I’m getting sick and tired of the same ol’ fallacies and the same ol’ unwillingess to listen, and the same ol’ strawmen. So listen the fuck up!
To all anarcho-capitalists, Libertarians, Ron Paulites, Randroids and whoever else comes here to defend your idols and your ideologies, take heed of what I write here so that our discussions will be pleasant.
I have had enough twisting of truths, covered insults, elitism and outright lies to last me a lifetime so the buck stops here. Either shape up and follow the reasonable rules I lay here, or GTFO.
This is a big no-no, alright? The last thing I want to do is correct your blatant disregard for (historical) facts when you wish to make a point. This quote is sample of this cancer.
History has proven me correct in both instances. The freest country on earth became the most prosperous and every country that ever had communism or socialism has suffered great losses in productivity and the rise of authoritative forces. What has happened to Cuba since the revolution? What happened to Russia and China. Each of these countries was once considered wealthy and then they became communist. The systems broke down.
I can live with honest mistakes that come from simply being ignorant of some historical facts but phrases such as the above are unacceptable. The fact that it is painfully easy to verify its falsity only means that you are being deliberately dishonest in order to propagandize. And I do not care for that. If that’s what you’re after, go find out some Ron Paul drones to talk to.
Outright lies such as the above will be served with a warning the first time, and a ban the second. And even the warning is too much but I’m prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you’re simply that ignorant. But be aware that if you are really so ignorant, you’d better get a clue. Quickly.
Finally get it into your thick heads that Correlation does not equal Causation
Yes I know that you think that everything good comes from Capitalism and everything bad from Socialism and the government but you have to understand that the world is a complex place. Your arguments simply boil down to “Any place that prospers must be because of Anarcho-Capitalism and any place that falters must be because of the government” and then look for facts to support this.
I have seen this more than enough times and I’m not impressed. Especially when someone points out a nation with a neoliberal policy which you’ve been praising for the last couple of years which when it failed, now suddenly you find out that the government did it. Why didn’t you say anything before?
This applies to the reverse of course, when you rush to blame Socialism (or whatever the fuck you think Socialism is) and the government for any failure, disregarding any and all external factors. Dictatorships in Africa? It has nothing to do with the US funding the dictators and everything to do with Socialism. US Economy failing? It has nothing to do with the last 30 years of neoliberal economics and all to do with Socialism/The Fed/The Government/Any other boogeyman.
You’re not convincing anyone but yourselves. If you’re going to make such an argument, you’re better off not commenting at all.
Read what I write, not what you think I mean.
When I say that Communism requires no government, I do not really mean “Communism requires government”. If you cannot understand how something might work without a government or another authority then ask! Do not assume that in this or that argument I must mean the government, jump to that conclusion and then accuse me in the same breath of being an authoritarian.
I have had enough of this shit.
If you show a failure to grasp this simple concept, once again you will get a warning and then a ban. I do not care to repeat myself all the time to someone who is unwilling to even read what I write in favour of his own preconceptions.
Know thy enemy
If you come here with the purpose to argue against Communism, you’d better have a clue on what it actually is. I have no intention of educating you as I go and there are quite a few books you can read. If all you’ve read is the Communist Manifesto, a propagandistic piece with as much detail as the Declaration of Independence, then you do not know Communism.
If you do display a blatant lack of knowledge of this aspect, I will most likely direct you to an article on my Misunderstanding Communism series that hopefuly dispels your misunderstanding or at least gives you my take on this issue. If you come after that and use the same goddamn argument you should have just read my refutation of, then you will get a warning. If you do not want to read what I’ve written on this subject, then you’re not here to discuss or learn, but to evangelize and you should GTFO!
I laugh at your courtier’s replies
When I criticize any argument you or one of your idols might make, I do not attempt to argue against your whole worldview. I simply refute what has been laid in front of me. If you then start quoting books that I should read before I can argue, I will just ignore them.
