Anarcho-Capititalism??

Exactly. In a truly free market, barter is the only way.

Plus, who ever said that any kind of market is necessary in any model of true anarchy?

 

If you don't believe that abstractions exist, then you can say that the value of fiat money is illusory. I do believe that abstractions exist, which is why I disagree with those who say that the State does not exist.

 

No, people would use commodity money, for the reasons given above.

I can't imagine a world in which people don't trade. Can you?

 

I think this conversation would be allot more productive if you allow us to define our own terms. When we say "barter", we mean the direct exchange of goods for goods with no medium ("money") involved. Fiat money, the value of which is enforced by government edict, is not the same as real money, the value of which emerges from the market, which is an abstract object consisting of people, their stuff and their actions.

 

All true. But because the abstract money in use has value set by people in control of its quantity, it can be manipulated, its value inflated, hence giving buying power to some while leaving others with less buying power. This creates a hierarchy in social order. This is not cohesive with libertarian anarchy.

 

I agree. Government enforced fiat money is anti-market, since it is enforced not cooperatively but through the violence of the state. Fiat money cannot exist without a coercive state, therefore it is antithetical to anarcho-capitalism. Only a naturally emergent commodity-based money is consistent with ana-cap.

 

Gas chambers and ovens?

What happened to the noncoercive anacaps?

 

That's strange. When I think of slaughter, I think of an organization that I'm told is essential for my protection. Governments are weird.

 

Just reading through this thread I got kinda scared. I mean, here are anacaps talking about wanting to extinguish all the "dumb' people in the world as if they were wanting to slaughter dumb animals. This sort of thinking is one born of centralized planning, not anacaps. They also sound like monsters. Why can't people just leave each other alone for God's sake?

 

No there aren't. Validation Boy didn't know what he was talking about. He believed the same thing that Bill Clinton, Ted Turner and whoever it was who wrote what's on the Georgia Guidestones believe, that the population of the world should be under 600,000,000. I'd like to think we're bringing him over to the only civilized position available. The one that holds that we know better than to kill each-other and take one another's stuff.

 

I've got a bit of problem with your argument here. You just made up some arbitrary people here without anykind of a relation to each other in a arbitrary place. Let's be specific here capitalism and the free market is a lot more than hired labor which is all your talking about. But hey lets just focus on providing a service for an employer figure in both environments.

So let's start with a farmer his names Adam and Adam lives in an anarcho capitalist society so he needs money to buy boots, clothes, grains and milk from the local market with silver coins. Adam farms sheep he has 3 dozen sheep he makes his money from their wool and meat. They are his property. He protects his property and none of the locals will take his sheep because they are his. They have their own property Adam also can't take but he can trade with them voluntary. Adam also willingly pays into a local security service that protects the village and his farm.

Adam and his family are going away for a week he needs someone to watch his sheep and trim their wool. Adam knows a young local who he trusts to do it and her name is Jean. They create a contract where Adam will pay her 10 silver to watch them per day and 0.5 silver for each pound of wool she trims. Since there is no law the contract is one of faith on both their parts. However If Jean or Adam fall through they will be thought of poorly locally and may be neglected. For Jean it would be unlikely she would be able to find another job unless she was absolutely needed. For Adam his sales may do poorly if there are other sources available and he may have trouble hiring someone else. However they both have confidence in the contract because they each have a profit motive and trust in one another. Also Adam asks his brother Frank to make sure the sheep survive if Jean falls through.

Anyways Adam gets back from the the trip and Jean has fulfilled the contract but Adam can only pay her 90 silver and not 100 that she is owed today. Jean notices Adams silver necklace and suggests he pays with that. Adam explains it is a gift from his wife and informs her that when he takes the wool to market tomorrow he will get the money to pay her an extra 20. She is left with the choice to discredit Adam or accept his offer.

CRAZY COMMUNIST TIME!! A farmer named Adam lives in an anarcho communist society so if he does favors for others they do favors for him. If a good neighbor is in need Adam will support them if he can and vice versa. Adam farms 3 dozen sheep for the village because he is pretty good at it. He and others protect it from those who would steal or hurt them like they also protect one another.

