Quote from: ktttn link=topic=155570
Anarchism covers what youre getting at.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.
The meaning Anarchocapitalist actually conveys is negative, implying an easy interface with today's ultraconservative, entrenched power structures and a willingness to compromise on the use of privatized violent coersion to control resources you deny to the appropriate commons.
Read Rothbard and Konklin. your understanding of anarchocapitalism as stated here is completely fallacious. I have found no other stated anarchist philosophy with LESS willingness to use coercion, except possibly mutualism.
The notion of capital relies on the assertion that "this capital is mine and nobody else's.
Appropriation by a workforce, for example, interferes with that assertion.
Can any sort of noncoersive strategy (private police, chains, higher limit on wages) be used by the capitalist to maintain control?
Using robots makes the question moot. In the meantime, we still have the employee/wage slave archetype toiling away, wasting life, in the real world.
I'd like for you to explain the shortcomings of Anarchism without modifiers compared to an anarchism that utilizes a heirarchy of ownership in a way that justifies the extra ten letters.
I will try, as I have asked the same question. Right now, I can't type well due to an injured hand. But the gist of the reason for the modifiers is that anarchy itself is so often interpreted to mean chaos. Thus you kinda have to let even other anarchists know where you stand. Unfortunately, there are a few major and a million minor variations of anarchic theory. Less than there are of statist theories, but still problematic.
As for agorism, and it's cousin anarchocapitalism, the REAL point of contention between social anarchists and agorists is the definition of property, not the division of labor. Agorists in particular envision the world as about six billion potential independent businesses.
My finger is killing me. I'll get back to you later.
I find that the name anarchocapitalist will turn nearly all other anarchists and some capitalists off.
Perhaps it would be better all around to drop the modifier and the prejudice it brings as a possible misnomer and let such subideology stand on its own, and add to.the sum of anarchist thought without polluting it with the trappings of capitalist ideas.
While we cant just grow 50ft tall and alter the ideological structures ourselves, we can use our own language to identify ourselves and our solidarity in more fitting ways.
If you can take a step back and laugh at the absurdity of it all, then I guess that would make you a lot freer than some people.
You never seem to ask yourself: "why do I want this 'freedom' so badly anyway? It's not a tangible item, it's just a made-up concept that all my favourite authors/politicians seem to use in order to convince me that I'm a 'slave' and manipulate me into supporting some philanthropic cause of theirs." You're not thinking outside the square.