Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Socialism

[Ryland R. Taylor-Almanza]

I don't know much about political philosophies, but I am very interested in them. Since I've joined the Bitcoin community, I've seen those terms used a lot, and it was the first time I had ever heard of them. I've done some research, and I pretty much get the gist of them, but I'd like to hear from you guys. If you associate yourself with either of these, I would like to know...

• Which one
• Your brief definition of it
• Why you believe in it

I'm not trying to start a debate thread (Though it's not discouraged,) I'm just curious. Thanks.

[1713562058]

1713562058

[1713562058]

1713562058

[1713562058]

1713562058

[1713562058]

1713562058

[JA37]

Heard of AC, never heard of AS.
Don't associate with either, now that I've read some about both.
I think it's the "A"-thing that bothers me a bit.

[theymos]

I believe anarcho-capitalism is the best system possible until society reaches a state of post-scarcity.

It's explained in this lecture:
http://vimeo.com/13550780

[Ryland R. Taylor-Almanza]

Heard of AC, never heard of AS.
Don't associate with either, now that I've read some about both.
I think it's the "A"-thing that bothers me a bit.

I don't plan on it, I'm just curious.

[Garrett Burgwardt]

I believe anarcho-capitalism is the best system possible until society reaches a state of post-scarcity.

It's explained in this lecture:
http://vimeo.com/13550780

I agree with theymos (though I haven't watched the video).

Anarcho-Capitalism is a society in which no entity has a legal monopoly (the legal part being the important bit). Note that I'm sure others define ACapitalism to be very different.

Anarcho-Capitalism is the best system I've encountered to let market forces and competition, combined with a lack of monopolistic coercion provide the highest standard of living to the most possible people, regardless of their status/race/gender/etc. Money is money, and human greed trumps all. Why not put that to work for us?

[Bimmerhead]

I'll be interested to see how an Anarcho-Socialist defines the term, since it would seem that Socialism requires the use of force by definition.

[lumos]

I'll be interested to see how an Anarcho-Socialist defines the term, since it would seem that Socialism requires the use of force by definition.

socialism by opt in/opt out, stigmatism and ostracism. it is more freeing to not be tied down by wealth, freedom to pursue your dreams or freedom to make profits which by default infringe upon someone elses freedom? AC is just a different form of control (economic)

[Anonymous]

I'll be interested to see how an Anarcho-Socialist defines the term, since it would seem that Socialism requires the use of force by definition.

socialism by opt in/opt out, stigmatism and ostracism. it is more freeing to not be tied down by wealth, freedom to pursue your dreams or freedom to make profits which by default infringe upon someone elses freedom? AC is just a different form of control (economic)

Profits without wealth creation? What?

[左]

edit.

[theymos]

Anarchism is lack of a government. The system described in the video I linked above has no government and employs the use of capitalism, so the term "anarcho-capitalism" seems accurate to me. Terminology doesn't really matter, though.

Something that most "capitalists who don't like states" can't answer is, how to redress past wrongs. The vast majority of wealth was stolen at some point.

That would be for protection agencies to deal with. One of the reasons I like anarcho-capitalism is its ability to deal with hard-to-decide edge cases like this in a fairer way than any other proposed system I've seen.

[kiba]

"Anarcho"-capitalism is a contradiction in terms.
Anarcho-socialism is a tautology.

Anarchism is about freedom, specifically freedom from social hierarchy. The only fetters on freedom should be those that fetter the ability of a person to restrict the freedom of others.

Let define our non-favorite ideology out! Anarcho-socialism is not anarchism, it's statist!

[左]

Anarchism is lack of a government. The system described in the video I linked above has no government and employs the use of capitalism, so the term "anarcho-capitalism" seems accurate to me. Terminology doesn't really matter, though.

Something that most "capitalists who don't like states" can't answer is, how to redress past wrongs. The vast majority of wealth was stolen at some point.

That would be for protection agencies to deal with. One of the reasons I like anarcho-capitalism is its ability to deal with hard-to-decide edge cases like this in a fairer way than any other proposed system I've seen.

The term Anarchism has been in use for over 100 years to mean more than just anti-government or lack of government. It is only relativity recently that "capitalists who don't like states" have started to claim the term for themselves.

Also, you haven't really addressed the question in the second part of your post. I originally from a country where the land was effectively stolen from the original inhabitants by Europeans. That's a single example of a past wrong, which can't be addressed by magical hand waving. There are many more recent examples of governments, and/or powerful individuals or other groups, just stealing resources (including land). Yet this is now recognized by all the other states.

[kiba]

The term Anarchism has been in use for over 100 years to mean more than just anti-government or lack of government. It is only relatvity recently that "capitalists who don't like states" have started to claim the term for themselves.

Also, you haven't really addressed the question in the second part of your post. I originally from a country where the land was effectively stolen from the original inhabitants by Europeans. That's a single example of a past wrong, which can't be addressed by magical hand waving. There are many more recent examples of governments, and/or powerful individuals or other groups, just stealing resources (including land). Yet this is now recognized by all the other states.

I am not responsible for my ancestor's wrongdoing to another. As far as I know, one of my ancestor probably got raped and have a baby.

[左]

edit.

[kiba]

Socialism is very much about equality.

I don't believe in the goal of equality.

[左]

The term Anarchism has been in use for over 100 years to mean more than just anti-government or lack of government. It is only relatvity recently that "capitalists who don't like states" have started to claim the term for themselves.

Also, you haven't really addressed the question in the second part of your post. I originally from a country where the land was effectively stolen from the original inhabitants by Europeans. That's a single example of a past wrong, which can't be addressed by magical hand waving. There are many more recent examples of governments, and/or powerful individuals or other groups, just stealing resources (including land). Yet this is now recognized by all the other states.

I am not responsible for my ancestor's wrongdoing to another. As far as I know, one of my ancestor probably got raped and have a baby.

OK, thought experiment.

Before you were conceived, your mother stole the life savings (a significant amount of money) off an otherwise blameless and innocent person (Person A). You were born, and then raised with the benefit of your mother having lots of extra cash that she wouldn't otherwise have had. She dies, and you inherit that money. Person A then discovers who stole the initial cash, and tracks down the money to you.

Are you responsible for handing back the money your mother stole to the person she originally stole it from? Even though you are not responsible for your ancestor-(one generation)'s wrong doing (something I completely agree with incidentally).

OK, now, it wasn't your mother who did the thieving, but her mother (before your mother was even conceived). Person A managed to live to a ripe age, and is still alive when, years later, they track down the cash to you. (It's the same cash, though perhaps reduced, due to there being only one child in each generation, and all the cash being inherited by that child).

Now, it was not your mother, or grandmother, but your great-great-great-grandmother/grandfather who did the thieving. The original person who lost the money is no longer alive, neither, is the original thief. But, there is still a clear line of inheritance, with the bulk of the money going to you. There is also a clear line from the original Person A (who's descendant's have lived in poverty since) and their descendant having discovered the theft, discovered who was the original thief, has tracked down the money, to you.

If you the right to inherit clean money, (and, in some cases, estates inherit debts), then surely someone has the right to inherit the right to stolen property? (I'll also note here, in most jurisdictions, a person who unwittingly buys stolen property still has no claim on that, if the original owner can be found.)

The difference between the clean-cut thought experiment and the real world is that things aren't as clean-cut. But the point remains that the vast majority of land was stolen at some point, and the vast majority of "wealth" as well I would bet. How do you justify that theft, unless you say "it's OK if it was more than X years ago"?

[左]

Socialism is very much about equality.

I don't believe in the goal of equality.

I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out that socialism doesn't actually equal statism. Indeed, I would say that the only true socialism, stateless. It's a definitions thing, I was just trying to get the definitions clear.

[da2ce7]

I don't' care what society people make, providing human interactions are voluntary.  Aggressive violence is evil.

So my philosophy is: Voluntaryism

I believe the best (and most moral, and natural) economic model that a free society can choose to use is laissez-faire capitalism.

I'm happy for people to choose other ways of living their life, but I will choose to trade capital.

[左]

So, Capitalist A has laid claim to a large amount of land (previously recognized by the state, before the revolution, now there's no state). Individualist B comes along and notices that there's this great land just sitting there not being used for anything. Like prime farmland! Oh, 'cept there is a sign that says all the land belongs to Capitalist A.

Individualist B takes down the sign and gets to work creating "wealth", growing vegetables etc.

If Capitalist A comes along and uses violence to get Individualist B off the land, is that aggressive or defensive?

[da2ce7]

So, Capitalist A has laid claim to a large amount of land (previously recognized by the state, before the revolution, now there's no state). Individualist B comes along and notices that there's this great land just sitting there not being used for anything. Like prime farmland! Oh, 'cept there is a sign that says all the land belongs to Capitalist A.

Individualist B takes down the sign and gets to work creating "wealth", growing vegetables etc.

If Capitalist A comes along and uses violence to get Individualist B off the land, is that aggressive or defensive?

Aggressive of course, you said that 'Capitalist A comes along' and was not 'making productive use.'
Capitalist A had no right to claim 'ownership' over something that is not a product of his time and and effort.