mean that of a Libcom then you're addressing the wrong man. I'm pretty new around here, arrived with a very individualistic idea of what anarchy means and am by no means a convinced communist. However, my mind as been changed in many areas through debating on the forums and reading some(but not many) articles.
I did not mention 'dissenters'. What I am talking about is opponenents - those that would actively try to exploit and control. There is a difference there.
The reason that I said that you would dissapear soon enough is that I got the impression that your purpose for posting is to show off a bit rather than engage in meaninful debate in an open minded way. If I'm wrong about that then I apoloigize, if I'm not, then knock yourself out - we all need to find something to do with our time.

Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it! It's an instant route to your own self centred 'island'. Individualism in a bag!

Finally, as for 'pooling resources', what fucking planet are you living on? You must be taking the piss here surely? You cannot seriously believe for one minute that we would be left to get on with it in peace? And how about resources? Because we don't want to be wage slaves does that mean we have to live like survivalists? Or do we pop off to the mainland on our raft and ask nicely if we can have a computer or whatever in exchange for some of our delicious fucking coconuts?!!!

@notrueliberal

Anarcho-capitalists 'are not anarchists, and that those who call [them] anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.'

Anarchism is a historically rich working class movement and has had a huge impact on both small-scale and large-scale struggles. Every single anarchist strand, even the individualists, has a socialistic character. Anarcho-capitalism cannot possibly be considered anarchist in any meaningful way unless your definition of anarchism is so narrow as to refer solely to an opposition to the state. The idea of an ancap, somebody that advocates the complete dismantling of the state in favour of the unrestricted tyranny of the market, waving a black flag - the historical symbol of working-class struggle against exploitation and hierarchy - is a sick joke. Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. They are radical Libertarians (I use a capital 'L' just to distinguish Libertarians from libertarianism, again a leftist movement). We will go out of our way to oppose and dismantle your ideas and your 'movement' at every possible turn. You have no place in our movement. You are not welcome here.

Oh, and guess who the author of the quote I started with is?

Murray Rothbard.

Wow, you don't believe in equality and you sound like you're writing this from the 13th century, are you also a new right pervert? Are you also going to start talking about the evils of socialism and feminism and anti-racism or about how white men need more rights or something?

I really like that, in all of your bizzare hypothetical scenarios, you are always in the perspective of a powerful person. "Why am I exploitative if I employ workers for slave wages"! I think it really reflects either an utter detachment with reality or you're a petite-bourgeois type. Either way, you're slavish devotion to the powerful disgusts me on a moral level.

Tell me, when your decadent middle class reality falls apart when neoliberal capitalism starts knocking on your fucking door, will you realize that the powerful shouldn't be defended? Or are you just so upper-class, privileged, antisocial and myopic that you can imagine yourself wallowing in filth and amorality for the rest of your life?

for some reason whenever "ancaps" try to call for some sort of unity or co-operation with anarchists the same arguments seem to come up. it gets rather predictable after a while.

first and foremost, anarchism is and always has been an anti-capitalist, anti-statist and egalitarian movement. capitalism - in any form - would deny the things we need to live and enjoy life to anyone who does not hold enough money or property, leaving them dependant on the often fleeting whims of private charity or state concessions.

"Voluntary association" - a nice principle with little relationship to reality. the "ancap" mentality seems to assume a world of discrete individuals/communities/territories/nations engaging in free exchange based in contracts. but the world is not that simple. if two communities existed side by side, one "ancap", one anarchist, what would happen if - say - the former decided they wanted to monopolise the use of a river for dumping sewage, while the latter wanted to put it into communal use for fishing or swimming?

for that matter, in your "ancap" world, how would you deal with a group of workers who wanted to collectivise their workplace and put it under communal control? my guess is to do exactly what capitalists do now - stop them by coercion and/or force, only with private companies replacing the role of the police.

the idea that people could just voluntarily associate or dissociate at will simply doesn't match any sort of reality, in particular the reality that those who own property have more power than those who don't, making the idea of "voluntary" association laughable at best.

this seems related to the other issue on which "ancaps" seem, to put it politely, confused - that somehow we "all agree" about smashing the state and can just leave the rest for later, as though revolution would leave the world with some sort of neutral blank slate and we can just go off and do our own thing. for anarchists, anti-statism and anti-capitalism are inseparable, both in our means and our ends. when workers struggle, they do it against capitalists and the state alike.

"why don't you just go make an anarchist colony" - it's been tried. they were generally either smashed or safely accomodated and marginalised.

most of the above however is theoretical "after the revolution" stuff which gets a bit tiresome after a while (though it does seem to be the main activity of some "ancaps", building endless abstract models for how a future society could look and posing hypotheticals like the ones you gave above). perhaps more important is practical work in the here and now.

anarchists involve themselves in a range of activities - workers struggles, environmental campaigns, prisoner solidarity, benefits claimants groups and various others. I really struggle to see what common ground there could be for co-operation with "ancaps" on any of these things, making the whole discussion a bit meaningless really. and if "ancaps" did want to get involved for some reason, it would be on the grounds of actual practical activity, not because of some delusional idea that "we're all anarchists aren't we?".

the following did interest me however:

the main article I found on the cambodia thing was this one about becoming a loan shark in Cambodia, which concludes:

if you honestly don't see how this situation is coercive then frankly I fear for your sanity.

All reaction is a form of insanity, it's motivated entirely by cruely, avarice and a love of the powerful. The fact that this trash loves evil, exploitative, fascistic money lenders who want to fuck over people in one of the poorest societies on earth is utterly repugnant. You're fucking scum, a pevert who's voluntarily (liberal scum like you love this word) forsaken his own humanity.

Well if it helps I have an infection and so was unable to get to sleep due to fever and had watched all my films. I was also busy making pdf's so I had about a dozen LibCom tabs already open.

You left out the part were they turn the argument into an excuse to tell everyone how great they are.

What have I done to make you think I'm showing off?

I don't know maybe I am showing off, who knows, maybe I'm doing it subconciously. Honestly I'm here for now because I want to be, if I grow bored/ get frustrated with it, I'll take a break or move on. Life is way too short to spend my free time doing things I don't want to be doing, or that make me angry.

As far as debate goes I'm open for it, after all the worst thing that can happen is that I straighten out my mind and get a better grasp on what my positions actually are, you know? Wasn't it Edison who said something to the effect of 'I did not fail one thousand times to build a light bulb, I just learned a thousand ways not too'. The point is simply maybe I'll be convinced that ya'll are right, maybe I'll convince some of ya'll that I'm right who knows that's not my purpose. I want to understand where the libertarian communists come from. It's funny posters here consider the term AnCap to be an Oxymoron, many people on my end consider the same thing for the term "Anarcho-Communist". I'm not one of them.

If I change my mind cool beans, if I don't it will give me something to think about whilst I slog away doin my stuff. It will hopefully, if I'm honest, lead to a more consistent world view. We'll have to see.

To me the pursuit of knowledge is sacred. The sharing of knowledge is sacred. I don't believe in IP, nor do I believe in Rothbard's notion that printing "copyright" on the bottom of an item somehow obligates people to the creator. I don't believe in IP at all.

I don't believe that private property is inalienable, magic, from God or whatever. I've been told by people in my "camp" that the fact that I don't take private property to be some sort of magic deity to be worshiped I'm not a libertarian. Frankly I'm not as familiar with the logical fallacies as I should be, but I'm not a fan of the No True Scotsman. If you thought I was here to show off because of my name, think again. My username has a purpose that I thought was rather clever. But of course I do or I wouldn't have chose it right?

Now on to address some of the things in your reply.

"I did not mention dissenters. What I am talking about is opponents." A dissenter is an opponent. A dissenter is someone who has an oppinion contrary to what is popularly held. However regardless it doesn't matter. I say let these people go their own way, and if/when they come back and try to conquer you and yours I say shoot them in the face, burn their body and get back on. The principle here, what I want to get at. Is this, you see employment as coercion, I don't, presumbably the people who work for me don't either. (FYI I don't own a business, I'm just some hired help, probably like the majority here). If the people who work for me agree that working isn't coercion then what's it to you, what we do? What stake is there for a communist in the affairs of non communists? I have absolutely no stake in your affiars, which is why whether I agree or not with you guys I don't care. You know?

What about religion? Who cares whether I worship Jesus, Kopimi, Ctuhulu, Ares, or a tenis ball. When I smoke a bowl who does that hurt? Me... Who's business is it? Mine and the guy selling me dope. I don't see why people find that so hard. But they do. The point is that I have ultimate control of my body and mind which allows me to make bad and good chioces.

I am Labour just like you guys, I work for minimum just like some of you guys. I am working on getting my EMT license in order to increase my pay by becoming a skilled worker. However I take what money I have left over after the bills roll in and I put that into ventures to make myself more money. Because I don't want to work for the rest of my life, I'm taking action to make sure that isn't the case. I have no employees, it's just me and my sweat at this point in my life.

"You cannot seriously believe for one minute that we would be left to get on with it in peace?"

In fact I do, there a plenty of organizations that do evil shit in the world and the US does nothing about it. The US with the most powerful military in the world has done nothing to stop the genocides in Rwanda, it did nothing against Russia when it invaded Georgia (an ally) etc... The point is that if the US doesn't do anything to stop those overtly evil actions, then why on Earth is it going to care about you? If the US doesn't care about you is it so far fetched to say that the other countries won't either?

"Or do we pop off to the mainland on our raft and ask nicely if we can have a computer or whatever in exchange for some of our delicious fucking coconuts?!!! "

Why not? Furthermore I'm not saying you have to live like survivalists surely you guys can build what you need to create your civilization. Unless you're saying that you can't build production facilities and what not that you need to produce goods, and establish services on the division of labour. If you are saying that your system can't do that, are you then admiting that Capitalism is necessary for the establishment of your society? You just need to take the fruits of labour of the capitalists inorder to establish a communist society? Please tell me if I misunderstood you.

Anyway I went to bed halfway through writing this so if someone posted after Webby I'll address it in time.

Aah, this is a bit brutal. I mean, I had a dig at this guy myself which I don't feel 100% comfortable about but he has taken a hell of a beating here.
Come on Nanner, this guy may be misguided, or wrong, or stupid even. In truth he probably just doesn't like the current system but hasn't thought through all the options properly. But to call him scum, a degenerate and a pervert is going way over the line. We know NOTHING about this guy.
Clling him 'white' and 'middle class' is a bit dodgy to say the least. The white and the middle class don't have the monopoly on talking offensive and reactionary bullshit.
Seriously, I found what this guy was saying to be pretty fucking daft but I think that Libcom is way better than needing to be accusatory and abusive to make a point

"Seriously, I found what this guy was saying to be pretty fucking daft but I think that Libcom is way better than needing to be accusatory and abusive to make a point "

Are ya'll really? It seems that the only person interested in discussion was that one guy who is actually making me think about private property and you webby, everyone else is just vitriolic.

To me you resort to ad hominem attacks when you don't have a leg to stand on. If you were truly correct you'd be willing to compete on the field of ideas.

But apparently you guys aren't that's fine, you don't have to. It just means that those of you who aren't are pathetic wailing children just like I said. And just like I said if I wanted to put up with that nonsense I'd have kids.

Note: My last post crossposted with Notrueliberal.

The showing off coment was just something I deduced from the tone of your post. Like I say, if I'm wrong, I'm sorry.
If you want to get deep in to libcom then discuss with those on here that know what they're talking about and are willing to engage with you in a respecful way. I'm certainly no ancap, but nor am I libcom, although I'm certainly heading in that direction.
My experience is that I got some abuse when I started posting on here but when I continued to post in good faith people engaged with me really well and have been very supportive of my attempts to understand their definition of anarchism. If however, and I'm not saying this is the case, you are here to fuck with people you will get your ass kicked.

FYI notrueliberal, the reason ppl behave towards you in this way is because of all the other previous an-caps that come on here to "show us" commies what anarchism really is and how we just don't get it. It's shitty that you feel the wrath of past people's behaviour, but so far the an-caps that come here invariably delved into some pretty bigoted rhetoric. Prove us wrong, and maybe you'll get to play in our sandbox a little longer.

^Edit: Oh, shit Khawaga beat me to it.

Webby,

I think you know enough. S/he's posted several paragraphs of that propertarian bullshit (if you're not familiar with it, you can look it up) and I'd be surprised to hear anyone say that that isn't one of the most immoral ideologies out there.

Regarding the name calling: I'm not fond of it myself, but in its proper context it's nothing to gasp about. These "anarcho"-capitalists/individualists/propertarians/whatever they'd like to call themselves, have had their arguments dealt with in the past (e.g. in threads dealing with Anarchomedia, ComradeAppleton and, to a certain extent, HorrorHiro and yourself), so I wouldn't expect that every time one of them shows up here they're dealt with in a serious manner. The only reason I'd wag my finger at Nanner is for not link the relevant threads and even then, who gives a shit? It's the equivalent of not providing sources when debating someone from the flat earth society.

Props to the comrades that try to engage them seriously and thumbs up to those who don't.

Hey, I don't think I ever supported ancap! I think I was more talking about giving people a break whatever class they came from. Still, I admit that I made some pretty stupid and clueless posts but always in good faith. If someone has bad ideas that doesn't mean they are bad people. Were you always a fully informed communist or whatever? We've all got to start somewhere. The point is though, that if I'd taken offence at comments made to me when I first got here, I wouldn't have stuck around and be coming round to a libcom point of view as I am now. I don't offend easily but if I'd been called scum, trash and a pevert I may have thought fuck this and never considered libcom again. Fucking hell, give the guy a break. If he's a shitposter he'll be gone of his own accord soon enough.

Going back to this for a second:

An Ancap I know has, along with the usual vitriol towards anything left-wing, recently expressed a deep sympathy and affinity for old skool italian fascism, which kind of makes sense, i.e. two similarly middle-class, anti-democratic, elitist, anti-communist movements. A group of them also succeeded in derailing a local single-issue public meeting as they wished to "do battle with the socialists" [ideologically of course].

The way I see it (i.e. here come my unfounded fantastical guesses) eventually some could realise that they cant get everyone to accept the free-market, and that they must forcibly create the preconditions of free-market "freedom" and could even justify violence against the left as self-defence by shouting about gulags etc. Although all of this is unlikely to happen, them being on the internet and all....