AnarchyBoard

Pantuxia wrote:

Not true. A lot of things you ancaps seem to forget is that there are such things as private militias. If we lived in an Ancap world, the "government" would simply be corporations and the wealthy, except they wouldn't have anything holding them back from slaughtering anyone who didn't buy their product, or for any other reason. Have you forgotten the Blackwater incident?

Forcing everyone to be equal will lead to coercion. Humans can't naturally be equal,equality has to be enforced by a higher power.

Pantuxia wrote:

Not equal in terms of skill, no. In terms of wealth, a non-capitalist system is possible.

But the wealth motive keeps people going. A person who is earning £1 an hour will work far less hard than a person earning £100 an hour in the same job.

Pantuxia wrote:

Why should wage labor be necessary to survival?

What will happen if somebody creates their own private property? Getting demolished by the majority is coercion. Which therefore shouldn't exist in anarchism as it completely goes against free will.

Astrum Nigrum wrote:

there are many strange outcomes after certain issues, but none have been as strange as the one i got today. secessionists took control of a province and i chose the only option that doesn't involve a military intervention, but instead let the secessionists secede. now my authoritarianism increased threefold while political freedoms dropped dramatically. also pacifism and intelligence went down...

I didn't comment on this one in editing, but it's by design. The editors figure no government would ever actually let a province secede by force - that option specifically says you'll cut off their electricity (and I have to assume other services too) and see how they like it. That's not what you do when you're letting someone leave peacefully. I agree it could be worded a little clearer - I'll run that up the flagpole.

There aren't a whole lot of "smash the state"-friendly issues in the game (which I suppose makes sense given that the player is an all-powerful leader who makes every decision of importance :-p ). If you've got an idea for something a little more subversive, go ahead and write it up!

Capitopia world wrote:

But how do you expect everyone to be completely equal and not set up their own private property? Punishments are not very anarchistic.

As he just said, private property needs the state for laws against trespassing and in an anarchist society, there is no state, so how can you set up private property?

Anarchist commies wrote:

As he just said, private property needs the state for laws against trespassing and in an anarchist society, there is no state, so how can you set up private property?

I would call anarcho-capitalism the anarchism of freedom, not complete anarchism. Plus, how do you expect everybody to not set up their own private property in an anarchist society?

Anarchist commies wrote:

And who would create private property laws? otherwise, without those laws there would not be private property

Remember. There is no state in anarchism. The state will have no influence in the private property or the markets. Also, it is a person's right to self-determination on how they want to live their time on Earth. Anarchism is all about unrestrictions, forcing equaliy will always lead to coercion.

Capitopia world wrote:

I would call anarcho-capitalism the anarchism of freedom, not complete anarchism. Plus, how do you expect everybody to not set up their own private property in an anarchist society?

Freedom for the rich who own land near important resources. Serfdom, oppression, and destitution for everyone else.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

I didn't comment on this one in editing, but it's by design. The editors figure no government would ever actually let a province secede by force - that option specifically says you'll cut off their electricity (and I have to assume other services too) and see how they like it. That's not what you do when you're letting someone leave peacefully. I agree it could be worded a little clearer - I'll run that up the flagpole.

turning off the electricity is quite peaceful compared to shooting them, isn't it?

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

There aren't a whole lot of "smash the state"-friendly issues in the game (which I suppose makes sense given that the player is an all-powerful leader who makes every decision of importance :-p ).

i guess you have a point there ;-)

Natapoc wrote:

Freedom for the rich who own land near important resources. Serfdom, oppression, and destitution for everyone else.

Remember. There is no state in that capitalism. The serfs could set up their own business freely without the oppression of the rich land owners. Oppression only happens when capitalism has a state and the ideology state capitalism is basically the incarnation of slavery.

I'll post an excerpt if it will encourage the stubborn ancaps to actually read some of it.

"It is no coincidence that "anarcho"-capitalists try to limit the definition of anarchy or anarchism purely to opposition to the state or government. This is because capitalist property produces authoritarian structures (and so social relations) exactly like the state. By focusing on "government" rather than "authority," they hide the basic contradiction within their ideology namely that the "anarcho"-capitalist definition of private property is remarkably close to its definition of the state.

This is easy to prove. For example, leading "anarcho"-capitalist Murray Rothbard thundered against the evil of the state, stressing that it "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force, of ultimate decision-making power, over a given territorial area." Then, in the chapter's endnote, he quietly admitted that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc." [6]

Opps. How did the editor not pick up that one? But it shows the magical power of the expression "private property" - it can turn the bad ("ultimate decision-making power" over a given area) into the good ("ultimate decision-making power" over a given area). For anarchists, "[t]o demonise state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst." [7] It should also be stressed that capitalist authoritarianism is dictatorial in nature, with significantly less freedom than that in a democratic state.

Anarchists, obviously, wonder what the difference actually is. Why is the authority of the state considered anti-anarchist while that of the property owner is not? Rothbard did provide an answer: the state has got its land "unjustly." Thus the answer lies in whether the state legitimately owns its territory or not. If it did, then "it is proper for it to make rules for everyone who presumes to live in that area . . . So long as the State permits its subjects to leave its territory, then, it can be said to act as does any other owner who sets down rules for people living on his property." [8]

So if the state were a legitimate landlord or capitalist then its authoritarianism would be fine? Sorry? This is an anarchist analysis? The question is, ultimately, one of liberty. Anarchists simply note that Rothbard himself shows that capitalism and the state are based on the same authority structures and, consequently, neither can be considered as anarchist.

But then again, anarchists are not surprised. The liberal tradition "anarcho"-capitalism happily places itself in has a long history of sophisticated defences for autocracy based on consent. Anarchists, in contrast, have always stressed that the internal regime of an association which is the key. "

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/libcap/refuteAC.html

Folkvangr anarchists wrote:

--snip--

This is classic spamming. And you call me a troll? The irony is on a whole different scale. But since this is a link spamming game now, here's a link to counter that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBVqzs9_gz0

Yea, lets just sit and argue about implementation about "true" anarchy. We all want the same thing in the end. You can't force people to adhere to any of your systems or you are no better than those in government now.