One important thing to remember is that in anarcho-capitalism, the theory is based on the view that private property should be the ethical law (freedom being a consequence of your inalienable ownership of your own body). And that the theory is a legal doctrine and not an ideology, in the sense that it does not say how the world should be organized, only that it cannot be based on the violation of private property. Ancap theory in short says that private property violence can only be used against aggression. And only within what is considered proportional to the aggression made. In other words, you can't hit your neighbor because his soccer ball landed in your backyard. But you can demand that he remove it and that he pay for any damage done by it, and if it is previously established in contract, that he pay some sort of fine. greetings from a brazilian ancap
Social and mutualist anarchism would work in city environments with unions and stuff but individualist anarchism would work best in rural areas with less people and more self sufficiency.
if you wanted to explain egoists and max stirner's view on the economy would you talk about their attitudes towards property, and how there shouldn't be any? or is there something else that I could mention? thank you!
Check the tutor2u page on Max Stirner. There's a good section on the economy (including the private property option which you mention). Thanks for watching the video
Ok I'm not an anarcho egoist but I'm a left anarchist so I'm gonna answer my opinion even tho it cannot guaranteed to be valid 1. Currency and free market, this depends on the ego of the anarcho egoist of wanting to steal it to get what they want or by pleasing other egos so that they can please their own ego by playing fair in the free market and usage of currency, this making currency and the free market can exist in an anarcho egoist society 2. Laws, nope absolutely not itss whatever they'll pleases their ego as a result they don't care about moral boundaries and that's why they're always rejecting any representation of morality like their moderate friend the anarcho nihilist 3. Education, this depends on whatever their ego pleases if they want to read because it pleases their ego then they should read but if not then they won't read or understand it at all 4. Anarcho egoism is a really radical ideology, even more radical than the anarcho nihilist due to them wanting a society depend on the ego instead of mutual self interest and this difference makes criminal free in an anarch egoist society meanwhile not in a normal anarchist society. And also they cannot even expand their ideas cause they also reject idealism (which is a necessary for an idea to arose) due to idealism connected to moralism
There wouldn't be an Anarcho-Egoist society, since Anarcho-Egoism is a philosophical idea rather then an Ideology. I guess some egoists would be bandits or pirates kind of groups , rejecting societies morality and rules to live the most egoist life possible. but most of the people wouldn't pay the price for that. Some would like to act morally and legally but not because its a good thing to do, but rather for collaborate in a market and keeping your head low is a rational thing to do. and some would be inspired by stirner but not fully adapt all of his Ideas leading them to other kind of anarchism, most of the anego's Ive talked to believe in a kind of leftist ancap society, but with the emphasis on autonomous societies , gift economy, and rejection of big tech in order to build a market that relies more on DIY, black markets, small buisneses, and open source high tech.
And here we see the issue of Anarcho “capitalists” like Rothbard who simply have a roundabout way of coming to socialist conclusions basically using Anarcho Individualist socialism but redefining capitalism as just meaning “da free market” to fit it in their ideology, and then “Anarcho” capitalists who use anarchism to vaguely justify their capitalism, while still defending things like capitalist property rights and economics not realizing such rights literally require the state.
So private property requires a state but personal doesn’t how so ? Private property existed long before states came to be. Same with things like currency. To me it seems more that socializing & collectivization requires the state since many would surrender their property voluntarily
@@derrickjohnson4952 This is not true in fact. Anthropologically, personal property has existed since the dawn of humanity, currency is about the same. Both credits and debts on tablets or walls initially, and then later objects deemed with value inscribed usually by a state. Credits and debts are far more popular, and seemingly our natural impulse, which makes sense. Adam Smith was right about a lot, but his parroting of the guess of a 3 chickens for 1 cow bartering system makes no logical sense given what we know about cultural customs among neighbors. The very acknowledgements Smith makes in his personally more important work on Moral Sentiments is that our personal bonds with our community empower us towards charitable action. Of course in application through out most of human history this was credits and debts, and then also regularly debt forgiveness. Similarly so most of the world up until about the 19th century was public property. There was the fake Liberal myth of the tragedy of the commons, which indeed is in a sense true. But in any given instance where the commons is destroyed, throughout all of Europe, then through colonialism and imperialism, across the third world. Similarly so in Islamic, and Chinese imperialism, the state either chiefly destroys the commons, or subsidizes its destruction by plutocrats. TLDR: MOST of human history had no state. MOST of human history practiced varied forms of common property, with assurance of personal property managed by cultural norms. Similarly, MOST human economics have been conducted through the instantaneous creation and provision of a credit, in return for debtors investment. Now, paying fair dues to the state, most technological advancements also correlate with state funding. The entire computer revolution came from the US military budget. But all the same, tiny local railroad companies of German, Italian, and Russian localities autonomously constructed a mass rail system as Kropotkin pointed out. So basically wherever humans are driven, either for advantage and communal goals, or threat of force, or greed, we do some cool stuff where we focus our energy. But that’s tangential, you simply don’t know much about human history.
