https://archive.is/pIkQc - Top comments are at worst raging transphobia, at best dismissive and enabling
https://archive.is/T5iSe - Naked bigotry over wage gaps, ableism.
You can see the page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
I'm not sure how this happened but both the intro of the wiki and the image provided are incredibly misleading. I am not familiar with editing wikipedia pages so I'm not sure how to correct this.
Anarchism is an anti-capitalist movement and we need to ensure this is understood.
Edit: Thank you to whoever undid the most recent revision by the ancap editor
Also included this misleading -> image
Change My View: Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System. For those who do not know, Anarcho-Capitalism (Ancap(s) is how I would refer to them from this point on.) is a political system/ideology that is based of the abolishment of government and it's replacements being private companies. And it's flaws can be broken down into 2 basic categories: Internal & External threats.
External threats External threats are basically, a different nation invading the ancap nation (Ancapistan.) This basically impossible to prevent, even if citizen or companies had the capital to acquire & maintain weapons of modern war, & are willing to defend Ancapistan, which in itself is questionable, they would unable to stand up to a modern military (I would not debate on Nukes in this debate.) for three reasons: 1. Organization, A group of Private Security Companies could never reach the same level of multi front organization as a modern military, thus causing Ancapistan to be defeated. 2. Most companies lack the ability to operate the logistics required to operate a large scale military force, thus causing a defeat through logistics. And 3. Private Security Companies (Mercenaries) have been historically incredibly unreliable in fighting for the same side, often switching sides if the other side paid more, and so would most likely be true about Ancapistan. All of these reasons would cause Ancapistan to be defeated in any war with a modern military, unless Ancapistan is located in a location that is of no value, which would cause a limited economy to occur, going against capitalism.
Internal Threats Internal threats can be easily summed up in one phrase <<Companies forming their own governments to extract more profit, defeating the entire point of Anarcho-Capitalism.>> To expand on the idea, lets say we have a Private Security Company called "Blackpond" and Blackpond want's to expand their company, so they drive out their completion with a combination of buyouts, anti-completive & violence so they are now the only PSC in the area, leaving it able to force it's people to pay for "protection" and if they decide to not pay, they would be beaten up by some people from Blackpond, thus essentially creating a corpocracy. Now some counter this by saying "But the people would defend themselves." now I would counter this with 2 arguments, 1. People can take a surprising amount of oppressions before revolting, & 2. even if th
"I’m almost looking forward to the scoffing responses from any Leftists who happen to read this one. Any “true” Anarchist surely knows that Capitalism cannot co-exist with Anarchism, right? For, Capitalism and their Overlords (capital O) are the ones the Anarchists are rebelling against! But I beg to differ. The reason being that true Anarchism needs to be based on Individualism rather than Collectivism. Why is this you ask? Because Collectivism automatically will lead to some kind of function of a State, and Anarchism by nature is a society without a State.
Private Property owners are not a State. A Government is a State. A Government is unique in that it has a Monopoly on coercion through physical force. If they didn’t, then you could just choose to not pay your Taxes with no penalty. Wal Mart on the other hand, the biggest corporation in the world, has no Monopoly on coercing you through physical force to buy their products, or to work there. You can just choose to not have Wal Mart be a part of your life, with no punishment. That’s Voluntarism.
In a Collectivist attempt or approach to Anarchism, you hypothetically have no State and everyone is just collectively working together in a unified Socialist/Communist community of harmony and bliss. That is, until someone steps out of line.
Suddenly, someone comes along one day that doesn’t want to dance the Socialist dance anymore. Instead, he’s been reading Murray Rothbard and thinking, and has decided that he wants to start his own business. By himself. Without input from the community, and with his own resources and money. He decides to share this notion with one close friend to get a better sense if he wants to go solo or start a partnership, and in the meantime gets to work to get his small business running on the edge of town, using the funds of his basic income to do so. The friend decides to leak this news to others. Word of mouth spreads the news throughout the community.
Outraged, a shadow overcomes the blissful harmonic Anarchist community. Nobody agrees with or likes this Outcast. This Traitor. Something will need to be done about this person. How selfish of him to think that he can have his own privately run business in this Collectivist community where we are all sharing and helping each other in this giant group-hug of harmony and bliss! How DARE this person be so selfish and want to strike out on his own venture, using public money for himself?!
Not that it will matter. He will be shut d... keep reading on reddit ➡
[I posted this as a comment in another thread 2 years back but I think it deserves its own post.]
As a MinArc embroiled in lengthy debates with several AnCaps, some key differences have become clear to me, but I readily admit up front that these observations are highly controversial and merely my humble opinion. Let's start with some of the common objections that AnCaps raise to MinArcs...
If the MinArc adopts 100% voluntary funding for government then you immediately eliminate the "taxes are theft" talking point. An AnCap cannot call the MinArc state a "coercive organization" due to taxation. A MinArc state can theoretically be achieved with zero "theft". Nobody is forced to fund the government.
If the MinArc adopts liberal immigration policies with unfettered travel then you eliminate the "no choice" talking point. An AnCap cannot call the MinArc state coercive due to lack of choice. If you like the government of Springfield, then go to Springfield. If you'd rather have the government of Shelbyville then go to Shelbyville. Nobody is forced to accept any particular government or service.
If the MinArc establishes the jurisdiction by peaceful acquisition of the land then you eliminate the "forced to join" talking point. An AnCap cannot call the MinArc coercive due to seizure of land. MinArcs can theoretically acquire all the land in the jurisdiction by legitimate means. They simply form an organization and start buying land. Nobody is forced to join nor is the organization forced to accept every applicant.
At this point, some AnCaps (like Murray Rothbard) would argue that such an organization is not "a state". They define government as an organization which uses coercive force. If it's not coercive then it's not government. However, this is begging the question and we shouldn't allow anyone to redefine terms in this fashion. Rothbard does not get to define "government". These words have well established meanings in common vernacular as well as formal definitions. We have a dictionary. Reshuffling language to suit a political ideology is double-plus-un-good.
Disneyland has a government. Disney is the sole provider of all services within Disneyland. They have a regional monopoly on the use of force. They are funded by fees paid voluntarily by visitors who choose to enter Disney's jurisdiction. They have laws enforced by officers. They have voters (shareholders) who collectively own the land and (presumably) acquired it... keep reading on reddit ➡
So i just browse r/anarchocapitalism for a while and i'am suprised by how many anti vaxx there arent they supposed to be pro vaxx because it was develop by multibillion dollar company?