/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3264384]

>people thinking anarcho-capitalism is a thing
>the last day ever

[Anonymous No.3264389]

>>3264384
>anarcho-capitalism
that's called facism

[Anonymous No.3264388]

They're in theirs teens, let them grow out of it.

[Anonymous No.3264392]

Wasn't the America in Snow Crash Anarcho-Capitalist?

[Anonymous No.3264414]

Anarcho-capitalism is anarcho-syndicalism gone wrong.

[Anonymous No.3264420]

>>3264414
I fail to see the connection

[Anonymous No.3264422]

>2013-1 Anno Domini
>implying anarcho-anything isn't a thing

[Anonymous No.3264426]

All capitalism is anarcho-capitalism.

[Anonymous No.3264428]

>>3264426
least intelligent post I've seen all day

[Anonymous No.3264432]

>>3264428

poopee poo poo pee pee poo poo poooooop piss pooo pee pee poooo pisss pooop essentialism poooopeeee

[Anonymous No.3264443]

>>3264432

That's pretty clever.

[Anonymous No.3264445]

>>3264432
Sorry sir, my opinion still holds

[Anonymous No.3264451]

If by "a thing" you mean a vision of a future that some people hold, yeah it is a thing.

It's capitalism without the state. Not too difficult to comprehend. I mean, I think it's a pretty terrible thing to hope for (almost got in a fist fight with a guy who told me that the Justice system should be privatized/monetized), but some people still do. It's the logical extension of libertarianism.

[ModernOrthodoxJew !S1cHehDGB2 No.3264452]

It is a thing though. It's a complex and well defined philosophy developed by only the smartest minds in the world.

[Anonymous No.3264463]

>>3264451
by a "thing" I meant something which doesn't contradict itself
also, what happened with the guy you fought?
I bet you lost or something

>>3264452
4/10

[VurtKonnegut No.3264480]

I prefer Voluntaryism.

[Anonymous No.3264509]

>>3264480

[Anonymous No.3264522]

>>3264451

It's an illogical extension. Capitalists inherently need the state to exist in the first place. Read Marx.

[Brother Philbee No.3264529]

Anarcho-Capitalism is most definitely a thing, and contrary to popular opinion, is almost as old as anarcho-socialism. The first ancap manifesto dates all the way back to 1848.

[Anonymous No.3264541]

"anarcho-capitalism" is like saying "democratic authoritarian" or something

[Anonymous No.3264543]

>>3264529
nah, rothbard was the first

also, was thoreau a capitalist?

[None !m9jxTLhLcw No.3264547]

>>3264543
Of course not.

[Brother Philbee No.3264560]

Rothbard was the first to coin the term "anarcho-capitalism" but the idea itself dates back at least as far back as Gustave di Molinari, who was an acolyte of the famous French classical liberal Frederic Bastiat. In 1848 (or possibly 9, correct me if I'm wrong), Molinari wrote "On the Production of Security" which explicitly made a case for marketizing goods which were and still are the exclusive domain of the state, including roads and police.

[Anonymous No.3264569]

>>3264522
"Read Marx" doesn't count as a legitimate answer. Just because Marx ties capitalism to a liberal bourgeois state doesn't mean that there aren't thinkers that have found ways to subvert that.

I'm not gonna argue on behalf of anarcho-capitalists. Every one of them I have met has either been an asshole or really rich. Pretty much every other anarchist faction hates them.

[Anonymous No.3264589]

>thinking leftist anarchism is anarchism at all

I haven't met one left anarchist who is actually an anarchist yet. Once you start asking questions you quickly realize that what they're really advocating for is small-scale direct democracy with a bit of lynchmobbing thrown in for good effect.

[Anonymous No.3264597]

>>3264569

I don't any thinkers have found a good way to uphold the 'law' of Private Property without an oppressive state apparatus.

A society approaching anarcho-capitalism would hasten communist rebellions within said society (intensified class warfare).

[Anonymous No.3264610]

>>3264541
you mean democratic centralism, right?

[Anonymous No.3264614]

>>3264597
yeah, i agree. some people don't.

[Anonymous No.3264619]

>>3264597
>communist rebellions

Rebellions against what? Communism is very much a subset of anarcho-capitalism, inasmuch as a group of communists living in an anarcho-capitalist society could form their own community following communist rules. The only snag is that they wouldn't be able to force everyone else into their scheme.

[Straw Dog !!QZopFNtF4N5 No.3264660]

Why is it that 90% of the people on both sides of every online discussion about whether anarcho-capitalism is tenable seem to operate under the faulty assumption that capitalism has been around for a really long time?

[Anonymous No.3264664]

>>3264619

Capitalism is, and always has been about force. Communism is something that originates /inside/ capitalism itself, not alien to it. An anarcho-capitalist society would inevitably lead to communist rebellions. They would rebel against the private appropriation of labour power, and this rebellion would be a show of force against the capitalist. Class warfare.

In bourgeois society, capitalists need the State to manage their class interests (direct class warfare, minimise unrest by proletarians etc). Without this apparatus, proletariat would gain an advantage, not to mention the obvious gains in class consciousness.

[Anonymous No.3264671]

>>3264660

Because "capitalism" to them is about the "market", with no reference to means of production. World of appearances and all that *rolls eyes*.

[Straw Dog !!QZopFNtF4N5 No.3264676]

ITT: We try to invent seemingly contradictory anarcho-somethings (that other people haven't already come up with).

>Anarcho-technocracy
Everyone voluntarily chips in to provide for engineers, who in turn build awesome robots that go around and make sure nobody infringes on anyone else's rights.

[Anonymous No.3264679]

>>3264676
Anarcho-anything and "everyone chips in" are oxymoronic

[Straw Dog !!QZopFNtF4N5 No.3264684]

>>3264679
Change it to "virtually everyone" then and read Kropotkin's "Mutual Aid."

[Anonymous No.3264690]

Collectivist anarchy is best anarchy

[Anonymous No.3266162]

>not quietly turning your back on politics

[Anonymous No.3266167]

>making a separate thread to whine because I intellectually smothered everyone else whilst defending glorious Anarcho-capitalism

[Anonymous No.3266181]

>>3266167
(Thu)20:12
(Fri)04:58
This thread was started before that thread, genius.

[Anonymous No.3266194]

>>3266181
It was in another thread, genius. >>3265615

[Anonymous No.3267081]

>>3266167
>anarcho-capitalism
>intellectually
>implying