- Capitalism and Alternatives -

capitalism in a heavy-metal t-shirt.

Posted by: Fred on January 31, 19100 at 14:17:23:

In Reply to: Anarcho-capitalism calls for the abolition of rule. posted by Loudon Head on January 31, 19100 at 13:01:15:

: : "Anarcho-capitalism" is self-refuting, a logical impossibility. It's a contradiction like "square circle" so it can't be discovered in any world.

: Nonsense. "Anarchy" means without rule; Anarcho-capitalism calls for the abolition of rule. The only (not merely the best, but the ONLY) practical meaning of the word "rule" applies to a government. The extent to which anarcho-capitalism allows "rule" to exist (or "coercion", a term you would probably prefer,) is the exact same extent to which nature allows "rule" to exist.

What rules are you talking about and what rules are you talking about? 5 year olds on the playgrounds makes "rules." Your post does nothing to assure me that "anarcho-capitalism" (a term I hadn't heard before) is no different from Libertarianism, which only wants to abolish government rules on corporations. Like I said before--capitalism in a heavy-metal t-shirt. Rock on, Dude!

: Anarchists on the left like to think that "rule" means all hierarchy, which apparently includes rules of property ownership. Unfortunately, property is one of those things which is genuinely impossible to do away with. It rules us in the same sense that hunger or the weather rule us. (There is a hierarchy in our bodies which sometimes puts the needs of the stomach over the needs of, say, your foot. There is a hierarchy in the weather wherein the needs of the thunderstorm pay no heed to your desire not to get wet.)

: "Property" is merely a way of saying "allocation of scarce resources." Since all the resources on earth are scarce, they must be allocated. We will never be free from this fact of life.

So, the best thing to rememdy this situation is to have a self-appointed and nepotistic class of property owners to distribute the scarce resources? Yes, the sweet smell of freedom.

: : "Anarchy" in the best sense of the word (freedom from coercion and other definitions along those lines)

: Your definition of coercion is meaningless. Neither you nor I will ever be free from the "coercion" of property, hunger, or the weather.

I don't believe you can't see the difference between a boss threatening me with starvation and the weather threatening my buildings/plans (i.e., insurance terms, "acts of God"). You must be able to see this, so you are simply arguing your point. Rock on.

: --
: McSpotlight: To be precise on this, 'anarchism' is derived from 'an-arkos' (Anc. Gr.) - meaning 'no leader'; it means the absence of any imposed power heirarchy.

Well, dictionary definitions and word histories can be two edged swords, so as a general rule I resort to these as a last resort. Do you think of "love" when you hear the word "amateur"? Do you think of "head (of cattle) " when you hear the "cap" in "capitalism."

I'm no Humpty Dumpty, but when the occasion calls for definitions, I try to use the one of common usage at the time (a difficult proposition) to represent the wide variances in the mental realities. So, I stand behind my original definition, but I got a small charge seeing the Mcspotlight people comment on my posts.


McSpotlight: I was merely trying to give the accepted 'standard' definition of anarchism...

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup