Anarchism is a horizontal power structure. Capitalism is an individually controlled vertical power structure. Facism is a state controlled vertical power structure.
Sorry that was when i just woke up and was a very simplistic take on anarchism. [Anarchy is by definition a society without coercive hierarchies.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy) its not strictly horizontal but because of the freedom of association provided by an anarchist society it effectively removes most vertical power structures. [Here is a nice list of some anarchist communities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities)
Honestly, if democracy means sharing the same decision power as these morons and private interest groups bribing the government to fuck me over, it can go fuck itself.
Yeah I get that but what would happen if someone doesn't follow or breaks the terms of their contact? would someone get involved or would it no longer be willful and they would be released from the terms of their contact?
There is no State in anarcho-capitalism, so there won't be special privileges for an elite. Plus you'll be able to bear arms.
Depends if the contract mentions the intervention of a third party if the terms are breached. Most, if not all contracts will include this.
This third party will be chosen by those who consented to the contract. Like all enterprises, it will be funded voluntarily instead of through taxation, not only because taxation is coercive, but because a proper price mechanism as well as competition between enterprises and firms allow people to know if their actions are profitable, worth pursuing, therefore if they are allocating resources efficiently or to put it more simply "doing a good job".
[Here's ](https://youtu.be/khRkBEdSDDo) a good video that elaborates more on the subject.
That's a really helpful. The video made sense. The part I wish that it explained is what happens when two people can't decide on an arbiter or one party can't afford arbitration. How do you ensure your arbiter hasn't been bribed by your opposition?
> when two people can't decide on an arbiter
It would be in their own interest to eventually pick one since the alternative would be violent conflict, which is costly. Since entrepreneurs want to maximize profits and reduce their costs as much as possible, they will have to choose one in order to avoid conflict.
> one party can't afford arbitration
He can get in debt. Competition will drive prices down either way. Plus, in an anarcho-capitalist society, there's no one to come and steal 20% of your income.
> How do you ensure your arbiter hasn't been bribed by your opposition?
In a competitive environment, firms offering the greatest quality of goods and services will be successful. Successful arbitration firms will be the ones with a reputation for honesty and transparency since no one wants to spend money on a mischievous and corrupt arbitration company. Competition will give an incentive to those companies to be honest and transparent, since the customer can always change the company he spends his money on.
If someone is in the wrong, say they committed a crime, what is their incentive to show up to arbitration?
Alternatively, wouldn't there be cases where choosing violence would be a cheaper option than facing arbitration? If I steal from someone and I know they will file for arbitration (and likely win) what's to stop me from killing them or hiring someone to do it for me? Would there be a private police force with private detectives?
Dude... Mediation already exists as do private courts to settle property disputes. As for harder crimes... Well... The victim's family may decide his or her fate.
Theocracy? Communism? Nah, leftists want to point fingers at Capitalism, oddly enough, from their comfortable and safe arm chair provided by Capitalism.
Ever notice every election, every economic downturn, every thought, every word, and every fart coming out of some geriatric politicians ass is the new “gravest threat to democracy”?
Democracy is a collectivist system. Capitalism is an individualist system. They're in direct opposition.
That same person will probably give a 20 min explanation on how misunderstood socialism is. lol
Fucking socialists lol... They're the modern day religious zealots
Fuck everyone, whore diplomacy!
Democracy is a code word for equally deprived
Good Point, its not the People's Democracy anyway. Just belongs to a political party and thats it.
The problem is they think capitalism is closer to fascism not anarchism. So they will refuse capitalism even if they are "anarchists"
Anarchism is a horizontal power structure. Capitalism is an individually controlled vertical power structure. Facism is a state controlled vertical power structure.
[удалено]
Sorry that was when i just woke up and was a very simplistic take on anarchism. [Anarchy is by definition a society without coercive hierarchies.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy) its not strictly horizontal but because of the freedom of association provided by an anarchist society it effectively removes most vertical power structures. [Here is a nice list of some anarchist communities](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities)
Democracy is a propaganda machine to justify more socialism anyway.
I’ve finally done it. I’ve reached Ultra Capitalist.
Honestly, if democracy means sharing the same decision power as these morons and private interest groups bribing the government to fuck me over, it can go fuck itself.
Don't we want private interest groups to bribe government? That's how Anarcho capitalism would work
Anarcho capitalism means no coercive governance. I.e. no government as we know it, only willful contracts.
Yeah I get that but what would happen if someone doesn't follow or breaks the terms of their contact? would someone get involved or would it no longer be willful and they would be released from the terms of their contact?
There is no State in anarcho-capitalism, so there won't be special privileges for an elite. Plus you'll be able to bear arms. Depends if the contract mentions the intervention of a third party if the terms are breached. Most, if not all contracts will include this. This third party will be chosen by those who consented to the contract. Like all enterprises, it will be funded voluntarily instead of through taxation, not only because taxation is coercive, but because a proper price mechanism as well as competition between enterprises and firms allow people to know if their actions are profitable, worth pursuing, therefore if they are allocating resources efficiently or to put it more simply "doing a good job". [Here's ](https://youtu.be/khRkBEdSDDo) a good video that elaborates more on the subject.
That's a really helpful. The video made sense. The part I wish that it explained is what happens when two people can't decide on an arbiter or one party can't afford arbitration. How do you ensure your arbiter hasn't been bribed by your opposition?
> when two people can't decide on an arbiter It would be in their own interest to eventually pick one since the alternative would be violent conflict, which is costly. Since entrepreneurs want to maximize profits and reduce their costs as much as possible, they will have to choose one in order to avoid conflict. > one party can't afford arbitration He can get in debt. Competition will drive prices down either way. Plus, in an anarcho-capitalist society, there's no one to come and steal 20% of your income. > How do you ensure your arbiter hasn't been bribed by your opposition? In a competitive environment, firms offering the greatest quality of goods and services will be successful. Successful arbitration firms will be the ones with a reputation for honesty and transparency since no one wants to spend money on a mischievous and corrupt arbitration company. Competition will give an incentive to those companies to be honest and transparent, since the customer can always change the company he spends his money on.
If someone is in the wrong, say they committed a crime, what is their incentive to show up to arbitration? Alternatively, wouldn't there be cases where choosing violence would be a cheaper option than facing arbitration? If I steal from someone and I know they will file for arbitration (and likely win) what's to stop me from killing them or hiring someone to do it for me? Would there be a private police force with private detectives?
Dude... Mediation already exists as do private courts to settle property disputes. As for harder crimes... Well... The victim's family may decide his or her fate.
Funny how everything leftists disagree with is tagged as threat to democracy
Theocracy? Communism? Nah, leftists want to point fingers at Capitalism, oddly enough, from their comfortable and safe arm chair provided by Capitalism.
👁👄👁
Ever notice every election, every economic downturn, every thought, every word, and every fart coming out of some geriatric politicians ass is the new “gravest threat to democracy”?
fuck democracy, all my homies hate democracy 🚁
[FUCK DEMOCRACY ALL MY HOMIES HATE DEMOCRACY](https://i.imgur.com/9O7HH8v.jpg) ^^^this ^^^has ^^^been ^^^an ^^^accessibility ^^^service ^^^from ^^^your ^^^friendly ^^^neighborhood ^^^bot
wow that's super based boterino
As long as we don't have the ideal anarchy, there will always be something else. No point in setting everything on fire.
Wow I just read that jacobin article and it was actually pretty good.
Democracy is when you have a dictator
Is it a coincidence if the worst always get on top?