Anarcho-Capitalism and Anarcho-Socialism

[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)

Profits without wealth creation? What?

as in i'm saying there is a choice between, freedom to not be tied down by some job you need to do to earn money and to instead pursue your dreams, or alternatively you have the freedom to control your money and make profits, and economics is a zero sum game so someone will lose out.

[1713966172]

1713966172

[1713966172]

1713966172

[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?

as in i'm saying there is a choice between, freedom to not be tied down by some job you need to do to earn money and to instead pursue your dreams, or alternatively you have the freedom to control your money and make profits, and economics is a zero sum game so someone will lose out.

I don't think it is. I think conscious economics is a win-win situation for all.

Tied down to money? It's called having to sustain yourself as an organism. Nobody can do it for you. I'm sorry we're not immortal.

[barbarousrelic]

As a thought experiment, what would you guys say to the following assertion:

"Saudi Arabia is a perfect anarcho-capitalist (or libertarian) society. It just so happens that all the land is owned by one family, who are justly free to make their own rules for people they choose to allow on their property."

[Anonymous]

As a thought experiment, what would you guys say to the following assertion:

"Saudi Arabia is a perfect anarcho-capitalist (or libertarian) society. It just so happens that all the land is owned by one family, who are justly free to make their own rules for people they choose to allow on their property."

It isn't much of libertarian society if the family denies citizens the right to property.

[barbarousrelic]

As a thought experiment, what would you guys say to the following assertion:

"Saudi Arabia is a perfect anarcho-capitalist (or libertarian) society. It just so happens that all the land is owned by one family, who are justly free to make their own rules for people they choose to allow on their property."

It isn't much of libertarian society if the family denies citizens the right to property.

The House of Saud permits people to live on their land with certain agreed-upon restrictions, one of which is that they can't have property. Is this agreement not something a person should be allowed to set up on their property in a libertarian society?

[kiba]

The House of Saud permits people to live on their land with certain agreed-upon restrictions, one of which is that they can't have property. Is this agreement not something a person should be allowed to set up on their property in a libertarian society?

That's a big land claim. I can't imagine homesteading that much properties.

[barbarousrelic]

The House of Saud permits people to live on their land with certain agreed-upon restrictions, one of which is that they can't have property. Is this agreement not something a person should be allowed to set up on their property in a libertarian society?

That's a big land claim. I can't imagine homesteading that much properties.

So a libertarian/ancap society can have limits on how much property a person can possess?

[da2ce7]

So a libertarian/ancap society can have limits on how much property a person can possess?

No, but there are two rules.  You must not have acquired the property by force, and must be making use of it.

[kiba]

So a libertarian/ancap society can have limits on how much property a person can possess?

I think you gotta be able to make these lands productive. It doesn't matter if you don't consume it yourself.

I mean, if there's an abandoned factory that nobody was taking for a whole years or that there is no guards for a whole year...then I think it would make sense to take the property and homestead it.

Of course, the whole question of stickability of property is a big issue. I think a good rule of thumb is that it should

a) prevent conflict

b) incentivize the owner/capitalist to develop the property.

A good example of this conflict is the Discovery Channel's The Colony. The colonists homestead a factory they thought was abandoned and that nobody was using it. They build a lot of things to make it their. For example, they increase the security of factory. They installed solar panel scavenged from local sources. They construct various apparatus that make life living in the colony more bearable. Of course, the original owner and his girlfriend came. The colonists recognize them as equal co-owners because they have the key to the place. However, they squandered resources so much that the colonist have to kick them out.

[genjix]

So a libertarian/ancap society can have limits on how much property a person can possess?

I think you gotta be able to make these lands productive. It doesn't matter if you don't consume it yourself.

I mean, if there's an abandoned factory that nobody was taking for a whole years or that there is no guards for a whole year...then I think it would make sense to take the property and homestead it.

Of course, the whole question of stickability of property is a big issue. I think a good rule of thumb is that it should

a) prevent conflict

b) incentivize the owner/capitalist to develop the property.

A good example of this conflict is the Discovery Channel's The Colony. The colonists homestead a factory they thought was abandoned and that nobody was using it. They build a lot of things to make it their. For example, they increase the security of factory. They installed solar panel scavenged from local sources. They construct various apparatus that make life living in the colony more bearable. Of course, the original owner and his girlfriend came. The colonists recognize them as equal co-owners because they have the key to the place. However, they squandered resources so much that the colonist have to kick them out.

That's normal anarchism (non ancap) you're describing.

You can read more about the 'homesteading' movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting

[kiba]

That's normal anarchism (non ancap) you're describing.

From an economist's viewpoint, I think property right incentivize people to produce and prevents/minimize conflicts. It just make sense.