Adam and his family are going away for a week he needs someone to watch his sheep and trim their wool. Adam knows a young local who he trusts to do it and her name is Jean. Adam asks Jean to watch his sheep and trim them. Since there is no law the agreement is one of faith on both their parts. However If Jean falls through she will be thought of poorly and the village may suffer for her actions. This could put everyone in a bad situation and Jean could be neglected in a time of need. However Adam has confidence in Jean and she feels she has a duty to the village to see it through. Also Adam asks his brother Frank to make sure the sheep survive if Jean falls through.

Anyways Adam gets back from the the trip. Since Jean has done a favor for Adam she asks if she can borrow his silver necklace for a while to impress her boyfriend. Adam explains it is a gift from his wife. She's not getting it and her only compensation for her work is that she will be well regarded and may have an easier time borrowing what she wants. She could try to discredit Adam because he would not give her his necklace but even in a system of "from those who are able to those who are in need," that would likely be an unpopular move.

In both cases I don't think hierarchy really plays into either. At least not on the small scale of providing a service for another. On this scale I don't have much of a problem with either but they have some contrasts and some similarities so it's an interesting staring point. I just feel the latter scenario and view you portrayed is just a really stupid straw man that ignores actual people. Anyways both of these are hypothetical so take what you will. And really have you ever talked to an anarcho communist I don't think many of them actually believe eradicating all private property is their main goal because that's as dumb of a goal as having the entire world be a government less utopia. Ie as unrealistic as a world where government is everywhere.

 

Anarcho-Capitalists support a stateless capitalist system. This is pretty much impossible as the state as we know it developed to protect capitalist property rights so without a state capitalism wouldn't last long at all. What would stand in the way of workers taking over enterprises and running them democratically as they did with the Bolshevic revolution? Nothing, that's the answer - and whether you support a market system or a planned system most of us agree that anarcho-capitalists are (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ridiculous.

 

Well, I really don't know what to tell you. There are some people who call themselves communists, who also don't want individuals to own land. Some of them also call themselves anarchists. Some of them post on this site. Now, if there is a society with no state and no kind of restrictions on property ownership, what makes it communist? I don't see how the scenario in red is any different from the scenario in black, other than that you say one is capitalist and the other is communist. What makes one capitalist and the other communist? I need to take issue with your statement that there is no law in these societies. There is always law. It is always wrong for one to initiate force against another. Theft, murder, rape are everywhere and always against the law. We will always hold one another accountable for uncivilized, savage behavior. There was never a time or place in history where there was no law, and there never will be. As to the possibility of people living without an inherently violent abstract entity ruling their lives, land and attacking whomever it considers to be its enemy, people have lived that way and they can do so again. As long as humans are imperfect no society will ever be perfect. But the evil that is government is not any more necessary than the Democrat and Republican party. As long as people believe that they need an entity which takes, by force, a portion of their livelihood, routinely slaughters the subjects of other inherently violent agencies, and on occasion even compels its own subjects to slaughter one another, they will have it. But back to my question. What makes the red one communist and the black one capitalist?

 

Anarcho-capitalists consider the initiation of aggression against person and property to be ethically unjust. This, however, does not mean that they do not recognize that government currently provides some useful services (such as property protection, dispute resolution, etc). The ana-cap understands that for a civilized capitalist society to exist, these sorts of protections must be provided. The only difference is that the ana-cap does not believe that a coercive, territorial monopoly is the most ethically just mechanism for doing so.

As Maximatic just said, every society will always have laws, and every society will have agencies that protect property and adjudicate disputes. The ana-cap would prefer that these agencies be voluntarily formed and funded, rather than coercively imposed and funded through confiscation.

Well there's no reason that an ana-cap society could not have property protection agencies. And I would also note that in your example of the Bolshevik revolution, even the coercive government was incapable of performing its supposed job.