Daily Anarchist Forum

Videos => Anarcho-Capitalist Videos => Topic started by: SinCityVoluntaryist on May 04, 2012, 06:57:31 PM



Title: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on May 04, 2012, 06:57:31 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgUZqNHGTwA

 Adam's response to the incident in Ohio.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Anonymous Infowarrior on May 04, 2012, 08:52:38 PM
Well someone isn't helping inter-anarchist relations get any better...

This is ridiculous, anarchism is only against state, and if any group of "anarchists" isn't truly anarchist, it's ancaps, because ancaps are an entirely recent phenomenon. Anarchism is a philosophy that has been around for a long time, and to exclude one group of anarchists from anarchism is ridiculous.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Seth King on May 04, 2012, 09:23:43 PM
Well someone isn't helping inter-anarchist relations get any better...

This is ridiculous, anarchism is only against state, and if any group of "anarchists" isn't truly anarchist, it's ancaps, because ancaps are an entirely recent phenomenon. Anarchism is a philosophy that has been around for a long time, and to exclude one group of anarchists from anarchism is ridiculous.

I agree. They're anarchists, albeit with a different philosophy and set of tactics.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on May 04, 2012, 09:55:48 PM
"because ancaps are an entirely"

 That's not true. The ideas surrounding anarcho-capitalism have actually been around for longer than most people think. The reason it's considered such a new idea is because it didn't obtain mainstream attention until the 1970s, which was the decade Murray Rothbard popularized it.



Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: David Giessel on May 05, 2012, 03:24:10 AM
Early on, right after reading The Ethics of Liberty, I decided to fundamentally question anarcho-capitalism and I stumbled across this piece which gave me food for thought for a couple weeks.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/rothbard-we-must-therefore-conclude-that-we-are-not-anarchists

Correctly, the author (and Rothbard) note that the term "Anarchy" came from socialist european roots. Anarcho-Capitalism by comparison is a "new creation" (Rothbard's own essentially) which makes the battling over labels especially silly. Almost as dumb as arguing over who the "real patriots" are.

Who cares who the "real" anarchists are? If we as individuals believe in certain things (like NAP/etc) and can package our entire ideology into a single label or word, we're probably not deep enough to make useful arguments and be taken seriously in the first place.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on May 05, 2012, 08:34:54 PM
Their are 2 kinds of ancoms:

big (A): formed in the 60s and seventies, organize in large federations, mainly theorists and speakers, have more Marxian influence, more internet access Chomsky types

small (A): newer, mainly 90s 00s, very global, main focus is forming the new society and seizing the day, an example would be occupy wall street, the idea was "this square is a microcosm of what the whole world should be." Form black blocs, if theirs a protest and cops might be violent, they dress in black and go armed for self defense, often squat places so that homeless can live their.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: LegesNullae on May 06, 2012, 10:09:42 AM
Their are 2 kinds of ancoms:

big (A): formed in the 60s and seventies, organize in large federations, mainly theorists and speakers, have more Marxian influence, more internet access Chomsky types

small (A): newer, mainly 90s 00s, very global, main focus is forming the new society and seizing the day, an example would be occupy wall street, the idea was "this square is a microcosm of what the whole world should be." Form black blocs, if theirs a protest and cops might be violent, they dress in black and go armed for self defense, often squat places so that homeless can live their.

Well, keep in mind Kropotkin and company started theorizing about anarcho-communism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, so the theorists go back a while.

As to the video itself, I've seen this sort of exclusionary stuff from Kokesh for a while. He seems kind of like a Randroid minus the minarchism.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on May 06, 2012, 12:42:56 PM
yes, but the movement was crushed by world war 2, it had already been losing its great thinkers, Kropotkin and emma goldman. the american anarchists had been kicked out and destroyed as a movement during the red scare. then you've got this new society (spanish revolution) that gets destroyed. many of your leaders die in that battle, and your most fertile homelands (Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany) are taken over by authoritarians who crush your movements. then world war 2 (the life blood of the state) breaks out, like all wars of the pre200's decent is crushed, the sixties are your big chance, protests revolution, anti war is the life blood of anti statism.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on May 21, 2012, 10:11:19 PM
Well someone isn't helping inter-anarchist relations get any better...

This is ridiculous, anarchism is only against state, and if any group of "anarchists" isn't truly anarchist, it's ancaps, because ancaps are an entirely recent phenomenon. Anarchism is a philosophy that has been around for a long time, and to exclude one group of anarchists from anarchism is ridiculous.

