Barry_diller Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 An Anarcho-capitalistic society has no problems with other kind of societies as long they don't use force against it. Is it so with all Anarchy? are Anarcho-syndicalism,Anarcho-primitvism, etc. agreeing upon not forcing anybody to live their way and are they completely okay with sharing the earth with an Anacho-capitalistic society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan C. Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Some left-anarchists believe in expropriating the 'means of production' to redistribute to 'workers.' Of course, since they're ambiguous about the meanings of those terms, they can apply them to virtually any situation (which is the point). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_diller Posted November 26, 2013 Author Share Posted November 26, 2013 How are the Anarchic leftwing dealing with such an disagreement? It sounds like they really don't know what they stand for? I'm going to find a forum to ask, will post what I get as respond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_diller Posted November 26, 2013 Author Share Posted November 26, 2013 The people I got in touch with here are complete maniacshttp://www.revleft.com/vb/you-opposed-other-t185418/index.htmlThe whole forum is a satire of the stereotype Anarchist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan C. Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 From the other site: "You're already using force to maintain private property..." It's force to keep what one has earned, but it's not force to take what one has not. That's how the game is played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_diller Posted November 26, 2013 Author Share Posted November 26, 2013 I really found that argument the least disturbing.. They don't believe that they can live in peace with other societies and they need to eradicate themYou cannot use morality as argument because they deny morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tasmlab Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I guess there's the mainstreamish idea of dystopian anarchy were we all run around killing each other for gas and food in our mohawks and disputes are settled in a thunderdome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_diller Posted November 26, 2013 Author Share Posted November 26, 2013 I guess there's the mainstreamish idea of dystopian anarchy were we all run around killing each other for gas and food in our mohawks and disputes are settled in a thunderdome. I think that the forum I found is a small miniority in the Anarchic/Marxist leftwing, I really hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedomPhilosophy Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 I guess there's the mainstreamish idea of dystopian anarchy were we all run around killing each other for gas and food in our mohawks and disputes are settled in a thunderdome. Indeed, we all know that without government people would run around killing each other! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_diller Posted November 27, 2013 Author Share Posted November 27, 2013 Indeed, we all know that without government people would run around killing each other! There have never been giving a moments thought to that argument. Democide is the worst crime of humanity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnH. Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 The people I got in touch with here are complete maniacshttp://www.revleft.com/vb/you-opposed-other-t185418/index.htmlThe whole forum is a satire of the stereotype Anarchist That was a pretty disgusting "discussion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry_diller Posted November 28, 2013 Author Share Posted November 28, 2013 That was a pretty disgusting "discussion".Very angry people that is holding on to their Ideology like a religion, suppose that is why that they have a nemesis with fascism.(Like The hate between Islam and Christianity)I can really see how important it is to be calm,logical and full of compassion.It could be nice to have a strong community surrounding the Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalistic approach that outsiders would look at with respect even if they don't agree.Instead of focusing on the market we should focus more on the non-agression principle etc. What we always seems to end of discussing is how the market works, and that can seems to outsiders what all we care about is some "fetish" for capitalism, instead of that Capitalism is the natural conclusion you get when you start to expand first principles to society.Maybe even the name Anarcho-Capitalism is not the best? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pepin Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 I'd argue the term Anarcho-Capitalism is rather poor in that it does a poor job of describing what it describes. A society in which all trades and interactions are NAP compliant otherwise known as a voluntary society: is capitalistic. As a consequence, this also implies that that "anarcho" bit is redundant. Certainly there'd be many that would disagree with this, primarily minarchist, but I'd put forward that it is just a consequence of consistency. What does the term "capitalism" really describe? It really doesn't describe anything that you can imagine. If capitalism is trade without violence, then imagining this is like imagining a society without rape. There is no issue in the concept and understanding the difference between a society with and without rape, but you really can't imagine a society without rape because what you imagine could be anything provided that there is no rape involved. This is why I think the term "voluntary society" or something similar is far superior. It describes the same thing as the other words do, but it gives something to visualize. I really quite enjoy the free-market terminology, but it really doesn't help to use it with outsiders. The metaphor of the "invisible hand" is quite brilliant, yet people who are primed against a viewpoint tend to have a lack of understanding as to what a metaphor is. I think the best language to be used in talking to others is concrete language that describes concepts in solely individualistic terms. Instead of putting things in terms of fiction such as "government", it is far more important to put things in terms of people. I think FDR is quite good at that aspect. Something else I'd like to see are strong focuses that are not related to the government. Certainly with FDR and the emphasis on child rearing, this is already in practice, but I'd like to see it expanded. I think libertarians ought to be some of the forthright people in speaking out against child rape and slavery, sexual abuse, domestic violence, gang violence, and any other topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted December 1, 2013 Share Posted December 1, 2013 my answer is, in theory yes, but they hold a different definition of coercion than us since they consider the relationship between employer and employee often exploitative due to a disparity of power and therefore coercive a lot of them support the NAP sort of but define the parameters differently from us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tasmlab Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 The people I got in touch with here are complete maniacshttp://www.revleft.com/vb/you-opposed-other-t185418/index.htmlThe whole forum is a satire of the stereotype Anarchist Folks sure is friendly here ( in comparison. ) I'd argue the term Anarcho-Capitalism is rather poor in that it does a poor job of describing what it describes. A society in which all trades and interactions are NAP compliant otherwise known as a voluntary society: is capitalistic. As a consequence, this also implies that that "anarcho" bit is redundant. Certainly there'd be many that would disagree with this, primarily minarchist, but I'd put forward that it is just a consequence of consistency. What does the term "capitalism" really describe? It really doesn't describe anything that you can imagine. If capitalism is trade without violence, then imagining this is like imagining a society without rape. There is no issue in the concept and understanding the difference between a society with and without rape, but you really can't imagine a society without rape because what you imagine could be anything provided that there is no rape involved. This is why I think the term "voluntary society" or something similar is far superior. It describes the same thing as the other words do, but it gives something to visualize. I really quite enjoy the free-market terminology, but it really doesn't help to use it with outsiders. The metaphor of the "invisible hand" is quite brilliant, yet people who are primed against a viewpoint tend to have a lack of understanding as to what a metaphor is. I think the best language to be used in talking to others is concrete language that describes concepts in solely individualistic terms. Instead of putting things in terms of fiction such as "government", it is far more important to put things in terms of people. I think FDR is quite good at that aspect. Something else I'd like to see are strong focuses that are not related to the government. Certainly with FDR and the emphasis on child rearing, this is already in practice, but I'd like to see it expanded. I think libertarians ought to be some of the forthright people in speaking out against child rape and slavery, sexual abuse, domestic violence, gang violence, and any other topic. Here here. Capitalism is sort of a negative concept like "atheism" or "freedom", meaning that it just describes the non-existence of something that doesn't necessarily have to exist in the first place. Critics of capitalism, as I've seen, often want to describe it as a 'system' with discrete goals, controls and objectives, etc. when it is really just freely interacting individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BorisM Posted December 5, 2013 Share Posted December 5, 2013 "Capitalism" is probably one of the most mis-undestood words in the English language. many people equate "capitalism" with the U.S./western democratic economic system, which has very little in common with true capitalism. I like the term "free-market" much better. Perhaps "Free Market Voluntaryists" would be a more appealing label for our philosiphy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts