quotes

quotes found on check your premises showing that "anarcho"-capitalism is NOT anarchism.

“There’s a good reason the poor are poor, they’re less intelligent than the wealthy.”

“As such, it follows that legitimacy is derived from the claim that the government can help the poor. The poor buy into this as a result of moral and intellectual weakness.”

“Nonetheless we do favour individuals with authority, in the form of a natural elite.”

“If the parents wish to use force, then so be it. The child consents by continuing to live off his parents.”

“Libertarianism doesn’t support equal negative rights, a child does not have the same rights as an adult.”

“This doesn’t imply equal negative rights for adults. Some adults, such as primitives, are not capable of rational argumentation and cannot be brought peacefully into the division of labour. Moreover, they have no conception of property rights nor any enforcable claim.”

“These people (tribal or less developed cultures) simply aren’t capable of rational argumentation, and therefore have no rights, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences.”

“The fact is they often cannot be brought within the division of labour and without any concept of property rights it’s impossible that they own anything. Moreover they have no legitimate claim to any of this territory and as such it’s free to be homesteaded.”

“People incapable of moral choice must either abide by the decisions of those who are or they must be removed from free society.”

“Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified.”

“It was not wrong for the spanish to overthrow an empire that literally fed on its slaves in religious rituals and replace it with its much milder form of serfdom.”

“Childish rejection of a natural order and authority isn’t the opposite to subservience. It’s a bad trait that needs to be kept down until the youth have matured sufficiently.”

“A private ruler must respect property rights simply because his wealth depends on clearly defined laws explaining what is, and isn’t legitimate property and how people should act in regards to this.”

“Anarcho capitalism and anarchism are synonomous. Anything that can’t be subsumed under anarcho capitalism, is internally inconsistant, and needs to be thrown out.”

“So long as government commands a monopoly over all land, the closed border position is defensible.”

“It is only reasonable to expect the state to fulfill its duties as a land owner.”

“The only system that would have no borders would be a world government.”

“Seeing as towns would be owned by single entrepreneurs…”

“Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner.”

“There’s nothing new about left-libertarians. They are still the same anti-capitalist who hated big business when Lenin promised to keep control of the commanding heights of the economy.”

“Anybody can benefit from the state and anybody can become a part of it.”

“It’s necessary to remove bad elements from a movement. Which is exactly what the libertarian movement should be doing to non Austrians and the likes of Molyneux. Lenin was exactly right in this regard.”

“Opposition to the family and church sounds somewhat Marxist to me, any libertarian society will be founded upon those two institutions so in a sense yes, one does need to be a cultural conservative to be a libertarian.”

“The state by it’s very nature is egalitarian in the widest sense of the word.”

“The only unifying principle of a secular, multicultural society is the democratic state.”

“Feudalism is actually an entirely appropriate model for anarchist society, and my prediction is it’s coming whether the anarchists like it or not.”

“A system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minority.”

the quote about feudalism really justifies my calling them feudalists.

apparently these quotes are all from those wankers at mises.org.

definition twisting and the pernitiosness of rothbardian feudalism.

Though It's followers claim to be against the state, they are not. All through reading about this ideology, I've come to the same feature. Instead of using the actual definition of something, they change and twist it around to make it work the way they want. This is immature and unscientific. they do it with the whole government/state definition for example. The government and the state are two actually separate things, although they do overlap and are virtually joined at the hip. you cannot have one without other. The state is the monopoly of force. it is the coercive power, the enforcer of law. It is the controlling force of the police and military(although the police and the military are becoming more and more indistinguishable around the world) . The protector of private property. When I say I am against private property, I mean in the actually existing unjust system. I only support private property in the proudhonian sense of the term . The Government is the maker of policy, the brain if you will.


In a so-called anarcho-capitalist system, what I call rothbardian feudalism, the landlord/capitalist/entrepreneur/ whatever you want to call it, would hire "private protection companies" which would protect the stolen goods (i.e what capitalists call property,which is theft). these companies would, in their areas of territory, have a monopoly of force. this would make them a form of state, with their clients being the government ruling over their employees as they would need a workforce to get anything made. so you see, they do support there being governments and states, just as long as they are the government and they steer the state.


they are not anarchists. the state is the arm of the rich elite. The government hold a monopoly of power and that monopoly is the state. any positive social change that the government and the state accept is only allowed because it pacifies the broad mass of the people and makes them think that those in power actually care about them. centralisation of power breeds tyranny and capitalism is the ideal system through which to do this. as long as the people actually think they have a choice, they don't rebel. give them burger kings and a vote on which glove puppet to have as the face of their oppressor, and they'll kneel down and allow themselves to be raped by big business.

which brings me to a common misconception that they bring up when a real Anarchist actually tries to stick up for anarchism. Socialism.

when I watch debates between anarchists and these hypocrites, they constantly insist that anarchism is NOT socialist. This is bullshit (pardon my french there).