I agree. They're anarchists, albeit with a different philosophy and set of tactics.
But....He's going on the same path of anarchism that many of us took, and it wasn't until later that many of us began to accept ancom as "true" anarchism. So, without having watched the video, I would guess that I would be pleased with his progress so far, considering how recently he got off the minarchist bandwagon.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Anonymous Infowarrior on May 22, 2012, 12:35:15 PM
Well someone isn't helping inter-anarchist relations get any better...

This is ridiculous, anarchism is only against state, and if any group of "anarchists" isn't truly anarchist, it's ancaps, because ancaps are an entirely recent phenomenon. Anarchism is a philosophy that has been around for a long time, and to exclude one group of anarchists from anarchism is ridiculous.

I agree. They're anarchists, albeit with a different philosophy and set of tactics.
But....He's going on the same path of anarchism that many of us took, and it wasn't until later that many of us began to accept ancom as "true" anarchism. So, without having watched the video, I would guess that I would be pleased with his progress so far, considering how recently he got off the minarchist bandwagon.
Sadly most ancoms aside from me are scared to death of ancaps. I've concluded that their "hatred"of ancaps is really just them being afraid of us because we are have more money, more politicians, and less punk loving-mohawk wearing-tattooed like crazy angry white kids.

On the other hand, I think that they are starting to open up to us, with mutualists beggining to interest ancoms in market driven anarchism


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 26, 2012, 12:56:29 AM
An coms are destructive, violent individuals, and the more I look at things, the more I realize that Adam is right. A cap is the only morale and rational stateless position. Ancom is a relic of the past that needs to be forgotten.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 01:12:20 PM
An coms are destructive, violent individuals, and the more I look at things, the more I realize that Adam is right. A cap is the only morale and rational stateless position. Ancom is a relic of the past that needs to be forgotten.

yea violent and destructive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDdqIuMLGAE


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 03:38:14 PM
They usually are violent and destructive. They go around breaking things and starting conflicts...because the government got reduced in size! Yes, protesting because their access to pillaged wealth is being reduced. Anarchists shouldn't riot when the government gets reduced or crippled due to a loss of credit channels...they should rejoice. Most people who consider themselves left anarchists are not anarchists at all. They are public sector workers (statists) who are mad about budget cuts.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 04:21:39 PM
They usually are violent and destructive. They go around breaking things and starting conflicts...because the government got reduced in size! Yes, protesting because their access to pillaged wealth is being reduced. Anarchists shouldn't riot when the government gets reduced or crippled due to a loss of credit channels...they should rejoice. Most people who consider themselves left anarchists are not anarchists at all. They are public sector workers (statists) who are mad about budget cuts.

These people depend on the state, to destroy it without having anything to replace it with is lunacy, and would lead to chaos. You need to create alternatives then abolish, thats the way syndicalism works, create the union, which will replace the state.

Theirs a difference between free health care, and funding the military. if I had a choice between a social democratic state with no military, and an small government state with a huge military, I'd choose the former.

better movie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO4RXG3SgtU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49mtCuWuOOo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8NodihIfOg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQdIR_h6Lek

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjm-aL3KXyY


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: LegesNullae on June 26, 2012, 04:45:06 PM
They go around breaking things and starting conflicts...because the government got reduced in size! Yes, protesting because their access to pillaged wealth is being reduced. Anarchists shouldn't riot when the government gets reduced or crippled due to a loss of credit channels...they should rejoice.

I'm not an an-com, nor am I a rioter. However, you've brought something up that I'd like to address. Not every reduction in statism is something that should be celebrated, because it may not actually be a reduction in statism. Let me explain. Take, for example, welfare for the poor. I think we can all agree that the bloated welfare state is terrible. However, that welfare, as crippling as it is, makes life livable for those most suffering under this current system of corporate capitalism. A large degree of statism was introduced when the corporations and politically favored industries were originally given their privileges. Logically, those with less wealth got screwed over. The welfare serves to counteract the negative effects of that privilege (even if not very effectively). To take away just the welfare before taking away the corporate privilege would be to allow the original statism to run uninhibited, and that shouldn't be celebrated.

