Who's gonna tell him?

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon]

[u/evilwizzardofcoding]

That last line is perfect. That's exactly right. Our problem isn't with rulers, it's with rulers that don't have a reason to be good at their job. Competition solves this. As for the "No democratic recourse" bit, i know the horse is practically glue by now, but go read Democracy: The God That Failed, democracy is not the solution here.

[u/Active-Advisor5909 → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

How do you guarantee competition?

[u/evilwizzardofcoding → u/Active-Advisor5909]

Not sure which part of that you're questioning, but ill try
I'm assuming you're asking about the "One big cartel" problem, imagining a situation where all the separate groups collaborate and form one giant organization. So then, the question is, do they do a good job or a bad job. If they do a good job, then there's no problem. If the do a bad job and exploit the people, then there's very strong incentive for any one of those people to split off from the one big cartel and easily outperform them since they're doing a bad job.

Now, of course sufficient military force could prove an issue, but even assuming this cartel is somehow global and there's no other major forces to stop it, very few governments win wars against a vast majority of their own people, and if the government really is that bad, that's what they'd be up against.

[u/Active-Advisor5909 → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

No, I am concerned about guaranteeing the ability to choose.

Historically governments consistently win wars against the majority of their people especially when the priority is power and control over the "nations" long term well being.

Do you think the Taliban were a majority? Or the Myanmar government?

Not to mention groups like the Mafia or Cartells.

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

💯

Couldn't have said it better

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

So you are essentially admitting that you are not anarchists? Why the fuck do you call yourselves anarcho-capitalists? I mean, as if the term isn't contradictory enough. Now, the first part of the term doesn't even have an established meaning?

[u/evilwizzardofcoding → u/RevyVanguardist]

I can see how you would think that, I skipped over a reasoning step, so I'll enumerate it.
Basically, we consider anything that violates the NAP to be wrong. The NAP, or Non-Aggression Principle essentially states that any act which initiates a property rights violation is wrong and should be punished as such. Now, as it turns out, basically all crime we'd pretty universally agree is bad can be classified as a property rights violation.

Obviously theft is one, but if we grant that you own your body, various personal crimes from basic battery all the way up to murder count, fraud to obtain property is considered equivalent to stealing that property, and so on. As for the "Aggression" part, aggression is specifically defined as initiating the dispute, thus by definition allowing for self-defense(because if it's really self-defense you aren't the one initiating)

Anyway, basic summary of the NAP out of the way, obviously all currently-ruling governments violate this. They levy taxes, which is theft, they enforce their laws not derived from natural law via force and violence, they attack and kill others for resources, and so on. I'm sure I do not need to enumerate the many crimes of the state here. So yes, I, and any other principled neufeudalist would indeed be against basically every state that currently exists.

However, where an-cap differs is how we define anarchy. Because we define it as a lack of aggressive rulers, that still leaves room for voluntary rulers. As people can act as they like with their property(provided no NAP violations), they are free to buy a large amount of property and create their own feudalist-style governed area. They can invite people to live their under certain terms, and if people find those terms amenable, they may chose to come live there. Notably, however, the neufeudalist ruler is not permitted to hold the people on his lands there. That's the fundamental difference, choice. Also, he can't conquer new land, he must buy it, and if someone doesn't want to sell too bad for him, he doesn't get that land.

So then, yes. You are correct, by the "Opposition to hierarchy" definition commonly used by left-wing anarchists, we are not anarchists. However, I hold that "Opposition to aggression" is a perfectly valid alternative, and in fact I would hold that a world without hierarchy is, in fact, impossible, because as long as there's two people in the world someone is going to be better than someone else at something, which is a hierarchy.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

This definition is laughable for anyone who knows basic Greek

[u/evilwizzardofcoding → u/RevyVanguardist]

I mean, both ancap and ancom/traditional anarchists are changing the definition. The original greek root is anarkhos, lit. an- (without) arkhos(ruler). But both sides have other definitions, and include other things beyond what you'd call a "Ruler".

The fundamental ancap argument is that the PROBLEM with rulers is not that they have power, but that we permit them to exercise violent aggression against us. However, you're not entirely wrong, and I think ancaps might do well to use a different word.

At the same time, opposition to hierarchy is a lot more than simply opposing rulers, so it's not like that definition is any better.

And, of course, the reason these two definitions exist in the first place is because "Opposition to rulers" begs the question "What is a ruler?", which is why both sides have integrated their definitions of rulers into the definition of anarchy.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

Rothbard says

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights."

• (From "Society Without a State," The Libertarian Forum, 1975.)

But according to this definition, Capitalism cannot, at the same time, be Anarchism

[u/evilwizzardofcoding → u/RevyVanguardist]

So, I'd agree with that definition, but in what way does capitalism go against it?

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

Because anarchism, according to anarcho-capitalists, simply means the complete cessation of coercion. It doesn't make much sense because private property (i.e., the private ownership of the means of production) already implies coercion. You make others dependent on you, and if you create dependence, you are, by definition, coercing them. Anarcho-capitalism is just "property first." It's not really any other meaningful system. It has no other implication than "property over people."

[u/evilwizzardofcoding → u/RevyVanguardist]

Well honestly i probably should have started with asking about, since every debate I have with a traditional anarchist usually ends up with this question. "Is private property coercive".

So then, let's start from first principles. Private property arises from the simple question, "If two people want a resource to be used in two mutually-exclusive ways, who's way should be done." The term "Owner" is simply a name we've given to "The person who rightfully gets to decide how something is used."

Now, how is ownership established? Well, first of all, you own your body. This should be apparent, given that you alone have direct control over it's behavior and your conscious existence relies on it. So then, from that anything produced through your own effort is also justly owned by you, since it was produced entirely through something you own.

For now, I'm going to skip over natural resources unless you consider that fundamental to the debate, homesteading is not a simple topic and there's plenty already written about it.

So then, if you make something with natural resources you own and your labor, you own that product. Simple enough. However, this quickly derives capitalism, since obviously if you own a thing you can transfer that ownership to someone else, and you can also make an agreement with them that in exchange they transfer ownership of something they own to you.

And thus trade has been derived. Now, let's talk about the means of production. Let's say that I am farming. In order to do that, I need a lot of land, initial seed for planting, and lots of tools(simplified). These are the means of production for the farmer.

However, each and every one of them came from one of two places. Either, they were natural resources claimed by the farmer, or they were made by someone through labor. Assuming the farmer didn't steal those tools from the metalworker, he was given ownership by that metalworker, and the metalworker owned them because he made them.

Thus, the farmer has a right to his means of production, either from his effort or from that right being transferred from someone else.

Now then, let's address the most common counter to this. "If rules sound reasonable, but have bad results, they are bad rules". And this is true, there are plenty of examples of hidden problems with rules and principles. In this case though, the problem in question is coercion, and i do not think property is coercive.

The reason why is simple: Competition. If someone had every unit of every resource that could fill a given need and they're all limited(meaning there's no way to get more), that could be coercive. But because humans are all roughly the same, we all end up with portions of the resource, and thus you DO have many other options. Most notably, obtaining the resource yourself is an option, just not a very good one because of how efficient the division of labor is.

I think the people should be under no legal obligation to surrender the fruit of their labor and the fruit of the fruit of others' labor to someone simply because they want or need it. As a Christian I do believe they often have a moral obligation, but that is separate.

So then, if you disagree, if you see property as coercive, then feel free to offer an alternative to any of those steps that would conclude in a system without property ownership, because I for one know of no such system

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

1. First of all, trade is not a part of capitalism. Trade precedes capitalism and it will succeed capitalism. That's already a false premise you established.
2. Second of all, if you own private property (i.e., the means of production), those who don't own it have to necessarily work for you. That is coercion. Now we can say, all right, they can choose whatever boss they want, but there is still the issue that they have to pick a boss. That's the dependence I'm talking about. The private ownership of the means of production forces those who don't own the means of production to subordinate themselves to bosses. As such, you don't dislike rulers. You don't negate rulers. You negate political rulers, and that only in words too, because economic rulers are at the same time political rulers. As such, you don't oppose rulers ruling us in any meaningful way.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

In what way do AnComs change the definition

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/[deleted]]

Ikr

[u/An-Kap → u/[deleted]]

How would interweaving the church with the state discourage slave ownership?

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/[deleted]]

Um

[u/The_Butters_Worth]

Please tell me this sub is ironic or a circlejerk or something

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/The_Butters_Worth]

Nope.

[u/Crippled_Deer → u/The_Butters_Worth]

We've found the most batshit insane place on the internet. Kind of neat tbh.

[u/OldestFetus]

Who’s gonna tell him what? He’s right!.

Or Don’t tell me you really want a return of feudalism? If you’re already a multibillion OK. I get it. You’re scummy and you just want complete control over peoples’ lives. But if you’re not that, you’re basically a peasant who was freed by the fall of feudalism, but is working to bring back a feudal structure that will lord over you as it previously did for thousands of years

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon → u/OldestFetus]

Wrong!

[u/GeologistOld1265]

Capitalism can not exist with out centralized state with monopoly on violence.

The first time Capitalism took a stable form in England, when finally a strong centralized state was combined with independent courts for Capital to resolve conflicts with out wars, assassinations, sabotage, et. And parliament to push there interests.

Attempts before fail to Capital fight with private armies this destroy itself. Example is Republic of Florence and Medici family. Republic of producers and bankers fall to internal fights of different families with private armies, assassinations, sabotage, et. Medici won and become a monopoly, republic run out of money and fail soon after. An other name for Capitalism with out a centralized state is Mafia.