This is why I think voluntaryism is a much better term than anarcho-capitalism. Since the meaning of anarchism and capitalism are ambiguous and hotly debated.
@@NotnotKingofficial I agree, this is the simple and direct solution, and historically it has the basis, because anarchists and voluntaryists hotly debated each other in the late 19th early 20th century. Also the whole is it okay for someone to “consent” to slavery voluntarily.
2:45 and already he is building a strawman by saying things that aren't necessarily so, like Individualist anarchists' are against "society" and "religion" some may be and some may not... There was a good book "Native American Anarchism" Paperback - January 1, 1983 by Eunice Minette Schuster (Author) who goes through the religious and pacifist roots of American Anarchism.
Anarcho-capitalism is the only non-violent way to give all people equal rights. Social Heirchy is not the same as having rulers or a rulling class but many collectivist anarchists claim that Anarchy (no rulers) also means No Social Heirchy even though most people naturally know the difference between a leader and a violently dominating ruler.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, how are capitalists going to be able to defend their private property in a non-violent way when there's no longer a state to do that violence for them? Private property is the private ownership of a mean of production. In our current society, the state defends the private property of capitalists, but when the state is no more, how are they going to defend it in a non-violent way? How are they going to prevent it from becoming a public mean of production in a non violent way? "Social Heirchy is not the same as having rulers or a rulling class " That's exactly what a Social Hierarchy is. In Anarchism, when people mention Hierarchy they mean institutionalized power structures. Yes, hierarchy is not the same thing as leadership. Leaders naturally emerge depending the issues that are being faced, but at the same time leadership is limited to the issues being faced. Just because this guy knows a lot about plumbing and he was able to get us out of a plumbing crisis one time, that's doesn't mean he should have institutional power over what type of healthcare system should I have. Leaders are not the same thing as rulers.
@@OurBrainHurtsALot I'm not going to debate what words mean as you can easily find a dictionary to see what hierarchy means. Based on that definition you can definitely have a voluntary hierarchy that you can disassociate with anytime and there are no repercussions. If you want it to mean something else I won't stop you. How do you defend your property now without using force? You can't you have to use force to defend your property. Violence and force are also two different things. Violence is used by aggressors a and force is used by defenders. The private property could either be a business with security protecting it if necessary, a rental property where the renters protect it, a family home where the family protects it or if it's unused land the it will probably also need security to protect it. Socialism is an economic and political system based on collective ownership of the means of production. Who's going to agree to that system in an Anarchist society? Without the state to enforce it by ways of taxation and redistribution there will be very few people who will voluntarily pay for "the collective" (which is just the total of all the individuals in society, not actually a thing in and of itself). People will voluntarily pay for certain services that they deem necessary for sure but no one will want to pay for things they don't deem necessary and there will be no one to enforce that rule if they don't in an Anarchist society. Protecting individual rights automatically protects the rights of the collective where as protecting collective rights ALWAYS comes at the cost of stomping on individual rights. Guess which one rulers like better?
@@jasonjobsis6535 "Based on that definition you can definitely have a voluntary hierarchy that you can disassociate with anytime" Not really, no. There’s no such a thing as a voluntary hierarchy, because hierarchies are based on coercion. It’s like if one were to argue that there is such a thing as a voluntary slave. Now, if by “voluntary hierarchy” you mean the free association of equals, then yeah, I’m fully on board with that although I would disagree in calling that a hierarchy in any way. "How do you defend your property now without using force?" The specific question was how do you defend your private property without the violence of the state. You said "a family home where the family protects it" that's perfect, but that's not private property, that's personal property. " a rental property where the renters protect it", that's perfect, but if the renters are already protecting that property, and they're already living in it and taking care of it, what's stopping them from just owning the place as their personal property? After all, they're the ones taking care of the whole place. " a business with security protecting " ok, but who is going to provide that security? The workers? Once again, what's stopping them to make that business a collective since they are the ones taking care of the whole place? If you mean, you are planning to hire a mercenary company to take care of the place, that's possibly the most nighmerish scenario. How are you going to stop that mercenary group from double crossing you and take control of your business? (I'm asking you because this is exactly what has happened to many drug cartels). It almost seems like the only companies that would be successful are all the mercenary groups that capitalists will have to rely on for defending their private property, but even then, what’s stopping those mercenaries from collectivizing their groups? Why should the mercenaries work for a mercenary boss who owns more than them? Also, this would be a world where effectively every rich person would need a private army to defend their private property and that’s pretty much the equivalent of living in a world run by drug lords. That’s a freaking nightmare. But then again, those mercenaries can kill the rich dude and take control of all of its properties. You see how maintaining private property in a stateless world is nearly impossible? Capitalism necessitates the monopolistic violence of the state in order to validate, legalize and regulate the power dynamics that private property upholds and also to prevent the actual users, carers and workers of that property from collectivizing it. Capitalists need the state in order to have private property. “Socialism is an economic and political system based on collective ownership of the means of production. Who's going to agree to that system in an Anarchist society?” Ah… pretty much every single anarchist. Or at least, every single social anarchist. The last thing an anarchist wants is to see a mean of production in the hands of a capitalist. Anarchists want the means of production to be owned by the people who actually use them, care for them and work them. If you are working for a company, you should own part of that company, and not only that, you should also have voting power in the decision making process of the company. If you are living in a place and taking care of it, you should be the owner of that place without paying rent to anyone. Anarchist are anti-taxation, they’re against the idea of having a state that collects taxes in the first place. If you are asking how will anarchists get infrastructure made then, well, there’s many different models, voluntary cooperation, civilian associations, mutual aid networks, gift economies, direct action networks and the like, always rejecting coercive taxation. Also, since workers would be owners of their own workplaces, and workers are also citizens of the town, perhaps they would be inclined to take a part of their revenue and donate it for these infrastructures, they can vote for it or not, or they can just do it individually or maybe they just refuse. There’s this historical Swiss movie called Unrest about 19 century anarchist workers, and they would constantly donate to all sorts of projects and causes, even international ones. These methods are not pipe dreams, they have been applied historically with success. Of course, there’s room to perfect them. “People will voluntarily pay for certain services that they deem necessary for sure but no one will want to pay for things they don't deem necessary and there will be no one to enforce that rule if they don't in an Anarchist society.” Well, yeah. If some anarchists are not interested in getting something, well, they’re not going to get it and that’s that. And if there are a few people that actually want that thing, perhaps they can find a nearby community that actually produces that thing and get it from there or even move there if they deem necessary. “Protecting individual rights automatically protects the rights of the collective where as protecting collective rights ALWAYS comes at the cost of stomping on individual rights.“ Well, I think you are ignoring that individual rights and collective rights exist in a reciprocal relationship. Yes, any society that deems itself worthy of existence should provide the individual as many negative and positive freedoms as possible, for sure. But you cannot provide an individual a paradoxical right that ends up allowing him to abuse the freedom of others. Private property is exactly that type of right. You can own the house you use and live in, but you wouldn’t be able to own a bunch of houses you don’t use and negate others the right to use them, you’re infringing on the positive freedoms of others by doing that. You wouldn’t even be able to physically enforce this in an anarchist society anyways. You wouldn’t have a state police or another force you could command to kick out the people living in one of your uninhabited houses.
@@OurBrainHurtsALot We are of course talking hypothetically or expressing our desires here as no one really knows what's going to happen in a Anarchist society. My personal prediction based on my experiences from living in a western country is that well over 50% of the population would not submit to complete Communism/Socialism (which is what you are advocating). It's not our culture and it's more likely to happen in a statist society than an Anarchist society (but even then highly unlikely). I've never met an AnCom (or Anarcho-Socialist or whatever you want to call yourself) that can explain the difference between private property and personal property. Out of the 20 odd people who explained it explained it differently which means it will never work since no one can agree on what the specific differences are. Private ownership (Capital) is already understood by the vast majority and is only violated by government. Sadly many people still don't realize (even Anarchists it turns out) that the state is biggest violator of private property rights and in fact no one really owns anything in a statist society. If you have to pay rates/property tax even after you "own it" 100% then you don't own it. The state claims it owns the "country" and so all this available bare land is not available to the general public that desperately need a home. Capitalism (the trading of one's private property) allows the economy to flourish. Many Anarchists forget that in a stateless society there is no such thing as a centralized financial system and intellectual property rights. This means there will be many decentralised currencies removing the monopolization of finance and being there is no I.P there can also be no monopolization of goods and services. This immediately creates more wealth for all and more equal opportunities. Sharing the means of production might work for some who want to live that way in a small community but it can never work on a larger scale. In most cases collectivism just kills the motivation to become successful as has been demonstrated a thousand times over throughout history. You say everyone will automatically become socialist in an Anarchist society and I say that myself and a billion other people disagree with you. My question to you is...are you going to force me to become a socialist/communist/collectivist (whatever you want to call it)? Or will you leave me and others alone who want to voluntarily trade with each other our goods and services? One answer makes you an Anarchist the other makes you not an Anarchist. FYI in an Anarchist society where Voluntary trade is the norm no one is going to care if you set up a commune and that shares the means of production so long as it's voluntary. One last thing is you confuse private security with a private militia. I've owned my own private security company for 15 years and I can explain to you the thousands of differences if you care to know...