Maybe you already know this and I'm just running on, but this is a concept that I think too few market anarchists understand.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 05:10:01 PM
Yes, their not protesting because their losing their jobs, which were the only only ones in greece, their ability to get basic medical care, and food, no its "special privileges. Anarchists don't like social democracy, but we consider it better than cut throat US style capitalism (people not dieing because they can't pay for hospital bills. I'm not Ron Paul I don't want sick people to die.
Maybe you should think twice before you champion free government "services." Your personal experience with them hasn't panned out so well. At 15 years of age, you should be able to read and write. I hope, for your sake, that English is not your first language.

The only lasting impression you've left on me (and I suspect the majority of the community), has been your inability to write coherently, and failure to read or comprehend very basic ideas. The current healthcare system is as close to fascist as you can get. It is private in name only...public in reality. If people are dying, it's because of the state.

Your above post is the last one I will respond to, at least until you achieve something resembling functional literacy (and I'm not holding my breath).


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 05:28:00 PM
I am completely capable of writing clearly. I just choose not because this is the internet


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 05:30:30 PM
They go around breaking things and starting conflicts...because the government got reduced in size! Yes, protesting because their access to pillaged wealth is being reduced. Anarchists shouldn't riot when the government gets reduced or crippled due to a loss of credit channels...they should rejoice.

I'm not an an-com, nor am I a rioter. However, you've brought something up that I'd like to address. Not every reduction in statism is something that should be celebrated, because it may not actually be a reduction in statism. Let me explain. Take, for example, welfare for the poor. I think we can all agree that the bloated welfare state is terrible. However, that welfare, as crippling as it is, makes life livable for those most suffering under this current system of corporate capitalism. A large degree of statism was introduced when the corporations and politically favored industries were originally given their privileges. Logically, those with less wealth got screwed over. The welfare serves to counteract the negative effects of that privilege (even if not very effectively). To take away just the welfare before taking away the corporate privilege would be to allow the original statism to run uninhibited, and that shouldn't be celebrated.

Maybe you already know this and I'm just running on, but this is a concept that I think too few market anarchists understand.

Thanks for saying what I wanted to say better than I could.

Also, I have the ability to write correctly. I simply choose not to, because this is the internet and I don't feel the need to.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 05:51:38 PM
They go around breaking things and starting conflicts...because the government got reduced in size! Yes, protesting because their access to pillaged wealth is being reduced. Anarchists shouldn't riot when the government gets reduced or crippled due to a loss of credit channels...they should rejoice.

I'm not an an-com, nor am I a rioter. However, you've brought something up that I'd like to address. Not every reduction in statism is something that should be celebrated, because it may not actually be a reduction in statism. Let me explain. Take, for example, welfare for the poor. I think we can all agree that the bloated welfare state is terrible. However, that welfare, as crippling as it is, makes life livable for those most suffering under this current system of corporate capitalism. A large degree of statism was introduced when the corporations and politically favored industries were originally given their privileges. Logically, those with less wealth got screwed over. The welfare serves to counteract the negative effects of that privilege (even if not very effectively). To take away just the welfare before taking away the corporate privilege would be to allow the original statism to run uninhibited, and that shouldn't be celebrated.

Maybe you already know this and I'm just running on, but this is a concept that I think too few market anarchists understand.
I get it. But it's difficult for me to have sympathy for people who are willing to take up arms to defend their ill-gotten privilege, especially when the unborn are footing the bill.

Thanks to AgoristTeen1994 (?) posting a collection of articles recently, I reread some work by Rothbard. He was discussing what it really means to dislike the state. Ron Paul, and even Stefan Molyneux, have said before that an immediate end to the welfare state isn't something they support. It needs to be gradual to protect the dependent classes. Rothbard opposed that. He talked about judging someone based on whether they would push a button, right now, that would end the entire state immediately. Do you oppose the state so strongly that you would do it? I say yes. I get how this isn't an exact analogy to our discussion, precisely because of your previous post. Sometimes the order of removal is important. But the idea of actually rioting, and risking your own body to support ANY segment of the state is so far out of line from what anarchism is about that it disgusts me. The monster we call "the state" is nothing more than the union of all the sets of dependent and leech classes. It's just a bunch of people stealing from others. Sure, some people don't understand it, and don't have malicious intent. But the greek "anarchists" know exactly what's going on. Same with the Spanish coal miners shooting rockets in response to subsidy cuts. If someone has that strong of a vested interest in the state, you might as well consider them to BE the state. In libertarian class theory, you would say these people are exploiting the productive classes, and are willing to use violence to make it happen.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Coltan L. on June 26, 2012, 07:40:31 PM
I think this discussion is stuck on labels.  What is the state? organized, legitimized violence. If its not that I'm not sure what else it is. 

