NationStates Jolt Archive

welcome my fellow viewers of the nation states board.a thought on the concept of anarcho capitilism/libertarinism have been in my head for awhile now and i would like to share it.

first let me state,i dont hate the theory,just it cant sustain its own exitanse.and the people who preech it are my allies in intellectual rights.so,lets not become rivals untill after we deal with the facists ya?but anyways.

anarcho capitilism,is in my opinion inherently unsustainable.if one removes the goverment they remove the following.
money-cant have capitilism without it.and without the goverment enforceing its value its rather meaningless.are we going to use gold and sex to pay for everything?
law/safety-yes i understand the idea we would pay for police coverage,however the fact remains these police forces would end up ATTACKING as much as defending.since there is no goverment to create law,you can ask the police to "seek justise" on anyone you want.did someone get you on the bad end of a deal?hire cops to kill them and take there stuff.
and how do you enforce your precious property rights without someone being able to figure out who owns what?
is this freedom?
goverment-why do i bring up goverment?because anarcho capitilism is techniclly the theory we started with.there was no goverment beyond family in those days.and look what happened?people banded together or were conquered to create goverments.which will force us to go though all the problems we had AGAIN.i for one do not want a cyclic system of human goverment,but a progressive one where each theory is discarded after it is no longer usefull.

Anarcho-capitalism is basically libertarian or capitalist utopianism much like anarcho-socialism. For me, it's not exactly a goal as much as an exericse in theory. If you think modern governments are too powerful and invasive, it's important to figure out how order in society can be achieved with less or even no government. The reality is that few people in today's world have ever seriously considered a 'system' with little or no government. If society becomes less dependent on government, government becomes less necessary.

Governments aren't necessary for money at all. Anyone can print pieces of paper with numbers on them, but that's not real money. Gold makes good real money. Please learn more about the history of money. Here's a great story about money (http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker47.html). (Note the absense of government)

anarcho capitilism,is in my opinion inherently unsustainable.if one removes the goverment they remove the following.
money-cant have capitilism without it.and without the goverment enforceing its value its rather meaningless.are we going to use gold and sex to pay for everything?
law/safety-yes i understand the idea we would pay for police coverage,however the fact remains these police forces would end up ATTACKING as much as defending.since there is no goverment to create law,you can ask the police to "seek justise" on anyone you want.did someone get you on the bad end of a deal?hire cops to kill them and take there stuff.
and how do you enforce your precious property rights without someone being able to figure out who owns what?
is this freedom?
goverment-why do i bring up goverment?because anarcho capitilism is techniclly the theory we started with.there was no goverment beyond family in those days.and look what happened?people banded together or were conquered to create goverments.which will force us to go though all the problems we had AGAIN.i for one do not want a cyclic system of human goverment,but a progressive one where each theory is discarded after it is no longer usefull.

If you take anarcho-capitalism as a complete breakdown of the established institutions, then yes your description applies. However, teh theory does not require this complete meltdown. It just says remove government and let the market control things. This does not mean removing a central bank, nor does it mean removing the judiciary and the system of justice. Just get rid of the executive and legislative branches.

Money: The value of money depends upon the market, not upon the government. Very technically the currency of any nation is underwritten by the government, but this is purely theoretical. Money, or barter tokens, is something that existed in the past without any government suppoet, and is something that has such a high utility value that it will continue regardless of the political system (Even China and the USSR use(d) money internally, when technically, under a true communist system, money would be obsolete)

Law and Order: Abolishing the government would not abolish the existing laws. There would still be law to enforce. This is in fact one of the big problems of anarcho-capitalism, that it is not sufficient to eliminate the government, you also have to selectively eliminate laws. Police attacking, would be breaking the law, and subject to punishment. There is, and would be a fear of a police state emerging, but the principles behind anarcho-capitalist thought have a take on human nature, wherein short term gain is discarded for long term greater gain. Another big problem as most people are simply not that clever and patient.

What we started with was a society that is very different from the one that eliminating government now would produce. We have all of the infrastructure that a long period of central government provides. We have schools, law courts, utilities, specialisation, luxuries, technology, communications structures etc. etc. You say that you would like to move on, forward, but without specifying the goal of this progress. I would like to move on and forward, towards making real the value of each person as a person, not as one member of a nation or a tribe, but as one part of humanity as a whole.

libertarianism and anarchy are not equivalent; if you try to use them both interchangably you will automatically be wrong, just as i would be if i tried to use socialism and communism interchangably.

If you take anarcho-capitalism as a complete breakdown of the established institutions, then yes your description applies. However, teh theory does not require this complete meltdown. It just says remove government and let the market control things. This does not mean removing a central bank, nor does it mean removing the judiciary and the system of justice. Just get rid of the executive and legislative branches.

goverment.goverment,ive read up on the theory.
judical branch is goverment.the very concept of law is GOVERMENT.


Money: The value of money depends upon the market, not upon the government. Very technically the currency of any nation is underwritten by the government, but this is purely theoretical. Money, or barter tokens, is something that existed in the past without any government suppoet, and is something that has such a high utility value that it will continue regardless of the political system (Even China and the USSR use(d) money internally, when technically, under a true communist system, money would be obsolete)

but the fact the goverment backs money and makes it law to be accepted currency,without it.only gold has value(becuase of some inbred trait,but hey,gold is nice....)


Law and Order: Abolishing the government would not abolish the existing laws. There would still be law to enforce. This is in fact one of the big problems of anarcho-capitalism, that it is not sufficient to eliminate the government, you also have to selectively eliminate laws. Police attacking, would be breaking the law, and subject to punishment. There is, and would be a fear of a police state emerging, but the principles behind anarcho-capitalist thought have a take on human nature, wherein short term gain is discarded for long term greater gain. Another big problem as most people are simply not that clever and patient.

explain to me HOW you can have law without haveing goverment?the very foundation of law requires someone to govern it,hence goverment.sure you can consider things WRONG,but law exists because of goverment and vica versa.
who decides whats legal and whats not without goverment.


What we started with was a society that is very different from the one that eliminating government now would produce. We have all of the infrastructure that a long period of central government provides. We have schools, law courts, utilities, specialisation, luxuries, technology, communications structures etc. etc. You say that you would like to move on, forward, but without specifying the goal of this progress. I would like to move on and forward, towards making real the value of each person as a person, not as one member of a nation or a tribe, but as one part of humanity as a whole.

i ment the way society functions,technology doesnt change how humans think and act.merely what we can do.you place society at the early levels you restart it.merely with bigger guns.
forward means just that,whatever is needed at the moment.placeing a goal brings stagnation,stagnation is death.


anyways,libertarianism every time i hear it explained basiclly boils down to anarcho capitilism.destruction of goverment,and unlimited rights to capitilism.im a democractic socialist and i dont worry is someone calls me a communist,there the same basic princibals.just a bunch of dictatorships have labeled themselves communist.

Ummmmm, if you didn't already know:

Libertarianism and anarchocapitalism are two completely different ideologies.

Difference being, some anarchocapitalists wrongfully believe they're libertarians..
They're not.
People who've posted here obviously don't know the difference.

One believes in less government, the other in none.
How obvious.

Ummmmm, if you didn't already know:

Libertarianism and anarchocapitalism are two completely different ideologies.

Difference being, some anarchocapitalists wrongfully believe they're libertarians..
They're not.
People who've posted here obviously don't know the difference.

One believes in less government, the other in none.
How obvious.

Actually, I don't believe you have the authority to define a person's political affiliation for them.

That said, it's quite true that most Libertarians seem to minarchists, not anarcho-capitalists.

Anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism are quite different since the former wants no government and the latter wants LIMITED.

Rasados, think a little before you make such statements. Or at least follow through on what you say.

First of all, you have no idea what you are talking about. Libertarians (Of which I am one) do not preach the absence of government entirely, rather a limitation of their envolvement in the activities of their citizens, economically and socially.

Anarchists come in many shapes and sizes; anarcho-syndicism, socio-anarchism, etc. If you tried learning about them rather than expounding your critically defective theories based on your own assumptions, you would probably hold a different opinion; at least you would not make such ignorant posts.

Good day.

OK, letsd go through this step by step

goverment.goverment,ive read up on the theory.
judical branch is goverment.the very concept of law is GOVERMENT.

Government =/= Law and Law =/= Government.
Law only requires that those subject to it accept it as binding on them. No government can actually do this. If government was law, there would be no discussion of legitimate and illegitimate governments.
The Judicial branch, is indeed one of the three branches of traditional government, but I referred to the judiciary, not to the judicial branch. Not everywhere has the judiciary so closely tied to government as the USA does. In the UK it is actually independant of the executive and legislative institutions. There, removing the government would not remove the judiciary, nor the law.

but the fact the goverment backs money and makes it law to be accepted currency,without it.only gold has value(becuase of some inbred trait,but hey,gold is nice....)

Again acceptance is in the usage. If a tradesman, or shopkeeper, or manufacturer accepts your script in exchange for his or her products or services, then your script is money. No government, no banks, nothing like that. Gold only has value because people accept that it does. In some of the polynesian islands cowrie shells are accepted as money. Money is what you and your community accept as valuable.


explain to me HOW you can have law without haveing goverment?the very foundation of law requires someone to govern it,hence goverment.sure you can consider things WRONG,but law exists because of goverment and vica versa.
who decides whats legal and whats not without goverment.

The very foundation of governance requires that there is law. Traditionally law is that set of traditions by which a community regulates itself and its members.

Law n. 1 a a rule enacted or customary in a comunity and recognised as enjoining or prohibiting certain actions and enforced by the imposition of penalties

Where in her is a government needed? What is needed is a consensus about the rules that apply. The enforcement of the rules also depends on the community. One thing that has to be clear, is that in an anarcho-capitalist (and not libertarian, by the way, as others have said) the laws and rules are very local and context sensitive. The law applies to your block, the rules are those agreed between your production facility and the production facility that supplies sometyhing you need. Ther would be no global laws, covering large areas or all interactions.


i ment the way society functions,technology doesnt change how humans think and act.merely what we can do.you place society at the early levels you restart it.merely with bigger guns.
forward means just that,whatever is needed at the moment.placeing a goal brings stagnation,stagnation is death.

So forward is any movement. wrong term. Forward implies in a direction, and in social terms implies a progress towards the better from the worse. You are not placing society at early levels. I referred to infrastructure, communications, education, as well as technology. You ignored the other factors. Accumulated knowledge also has an effect you know.


anyways,libertarianism every time i hear it explained basiclly boils down to anarcho capitilism.destruction of goverment,and unlimited rights to capitilism.im a democractic socialist and i dont worry is someone calls me a communist,there the same basic princibals.just a bunch of dictatorships have labeled themselves communist.

There iis a fundamental difference. The anarcho-capitalist wants there to be no government, the Libertarian, which is what I actually am in my personal views, thinks that a government of sorts is necessary. To co-ordinate the rules across comunities, to ensure a minimal level of security (internal and external). If you think that socialist and communist are the same then you have a lot of political theory to learn yet. They are not even similar.

Government =/= Law and Law =/= Government.
Law only requires that those subject to it accept it as binding on them. No government can actually do this. If government was law, there would be no discussion of legitimate and illegitimate governments.
The Judicial branch, is indeed one of the three branches of traditional government, but I referred to the judiciary, not to the judicial branch. Not everywhere has the judiciary so closely tied to government as the USA does. In the UK it is actually independant of the executive and legislative institutions. There, removing the government would not remove the judiciary, nor the law.

yes,however.it needs to apply to everywhere under its purview,let me use a rather irrational idea to discuss this.if the entire U.S. dissolved tomorrow no one would enforce the laws,there would be no more agreements on them.the moment you agree upon laws and enforce them you have created a goverment.


Again acceptance is in the usage. If a tradesman, or shopkeeper, or manufacturer accepts your script in exchange for his or her products or services, then your script is money. No government, no banks, nothing like that. Gold only has value because people accept that it does. In some of the polynesian islands cowrie shells are accepted as money. Money is what you and your community accept as valuable.

but they arent required to accept it,either dragging everything into small towns which is now utterly impossible thanks to technology.or we end up with complete anarchy with small city states fighting for survival.or a "corporate utopia".


The very foundation of governance requires that there is law. Traditionally law is that set of traditions by which a community regulates itself and its members.

and goverment is the system inacted to enforce law.


Where in her is a government needed? What is needed is a consensus about the rules that apply. The enforcement of the rules also depends on the community. One thing that has to be clear, is that in an anarcho-capitalist (and not libertarian, by the way, as others have said) the laws and rules are very local and context sensitive. The law applies to your block, the rules are those agreed between your production facility and the production facility that supplies sometyhing you need. Ther would be no global laws, covering large areas or all interactions.

enforcement of law.if law only applys to your block,it cant really protect you from the rampageing horde of bandits.and with guns abounding,most people will turn towards rampageing horde,more profitable.



So forward is any movement. wrong term. Forward implies in a direction, and in social terms implies a progress towards the better from the worse. You are not placing society at early levels. I referred to infrastructure, communications, education, as well as technology. You ignored the other factors. Accumulated knowledge also has an effect you know.

then changeing,that better?society must always be changeing.for to stop changeing is to die.
yes the accumulation of technology and science will alter it,but the fundamentals will end up the same.
people either band together forming goverments.
or are conquered by those stronger forming goverments.


There iis a fundamental difference. The anarcho-capitalist wants there to be no government, the Libertarian, which is what I actually am in my personal views, thinks that a government of sorts is necessary. To co-ordinate the rules across comunities, to ensure a minimal level of security (internal and external). If you think that socialist and communist are the same then you have a lot of political theory to learn yet. They are not even similar.

one is rational,one isnt.
still the same basic theorys.
do you call the love for a friend and a love for a wife diffrent emotions?
or diffrent ways of seeing one emotion?

We Libertarians certainly don't condone anarchy. We acknowledge that some level of government is neccessary in order to maintain peace and prevent theft and murder.