@@jasonjobsis6535 Our 'western culture', to the extent there is a hegemonic one, is also statist... and so what? We are never making a headways toward anarchy (which isn't merely some thin anti-statism as you have it, but abolition to _all_ forms of domination) without social and cultural change.
In "For a New Liberty" Rothbard asks What would you do about crime with out a sate? Then he goes through all the common sense ideas that a family or group of people would try... working together with their neighbors, locks on the doors, maybe bars on the windows, maybe getting weapons, practicing security precautions. I listened to half this video, tired of the distortions.
"Pauperism can only be lifted when I value myself as I, when I give myself value and make my own price. I must rebel in order to rise." "Ich muß Mich empören, um emporzukommen." Stirner is a little ancap b++h and not so for violent insurrections as for rationality I think. Which psychological spell will let the workers rise?
anarcho individualism sounds great to me until it starts sounding like its cool with violating other ppl’s individualism. so, its a non-reciprocal ideology. its not a contract, its simply a doctrine. i mean, thats every dictator and politician out there.
The stuff on Stirner is so unbelievably stupid. "People are egotistical with no interest in the welfare of others" Nonsense! Stirner supports psychological egoism which states that everyone regardless of their actions or beliefs is fundamentally self-serving. Caring for other's wellbeing can very well be self-serving and often is. "We do not aspire to a communal life but a life apart" CITATION NEEDED "Individuals are entitled to everything" You've completely misconstrued Stirner. Individuals are entitled to NOTHING. The endless justifications that people use to justify why they are entitled to property of any kind are mere SPOOKS. The fact of the matter is that if you own something, it isn't because you are entitled to it but that you are able to occupy it. It's yours so long as you manage to hold on to it. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENTILTALMENT. "Working together is rational not natural" RATIONALITY IS A SPOOK. One works with others as they please for whatever reason they want. It has nothing to do with acting in rationally appropriate ways. "Violent insurrection to bring down the state" Once again you are basically stating the opposite of what Stirner states. Quote form pg. 280 of The Ego and Its Own "The revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on 'institutions'. It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed. The revolution commands one to make arrangements, the insurrection [Emporung] demands that he rise or exalt himself [sich auf oder emporzurichten]. What constitution was to be chosen, this question busied the revolutionary heads, and the whole political period foams with constitutional fights and constitutional questions, as the social talents too were uncommonly inventive in societary arrangements (phalansteries and the like). The insurgent strives to become constitutionless." "Stop property, morality, religion must go" You are implying that Stirner is arguing for the overthrow of these spooks through revolution. The revolution that Stirner supports though is personal not collective.
Why would you cite Murray Rothbard and Anarcho Capitalism and not Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon and Mutualism? Anarcho Capitalism is not anarchism and spits in the face of a true genuine free market.
Based on the prerequisites he gave for individualist anarchism, Proudhon and mutualism would not fit as they go against the whole abstain from society aspect, mutualism relies on mutual aid which requires a society. I do agree that he should have referenced Tucker as he does fit the bill and also because Rothbard was influenced by Tucker more than Warren and Thoreau. Also capitalism does not spit in the face of a free market.
@@condaquan9459 tucker was a strong adherent of the LTV. Tucker translated Proudhons work as he agreed with most of his positions as to how such a market would look like . Tucker understood in order to create a free market that eliminates monopoly the workers had to own the means of production. Tucker wanted rent abolished because he knew that capitalism was hierarchal in its roots. and his individualist anarchism was miles away from Rothbards anarcho capitalism.
Agreed!! Maybe it should be it's own video/section. I think the whole "Individualist" vs "Collectivist" split, the way it is taught at Politics A Level is kind of messy for this reason. Within the actual anarchist movement (i.e. anti-catpitalist) there _was_ a split between the individualists and what are retrospectively called "social" anarchists, but all of them were anti-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalism is a synthetic co-option of anarchism, rather than an organic sub-tendency, such as the many that existed in movement debated in the classical anarchist period.
Well Murray must be crazy. Rent is a hell hole of oppression.
A lot of the "hell hole" of rent i the result of inflation destroying savings so people are forced into land speculation to preserve any saving.
One important thing to remember is that in anarcho-capitalism, the theory is based on the view that private property should be the ethical law (freedom being a consequence of your inalienable ownership of your own body).
And that the theory is a legal doctrine and not an ideology, in the sense that it does not say how the world should be organized, only that it cannot be based on the violation of private property.
Ancap theory in short says that private property violence can only be used against aggression. And only within what is considered proportional to the aggression made. In other words, you can't hit your neighbor because his soccer ball landed in your backyard. But you can demand that he remove it and that he pay for any damage done by it, and if it is previously established in contract, that he pay some sort of fine.
greetings from a brazilian ancap
Which book do you recomend about specificlly about legal doctrine.