Now I'm ancap as all get out.  And in my ancap paradise ancoms could do basically whatever they want as long as they're not violencing on people.  But in their world, you can't have private property or accumulated capital as I understand it (could be totally wrong, my reading stopped at abbreviated Proudhon.)  So in an Ancom world, if I have nonviolently accumulated capital, how do you stop me from keeping it without organized, legitimized, violence?

There are assumptions here. At the most base level, mine *can* involve non-violence because of original appropriation and what not.  How can Ancoms stop people from accumulating capital?  Help me out.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Coltan L. on June 26, 2012, 07:51:50 PM
I'm realizing I don't understand mutualism as much as I could. I am curious though.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on June 26, 2012, 08:06:46 PM
"How can Ancoms stop people from accumulating capital?"

I don't know, maybe starting a riot, breaking your windows and accusing you of being an exploitative hoarder who wants people to die without healthcare. Just speculating with some exaggerated sarcasm, so take it for what it's worth. I understand "mutualism" to be a subset of market anarchism. They have most of the same principles that we all share, except they have different preferences about how business should be conducted. So a mutualist might choose to work somewhere that is employee owned, buy produce from a cooperative, and find lending money (for interest) to be distasteful. But, unlike ancoms, they won't violently interfere with voluntary employer/employee, buyer/seller, borrower/lender relationships. Market anarchists with tie-dye shirts and sandals are still market anarchists. That's my uninformed opinion on the subject.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 26, 2012, 08:19:33 PM
 I think Jeff Berwick said it best in an article he had pinned over at his blog a few weeks ago. It's absolutely illogical to refer to the rioters in Greece in anarchist simply because of their violent nature. Any individual that is willing to destroy the property of an individual that is simply trying to make a living through the act of peaceful, voluntary exchange with other individuals is nothing more than a common criminal. They're nothing but angry, violent thugs who need to be taught a lesson in the acts peace. It's the businessman that is trying to create the voluntary society through the means of agorist action. To punish that is simply senseless and cruel.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 08:25:44 PM
I think this discussion is stuck on labels.  What is the state? organized, legitimized violence. If its not that I'm not sure what else it is. 

Now I'm ancap as all get out.  And in my ancap paradise ancoms could do basically whatever they want as long as they're not violencing on people.  But in their world, you can't have private property or accumulated capital as I understand it (could be totally wrong, my reading stopped at abbreviated Proudhon.)  So in an Ancom world, if I have nonviolently accumulated capital, how do you stop me from keeping it without organized, legitimized, violence?

There are assumptions here. At the most base level, mine *can* involve non-violence because of original appropriation and what not.  How can Ancoms stop people from accumulating capital?  Help me out.


I wouldn't stop you from having a little area of ancapdom, but you don't understand something, your ancap society would need to invade other areas to survive.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 26, 2012, 09:07:48 PM
 How the hell do you figure that into your (spotty) logic?


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Coltan L. on June 26, 2012, 09:30:28 PM
I think this discussion is stuck on labels.  What is the state? organized, legitimized violence. If its not that I'm not sure what else it is. 

Now I'm ancap as all get out.  And in my ancap paradise ancoms could do basically whatever they want as long as they're not violencing on people.  But in their world, you can't have private property or accumulated capital as I understand it (could be totally wrong, my reading stopped at abbreviated Proudhon.)  So in an Ancom world, if I have nonviolently accumulated capital, how do you stop me from keeping it without organized, legitimized, violence?

There are assumptions here. At the most base level, mine *can* involve non-violence because of original appropriation and what not.  How can Ancoms stop people from accumulating capital?  Help me out.


I wouldn't stop you from having a little area of ancapdom, but you don't understand something, your ancap society would need to invade other areas to survive.

Yeah, I need more than that.

It seems like you see the same paradox in Ancap as I do in Ancom. And that's really interesting.

Why do you think capitalism, the real system of mutual exchange not what is going on in Merika now, requires violence. If I grow a potato and BlackandGr9y wants to trade it for toe-socks that s/he makes with his/her wicked knitting skills.  How do either of us lose?  Especially me?

Whereas at least in my limited understanding, an Ancom system would have to be either closed, to protect from outsiders potentially (probably) more efficiently produced goods. Or it would have to be violent to stop outsiders from being outsiders.

The tricky thing about this discussion that I've noticed in the few aborted attempts I've had at it is that both groups use terms very differently.  Some Ancoms call stuff non-violent, or at least give a pass to it, that makes me want to puke and die. Likewise, you may call my starch/sock exchange violent.  I donno.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 09:57:33 PM
this is lol:

http://libcom.org/files/buffy.pdf

Onto business:

1. Capitalism requires a slave class (in America its illegal immigrants who would fight for fear of deportation)

2. Capitalism will collapse, because the cheapest way to run a company is automation, meaning that over time their will be products and no one to buy them. So they will have to spread markets ie: invade other areas, which will suit part 1, by taking military prisoners)


As for production, look at AK Press, 20 books a year, and only 7 employees


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Coltan L. on June 26, 2012, 10:39:33 PM
this is lol:

http://libcom.org/files/buffy.pdf

Onto business:

1. Capitalism requires a slave class (in America its illegal immigrants who would fight for fear of deportation)

2. Capitalism will collapse, because the cheapest way to run a company is automation, meaning that over time their will be products and no one to buy them. So they will have to spread markets ie: invade other areas, which will suit part 1, by taking military prisoners)


As for production, look at AK Press, 20 books a year, and only 7 employees

Who's the slave in my exchange with Blackandgr9y? Its pretty clear who's getting the worse deal, but that's up them and their subjective values. Don't you think with automation people will just develop new skills?  And automation can't replace everything or even most things.  I prefer my prostitutes live. In all seriousness I can't stand robot teleprompters, I pay more for car insurance because the place I go through has solid customer service.  I'm not biting.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 10:42:26 PM
I meant production of goods.

that trade isn't capitalism, by capitalism I meant a system were money is used to make more money


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 26, 2012, 11:30:54 PM
Which, in turn, is used to make better goods. It's called investment.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 26, 2012, 11:38:05 PM
Yes but each time the money is invested, more workers are fired, and then like a cartoon animal that just realized it was running on air, it collapses


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Coltan L. on June 27, 2012, 12:41:33 AM
Yes but each time the money is invested, more workers are fired, and then like a cartoon animal that just realized it was running on air, it collapses

Are you trolling me?


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 27, 2012, 11:53:57 AM
  How...what? Wh..where are you getting your logic from?


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 27, 2012, 12:15:10 PM
bassically this:

It is cheaper and faster to produce goods with robots then with people. Production of goods makes up a large part of the economy. The more money a company makes the more robots it will employ. This will cause a collapse of the economy as more goods are produced for less consumers. When this happens new industries are opened up for sale, in a free market everything is private from the get go. So the only way to expand is to take over areas that aren't part of the market, IE start wars with communist areas.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on June 27, 2012, 01:17:38 PM
 Can someone point out some good articles regarding robots in the free market? Seems to be the one thing Rothbard never talked about. Although, the argument just seems silly.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: braindead0 on June 27, 2012, 01:26:32 PM
Can someone point out some good articles regarding robots in the free market? Seems to be the one thing Rothbard never talked about. Although, the argument just seems silly.
Simply a problem of false premise: "Robots can do every job and do it without creating other jobs"

Just plain wrong.  If this was possible McDonalds would have 0 employees.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 27, 2012, 02:07:36 PM
Can someone point out some good articles regarding robots in the free market? Seems to be the one thing Rothbard never talked about. Although, the argument just seems silly.
Simply a problem of false premise: "Robots can do every job and do it without creating other jobs"

Just plain wrong.  If this was possible McDonalds would have 0 employees.

Not in the service industry, in production. They can do more jobs than they create, you need one mechanic to fix a robot, instead of 20 workers to make a car.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: braindead0 on June 27, 2012, 02:12:55 PM
Can someone point out some good articles regarding robots in the free market? Seems to be the one thing Rothbard never talked about. Although, the argument just seems silly.
Simply a problem of false premise: "Robots can do every job and do it without creating other jobs"

Just plain wrong.  If this was possible McDonalds would have 0 employees.

Not in the service industry, in production. They can do more jobs than they create, you need one mechanic to fix a robot, instead of 20 workers to make a car.
There is no one robot to make a car.  There are hundreds of 'robots', and still thousands of production line workers.  Not only that but you're missing the 50 programmers to write the code (which has to be updated constantly, no program is ever complete), the 100's of employees to build the robots and repair parts....etc..etc..

There are no fully automated production lines anywhere, about the closest you get is in clean room production however there are still a lot of people involved.

Your premise is wrong.  Period.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: assasin7 on June 27, 2012, 03:14:37 PM
Can someone point out some good articles regarding robots in the free market? Seems to be the one thing Rothbard never talked about. Although, the argument just seems silly.
Simply a problem of false premise: "Robots can do every job and do it without creating other jobs"

Just plain wrong.  If this was possible McDonalds would have 0 employees.

Not in the service industry, in production. They can do more jobs than they create, you need one mechanic to fix a robot, instead of 20 workers to make a car.
There is no one robot to make a car.  There are hundreds of 'robots', and still thousands of production line workers.  Not only that but you're missing the 50 programmers to write the code (which has to be updated constantly, no program is ever complete), the 100's of employees to build the robots and repair parts....etc..etc..

There are no fully automated production lines anywhere, about the closest you get is in clean room production however there are still a lot of people involved.

Your premise is wrong.  Period.

Yes that's true, but it still is a net loss for the economy, also capitalism relies on scarcity, which is why they destroy or lock up huge amounts of products, but that means they lose money with production. It also can't expand infinitely on a finite planet, which is why capitalism works so well on the internet, theirs an infinite amount of information. 


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Hanzo on June 28, 2012, 12:14:39 AM
1. Capitalism requires a slave class
No.This is an absolutely baseless assertion.
Quote
2. Capitalism will collapse, because the cheapest way to run a company is automation, meaning that over time their will be products and no one to buy them. So they will have to spread markets ie: invade other areas, which will suit part 1, by taking military prisoners)
This is absolutely beyond ridiculous.

Should we dig roads with spoons? Because using construction vehicles means at least 100 people go without work.

Economic theory says that there is an unlimited number of wants in the world, and all cannot be satisfied at the same time. So, people forgo consumption of lesser wants for greater ones. Or, forgo consumption all together in hopes of future returns. It takes time to acquire capital assets, the tools of production. This means that, say, 100 cars can be produced in an hour instead of 1. This creates wealth. The workers move on to satisfy other needs. The goods become cheaper for everyone. Since there is an unlimited amount of desire in the world, there will always be work to be done. The price system allows resources to satisfy the most urgent needs of society. The higher the price, the more costly the production/the less urgent the need.

If we ever reach a post scarcity economy where no one has to work because all needs and wants are met by machines, great. But that will not happen.





Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Hanzo on June 28, 2012, 12:19:42 AM
assassin, if you are REALLY interested, read Chapter 7 of "Economics in One Lesson" called "the curse of machinery" here: http://www.fee.org/library/books/economics-in-one-lesson/#0.1_L8 . You need to read it. Before repeating anything on libcom, read it. Goddamn it, read it!  If you don't, you can never understand the capitalist point of view.

Better yet, read the whole book. It is insane not to if you want to talk economics with us.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Syock on June 30, 2012, 11:33:07 AM
Wow Assassin... just...  wow...   


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: MAM on July 04, 2012, 10:29:59 PM
assassin7's "logic" is what one refers to colloquially as bullshit. Ancom's may be agianst the State but I seriously doubt any of them truely understand why the State is bad, and this ignorance will lead to their downfall, because they will recreate the State in their attempt to take shit from people, and they will either die in the attempt or die as the result of their victory takes hold.

I think Anthem by Rand does a fairly good job of pointing out the end results of the collectivist ideal.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Gozutennou on July 09, 2012, 06:21:39 AM
And in my ancap paradise ancoms could do basically whatever they want as long as they're not violencing on people.  But in their world, you can't have private property or accumulated capital as I understand it (could be totally wrong, my reading stopped at abbreviated Proudhon.)  So in an Ancom world, if I have nonviolently accumulated capital, how do you stop me from keeping it without organized, legitimized,

Ahh, the classical, " X can exist in paradise Y, but Y can't exist in paradise X" argument, i hear that so much that i don't dig it anymore, anarcho-communism wants to abolish the means of production...

Take this as an example: person a,b,c and d are ancoms, they live on an forgotton island somewhere in the oceaan, they began an commune and collectively own an means of production, then suddenly, an ancap guy comes at the other side of the island and starts a factory, 3 other ancaps work at the factory and build their houses from the trees of the island.