Socialism is not and has never been a single and uniform school. there is a whole spectrum of different types of socialism and anarchism is one of them. state socialism is not true socialism. it is simply the government and the state owning the means of production. this is tyranny. the people have no true control and become slaves to the state (even more then they are now). unions are controlled by the oppressors and do what the owners of the workforce tell them instead of the union being a legitimate way of getting the bosses to actually do things to benefit the worker's rights, which is what it should be. There are the multiple forms of state socialism and then there are the multiple forms of anarchism. these are two wings of the same bird.

Anarchism is a type of socialism. Even individualists like Tucker said so. Yeah, anarcho-communists and anarcho individualists agreeing.

Also the way they seem to monopolise the term "market anarchism", as if these 'narco-capitalists are the only market anarchist (when they are not even anarchists). Mutualism is the original form of market anarchism, in fact its the first type of anarchism full stop.

take away anarchocapitalism and it's pseudo-left wing little sister agorism, then mutualism becomes the only type of market anarchism (as far as I know).

These pseudo-anarchists are like baby cuckoos invading another bird's nest. They try to absorb anarchism. their insistence that they are anarchists, despite all arguments to the contrary, misleads those who are new to anarchism and is therefore bad for the movement.

rothbardian pseudo-libertarian crypto-fascism

I've kind of been looking for an alternative term for "anarcho"-capitalism. The more I look at rothbard and read the anarchist FAQ (on my list of links) the more I believe it isn't even libertarianism, but more a sort of decentralised authoritarianism. In a society run along these lines, the means of production and property would be owned along Private lines and tenants would live on areas of land owned by the capitalist landlord and he/she would control things and this means that he/she would have power over his/her subjects. naturally the landlord would be thinking about his/her interests and would therefore be more concerned about how much profit could be raked in . this means tenants would be under the subjugation/power of the landlord and would be limited in there free speech or freedom of choice by constantly having to think about what the landlord would want.

Plus, the landlord could be free to kick the tenant out at ANY time, even if that tenant would then be homeless and facing serious problems. And there needn't be any regulations protecting the tenants, because a)the landlord makes the rules, being the overall mini-dictator and b) have you noticed company heads often need regulations to do stuff for their employees before they do it, even when you would think it's obvious, you know like health and safety and things like that.

these rothbardians do in actual fact support governments if you think about it. These landlords with there competing private protection companies (which I forgot to mention are another feature- basically there would be people with guns who would compete with other companies to be hired by different landlords to be their own personal army, and we can see where the problems here) are govenments, or rather dictatorships.

now what does this remind you of? Yes. feudalism. thats right. perhaps without a central king and split into parts and territories, but basically yes.

feudalism.

Rothbardian-feudalism.

that could be my new term for these so-called anarchists.

wow. didn't expect to come up with a name as I was typeing this. Kind of shows what I ,meant yesterday when I said I use these posts as a thinking area.

anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron

It just is.

Capitalism is exploitative and hierarchical by it's nature.

It exploits others, involves private ownership of the means of production, necessitating bosses and it creates monopolies . Anarchism is against all forms of hierarchy,exploitation and coercion. one of the main principles of capitalism is the making of profits above all else. it is greedy and manipulative and cannot exist without a state. It requires private property (which is theft), subsidies and protection by the state and therefore goes against anarchism. Anarchism is not just about abolishing the state. Abolishing the government is a very very important feature to Anarchism, but it's not the be-all-and -end-all of everything.

I can't stand how they (and some other people) assume that if you are a market anarchist, you are somehow automaticaly a capitalist. horsefeathers. it is perfectly possible to be pro-market but anti-capitalism. mutualism is a good example of how this could be done. it is my contention that so called "anarcho"-capitalists are esentially small-state libertarians (minarchists) who are in denial.

Inspired by George Carlin, I'm going to make a list of people or ideas I could do without. this will take me a while so I don't know when it will appear. I will not order it in any particular way just randomly. I may do another along opposite (ie positive) lines. whatch this space.