Does all these anarcho-somethings really exist?

[Absit]

The difference between the state and a voluntary organization is that the state is, of course, not voluntary in the least. So how is any of these anarcho-somethings different from each other, if it's all supposed to be voluntary?

You can organize syndicalistic in an ancap society and, if you were to use force to create syndicalism, you'd have a state again. 

 

Am I wrong? Is there something more to it?

[Marshall B]

Im with you. I've heard anarcho-communist before which seems like a square circle to me. Even an-cap confuses me because they advocate for the state to some degree in that they need a military if I'm correct? Whatever...the nitpickyness of some of the labeling can kind of turn me off and leave me uninterested to some degree. We are born anarchists and total freedom(in all aspects of life) is our destiny and worth fighting for. I'm content with the unknown and would rather let principles guide the way. I can explain all of that to my toddlers. Call it ancapalapadingdong and thats what I'll be.

[dsayers]

Even an-cap confuses me because they advocate for the state to some degree in that they need a military if I'm correct? Whatever...the nitpickyness of some of the labeling can kind of turn me off and leave me uninterested to some degree.

Agreed. Labels are generalities, and therefore not useful as the shorthand they're meant to be.

 

I've never heard of ancaps needing a military before. You point out that we're born in anarchy. Well, we're born capitalists as well. You used your body and internet connection to invest your time and effort for a perceived payoff when you made your post for example.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

Yes, you're right. If there's no initiation of force involved then it's moral. 

[AncapFTW]

The difference between the state and a voluntary organization is that the state is, of course, not voluntary in the least. So how is any of these anarcho-somethings different from each other, if it's all supposed to be voluntary?

You can organize syndicalistic in an ancap society and, if you were to use force to create syndicalism, you'd have a state again. 

 

Am I wrong? Is there something more to it?

If you give people a choice between pizza and salad and don't try to force them one way or the other, some will choose pizza and some will choose salad.  The is no syndicate forcing anyone to do anything, but the pizza lovers will naturally form a group, and the salad lovers will naturally form a group.  Sure, the issue isn't polarizing, so the groups will intermingle to a high degree, but with different anarchist systems the differences are much more polarizing, so there's less intermingling.

[rosencrantz]

The NAP does not prescribe any mode of organisation. Anything goes, as long as it is voluntary. Eventually, the most efficient mode will prevail. 

[sb23rd]

I think that once a voluntary society is achieved, for a state to reemerge would be a tall order. A multi generational process of achieving a voluntary society implies the adherence to the very things that act as 'safeguards' such as the NAP, I own me and so forth against statist encroachments. The balance of the scales would be in our favor so to speak as more and more people operate from principles. There'd have to be a massive cognitive breakdown in the population to regress back to 'might is right" in whatever form it takes. /End of hypothetical.

[Mister Mister]

The difference between the state and a voluntary organization is that the state is, of course, not voluntary in the least. So how is any of these anarcho-somethings different from each other, if it's all supposed to be voluntary?

You can organize syndicalistic in an ancap society and, if you were to use force to create syndicalism, you'd have a state again. 

 

Am I wrong? Is there something more to it?

Yes I think there is something more to it.  Because most leftist anarchists, if you make this argument, respond with some conspiracy theory or disaster scenario about how corporations will own all the land and become a State, or the capitalist societies will ruin the environment for the socialist societies and so on. 

 

I've said this before, but I feel that at the heart of this, is that these people still have the mindset of a utopian central planner.  The free market produces results that they don't like: inequality, consumerism, and so on, and so they want to change the rules to try to get the results they want.  It's very similar to wording a question to get the answer you want, trying to manage another person's reaction, which is manipulative.  At least these people won't concede the desire to use the massive force of the State to make the world as they see it, but it's the same impulse in my opinion.

[Torero]

I've said this before, but I feel that at the heart of this, is that these people still have the mindset of a utopian central planner.

Very much agreed. One sees it in the questions some newcomers asked on this very forum; "how would X be arranged", "who makes sure Y does(n't) happen" and "who distributes wealth or Z"....

 

The free market produces results that they don't like: inequality, consumerism, and so on, and so they want to change the rules to try to get the results they want.

On top of that it's ironic;

- inequality under statist crapitalism is unfair; based on power, not abilities - in a free market it's based on fair and logical things; IQ, well-behaved, moral, peaceful negotiation, etc.

- consumerism in our current crappy statist system is boosted to unhealthy levels because of mass subsidies (in whatever form), price "arrangements", etc. - look at oil. Only in a centrally powered crappy system that very valuable stuff can be given away for free; 15 times cheaper than one of the easiest products to make; beer. And that ridiculously low price boosts unfair and ugly consumerism, while in a free market that is based on the availability of goods; much more supply and demand driven

- environmentalism - if land is privately owned people care for it. If it's owned by some anonymous State, it's much easier to spoil the land, pollute the air and destroy the nature

 

It's very similar to wording a question to get the answer you want, trying to manage another person's reaction, which is manipulative. At least these people won't concede the desire to use the massive force of the State to make the world as they see it, but it's the same impulse in my opinion.

[B0b]

Torero, suppose people are stupider than you think. Why would they be convinced that anarchy is thy best thing for themselves? To me, most of them will always be seduced by demagogical statists that will promise them money without working and alike.

[dsayers]

Torero, suppose people are stupider than you think. Why would they be convinced that anarchy is thy best thing for themselves? To me, most of them will always be seduced by demagogical statists that will promise them money without working and alike.

Then the "free" money runs out.

[B0b]

Then the "free" money runs out.

Yes, it will, but it won't make people smarter. They will still blame others. Some will turn to fundamental religions, others to robbing people, others to revolution.

[ObserveandReport]

I'm convinced that leftist anarchists are right to be concerned about the abilities large corporations gain. A lot of that is cut off at the knees if their isn't the fiction that is the corporate liability shield (as is implied by anarchy, so perhaps moot). Additionally however, one might worry about disparities in bargaining power and similar disequilibrium states that may arise. Private sector unions, I think, will have an important role to play, but as many of you have observed (Rosecodex and Torero), the free market will sort these things out (though I think unions are perhaps an under-emphasized and vital portion of the free market), 

 

On a related note, while I agree with Dsayers that labels may be counterproductive, when one espouses both the tenants of Marxism and anarchism, they are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Common pool resources, jointly owned properties, co-ops, and numerous other communitarian organization schemes could lack coercive authority (hooray for voluntarism) and be functional parts of a greater free-market. Communism such that it is coercive totalitarian regime, obviously is antithetical to AnCap. Is my distinction lacking somehow?

[McCkins]

I thought that anarcho-capitalists were purposely redundant about the label because there are other "anarchists" that misapply systems like socialism or communism to anarchy. Anarchy doesn't seem to be compatible with socialism or communism, just as voluntarism isn't compatible with government. I understand that, in practice, people may live communally but this is still anarchy. People may also choose to form a communist society in an anarchist society and thereby exit the realm of voluntarism.

Isn't capitalism a rationale consequence of real anarchy?

[pperrin]

Funny - this is something I've been kicking around on and off for ages.

 

As I see it there can only be anarcho-anarchism.

 

People seem to use 'anarcho-' to mean 'wipe the slate (state?) clean' and then the suffix to replace it with a different system (which by definition would have to be enforced).

 

I also think we already live in anarchy... the only leaders are the ones we choose to follow (through choice or fear). If you wiped the slate clean there is nothing to stop us arrived back here - with everything exactly as it currently exists...

 

In anarchy the guys with the biggest sticks run everything... and in this, the anarchy we live in, it is the state who has the biggest stick.

[dsayers]

the only leaders are the ones we choose to follow (through choice or fear).

If it's through fear, it is coercion, and therefore not a choice at all.

 

In anarchy the guys with the biggest sticks run everything...

This isn't true. When you're walking down the street and somebody's walking in the other direction, you don't assess who is more damaging and either yield or steamroll them accordingly. You ensure efficient passage because it's the most efficient path towards satisfying your goal. It IS true that we live mostly in anarchy, since most of all make almost all of our decisions without the use of violence.

 

[EDIT]

A point I forgot to include: Most people do not want violence. Not in their own life, the lives of the people in their lives, or anywhere they might want to be. So if a guy with a big stick wanted to use that big stick to take by force, it would literally be him against everybody else on the planet. The reason why institutions such as the State are effective is because people are taught that they are righteous, it is their duty, and so on. Once you take away the perceived legitimacy, they would not be able to inflict such damage. If you haven't already, check out Larken Rose's videos the tiny dot and Mr. Jones's plantation I think they're called. They illustrate this (pun intended) nicely.

[aviet]

All of the anarcho-{ideaologies} I've heard of are oxymorons.

 

Anarcho-capitalism is literally anarchy + property rights, which requires at lest one rule.

Anarcho-communism is literally anarchy - property rights, which requires at least one rule.

Anarchy is literally the absence of rule.

When people say anarcho-capitalism, they really mean just capitalism; and when they say anarcho-communism, they really mean just communism.

I have an aversion to giving myself any such labels, because my evolving philosophy cannot be boiled down to one conjoined word. If you call yourself an anarchist, there will be a troop of other anarchists ready to bat you down, because your definition is not the same as their definition, which will invariably be much more potent than the literal meaning.

 

[if you disagree, criticise the points rather than voting this post into oblivion]

[dsayers]

Anarcho-capitalism is literally anarchy + property rights, which requires at lest one rule.

Which rule is that?

 

Anarchy is literally the absence of rule.

*ruleRs. All the difference in the world.

 

[if you disagree, criticise the points rather than voting this post into oblivion]

If you have such a low opinion of your audience, why share? Or if you're going to preach civility, why not demonstrate it by NOT engaging in this passive-aggressive, manipulative backhand?

[aviet]

Which rule is that?

 

For there to be property rights there needs to be rule(s) regarding the rights of property. Otherwise there is outright anarchy, which does not provide protection for property. Some anarchists put this under the bracket of 'anarchist law'; law being completely incompatible with anarchy - another oxymoron.

 

An anarcho-capitalist society requires a rule/law/custom for the possession of immovable, movable (and intellectual property). Without this it would not be possible for people to acquire and maintain control of capital. You could argue that this could be an implicit, unspoken part of the society, but I don't think we are living in a world where that would be remotely possible.

 

But as the -ism in anarcho-capitalism suggests there would likely be more than just the above rule. Such as what happens to property when the owner dies, when property is damaged or stolen etc.

 

 

If you have such a low opinion of your audience, why share? Or if you're going to preach civility, why not demonstrate it by NOT engaging in this passive-aggressive, manipulative backhand?

I don't have a low opinion of this audience. As for the latter comment. It is not a passive-aggressive backhand. Last time I posted statements similar to the above, I got downvoted so much that the post became invisible and was eventually deleted. The post was civil, but the replies to it were aggressive, personal attacks without at any point offering counter arguments.

 

So for that reason I added the end statement. I'd love to hear a debate on this topic, which seems to be what the person who started the thread was getting at.

 

 

 

 

*ruleRs. All the difference in the world.

 

Could you elaborate? I put rule as this covers both rules and rulers (rule being a controlling entity). The crux is that someone has to create the anarchic laws and its unlikely that everyone in the society will agree with them 100%, much as the majority of people on the board will not accept the 'social contract' that is forced on us by the state. For example, if I am born into an anarcho-capitalist society that has, say 100,000 words of laws relating to property, and I believe that no one should be able to own property and I go around taking people's property and subsequently face punishment, then I do have rulers.

[pperrin]

If it's through fear, it is coercion, and therefore not a choice at all.

 

You are playing words - you'd have to say you can't 'choose a healthy diet' because it is only through fear of being unhealthy...

 

 

This isn't true. When you're walking down the street and somebody's walking in the other direction, you don't assess who is more damaging and either yield or steamroll them accordingly. You ensure efficient passage because it's the most efficient path towards satisfying your goal. It IS true that we live mostly in anarchy, since most of all make almost all of our decisions without the use of violence.

 

You don't get to decide what/how others assess anything.

 

If someone chooses to be a thief/thug you have to deal with them as they are, not as you would have them in your utopian dream world.

 

If you are so sure of your position and have no stick - just assume that I do have one and send me all your stuff - ok?

[dsayers]

For there to be property rights there needs to be rule(s) regarding the rights of property.

Begging the question.

 

Otherwise there is outright anarchy, which does not provide protection for property.

There is no better protection of property rights than a widespread understanding and acceptance that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

Some anarchists put this under the bracket of 'anarchist law'

Never heard this one. Source?

 

law being completely incompatible with anarchy - another oxymoron.

False. You and I cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories, yet we are both bound by gravity.

An anarcho-capitalist society requires a rule/law/custom

Begging the question again.

 

for the possession of immovable, movable (and intellectual property)

"IP" has been effectively debunked, making this an assertion.

 

Without this it would not be possible for people to acquire and maintain control of capital.

Because of your lack of integrity, I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. You're saying that governments, which make use of things like seizures, forfeitures, imminent domain make it possible for people to acquire and maintain control of property, but somehow an acceptance that humans cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories wouldn't? Show your work.

 

You could argue that this could be an implicit, unspoken part of the society, but I don't think we are living in a world where that would be remotely possible.

There's nothing implicit here. Unless you can address a fundamental difference that would allow for humans to exist in different, opposing moral categories, then they don't.

 

But as the -ism in anarcho-capitalism suggests there would likely be more than just the above rule. Such as what happens to property when the owner dies, when property is damaged or stolen etc.

You have yet to establish the necessity of any "rule." When people die, wills can distribute the property as they see fit so long as the recipients accept it, as well as charities set up to help facilitate unclaimed/rejected property. When property is violated, the violator is responsible for the value, including what it takes for the offended to recoup that debt. Easy stuff.

 

I don't have a low opinion of this audience. As for the latter comment. It is not a passive-aggressive backhand. Last time I posted statements similar to the above, I got downvoted so much that the post became invisible and was eventually deleted.

Posts don't disappear or get deleted. Not that it matters. There is no excuse for telling people what they're GOING to do (if you have any respect for them).

 

The post was civil, but the replies to it were aggressive, personal attacks without at any point offering counter arguments.

Still not relevant. Though based on the lack of integrity I'm seeing here, I would guess you might me "disagreed with me."

 

Could you elaborate? I put rule as this covers both rules and rulers (rule being a controlling entity).

Rules (noun) and rulers are not interchangeable words. Ruler denotes the fictitious presence of humans existing in different, opposing moral categories. Rules (noun) are perfectly valid for property by their rightful owners.

 

The crux is that someone has to create the anarchic laws

You mean the very thing you've already pointed out is an oxymoron? Also, how do you know? You continue to beg the question as if you're not at all open-minded on the subject.

 

and its unlikely that everyone in the society will agree with them 100%

You speak as if they have the ability to disagree. The very act of trying to disagree is using their property, which would be a performative contradiction.

 

much as the majority of people on the board will not accept the 'social contract' that is forced on us by the state.

People who reject "social contract" do so because it is logically invalid. Not out of some preference.

 

For example, if I am born into an anarcho-capitalist society that has, say 100,000 words of laws relating to property

By "law," I assume you mean "commands backed by threats of violence." This is not anarchic nor capitalistic.

 

and I believe that no one should be able to own property and I go around taking people's property and subsequently face punishment, then I do have rulers.

You're talking about something else entirely. To try and shoe horn what you're saying into what I think you're trying to say, you are being misrepresentative. If I create a debt to you, it's not that you rule me, it's that I owe you a debt.

 

You are playing words - you'd have to say you can't 'choose a healthy diet' because it is only through fear of being unhealthy...

If words do not have meanings, then why did you choose those specifics words instead of other ones?

 

No, you are the one playing with words here. And while your intent is nefarious, I actually appreciate the challenge because it shows me a way in which I could've communicated that idea with less ambiguity. It would be more accurate to say "if it's through fear of what somebody might do to you, it is coercion..."

 

You don't get to decide what/how others assess anything.

Observing isn't deciding.

 

If someone chooses to be a thief/thug you have to deal with them as they are, not as you would have them in your utopian dream world.

Your inability to follow a conversation is noted. The person I was responding to was misrepresenting what anarchy means. My example was one of anarchy that (is comparable to ones) we all face every day. Nobody was talking about the rare instance of a thief.

 

If you are so sure of your position and have no stick - just assume that I do have one and send me all your stuff - ok?

Come and get it, motherfucker.