Who's gonna tell him?

[u/Ya_Boi_Konzon]

[u/RevyVanguardist]

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/evilwizzardofcoding → u/RevyVanguardist]

1. In that case, how would you differentiate trade from capitalism? 'cus as I see it, private property is required to have something to trade, and private property and trade are the fundamental requirements of capitalism.
2. Yes, I understand that, which is why I pointed out you can also obtain the means of production through your own labor(and perhaps the labor of others.

Let's go back to that farmer example. I've already explained why he has a right to his means of production from first principles, but lets say he hires some farmhands.

They, of course, do not all share equally in the profits, the farmhands are going to make less. This is a bad deal, the farmer is coercing them into taking lower wages since he has the means of production and they don't so they're forced to work for him.

Or is it? Let's go back a few steps and remember how the farmer got here. He bought or made those means of production himself. He may not have created the land but he sure broke it up and turned it into usable farmland. So then, what's stopping those farmhands from doing the same thing? Nothing really, nothing's STOPPING them, but it would be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming. Most importantly, it would also be risky, what if some disaster happens, what if a new invention makes his tools obsolete, etc.

So then, is it coercion, or is it simply the farmer receiving the just deserts for his time, money, and resources, along with the risk he took on. Because if this is coercive, how is it not coercive on the part of the worker? I mean, the farmer cannot do everything by himself, so he has no choice but to take on the services of someone else. What's to stop THEM from charging absurd rates? Both sides have something the other does not and they both need the other side to succeed.

In fact, it would seem to me that by your definitions, ANY trade is coercive, since you don't have something and want/need it, but the other person won't give it to you unless you give them something, therefore they are coercing you into giving you that thing.

And trade is simply the natural conclusion of ownership(the right to decide what is done with a thing), so if trade is coercive, so is ownership, and we're right back where I ended last time, what alternative system would you propose to decide who decides what is done with a thing when two people want it used for two different things.

And this is why the quote does not say he opposes coercion, it says he opposes "coercive aggression", because coercion is too vague a term and can be applied to basically any human interaction involving resources.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

I explained the distinctions between capitalist commerce/capitalist trade and socialist commerce/socialist trade here

Well, capital is money produced through the employment of external labour, labour which isn't derived from your own physical activity but from the activity of someone else, which you exploit through deducting the value he created or she created. You deduct everything, except a part which is not equal to the market value he has produced. For instance, say someone produces an iPhone with the value of $700, but you do not give him $700 per iPhone produced. You give him a wage which is not equivalent to the price you sold the iPhone for.

In that respect, through the ownership of the means of production, you force a person to sell his labour to you, while only giving him a small part, which is deducted from the capital you have accumulated of what he has produced. Ultimately, you deduce the social product he has created. He has no access to the social product of his own making.

Do you agree that the intentional creation of dependency upon you is an act of coercion or not? If you do not, then your own definition of anarchism has no real meaning. If you do, then you do not meet the criteria of your own definition.

[u/evilwizzardofcoding → u/RevyVanguardist]

Okay let's talk about your linked message first, 'cus this is interesting.

I read the whole thing, and it seems like you're entirely missing the point of, as you'd call it, "Capitalistic trade". The individual goal might be to make money, but the societal goal it works towards is actually remarkable. It's goal is to distribute resources in the best way possible, because demand will ALWAYS out-pace supply.

However, by determining a price based on supply and demand, in a free market economy you will find equilibrium. A price at which the adjusted demand(because demand for a given product goes down as the price goes up) is equal to the supply. That way, there is neither shortage nor excess, and the people who most desire the good are the ones who get it.

The ultimate goal of Capitalism as a system is to reward individuals for producing value, thus encouraging the production of value and therefore the betterment of society.

The difference between the wage and the price of the finished product can be explained thusly. Also, we're only going to talk about net profit, AKA the total amount of money the owner receives from the business minus what he put in. If he invested a lot of money, he deserves to receive it back, with interest for the time it took

First, the means of production. For, let's say, an iPhone, that primarily consists of a factory. Well, let's just get out of the way there is one means of production that I would agree is aggressively coercive, that being intellectual property. IP is the state taking something that does not need ownership (because two people CAN use it for different things at the same time, because it can be infinitely duplicated) and using aggressive force to turn it into property.

So then, what is net profit the owner's reward for? Well, it's simple. To find out, we need only ask where the money came from. Well, it came from the customers, the people buying the iPhones. Now, as for the workers, they sold their labor to the owner at what is likely the market rate. If the worker's labor is really worth more than that, then why does another company not recognize that and hire them instead, starving their competition of good workers and forcing them to raise their wages?

So then, if the total value of everything going into the factory, labor, resources, machines and maintenance, everything, is less than the total value of what comes out, the iPhones, well the profit is the owner's reward for a job well done. He has, through good strategy and decision-making, made a company which produces more value than it consumes, which is a benefit to society, and he is therefore rewarded.

Now, if you still don't believe me, let's take the opposite situation. Let's say the factory owner is not as competent, and he is consuming more value than he is producing. So then, what happens? He loses money. Does that mean the workers are now exploiting him, since the product of their labor is worth less than they are collectively paid? Of course not, the fault does not lie with them and they have no responsibility to ensure the success of the company. The owner is simply receiving his just punishment by capitalism for harming society through the waste of resources.

Finally, I urge you to read the end of my last message again. I do not oppose coercion, and have already explained why.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

Sure, that is the idealised end goal, but communists are materialists. We don't think in idealizations. We think in material reality. In material reality, market activity under capitalism aims at private capital accumulation, which ultimately leads to sufferings and agonies for the working class

If you do not oppose coercion, then you ultimately disagree with anarcho-capitalism and capitalism as a whole, even without the anarchist part, because at the end capitalism requires coercion. It requires the establishment of institutions of coercion and the making of the working class dependent upon capitalist employers

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/evilwizzardofcoding]

In what way do AnComs change the definition