I can just as well suggest that you read anything I have in order to be able to argue with me, but this is simply absurd and we would never be able to converse. If you think an argument I make I wrong, point out the errors, do not suggest books and claim that they will convince me. I will not look at them.
The only way you can get me to possibly look at a book is to make coherent arguments which actually make sense so that my interest in raised in this topic. Then you can suggest a book that goes into detail on this matter and I will have an reason to check it out.
Since all of the above seem to be the bread & butter of anarcho-capitalists, a link will go to the Comment Policy to hopefully stop the inanity that has been spreading around here lately. If you do not like them, feel free to GTFO as you wouldn’t be adding anything to the conversation anyway. If you choose to ignore them in order to evangelize, then your hypocricy knows no bounds, you stalwart protectors of private property.
86 thoughts on “Anarcho-Capitalists, pay attention! I will not tolerate your bullshit.”
Well, yeah. Technically you're right but then I have to explain what minarchist is :-/
I'm not complaining about your use of the term, I'm complaining about the hypocrisy of people who do in fact call themselves anarcho-capitalists.
I'm not complaining about your use of the term; I'm complaining about the hypocrisy of people who do in fact call themselves anarcho-capitalists.
What a fun rant to read! I may not have the most in-depth knowledge of Communism but, fuck, at least I know what the hell it is!
I agree about the anarcho-capitalists. They don't really exist, though in the US don't they usually call themselves libertarians? They're the ones that complain about government whenever it gets in the way of profit, then complain whenever the government doesn't cover their ass…
uhhh no. A libertarian does not want the government to “cover their ass.” They prefer things to be done privately and locally.
Except when the government is protecting their private property…
I might be the sole dissenting opinion here, but as someone who is on neither side, I'll just say that I would consider it just as much an overreaction if someone like Oolon_Colluphid wrote a similar rant from their perspective …
This rant wasn't about Oolon with whom I managed to discuss in the end.
It's even funnier when ACs argue against communism and they haven't even read the Manifesto.
It's funny when anybody argues something without reading the basic literature of the ideology to which they argue against. When you promoted from captain obvious to major obvious?
And wtf is an anarcho-capitalist? You have to have abstract property rights to have capitalism, and you have to have a government to enforce abstract property rights. There are no anarcho-capitalists, only anarchists and minarchist capitalists.
You are clearly stupid, there's no reason for any a priori assumption about the need of government for defending rights. Everything can be accomplished privately.
Yeah, I gathered as much, but I could hardly use someone crazy as an example …
Random thought I've had off and on… How many die-hard Anarcho-Capitalists work minimum wage or very low level jobs for a living? I don't mean college kids in work-study or internship positions, but post-or-no college people genuinely working at a very low level position until death or retirement!
I suspect quite a few of them would change their tone if this were their lot in life. Haven't met one yet though…
Well, you just met one. And this guy's tone as been the same for 20 years.
Yeah but it was this crazie that triggered this post 🙂
Actually, you can find a lot of poor libertarians/anarcho-capitalists at this site: http://www.ccsindia.org
Read the bios of the people who work there – all of them.
Beautiful rant. I'm glad you have the guts to tell these people to GTFO.
Because "libertarian" means "anarchist" by definition and "anarcho-capitalist" means nothing at all, we should find a good term for these cryptostatists. Minarchists, propertarians, laissez-faire capitalists they can be called, but sometimes it doesn't grasp the idea fully.
As an ancap I must say I was thoroughly amused by your rant and would be happy to discuss the ideology with you. While my reading of communist literature is hardly extensive I have read the Manifesto, as well as Marx's "Wage, Labor, and Capital" and Engel's "Socialism – Utopian and Scientific". Outside of that I've discussed the subject of communism extensively with the folks at Socialist Worker.org and believe I can at least say I know what it is. On a comparative note I'm very familiar with the similarities of Marxism and Ancap, being that both are anarchist ideologies… as well as the subtle differences that lead to their rather divergent end states. Finally, I promise not to subject you to the sort of quotes you started your rant with, as I find them unnecessary since the flaws in communism are at its foundations.
