2 votes

AnCap vs. Anarchy vs. Voluntaryism

I just listened to a debate of Stefan Molyneux vs. Aaron Hawkins of StormCloudsGathering.

First of all, Molyneux wasn't able to answer Hawkins' questions and was getting defensive and angry every time Hawkins asked him a hard question. Some of his answers were like "Why would the insurance companies not help the poor if its in their best interest to keep everyone happy and make money."

Sounded kind of utopian to me. Also, he doesn't seem to believe in the idea of having common spaces such as parks and public roads where people are free to do what they want and not get kicked off by the property owner who can make whatever rules he/she wants. If everything is owned by someone then the only place you are truly free is on your own property but what if you have no property. It ends up being a tyranny by corporations/businesses and landowners. So, the basic conclusion I took away is that there has to be some areas of land that are not owned by anyone such as some roads and parks. How we figure out which land can be public and which is private is something that has to be worked out.

I say if you're not using land for dwelling, business or farming than you cannot own it. Everyone has a right to freely walk around and enjoy the earth as long as you are not violating people's rights to life and liberty. The Ancap position seems to think that capitalism is the solution to all problems and all we have to do is get rid of gov't but I think it is a little more complicated than that. I do agree that we have to get rid of the state, but the more important thing is to learn how to live together on the same earth with a lot of different kinds of people. If we all treat each other like crap it doesn't matter what kind of organizational system we have in place. The things that matter the most are love, respect, fairness, and equality and of course individual sovereignty.

I consider myself an anarchist and voluntaryist, but more importantly I am resident of earth and everyone born on it is my brother and sister.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Not really.. If it was done through the free market where the people were able to choose which courts they want to deal with then it's obviously voluntary, not socialist. You don't have to go through court btw, but it seems like the fairest way right now (witnesses, testimonies, evidence etc).

Now, if that group of individuals were imposing those laws onto others that didn't voluntarily consent to them then that is communism.

Who are you arguing against?

Where did I even imply I thought courts were bad?

Now, if that group of individuals were imposing those laws onto others that didn't voluntarily consent to them then that is communism.

Yes but, lol, that was MY point!

You seem intelligent so I am going to assume you skimmed the discussion and misunderstood.. if in fact you actually do disagree please point out the points in contention, I do love a debate.

But I can find nothing to disagree with from your statement. Except to be confused why you think you disagree with me:D

My bad dude.. +voted

I totally thought you were arguing against free market court systems for some reason. It's early and I guess I did skim lol...

Yes, I love to debate too and I usually only jump in on the Anarcho debates because the usual 'Hurry up and send money to this guy so he can win the political game', or the 'hey look what this guy who is trying to get your vote said today' threads kind of sicken me already.. Like sheep gleefully walking to the slaughter even after seeing their family become lambchop.

Umm.. so yeah, I agree with you on property rights and what you said about being able to protect yourself and your "stuff". It's your responsibility to feed, clothe, bathe, educate, medicate and protect yourself, so why stop there? Why not at defense of your own property? Why should you depend on others to do that for you?

Also, if you think about it, common spaces aren't really free space where you do with what you please. I think Molyneaux said this in the debate also if i'm not mistaken... They're spots on the earth that are OWNED by the state which are ALLOWED to be used by the public. If the state wanted you off the property then you'd have to leave. It'd be the same if owned by a regular person out on the free market.

I think both the OP and Hawkins are very close to having an Anarcho-syndicalist ideology where land shouldn't be owned and could be allocated to a certain degree by the people without government involvement. I don't back this concept, but I can understand why they think it is a good idea.

Stimulating post. I think

Stimulating post. I think voluntaryism is the path forwrd. C4SS, the Alliance of the libertarian left has made great contributions to this discussion. Humanity should have a discussion about hierarchies. Ancaps can lean toward bossism and I don't think that's longterm sustainable. You mention land ownership; I would hope that consumerism will die a hard death as our paradigms shift. In that a more pragmatic view of the material world would benfit everyone. The Georgist have an interesting perspective on land ownership.

If everything is owned 'publicly'

Then the tyranny is immediate, you have a state.

Stefan assumes a lot more economic literacy than he should and when talking to someone who has been indoctrinated with economic befuddlement, which is everyone, so this is not an insult, one needs to take the time to explain monopoly. No one does this better than the master, so I would point you to Rothbard for this.

If you like I can give you a brief primer in another post, and have a very short summary* at the end but that's not why I am replying.

I replied not to inveigle you to read Rothbard, but because I do want to agree with you somewhat, and challenge some ancaps on some points they may not have thought through. In fact I have debated Dr Block on this very topic in his Friday seminars which I have been privileged to attend.

First off there can be unowned resources. There's a property issue that many ancaps gloss over, but any resource that costs more to protect property claims than it is worth to the owner will not be owned in a free society.

IE if you cannot socialize the cost of protecting your property, you won't be making so many property claims.

This would seem like a pretty fundamental point but many ancaps kind of skip past the property issue like it's a given all property will be respected. That is utopian. I think a free society will breed respect for property but it's not going to be universal nor magical.

Also it leads us to a 'hierarchy' of rights, and I think gives us some useful hints about law in a free society.

For example. In the Dr Block version of anarchocapitalism a shopkeeper has an absolute right to defend his property. So if he catches a kid stealing an apple he has a right to shoot the kid. I'm not just saying 'kid' rather than 'gansgter' to color the hypothetical.

I'm using a kid because in the real world it's likely going to be a kid that steals your apple. So I think it's utopian to think that in a free society that if you shoot a kid for stealing an apple you won't incur costs greater than the cost of the apple.

In a free society, and in fact any society, I think most people will not agree that your 'right' to property justifies shooting a kid.

At the least your business will suffer. At the worst you might have to permanently employ a PDA to protect yourself from a lynch mob, and you might not be able to afford one at the price they would charge a child shooter, and you might not find one willing to serve a child shooter at all. After all, if they did take you as a client they would almost certainly incur a cost. Since they are in it to make a profit, they are not going to take the job unless you can pay more than that cost.

So my proposition is that since there is no state to socialize the cost of this assertion of property rights I don't think this sort of extreme assertion of property claims would happen at all.

Certainly it wouldn't happen often as the consequences to the shopkeeper would be a grim lesson to other shopkeepers who had similar ideas about shooting shoplifters.

Now this is interesting because we have something like a spontaneous set of behavioral constraints that seem to be very reasonable and dare I say, natural.

In this case it is: Yes you have a right to protect your apple, but it doesn't extend to shooting kids. Buy an enclosed produce case, or maybe hire the kid to watch your produce.

This is what I think natural law is.

We can observe, deduce, and induce what much of natural law might be.

But ultimately I think natural law is best understood as that set of social constraints that people generate and operate under when they are free.

As a starting point we can look to history to see the form law took before the state corrupted it or in areas where states haven't bothered to or can't.

* Monopoly: Extremely briefly I can just say that monopoly of the type you fear is simply unworkable in a free society. In fact the purpose of the state in economic terms is to provide monopoly. Essentially no state = no monopoly. To someone educated by the monopolists (again, practically all of us) who want people to believe the state somehow is the protector against monopoly I know this sounds strange. But this is demonstrable historically, and regardless it is the Austrian analysis. Understand ancaps are categorically anti-monopoly so we want to remove the tool that allows monopoly. For better exposition I again suggest Rothbard.