You guys know that anarchism is voluntary and non-violent (execpt in the revolution), what reason do either of the anarchist have to attack the other group of anarchists ?, none !  ;D


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: MAM on July 09, 2012, 06:53:25 AM
And in my ancap paradise ancoms could do basically whatever they want as long as they're not violencing on people.  But in their world, you can't have private property or accumulated capital as I understand it (could be totally wrong, my reading stopped at abbreviated Proudhon.)  So in an Ancom world, if I have nonviolently accumulated capital, how do you stop me from keeping it without organized, legitimized,

Ahh, the classical, " X can exist in paradise Y, but Y can't exist in paradise X" argument, i hear that so much that i don't dig it anymore, anarcho-communism wants to abolish the means of production...

Take this as an example: person a,b,c and d are ancoms, they live on an forgotton island somewhere in the oceaan, they began an commune and collectively own an means of production, then suddenly, an ancap guy comes at the other side of the island and starts a factory, 3 other ancaps work at the factory and build their houses from the trees of the island.

You guys know that anarchism is voluntary and non-violent (execpt in the revolution), what reason do either of the anarchist have to attack the other group of anarchists ?, none !  ;D


Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Syock on July 09, 2012, 08:02:31 AM
This thread has so much wrong with it.  I can't figure out where to even begin to respond.  Not that it would really matter.  The good info is just ignored anyway. 


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Gozutennou on July 09, 2012, 09:37:35 AM
Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed (terrorism) because we are  bothanarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property (a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are  voluntarist....

there always seems a bit (understatement) of misconseption between anarchists.

also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed or are violent (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  :P



Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Syock on July 09, 2012, 09:44:54 AM

Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed because we are anarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property ( a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are for voluntarism....


Also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  :P

It isn't worth arguing with this.  You don't see the hypocrisy in your own sentences. 


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: MAM on July 09, 2012, 10:21:46 AM
Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed (terrorism) because we are  bothanarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property (a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are  voluntarist....

there always seems a bit (understatement) of misconseption between anarchists.

also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed or are violent (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  :P



If there is a difference between personal and private property, what exactly is the difference? What are the implications of this difference?


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Gozutennou on July 10, 2012, 06:29:29 AM

Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed because we are anarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property ( a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are for voluntarism....


Also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  :P

It isn't worth arguing with this.  You don't see the hypocrisy in your own sentences. 

What is my hypocrisy ?


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Gozutennou on July 10, 2012, 06:35:14 AM
Hmmm.... The AnCaps have no reason to attack, though they would I'm sure want to trade with them. Are you telling me that ancoms want to collectivize property but if I choose to opt out I'm not going to be forced to hand over my property?

Well, both ancap and ancom are voluntary, they cannot force things on each other, there cannot use propogande of the deed (terrorism) because we are  bothanarchists and not statists ( rival's, not enemies), ancoms may not force to collectivize the means of productions*, because that is against what anarchism is.

*there is a diffrence between personal property ( a house, a dog, a car, a gun, a ham-sandwich, a t-shirt, a dildo (lol) ) and private property (a factory for example)

the main misconseption of ancaps is that they think that they are the only anarchists that are voluntary, that's not true, because ALL anarchists are  voluntarist....

there always seems a bit (understatement) of misconseption between anarchists.

also, it's not true that all ancoms use propoganda of the deed or are violent (terrorism)..

Errico Malatesta was an anarcho-communist who was against propoganda of the deed
Renzo Novatore was a badshit crazy (lol) individualist anarchist and illegalist who said that if an ancom revolution would ocure then he will work with them, when the revolution was over, he would start another one and destroy the an-coms  :P



If there is a difference between personal and private property, what exactly is the difference? What are the implications of this difference?

Basically, personal property is stuff that you buy that you, personally, use.

Private property is resources that are accumulated for business purposes/for other people to use. It is capital/part of the means of production.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Syock on July 10, 2012, 06:44:56 AM
What is my hypocrisy ?

That is my point.  You don't see it.   


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: MAM on July 10, 2012, 07:31:41 AM
So I decide to buy a factory. Better yet I produce out of my house my good, yes this is it. I bought a house, and because I don't like the idea of paying a mortgage on two properties I decide to work my business out of my home.

So I make widgets and I have employees that come to my home to make my widgits and then an employee stocks a store that sells my widgets.

Now my widget is special and takes special equipment to make and I have that equipment installed at my home.

Is my house mine, or the collectives? Is it "personal" or "private" property?


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Coltan L. on July 10, 2012, 08:30:36 PM
Yeah. I have yet to meet a solid ancom in person, which will hopefully change once I move to Seattle.

I'm not really sold on anything ancom.  It still seems paradoxical to me. It comes down to original appropriation I suppose. But I think at the base level Ancoms feel fundamentally entitled to certain things that I as an ancap would consider positive rights. And since I don't even believe in negative rights. I would call horse shit.

