Anarcho-Capititalism??

If you want, I can show you all the quotes. There are tons of them.

 

anarcho-capitalism is what you see in nature. the currency is nutrients. the system is the food chain AKA circle of life (if you've watched Lion King)

 

Are you saying that anarcho-capitalism is anarchy in it's purest form?
I can't support that notion.

 

Are you saying that anarcho-capitalism is anarchy in it's purest form?
I can't support that notion.

 

Then I could show you the pentagrams and obelisks that litter the streets of DC.

 

I'm talking about actual quotes from the Founding Fathers. I'm not really sure what you're referring to, but it sounds more current. Go ahead and show me what you're talking about. You've got me curious now.

 

Money exists in a market without a state as the most tradeable commodity, usually though not necessarily some form of precious metal. Prison communities sometimes use cigarettes as money while in other cultures salt or cowry shells have been used. Et cetera. None of these are state creations; they evolved out of the market as a generally agreed-upon medium of trade. So you don't need to have a goverment to have money; indeed, money is originally a market invention.

That's pratical, since without money the economy would slide back to the Stone Age when the population was at least 90% lower. Without money, you have no effective medium of trade or unit of measurement of market value and therefore no means of allocating resources effectively across economies. Of course, since money arises naturally from acts of trade, you couldn't ban without a large and complex government, which couldn't exist in a Stone Age economy. It is thanks to the modern global economy, supported in part by the existence of money (however skewed and manipulated by the state), that allows a population us to maintain a population of 7 billion.

 

hahaha, I laugh. Ignorance. Anarchism is not chaos. And people can live without authority. Is more, most of the times you don't need it, in any relation you don't need authority.

 

It is simple, in anarcho-capitalism you have private property, and also you will have business, in the today structure. The business are vertical organizations, it is, you have a boss(authority) and employers(underlyings) then it makes an authoritarian system. It does not abolish the authority.

 

An employer has no authority over an employee. One buys labor, the other sells labor. It is a mutually voluntary trade between equals.

 

Authority is inevitable. What all Anarchists agree upon is the lack of authority over another. Still, one may have authority over himself/herself, and in Anarcho-Capitalism, this is known as self-ownership. The complete absence of authority implies that one does not maintain a right conferred by social position over themselves, thereby leading to chaos.

 

You must clarify this 'social position' idea.
You mean active participation, correct?

 

Really? Ok. Then the worker can work as he pleases? Oh wait... No. He must accept the orders of the employer. Sorry but the employer is authority.

 

Historically, "the natural balance of order" tends to translate into one group killing another for resources. Innately, humans are tribal. Larger scale governments are intended to restrict this tendency, but as we see in a lot of countries (like Afghanistan), this approach can still fail.

 

There's nothing I can specify without being labeled a conspiracy theorist.

However if you view images of the architecture, which is of course not as old as the nation itself I must concede, then you will see an abundance of Masonic and occult symbols intertwined within the buildings.

 

A seller typically provides the services requested by the buyer. This does not mean that the buyer has authority over the seller.

You go to the barber and ask the barber for a haircut. When he asks you how short you would like it, and you tell him. You (the buyer) are not an authority over the barber (the seller). You are merely directing his efforts, telling him what exactly you would like to buy from him.

The buyer and the seller are engaged in a mutually agreeable voluntary exchange. The fact that a buyer must guide a seller does not make the buyer an authority over the seller.

 

This is a great point.
But this part of the argument is a superficial element in all of this.
The real point is that money is an illusion, and barter is the only valid means of payment in a true anarchist model.
And since paper money is an illusion, ana-capism is oxymoronical by definition.

 

Great analogy. The employee is the seller, and the employer is the buyer.

 

I understand the notion that capitalism involves hierarchy because of the employee-employer relationship, where the employer buys a portion of the employee's life and not the other way around. However, as long as the relationship is voluntary, at the end of the day, the employer has no claim to any part of the employee's life other than that part which the employee grants him, thus one has no ultimate power over the other.

In communism people must be prevented from owning property. In order to do this, an institution must exist which has power over all property, and over anyone who wishes to own it. That institution must have ultimate power to prevent ownership of property, ultimate power over all the property it protects from ownership, and over all people who wish to own any of it. That institution would be the de facto owner and government of that property. So while communism doesn't eliminate, but, rather, requires hierarchy, it also requires property ownership.

 

Barter is inefficient, which is why mediums of exchange such as gold and silver appear.

 

Money is simply that commodity in which people reckon the prices of other goods. It arises on the free market as the most marketable commodity, that commodity that everyone will always accept, because they know that other will, in turn, accept it.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that money is a illusion, so can't say whether I agree or disagree.

 

The paper money in circulation today is subject to inflation and cant be taken at any real set value, hence it is illusory and its set values are at the whim of those in AUTHORITY of its production.

 

It suffers from the double coincidence of wants problem. Barter also precludes any sort of economic calculation, which is only possible when prices are expressed in terms of a single commodity.

 

The fiat money we currently use is not a product of the market. It is the product of government force and intervention in the market. On the free market, nobody would use fiat money.

 

Money is a means of exchange. It's just there to make transactions easier. It eliminates the need for the barber to go around and seek out milk and meat producers and car producers and house builders and scissor producers and each of the various producers of all the stuff he wants and hope they need haircuts and offer to trade the appropriate number of haircuts for the stuff they have. Money is no more illusory than his scissors.