“Random thought I’ve had off and on… How many die-hard Anarcho-Capitalists work minimum wage or very low level jobs for a living? I don’t mean college kids in work-study or internship positions, but post-or-no college people genuinely working at a very low level position until death or retirement!
I suspect quite a few of them would change their tone if this were their lot in life. Haven’t met one yet though…”
I’d wager a good deal more than you do socialists and communists. Funny how you rarely see any of either group that even WORK for a living, let alone in low-wage jobs or those which have been forcibly unionized.
You'd lose that wager.
There’s a place called DETROIT, you might like it. It has the following amenities:
-Public Hospitals where you wait in the lobby for 7 hours before you’re seen(if you’re in critical condition no one gives a fuck)
-Extensive Public Project Housing to give repeat felons their 5th Chance at life(this includes rapists and murderers)
-A plethora of Unions(that restrict your right to protest but still take money out of your paycheck)
-High taxes to punish the Rich
-Affirmative Action to punish White people
-Strict Gun Laws(to punish people protecting their homes from robbers/arsonists that plague the city)
P.S. Detroit was an economical superpower when they believed in laissez-fair Capitalism/limited Government. Both are paramount to the Anarcho Capitalism ideology.
Wow, the ability of AnCaps to delude themselves is astounding.
An honest question,
Is there a middle ground? I keep getting the feeling that neither wants a compromise from both anarcho-communists and ancaps. Reading these debates lead me to imagine hypothetical anarchist cap-com skirmishes of 2060. If we ever get that far…
Apologies for any ignorance, I’m just curious.
Honestly, most anarchists don’t really expect there’d be any AnCaps societies ever. Mostly because AnCap is a reformist strategy so they can’t really achieve any sort of overthrow on their own. If we have a LibSoc revolution, then AnCaps will not really be relevant.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your main argument is that an anarcho-communist society will provide both the freedom and capability, while anarcho-capitalism only provides liberty, but because not everyone has a lot of money you aren’t free to have the capability to buy what he/she wants? If so, I’ll say this… In a society, stateless or not, where things are equally distributed, that inherently prevents freedom. This is because limiting an individual (which is a must in equal distribution) to only specific amount of something, puts a ceiling on what it is they can achieve. I’m an Ancap society people are free to earn with no ceiling, people are also free to not earn anything at all. A true free society requires a fundamental freedom that allows people to earn what they want, this does mean people earning more than others, but no fundamental limitations are required.
> This is because limiting an individual (which is a must in equal distribution)
Does not follow
Lets say I have 1000 pieces of toilet paper. If we have 50 members, that means everyone can only receive 20 pieces of toilet paper in a society based around equal distribution. What I mean by limiting the individual is this…. every individual member has a maximum of 20 pieces. This sets a limit on the amount of toilet paper one can have. This fundamentally sets a limit on someone’s property and someones ability to attain property. In this case it comes down to a fundamental question on whether you believe people should accept an equal quantified amount, or whether you think people should have the ability to earn whatever amount they wish to earn.
No, let’s not. The real question is: Do we have enough toilet paper for everyone, or not?
If you did not have enough toilet paper for everyone, then I would think people would be very uncomfortable. If you join a society that has 100 dollars, ten people, and only one food item that costs 50 dollars to buy, that society would not survive very long. My point is, each community, society, nation, etc. has a quantified amount of resources such as wealth (even though most do not know the exact amount). That wealth can be divided equally among people, but depending on the amount of wealth and the population, each individual would receive a limited amount. In a capitalist society, people would have to earn that wealth individually which results in a separation of wealth, but does not have a binding limitation on the individual on the amount they attain within that quantified amount of resources. Freedom does not always equal equality and vice-versa.
If we don’t have enough toilet paper for everyone, we make more.