It is only incidental that some political philosophies endorse it.

However, it is safe to said that anarcho-capitalists believe in homesteading too.

[qbg]

The way capitalism is defined by the majority of anarcho-socialists makes it incompatible with anarchism. There is, however, at least a subset of anarcho-capitalists that define capitalism in such a way that it is compatible with anarcho-socialism.

[deadlizard]

Capitalism and socialism are statist paragdimes.
Anarchy is freedom from government violence and theft

[The Script]

"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.

You will never be free from social hierarchy as long as humans are involved.  However, I agree with the second part.  It's just that the practical application of it is not clear-cut.

Socialism is about a worker receiving the full value of their labor.

Who decides what is the "full value" of the labor?  

Capitalism is about certain individuals accumulating resources (capital) which they cannot personally use, as there is too much of it. These individuals then either: 1) hire others to use these resources (means of production) to produce more resource, taking a share of what was produced (profit) though the capitalist did not actually do any of the work; or 2) rent out the resources (e.g. land, houses).

It is important to note that work is not only physical labor, but management, business forecasting, utilizing the knowledge of how best to employ resources, etc.

The accumulation of capital is how economies grow and how the standard of living rises.  If individuals could only have the resources they can only employ physically, then we will all end up in subsistence lifestyles.  That's fine if that's what you want, but it is not what I want.  I like large companies that used accumulated capital to provide me with technological innovations and cheap services to raise my standard of living.  Is it not coercion for you to take that away from me?  Dictating that individuals can only have resources they can immediately employ is a restriction of freedom.  Do I misunderstand your position?


**Edited to fix the quotations.

[no to the gold cult]

As a thought experiment, what would you guys say to the following assertion:

"Saudi Arabia is a perfect anarcho-capitalist (or libertarian) society. It just so happens that all the land is owned by one family, who are justly free to make their own rules for people they choose to allow on their property."

It isn't much of libertarian society if the family denies citizens the right to property.

The right to property? What, so... land-reform? Socialist allotments of resources?

[­­­Atlas_]

They could sell the property for labor or money in exchange.

[FatherMcGruder]

Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are crumby terms. There's really just capitalism and anarchism, with various subcategories for anarchism. Anarchists desire either the peaceful obsolescence or violent destruction of capitalism and government. They also believe that the two are inseparable. Anarchist positions range from mutualism, who's subscribers believe in markets, money, and some property rights, to communism who's subscribers do not believe in money, markets, or property rights.

Capitalists need a state of some kind in order to separate workers from the products of their labor so as to become landlords, employers, and usurers. Capitalists assume a range of positions with one extreme including anarcho-capitalism. These capitalists wish to abolish government, but fail to realize the inseparability of government and capitalism. In the absence of governments as we commonly understand them, people would have to create very small ones so as to engage in capitalism. For example, if someone wanted to take the product of the labor of some farmers, he would need the ability to kick them out if they don't obey. As such, he would have to establish a monopoly of force over the territory containing the farm. He can provide the force himself or get it from a larger government.

[deadlizard]

Capitalists need a state of some kind in order to separate workers from the products of their labor so as to become landlords, employers, and usurers. 

Socialists need a state of some kind in order to separate workers from the products of their labor so as to distribute it evenly among those who didn't earn it.

[MoonShadow]

Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are crumby terms. There's really just capitalism and anarchism, with various subcategories for anarchism. Anarchists desire either the peaceful obsolescence or violent destruction of capitalism and government. They also believe that the two are inseparable. Anarchist positions range from mutualism, who's subscribers believe in markets, money, and some property rights, to communism who's subscribers do not believe in money, markets, or property rights.

Capitalists need a state of some kind in order to separate workers from the products of their labor so as to become landlords, employers, and usurers. Capitalists assume a range of positions with one extreme including anarcho-capitalism. These capitalists wish to abolish government, but fail to realize the inseparability of government and capitalism. In the absence of governments as we commonly understand them, people would have to create very small ones so as to engage in capitalism. For example, if someone wanted to take the product of the labor of some farmers, he would need the ability to kick them out if they don't obey. As such, he would have to establish a monopoly of force over the territory containing the farm. He can provide the force himself or get it from a larger government.

Apparently the priesthood doesn't teach economics in seminary. 

Hey, Father; would you mind attempting to define "capitalism" in your own words?  It's really hard to debate with someone speaking another language.

[FatherMcGruder]

Hey, Father; would you mind attempting to define "capitalism" in your own words?  It's really hard to debate with someone speaking another language.

There isn't really an official definition of capitalism, but it is essentially a system of hierarchy. It allows for the existence of employers, landlords, and usurers who rule over employees, tenants, and borrowers.