Clearing up some common misconceptions about Market Anarchism/Voluntaryism/Anarcho-Capitalism, PART II.

in #anarchy7 years ago (edited)

IMG_1818.JPG
Seeing eye-to-eye.

Lots of interesting comments and thought on my recent post about Voluntaryism. There were several comments which shared some erroneous assumptions about the philosophy, so I wanted to post one of my responses to those comments here, with quotes from the original response.

The types of objections listed are quite common, so for the sake of those wishing to understand the idea of self-ownership better, I thought it would be advantageous to share.


IMG_1362.JPG


Thanks for your comment. I think maybe reading a little more about what market anarchism actually is might help to clear up some of your concerns.

Imagine a world where there were no overarching sets of laws, standards, a system in which traveling across state, county, city, neighborhood, even property lines means constantly entering and leaving fluctuating sets of laws.

The world is already like this now, isn't it? I can have CBD oil in Colorado, and then be put in a cage in Kansas if I take it there. I can run around naked in my house, but not in yours. Society is already loosely based on private property, just with a cancerous, coercive state heaped on top of it, perverting those ideas via the application of force against non-violent individuals.

Recourse against those who do cause harm would be difficult if not impossible. Say someone does bash your window in with a brick. What can you do?

I would encourage you to watch the video above in the post explaining private law society. How this would work ( and already does in so many ways) is covered there.

What we have now is, in a sense, anarchy-capitalism.

This is categorically false, as the bedrock and non-negotiable foundation of anarcho-capitalism is the axiomatic reality of self-ownership, and by extension, the Non-Agression Principle, which states that all legitimate human interaction is consensual. Government is based foundationally upon coercion. These two systems are diametrically opposed, by definition.


Commenter's response:

1: That first part did not at all address the concern of the hypothetical minority traversing an unpredictable and diffulct landscape of hostile laws. Your reply that that already happens as things are now does nothing to address how infinitely worse it would be under your proposed arrangement.

2: I will watch that when I get home and see if it is some new take on law enforcement and anarchy that I've never heard before.

3: I disagree. Well I mean I agree that coercion is a major part of our actual reality, what I disagree with is that it is even remotely possible to create any kind of stable and prosperous system that did not involve coercion. My statement was that a system of government and coercive laws is what a species or originally private and free creatures have come up with due to the stability and prosperity it affords, and that any anarchic system would eventually have to adopt that model or fall into an inoperable mess.


My response, # 2:

I don't find the chaos currently engulfing the world stable or prosperous. And no, rulers and violent people "came up" with applying force to rule. The second part, "...any anarchic system would eventually have to adopt that model or fall into an inoperable mess," is an assertion. You would have to substantiate it to make it a valid argument.

You'll have to have an open mind and understand that the philosophy is not a pacificistic one, either, as self-defense is necessary for self-preservation and is a nature-conferred capacity as a result of individual self-ownership.

Here's the video again.

IMG_1362.JPG

What do you think, fellow Steemians?

~KafkA

IMG_6356.jpg


Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as Facebook and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)

Sort:  

What is funny about the question of who is going to protect us is the fact that nobody is protecting these people now. The fact that they can even think that government is protecting them while they murder people on the streets as a lesson to the cattle not to act up is just amazing . One can only shake their head and state the individual is the only person who is subject to his duty to protect themselves.

i wish the video would have addressed the scenario where bill doesn't have a security company. Then who steps in to protect Bill from unjust accusations from Dawn Defense? Personally, i do agree with the other Comenteer that security/freedom/etc is the responsibilty of the individual (or rather: bottom up instead of top down.) i'm just wondering about that part of the argument, as i know many would want to know.

Well, if Bill has no protection agency, depending on the rules of the community, Dawn Defense would likely not be able to simply "convict" him. The free market in any developed town would almost certainly foresee this possibility and, as there is money to be made, have a service of temporary, one-off representatives, I imagine. These representaives could be paid back later, or be paid from a community pool. There's an incentive for private property owners in the area to contribute to said pool: if Bill damages them or their property in some way, they can be recompensed.

Even if Bill truly could not afford a security firm (hard to imagine in the absence of the state as so much money would be flowing thanks to the lack of bureaucracy/taxation/licensing fees, etc.) it is my view that the free market would provide some alternative.

It is ultimately, as you said, Bill's responsibility. It is my firm conviction, though that there would be many incentives, both economic and social, to help bill get covered.

If Bill cannot be covered, he might be forced out of the area, as, in theory, the whole community would be built on private property. If Bill has family and friends, or is a decent guy just down on his luck, this is highly unlikely to happen.

thanks, i hadn't thought of that. also, when i referred to "responsibility for one's own security/freedom" i was thinking of jane. IMO, the whole example should (if not simply an excercise) have ended with her using force justifiably to defend her person.

Excellent
This Article deserves steemit oscar
Keep it up

It sure does. The steemian has more patience than I do when it comes to some of the question that get asked. lol

Hi Graham,

The video is very enlightening!

Thanks for sharing it!

I feel as if without having a authority to take dictate us, without law and anarchy for some maybe beneficial but some wars occurring around the world today, aren't Rhodes horrors derived from being lawless and going against the law?

The thing is, market anarchism is not "lawlessness," really. Maybe I misunderstand you, though.

Amazing post , I am waiting for more

Please checkout this post about happiness and success https://steemit.com/success/@takeaway/success-and-happiness

In what sense did you find this post to be amazing?

This never fails to crack me up. Thanks for asking questions =D

He enjoyed it in very generic sense obviously, your favorite sense. They watch but don't see. They listen but don't hear.

This definitely clears up the air regarding those subjects. Thanks for the article!

excellent job in here.

i'll see the part one.

very interesting. what role does a utopia, an imagined and desired future for society, play in this mode of political thinking?