Social and mutualist anarchism would work in city environments with unions and stuff but individualist anarchism would work best in rural areas with less people and more self sufficiency.
Currency is emergent; read "Debt; the first 5000 years"
A boot on your throat, is a boot on your throat. Whether, it's the state, church, society, etc.
if you wanted to explain egoists and max stirner's view on the economy would you talk about their attitudes towards property, and how there shouldn't be any? or is there something else that I could mention? thank you!
Check the tutor2u page on Max Stirner. There's a good section on the economy (including the private property option which you mention). Thanks for watching the video
How would life be like on an Anarcho-Egoist society? How would currencies, markets, laws, education, etc actually work?
Ok I'm not an anarcho egoist but I'm a left anarchist so I'm gonna answer my opinion even tho it cannot guaranteed to be valid
1. Currency and free market, this depends on the ego of the anarcho egoist of wanting to steal it to get what they want or by pleasing other egos so that they can please their own ego by playing fair in the free market and usage of currency, this making currency and the free market can exist in an anarcho egoist society
2. Laws, nope absolutely not itss whatever they'll pleases their ego as a result they don't care about moral boundaries and that's why they're always rejecting any representation of morality like their moderate friend the anarcho nihilist
3. Education, this depends on whatever their ego pleases if they want to read because it pleases their ego then they should read but if not then they won't read or understand it at all
4. Anarcho egoism is a really radical ideology, even more radical than the anarcho nihilist due to them wanting a society depend on the ego instead of mutual self interest and this difference makes criminal free in an anarch egoist society meanwhile not in a normal anarchist society. And also they cannot even expand their ideas cause they also reject idealism (which is a necessary for an idea to arose) due to idealism connected to moralism
There wouldn't be an Anarcho-Egoist society, since Anarcho-Egoism is a philosophical idea rather then an Ideology.
I guess some egoists would be bandits or pirates kind of groups , rejecting societies morality and rules to live the most egoist life possible. but most of the people wouldn't pay the price for that.
Some would like to act morally and legally but not because its a good thing to do, but rather for collaborate in a market and keeping your head low is a rational thing to do.
and some would be inspired by stirner but not fully adapt all of his Ideas leading them to other kind of anarchism, most of the anego's Ive talked to believe in a kind of leftist ancap society, but with the emphasis on autonomous societies , gift economy, and rejection of big tech in order to build a market that relies more on DIY, black markets, small buisneses, and open source high tech.
About like 90% of your current life works... all the things we don't vote about.
And here we see the issue of Anarcho “capitalists” like Rothbard who simply have a roundabout way of coming to socialist conclusions basically using Anarcho Individualist socialism but redefining capitalism as just meaning “da free market” to fit it in their ideology, and then “Anarcho” capitalists who use anarchism to vaguely justify their capitalism, while still defending things like capitalist property rights and economics not realizing such rights literally require the state.
So private property requires a state but personal doesn’t how so ? Private property existed long before states came to be. Same with things like currency. To me it seems more that socializing & collectivization requires the state since many would surrender their property voluntarily
@@derrickjohnson4952 This is not true in fact. Anthropologically, personal property has existed since the dawn of humanity, currency is about the same. Both credits and debts on tablets or walls initially, and then later objects deemed with value inscribed usually by a state. Credits and debts are far more popular, and seemingly our natural impulse, which makes sense. Adam Smith was right about a lot, but his parroting of the guess of a 3 chickens for 1 cow bartering system makes no logical sense given what we know about cultural customs among neighbors. The very acknowledgements Smith makes in his personally more important work on Moral Sentiments is that our personal bonds with our community empower us towards charitable action. Of course in application through out most of human history this was credits and debts, and then also regularly debt forgiveness.
Similarly so most of the world up until about the 19th century was public property. There was the fake Liberal myth of the tragedy of the commons, which indeed is in a sense true. But in any given instance where the commons is destroyed, throughout all of Europe, then through colonialism and imperialism, across the third world. Similarly so in Islamic, and Chinese imperialism, the state either chiefly destroys the commons, or subsidizes its destruction by plutocrats.
TLDR: MOST of human history had no state.
MOST of human history practiced varied forms of common property, with assurance of personal property managed by cultural norms.
Similarly, MOST human economics have been conducted through the instantaneous creation and provision of a credit, in return for debtors investment.
Now, paying fair dues to the state, most technological advancements also correlate with state funding. The entire computer revolution came from the US military budget. But all the same, tiny local railroad companies of German, Italian, and Russian localities autonomously constructed a mass rail system as Kropotkin pointed out. So basically wherever humans are driven, either for advantage and communal goals, or threat of force, or greed, we do some cool stuff where we focus our energy. But that’s tangential, you simply don’t know much about human history.
