- Capitalism and Alternatives -

So what determines who has a greater right to these resources?

Posted by: Lark on January 31, 19100 at 18:16:44:

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

: 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.

No it means without ruler or leader, which means without IMPOSED and THEREFORE ILLEGITIMATE authority, get your facts staright instead of adopting a trendy ideology that apologises for the rich while they laugh at your shooting yourself in the foot antics.

: Anarchists on the left like to think that "rule" means all hierarchy, which apparently includes rules of property ownership.

Er, political prejudice anyone, have you ever read anarchists of the left ot know what they think? I also thought anarchism was about freedom and therefore did not respect the conventional political left-right spectrum?

:Unfortunately, property is one of those things which is genuinely impossible to do away with.

I think you may be refering to possession.

: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.)

This is a bit silly really. I suppose in the court of the king or the war lord who is insisting that the world and everyone in it is his property to dispose of as he wills or sees fit you'd say sure enough you are correct the very idea of property or ownership is inviolable and absolute without exception.

: "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 what determines who has a greater right to these resources? If you are going to challenge the rule and monopoly of the state are you now going to pretend a similar rule and monopoly of the market place does not exist, a nice thought, a nice utopian thought. The invisible leviathan exists alongside the visible (state) one whether you like it or not both are equally illegitimate and exploitative.

The choices you put before us are private or publiclly owned monopoly/command economies, equally terrible, equally unfree.

: : "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.

Why's that? Hold on is that the way we couldnt fly or swim or grow crops or build shelters?

: --
: 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.

Oh, shit, really repeating everything you said there McSpotlight, sorry about that, should read the posts before replying.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup