: What rules are you talking about and what rules are you talking about? 5 year olds on the playgrounds makes "rules."You misread me. I'm not talking about specific "rules" but "rule". But McSpotlight has offered a better definition of anarchy, which I've accepted. So forget the word "rule". Let's say "leader" or "imposed hierarchy".
: Your post does nothing to assure me that "anarcho-capitalism" (a term I hadn't heard before) is no different from Libertarianism, which only wants to abolish government rules on corporations. Like I said before--capitalism in a heavy-metal t-shirt. Rock on, Dude!
I do consider myself a libertarian, but anarcho-capitalism is really a subset of libertarianism.
You might look into libertarianism a little deeper. Libs want to get rid of a lot more than government rules on corporations. In fact, most libertarians want to get rid of absolutely everything the government does except for defense.
Anarcho-capitalists wouldn't have the government do that either.
Basically, an anarcho-capitalist is someone who would do away with government all together (which would seem implicit in the term "anarchy"), but understands that private property is simply a fact of life which a.) doesn't need government and b.) can't be gotten rid of, and any attempt to do so necessarily involves an expansive totalitarian government. See Russia, Cuba, China, and well hell, anywhere the socialist experiment has been seriously attempted.
:
: : Anarchists on the left like to think that "rule" means all hierarchy, which apparently includes rules of property ownership. Unfortunately, property is one of those things which is genuinely impossible to do away with. 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.)
: So, the best thing to rememdy this situation is to have a self-appointed and nepotistic class of property owners to distribute the scarce resources? Yes, the sweet smell of freedom.
No, that would be a government. The best thing to do is to let people's freely chosen market transactions allocate the scarce resources.
: I don't believe you can't see the difference between a boss threatening me with starvation and the weather threatening my buildings/plans (i.e., insurance terms, "acts of God"). You must be able to see this, so you are simply arguing your point. Rock on.
I'll concede that one involves a relationship between two people and one between a single person and forces of nature. But, a boss can't threaten you with starvation. He can threaten to stop exchanging with you (fire you), but that should be everyone's free right. (What is freedom if not the right to decide whom you are going to deal with?)
If, after being fired, you sit on the street and starve instead of either finding a new job, creating your own job, or growing your own food, that's not the boss' fault.
: : --
: : 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.
:
: Well, dictionary definitions and word histories can be two edged swords, so as a general rule I resort to these as a last resort. Do you think of "love" when you hear the word "amateur"? Do you think of "head (of cattle) " when you hear the "cap" in "capitalism."
: I'm no Humpty Dumpty, but when the occasion calls for definitions, I try to use the one of common usage at the time (a difficult proposition) to represent the wide variances in the mental realities. So, I stand behind my original definition, but I got a small charge seeing the Mcspotlight people comment on my posts.
: Fred
: --
: McSpotlight: I was merely trying to give the accepted 'standard' definition of anarchism...