This is why I think voluntaryism is a much better term than anarcho-capitalism. Since the meaning of anarchism and capitalism are ambiguous and hotly debated.
@@NotnotKingofficial I agree, this is the simple and direct solution, and historically it has the basis, because anarchists and voluntaryists hotly debated each other in the late 19th early 20th century. Also the whole is it okay for someone to “consent” to slavery voluntarily.
@@aradicalkiwi806 Great comment!
What was the Aboriginals perspective on the Indian Act?
what's Sterner's view on utopianism?
Will be getting into Communitarianism at some point?
2:45 and already he is building a strawman by saying things that aren't necessarily so, like Individualist anarchists' are against "society" and "religion" some may be and some may not... There was a good book "Native American Anarchism" Paperback - January 1, 1983
by Eunice Minette Schuster (Author) who goes through the religious and pacifist roots of American Anarchism.
define "society?" Didn't Josiah Warren create a community and a "Time store?" how is that leaving society.... Thoreau has a chapter on society.
Anarcho-capitalism is the only non-violent way to give all people equal rights. Social Heirchy is not the same as having rulers or a rulling class but many collectivist anarchists claim that Anarchy (no rulers) also means No Social Heirchy even though most people naturally know the difference between a leader and a violently dominating ruler.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, how are capitalists going to be able to defend their private property in a non-violent way when there's no longer a state to do that violence for them? Private property is the private ownership of a mean of production. In our current society, the state defends the private property of capitalists, but when the state is no more, how are they going to defend it in a non-violent way? How are they going to prevent it from becoming a public mean of production in a non violent way? "Social Heirchy is not the same as having rulers or a rulling class " That's exactly what a Social Hierarchy is. In Anarchism, when people mention Hierarchy they mean institutionalized power structures. Yes, hierarchy is not the same thing as leadership. Leaders naturally emerge depending the issues that are being faced, but at the same time leadership is limited to the issues being faced. Just because this guy knows a lot about plumbing and he was able to get us out of a plumbing crisis one time, that's doesn't mean he should have institutional power over what type of healthcare system should I have. Leaders are not the same thing as rulers.
@@OurBrainHurtsALot I'm not going to debate what words mean as you can easily find a dictionary to see what hierarchy means. Based on that definition you can definitely have a voluntary hierarchy that you can disassociate with anytime and there are no repercussions. If you want it to mean something else I won't stop you.
How do you defend your property now without using force? You can't you have to use force to defend your property. Violence and force are also two different things. Violence is used by aggressors a and force is used by defenders.
The private property could either be a business with security protecting it if necessary, a rental property where the renters protect it, a family home where the family protects it or if it's unused land the it will probably also need security to protect it.
Socialism is an economic and political system based on collective ownership of the means of production. Who's going to agree to that system in an Anarchist society? Without the state to enforce it by ways of taxation and redistribution there will be very few people who will voluntarily pay for "the collective" (which is just the total of all the individuals in society, not actually a thing in and of itself). People will voluntarily pay for certain services that they deem necessary for sure but no one will want to pay for things they don't deem necessary and there will be no one to enforce that rule if they don't in an Anarchist society. Protecting individual rights automatically protects the rights of the collective where as protecting collective rights ALWAYS comes at the cost of stomping on individual rights. Guess which one rulers like better?
@@jasonjobsis6535 "Based on that definition you can definitely have a voluntary hierarchy that you can disassociate with anytime"
Not really, no. There’s no such a thing as a voluntary hierarchy, because hierarchies are based on coercion. It’s like if one were to argue that there is such a thing as a voluntary slave. Now, if by “voluntary hierarchy” you mean the free association of equals, then yeah, I’m fully on board with that although I would disagree in calling that a hierarchy in any way.
"How do you defend your property now without using force?" The specific question was how do you defend your private property without the violence of the state.
You said "a family home where the family protects it" that's perfect, but that's not private property, that's personal property.
" a rental property where the renters protect it", that's perfect, but if the renters are already protecting that property, and they're already living in it and taking care of it, what's stopping them from just owning the place as their personal property? After all, they're the ones taking care of the whole place.
" a business with security protecting " ok, but who is going to provide that security? The workers? Once again, what's stopping them to make that business a collective since they are the ones taking care of the whole place? If you mean, you are planning to hire a mercenary company to take care of the place, that's possibly the most nighmerish scenario. How are you going to stop that mercenary group from double crossing you and take control of your business? (I'm asking you because this is exactly what has happened to many drug cartels). It almost seems like the only companies that would be successful are all the mercenary groups that capitalists will have to rely on for defending their private property, but even then, what’s stopping those mercenaries from collectivizing their groups? Why should the mercenaries work for a mercenary boss who owns more than them? Also, this would be a world where effectively every rich person would need a private army to defend their private property and that’s pretty much the equivalent of living in a world run by drug lords. That’s a freaking nightmare. But then again, those mercenaries can kill the rich dude and take control of all of its properties.
You see how maintaining private property in a stateless world is nearly impossible? Capitalism necessitates the monopolistic violence of the state in order to validate, legalize and regulate the power dynamics that private property upholds and also to prevent the actual users, carers and workers of that property from collectivizing it. Capitalists need the state in order to have private property.
“Socialism is an economic and political system based on collective ownership of the means of production. Who's going to agree to that system in an Anarchist society?”
Ah… pretty much every single anarchist. Or at least, every single social anarchist. The last thing an anarchist wants is to see a mean of production in the hands of a capitalist. Anarchists want the means of production to be owned by the people who actually use them, care for them and work them. If you are working for a company, you should own part of that company, and not only that, you should also have voting power in the decision making process of the company. If you are living in a place and taking care of it, you should be the owner of that place without paying rent to anyone. Anarchist are anti-taxation, they’re against the idea of having a state that collects taxes in the first place. If you are asking how will anarchists get infrastructure made then, well, there’s many different models, voluntary cooperation, civilian associations, mutual aid networks, gift economies, direct action networks and the like, always rejecting coercive taxation. Also, since workers would be owners of their own workplaces, and workers are also citizens of the town, perhaps they would be inclined to take a part of their revenue and donate it for these infrastructures, they can vote for it or not, or they can just do it individually or maybe they just refuse. There’s this historical Swiss movie called Unrest about 19 century anarchist workers, and they would constantly donate to all sorts of projects and causes, even international ones.
These methods are not pipe dreams, they have been applied historically with success. Of course, there’s room to perfect them.
“People will voluntarily pay for certain services that they deem necessary for sure but no one will want to pay for things they don't deem necessary and there will be no one to enforce that rule if they don't in an Anarchist society.”
Well, yeah. If some anarchists are not interested in getting something, well, they’re not going to get it and that’s that. And if there are a few people that actually want that thing, perhaps they can find a nearby community that actually produces that thing and get it from there or even move there if they deem necessary.
“Protecting individual rights automatically protects the rights of the collective where as protecting collective rights ALWAYS comes at the cost of stomping on individual rights.“
Well, I think you are ignoring that individual rights and collective rights exist in a reciprocal relationship. Yes, any society that deems itself worthy of existence should provide the individual as many negative and positive freedoms as possible, for sure. But you cannot provide an individual a paradoxical right that ends up allowing him to abuse the freedom of others. Private property is exactly that type of right. You can own the house you use and live in, but you wouldn’t be able to own a bunch of houses you don’t use and negate others the right to use them, you’re infringing on the positive freedoms of others by doing that. You wouldn’t even be able to physically enforce this in an anarchist society anyways. You wouldn’t have a state police or another force you could command to kick out the people living in one of your uninhabited houses.
@@OurBrainHurtsALot We are of course talking hypothetically or expressing our desires here as no one really knows what's going to happen in a Anarchist society.
My personal prediction based on my experiences from living in a western country is that well over 50% of the population would not submit to complete Communism/Socialism (which is what you are advocating). It's not our culture and it's more likely to happen in a statist society than an Anarchist society (but even then highly unlikely).
I've never met an AnCom (or Anarcho-Socialist or whatever you want to call yourself) that can explain the difference between private property and personal property. Out of the 20 odd people who explained it explained it differently which means it will never work since no one can agree on what the specific differences are.
Private ownership (Capital) is already understood by the vast majority and is only violated by government. Sadly many people still don't realize (even Anarchists it turns out) that the state is biggest violator of private property rights and in fact no one really owns anything in a statist society. If you have to pay rates/property tax even after you "own it" 100% then you don't own it. The state claims it owns the "country" and so all this available bare land is not available to the general public that desperately need a home.
Capitalism (the trading of one's private property) allows the economy to flourish. Many Anarchists forget that in a stateless society there is no such thing as a centralized financial system and intellectual property rights. This means there will be many decentralised currencies removing the monopolization of finance and being there is no I.P there can also be no monopolization of goods and services. This immediately creates more wealth for all and more equal opportunities.
Sharing the means of production might work for some who want to live that way in a small community but it can never work on a larger scale. In most cases collectivism just kills the motivation to become successful as has been demonstrated a thousand times over throughout history.
You say everyone will automatically become socialist in an Anarchist society and I say that myself and a billion other people disagree with you. My question to you is...are you going to force me to become a socialist/communist/collectivist (whatever you want to call it)? Or will you leave me and others alone who want to voluntarily trade with each other our goods and services? One answer makes you an Anarchist the other makes you not an Anarchist.
FYI in an Anarchist society where Voluntary trade is the norm no one is going to care if you set up a commune and that shares the means of production so long as it's voluntary.