If a population is in need of more of a substance, and they decide to make more of that substance and equally distribute it among themselves, then they are forming a false-freedom within a limited environment. Everyone would be limited to that one type of toilet paper and the specified amount agreed upon. But why settle for an agreement of any substance or wealth? Why not have the freedom to be able to make as much money as you wish and buy from a range of different types of a substance based on your choice?
Does not follow.
In a society where things are equally-distributed, there would most-likely be only one brand, as there is no need for multiple brands. This is because if everything is equally distributed, if some had one brand, and other people had another, they wouldn’t own the same thing. The amount of toilet paper produced would also be decided to be rationed among the populace – resulting in specified and limited possible amount to attain.
None of this follows from anything. You just made a unbased statement. I argue that in a society where there is no possibility for inequality, people will have as much toilet paper as they need, from as many brands as people think they need to have.
This simply will not happen in reality. Your whole premise is based upon a communal agreement. But why would they agree to have multiple brands instead of one brand? I don’t follow the logic in why they would do that. In you society people are limited to what is agreed upon. If there are people out there that want to settle for agreed upon products then let them. Personally, I prefer a society where the individual is free to provide for himself with no limitations.
Nobody needs to agree to anything. If any group of people needs a different type of a commodity than what is already out there, they will band together to create it for themselves.
So they are agreeing upon a product for all of society that is equally distributed then? Else, would the whole of the populace agree upon a new product for just a few people?
They co-operate between them to make a product.
Alright, if you ever find your society let me know how it works out for you. This is a subjective debate nonetheless, rooted in fundamental ideals. I still hold that true freedom comes from economic and social freedom, which results in some having more than others, but allows those with less to still have the opportunity to earn as much as they can earn. I believe fundamentally in adequate opportunity rather than equality of results. Adequate opportunity is something I will continue to strive towards bettering (without using a large centralized government). With that, I will wish you a Merry Christmas (Or Happy Holidays).
You’re right on Bryce. This guy will never listen to logic and merely stands behind his own idealism. db0, do you know anything about the basic principles of money or economics? If you did, you would realize that real money is an emergent market phenomenon. It seems rather contradictory to say anarcho-communist because a free market economy is what will naturally emerge in the absence of an imposed and unnatural hierarchy. Again, hierarchy is itself a natural phenomenon. Just look at the natural world. Live with it! A communist economy implies a totalitarian state. Who’s going to make the rules? Who’s going to enforce the rules? Where are the incentives? Good luck with that without the use of extreme coercion. If you want to have your own little commune society, you can have that within a free market economy. That’s the beauty of freedom and liberty.
The OP is for people like you. Read it and then kindle GTFO.
I’m not sure where you get your ideas…
Is this not the premise of your society? Is it not a communal agreement to equally distribute wealth so that nobody will have more than the other? I’m under the impression that you believe in a stateless communistic society. If so, does that not mean that the populace must decide for themselves that wealth must be distributed equally?
There’s no need to equally distribute anything. All that is agreed is that people are not considered to own more than they personally use. The rest falls in place by itself.
” All that is agreed is that people are not considered to own more than they personally use.” And what if a person needs to use more that is allowed to him? What if the need of each individual differs so greatly that is it incredibly hard to adhere to From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
If they need it, then they get it.
It’s quite obvious to see when someone has a need and when someone has greed.
I would not prefer to live in a society where you are dependent upon other people within that society to get what you need. I would much rather prefer a society where very basic necessities are provided/guaranteed either through law (within a very limited government) or through a social agreement in an anarchist society. From there, I think people should be free to earn as much as they want to earn. Why have a society based only upon need, when you can have a society based on both need and want? This does not mean we must all be greedy, but at the same time a clear definition of what “need” is is in order. Is need based upon survival? Would it be based upon what is needed to be happy? Citizens will still give help to others, i see it everyday, but they should also be able to earn whatever standard of living they can achieve.
Doesn’t that go counter to your claim that old and infirm will be taken care of in libertopia?
No it doesn’t. This is a fallacy. Because the old and infirm need to depend on others for their needs, does not mean that the majority of capable people also have to. This doesn’t mean we ignore them, we should care for them, which we will do privately. We see plenty of people do this today.
