Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

Talk:Anarcho-capitalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Hoppe[edit]

" Hans-Hermann Hoppe's asinine support for monarchy"

I have my own criticisms of Hoppe, but this is not one of them. Hoppe does NOT actually support monarchy qua monarchy. He supports the elimination of the state, what he DOES state is that monarchy tends to be better than democracy. Again, I do not agree with him on this but I do not think his views should be distorted.

His reasoning is that monarchs have more of an incentive to consider the long term benefit of the nation when making political decisions because a member of their own family will inherit the office. While in democracies this rarely occurs. John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush are relatively rare examples in political systems that hold open elections. — Unsigned, by: ‎67.90.13.195 / talk / contribs

Obvious Bias is Obvious[edit]

I'm sort of new around here so I might be missing a meme common to pages on this wiki as opposed to wikipedia style work... But the bias and rampant inaccuracies in this article are so bad as to make it almost a parody of the truth. Is veracity not the goal of RationalWiki? There is as much truth here as there is in the Christian Science propaganda. I see also from the history that edits to correct these problems would be reverted immediately.

To cite one blatant example -- the Definition section spends the majority of its space talking about how people that oppose An-Caps define An-Caps as invalid rather than any actual defining language detailing the actual points of the movement as you would expect in any serious definition verbiage.— Unsigned, by: DisenthrallMe / talk / contribs

We don't try to be "unbiased" like Wikipedia. That said, if there is a factual inaccuracy in the article you're welcome to correct it (with credible sources of course). Christopher (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Changing the definition of 'anarchy' to disprove ancap philosophy.[edit]

Lots of that going on... Who cares if ancaps are or aren't real anarchists (they are), the only thing that matters is the argument. Now, I don't expect any of you commies to comprehend logical consistency, but ancap philosophy is based around the notion of 'just doing nothing'. This cannot be hypocritical, nor (internally at least) inconsistent. Taxation is not 'rent' because not even (most governments) the state itself claims ownership of the country as their private property; according to the homestead principle, to initially (and rightfully) claim ownership of unowned land, you must mix the land with your labor (which I can say, no government has probably ever done). The government has no right to stop me from not paying them some of my money when I am starting up a business and selling shit to the 'hot singles in my area'.Blandragny (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Section "But who will pick the cotton?"[edit]

Why was the section But who will pick the cotton? written like a talk page?

I think that comments/discussions should go in the Talk page, not in the Page. Continue below:

(About section But who will pick the cotton?) — Unsigned, by: McLaghing / talk / contribs 22:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Obviously, this is a limited analogy, as the abolitionist's moral objection to slavery was bolstered by the numerous practical examples of the use of paid agrarian laborers, while anarcho-capitalists lack the benefit of being able to demonstrably point at a contemporary "state-less society." But the point still stands that both form their arguments based on a moral objection. Unsigned, by: 67.191.189.244 / talk
You fail to see that the argument of the section is NOT the analogy slavery / State, which is there just to explain the origin of the title. The argument is that: (1) anarcho-capitalists think that the State is immoral because it violates the non-aggression principle. (2) most critics argue that without the State some important social functions would be impossible, but that is a kind of appeal to consequences, which can not move anarcho-capitalists because they answer: "it's immoral, abolish it, who cares of what will happen." McLaghing (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I think it was just an accident. Kazitor mistakenly thought they were talk page comments. CowHouse (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That quote on property[edit]

"Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him." Wouldn't that contradict anarcho-capitalist philosophy ? I very much doubt that all if any shareholders or business owners put what they own to use by means of their own bodies. Diacelium (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Starship Troopers fascist tripe?[edit]

Is there any argument to prove Starship Toopers is actually "a fascist tripe"?--94.136.157.90 (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

You could consult the movie and the novel, perhaps. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:7498:47D3:9C05:EF95 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who owns both the book and movie (the movie is a cult classic), yeah... If you failed to see the fascist elements, you'd have to be pretty blind. As in physically blind. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 03:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

TrADiTIoNal ANARCHisTs bELIEvE their "rEVoluTION" WOn'T DevOLvE iNTO moBOCrACY "bEcAuSe i SaId sO"[edit]

Pray tell how this hasn't been addressed about a million of times already? — Unsigned, by: Codefuser / talk / contribs 05:05, 28 July 2019‎

You should try providing evidence for your claims instead of saying "because I said so". Address criticisms, don't just delete them. Also, sign your talk-page posts with --~~~~ like this: --Annanoon (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it's unlikely that an anarchist state would devolve into a mobocracy. It's more likely it would turn into a dictatorship. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about signing, still not fully used to mediawiki. The Right to Be Greedy for example points out how through the basis of stirner's egoism is to be organized, as tired a book as it is conquest of bread also discusses the organization of an anarchic society, there were/are actual examples in places such as the free territory and EZLN. Also the fact that people use the term "anarchist state" alone is enough to tell how they are unfamiliar with anarchism and what it stands for. The question of settling disputes and so on (which lies behind the claim of mobocracy) is a tired one that has been engaged in too many times, see Barrett's work for this: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/george-barrett-objections-to-anarchism (No 11. and No. 4 stands to be the most relevant to this discussion). To claim that anarchists "just say so" is blatantly dishonest.Codefuser (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
While I think they're also likely to suffer the same fate, the left vision of an anarchist statesociety where people live, have a common culture and shared interests has a sense of communalism from universal education and community safety nets that will inoculate them to the idea of letting an individual seize control of society. To cite conquest of bread without that context, thinking it applies to a society where greed and power accumulation are seen as social goods and all other people are your rivals is... a bit unfair? The goal of acquiring as much power as possible as is the capitalist ideal is directly at odds with a society without a power structure. Someone will offer better pay than you're getting at the factory to go kill and seize the other factory. And you can't say "well everyone will uphold the non-aggression principle" as your only value, when "greed is good" is clearly another one of your values, puts the whole society on a flimsier foundation than you can possibly imagine. Warlords to tribal lords to feudalism is not just a likely consequence of your society it's an inevitable consequence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Can I also say it's been a long time since I've gotten to argue with a right wing with completely untenable beliefs who wasn't also a nazi sympathizer. It's refreshing. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not "right wing"? I'm about as far left as it gets, unless you for some strange reason considers anarcho communism and syndicalism to be "far right". And I objected to the part where it described general anarchism as that, not the part where it described anarcho capitalism as that. I don't buy into liberal bullshit like the NAP that ignores completely power analysis. Codefuser (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Also when I say "greed is good" etc it is done under a very specific framework of stirnite anarcho communism, it has nothing to do with the pseudo-egoism of Rand and the likes. Codefuser (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I just figured it was your position because you were complaining about the anarcho-capitalism page. Sorry, we don't usually get such sophisticated making-an-actual-point criticism here. My own disagreements with an-coms are a lot more subtle, and rely not just on flaws intrinsic to the logic of the ideology, but extrinsic factors based on "human nature". Which is such a big kettle of fish. It's indeed unfair to say that the reason anarchists think society wouldn't collapse is "because I said so". ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
So unless there is further objections within the next 24 hours I'll continue with my edit. Codefuser (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Go ahead and make the edit. If it sucks then we'll revert it. If it doesn't suck life goes on. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, okay. Your version kiiiiiiiiiinda sucks. See if you can't write the same thing in plain english in 20 words; that would work far better. The way you wrote it lacks punch, lacks snark, and really feels like it's going way out of its way, deep into ideological obscura, to defend anarchism. It's to the extent that it can't help but make the tone feel defensive. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)