One last thing is you confuse private security with a private militia. I've owned my own private security company for 15 years and I can explain to you the thousands of differences if you care to know...
@@jasonjobsis6535 Our 'western culture', to the extent there is a hegemonic one, is also statist... and so what? We are never making a headways toward anarchy (which isn't merely some thin anti-statism as you have it, but abolition to _all_ forms of domination) without social and cultural change.
In "For a New Liberty" Rothbard asks What would you do about crime with out a sate? Then he goes through all the common sense ideas that a family or group of people would try... working together with their neighbors, locks on the doors, maybe bars on the windows, maybe getting weapons, practicing security precautions. I listened to half this video, tired of the distortions.
"Pauperism can only be lifted when I value myself as I, when I give myself value and make my own price. I must rebel in order to rise." "Ich muß Mich empören, um emporzukommen." Stirner is a little ancap b++h and not so for violent insurrections as for rationality I think. Which psychological spell will let the workers rise?
anarcho individualism sounds great to me until it starts sounding like its cool with violating other ppl’s individualism. so, its a non-reciprocal ideology. its not a contract, its simply a doctrine. i mean, thats every dictator and politician out there.
The stuff on Stirner is so unbelievably stupid.
"People are egotistical with no interest in the welfare of others"
Nonsense! Stirner supports psychological egoism which states that everyone regardless of their actions or beliefs is fundamentally self-serving. Caring for other's wellbeing can very well be self-serving and often is.
"We do not aspire to a communal life but a life apart"
CITATION NEEDED
"Individuals are entitled to everything"
You've completely misconstrued Stirner. Individuals are entitled to NOTHING. The endless justifications that people use to justify why they are entitled to property of any kind are mere SPOOKS. The fact of the matter is that if you own something, it isn't because you are entitled to it but that you are able to occupy it. It's yours so long as you manage to hold on to it. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ENTILTALMENT.
"Working together is rational not natural"
RATIONALITY IS A SPOOK. One works with others as they please for whatever reason they want. It has nothing to do with acting in rationally appropriate ways.
"Violent insurrection to bring down the state"
Once again you are basically stating the opposite of what Stirner states.
Quote form pg. 280 of The Ego and Its Own
"The revolution aimed at new arrangements; insurrection leads us no longer to let ourselves be arranged, but to arrange ourselves, and sets no glittering hopes on 'institutions'. It is not a fight against the established, since, if it prospers, the established collapses of itself; it is only a working forth of me out of the established. If I leave the established, it is dead and passes into decay. Now, as my object is not the overthrow of an established order but my elevation above it, my purpose and deed are not a political or social but (as directed toward myself and my ownness alone) an egoistic purpose and deed.
The revolution commands one to make arrangements, the insurrection [Emporung] demands that he rise or exalt himself [sich auf oder emporzurichten]. What constitution was to be chosen, this question busied the revolutionary heads, and the whole political period foams with constitutional fights and constitutional questions, as the social talents too were uncommonly inventive in societary arrangements (phalansteries and the like). The insurgent strives to become constitutionless."
"Stop property, morality, religion must go"
You are implying that Stirner is arguing for the overthrow of these spooks through revolution. The revolution that Stirner supports though is personal not collective.
Why would you cite Murray Rothbard and Anarcho Capitalism and not Benjamin Tucker, Proudhon and Mutualism?
Anarcho Capitalism is not anarchism and spits in the face of a true genuine free market.
Based on the prerequisites he gave for individualist anarchism, Proudhon and mutualism would not fit as they go against the whole abstain from society aspect, mutualism relies on mutual aid which requires a society. I do agree that he should have referenced Tucker as he does fit the bill and also because Rothbard was influenced by Tucker more than Warren and Thoreau. Also capitalism does not spit in the face of a free market.
@@condaquan9459 tucker was a strong adherent of the LTV. Tucker translated Proudhons work as he agreed with most of his positions as to how such a market would look like .
Tucker understood in order to create a free market that eliminates monopoly the workers had to own the means of production. Tucker wanted rent abolished because he knew that capitalism was hierarchal in its roots.
and his individualist anarchism was miles away from Rothbards anarcho capitalism.
Agreed!! Maybe it should be it's own video/section. I think the whole "Individualist" vs "Collectivist" split, the way it is taught at Politics A Level is kind of messy for this reason. Within the actual anarchist movement (i.e. anti-catpitalist) there _was_ a split between the individualists and what are retrospectively called "social" anarchists, but all of them were anti-capitalist.
Anarcho-capitalism is a synthetic co-option of anarchism, rather than an organic sub-tendency, such as the many that existed in movement debated in the classical anarchist period.
@@alicec1533 I like the term "free'd markets". Because it doesn't allow AnCaps to sneak into the conversation
@@daymanfighterofthenightman Nice! Do you know of William Gillis by chance?