How is it a fallacy?
If old and infirm deserve to have their needs fulfilled without “earning it”, so does everyone else. Either everyone’s needs should be fulfilled or nobodys.
In an anarchist society nobody is stopping you from being what you want to be. You are just stopped from accumulating wealth because that leads to social inequality and eventually hierarchies.
My argument is not against anarchism, it is against a communist economy. Anarchism does not need a communist economy. So your argument is “You are free to to be what you want to be, but you aren’t free to earn as much wealth as you can earn?” Okay.
Even in non-communist anarchism, like mutualism, is built to prevent accumulation of wealth.
Anarchism as whole is built around the concept of communal assertion of agreement vs forceful agreement by that of a state. Anarchism has a different definition depending on who you ask. Some argue it just means a self-governed people with no state, while other maintain it must be free of any heirarchical structure. I am simply an advocate of liberty. I believe people are free to accumulate as much money as they can earn, but does not guarantee that others can not threaten that accumulation through fair competition. It is near impossible to have a free market and not have some making more than others.
Actually, no. That’s not what anarchism is built around, which is why AnCaps are always so confused they are not recognised as Anarchists.
Anarchism is about the abolution of hierarchies. The removal of all leaders. This by necessity includes voluntaryism, but voluntary interactions are not enough to make an anarchist society.
Again the definition of anarchy is different depending on who you ask. You hold that it must include the abolution of heirarchies, while other like myself simply believe it to mean a broader sense a stateless society that can be divided into further voluntary agreements of different types of economic policies. Regardless of that, i’m not in the business of trying to fit a definition, I am an advocate of liberty in all areas, including the freedom to own the means of production of your own business. I am an advocate of private property, while I would assume you only believe in personal property. These are principal beliefs that are rooted in opinion and can not really be changed. That being said, countless ideas have been utilized through building a private entity using human as workers on a consensual basis. What I do not agree with is a state providing a legal shield or hand for that entity to free it from any competition and wrong-doings.
You may make more than others, but you’re not allowed to accumulate means of productions that you cannot use yourself. I.e. wage slavery is impossible in free-marker anarchism (i.e. mutualism)
But you stated accumulation of wealth earlier, not means of production used to produce wealth. Do you have a response to this question, “”How are you going to stop me from controlling the means of production of my own business and how are you going to stop me from hiring humans on a consentual basis to help me without a state?”
Nonsense, it is more than possible. In any case, anarchism is not about “owning the means of production of your own business” since you own what you personally use. If you try to “own” enough to hire wage workers though, that would be impossible. Nobody will accept your claim. If you claim more than you can personally use, it will be expropriated.
One does not necessarily lead to the other. If anything a money-system much more often leads to the vast majority not having any money and not even being able to buy the necessities they need. Not to mention that a moneyless system does not mean that you don’t have choices if there’s a demand for them.
Okay so we are talking about accumulation of wealth. First off I think we both can agree that the government aiding business is wrong as this results in monopolies. However, in a society where business is not protected from competition, people are allowed to build off their ideas and compete with other businesses. People can then work for employers based upon merit, and make money that way. There will still be plenty of goods at low prices for them to buy through competition. A free market does not hamper people from having money, it offers people the liberty to make as much money as they can earn. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help those with less, I give to charity all of the time, but at the same time, I wouldn’t find it fair nor inviting to be limited to the same amount of wealth as everyone else.
This whole sentence is just one big assumption pulled out of nowhere.
I can just as much argue that in a society where the state does not exist to protect private property rights, there will be no wage-slaves since nobody will work for a boss when they can work for themselves.
But all this is just intellectual masturbation. There’s no point in talking about a “society where business is not protected from competition” because that’s just theory based on assumptions which I further claim are based on flawed premises.
I’m not interested in talking about theoretical utopias. I can imagine perfect fascism or feudalism in my mind as well, so what? I’m only interested in hearing how we’ll get there from where we are now.
And I would say If they can work for themselves, then let them. Let them do whatever they wish. Let them earn what they can earn. If they don’t want to work for somebody, and they can live on their own, then let them.
Why are you telling me? Tell that to the capitalists who would arbitrarily claim all the means of production in your theoretical society.
That society would also be very stupid. Why do they only have one food item to buy and why do they even need money?
This is what is called an analogy; the one food item represents a limited number of resources.
Correction: This is why it’s called a weak analogy fallacy
Over trading goods in a propertarian system, sure. Over a gift or communist economy, no.
It is not a fallacy. It is true; I just simplified the numbers so we weren’t doing unnecessary math. I could have said we have any specific amount of gas, and each person would only be limited to a certain number of gas in an equal-distribution society.
“Over trading goods in a propertarian system, sure. Over a gift or communist economy, no.”
Sure, if everyone has the same things, then you can trade things equally, but then that requires everybody has the same things of the same value. Let me know how happy people in a system where they must have a specific and limited amount of things are.
You didn’t simplify, you setup a convenient scenario which is unrealistic to use to argue anything. Ergo a weak analogy.
And I would have said that people would move to other forms of energy rather than have some with a lot of energy and some with none.
I don’t think you understand what a gift or communist economy entails…
So let me understand you point of view. You only believe in the equal distribution of wealth, but not what people buy with that wealth? But then you don’t want to use money, but instead, direct trade? How then do you propose wealth is distributed equally (if not through money)?
From each according to their ability. To each according to their need.
I understand that, my question was whether you believe your society would agree to use money or direct trade?
If there is a resource that is limited and not possible to increase, I fail to see why any one person deserves more of it than another. If some have need of it and some not, then sure. But if it’s a truly limited luxury resource then it’s better to share equally than allow someone to hoard.
Nobody deserves anything other than what they earn.
So seriously injured/sick/disabled or very old/young people deserve to die. Good to know you have such a misanthropic view.
That is clearly not what I meant. I think you tend to take things out of context and apply them to all everything. I was referring to wealth and luxuries, not the well-being of people. How is it fair to say people deserve to die, and not say they deserve to live? You claim that is my stance, when I have no such stance.
How is it not what you meant? How did you specifically mean only wealth and luxuries? How is wealth not what allows someone to provide the basics for themselves?
I am not claiming what your stance is, I am merely taking your arguments to their logical conclusion.
You clearly stated I have a misanthropic view, when I have a complete opposite view. I never once stated I believed anyone “deserved” to die and I have no idea how you logically came to that conclusion. You must note that I am not complete AnCap, but rather a minarchist. I think if it is possible to achieve an AnCap society, but it is easier and more realistic to have a very limited government that protects basic things like the right to life. But I completely believe in freedom both socially and economically.
You stated that nobody deserves anything else than what they earn. Therefore someone who cannot earn anything, like someone disabled or too old and infirm, logically deserves nothing. Thus they will starve and die. Logical conclusion.
Please take things into context. We were talking about wealth, sorry for not being specific. Yes wealth is the means to basic necessities, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t receive help if you are old or disabled. My grandmother is old and does not work, but I provide for her. The same goes with my disable cousin. The view that if you are old and unable to work, that society will just throw you to the gutter is not a very misconstrued view, regardless of the economic policy. The Red Cross offers more than FEMA does, and it is based on charity.
You argument certainly does mean that. If you “don’t deserve it” then why would you receive it? I’m not telling you that you are a bad person personally, I’m merely pointing out the flaws in your arguments.
I think you misunderstood my argument then. My argument is that you should be able to earn any amount of money that you can earn. If you don’t get an education, if you don’t try to better yourself, why should you deserve the same things as those who do? That was my point. I believe people should be free to earn any amount and better their life to what they want it to be. I believe a socially and economically free society is where this can only exist. This also means people are free to help each other, which there is loads of proof of people already doing.
Comments are closed.