I guess an easy way to draw the line is if the "Labor Theory of Value" is fundamentally tied to Ancom as perhaps the "Nonagression Principal" is to Ancap, then the two are fundamentally irreconcilable.

Who knows?  In the island example with 50/50 ancap/ancom on their own sides. I expect no problems. I mean, if an ancom wanted to make money or eat food and he decided to leave Ancom side would he have to do so naked? What if he said he was going to take his rags and his one bowl with him when he left? Would someone stop him? Would they be a violent thug/thief? Or a glorious representative of the people's collective repossessing collective goods from a vagrant.

I just don't get it. I get that perhaps Ancoms make a bigger deal out of community than Ancaps. But if ownership is collective, and part of the collective splinters what happens? I mean its not just his material goods, he was trained raised "invested in" by the collective. He is property of the group.  Can he get all that premo training and just leave?


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: MAM on July 10, 2012, 09:46:36 PM
Yeah. I have yet to meet a solid ancom in person, which will hopefully change once I move to Seattle.

I'm not really sold on anything ancom.  It still seems paradoxical to me. It comes down to original appropriation I suppose. But I think at the base level Ancoms feel fundamentally entitled to certain things that I as an ancap would consider positive rights. And since I don't even believe in negative rights. I would call horse shit.

I guess an easy way to draw the line is if the "Labor Theory of Value" is fundamentally tied to Ancom as perhaps the "Nonagression Principal" is to Ancap, then the two are fundamentally irreconcilable.



And here we have it is the Labor Theory of Value legitimate? Obviously the answer is no, and here is an example that I was given of why not just the other day. Person X is in school, he is forced to an elective class and chooses to take wood shop. The instructor wants the students to use their creativity. Well student X doesn't like the class and is taking it because he is forced to, so person X decides that his project will be sanding a piece of wood. For the 180 day school 1 hour a day he sands the piece of wood. According to the Labor Theory of value this piece of wood would be worth quite a bit (conservative calculation puts it at 1000$ or so of time invested) obviously the piece of wood (about the size of a bar of soap) is not worth 1000$...


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on July 10, 2012, 10:19:43 PM
It's not just the labor theory of value.

It can be argued that ancom obeys the nonaggression principle and not ancap. It all comes down to whether property rights are legitimate or not. It can't be "proven" one way or another, despite Rothbard's valiant attempt.

Case 1) Assume property rights are legitimate: Then ancoms violate the NAP by stealing.
Case 2) Assume property rights are illegitimate: Then ancaps violate the NAP by holding property that belongs to everyone.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: MAM on July 10, 2012, 11:30:15 PM
It's not just the labor theory of value.

It can be argued that ancom obeys the nonaggression principle and not ancap. It all comes down to whether property rights are legitimate or not. It can't be "proven" one way or another, despite Rothbard's valiant attempt.

Case 1) Assume property rights are legitimate: Then ancoms violate the NAP by stealing.
Case 2) Assume property rights are illegitimate: Then ancaps violate the NAP by holding property that belongs to everyone.

I've always found Ethical arguments to be more compelling than Utilitarian ones. The unperceptive mind could call the Utilitarian arguments an accident when it seems to me that it isn't. Of course we are faced with a metaphysical chicken or the egg here. Do sound ethics come from good economics? Or do good ethics beget sound economics? I think it is best to combine the two. I want to that it works and why and how it works. In fact I am working on a book right now that starts at metaphysics and extends all the way down through to the Utilitarian arguments.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Coltan L. on July 11, 2012, 02:45:49 PM
It's not just the labor theory of value.

It can be argued that ancom obeys the nonaggression principle and not ancap. It all comes down to whether property rights are legitimate or not. It can't be "proven" one way or another, despite Rothbard's valiant attempt.

Case 1) Assume property rights are legitimate: Then ancoms violate the NAP by stealing.
Case 2) Assume property rights are illegitimate: Then ancaps violate the NAP by holding property that belongs to everyone.

Well said, this is the interesting paradox I mentioned earlier that I failed to put into words. I mean I know 100% where my assumption is, but this is why we so savagely butt heads with Ancoms as often as we do.

I think its especially vicious when you talk about the human person and property rights. I was in the Air Force and got really hurt in a rockslide while hiking.  Being a total moron 18 year old I did not go to the hospital to avoid the pretty severe punishment I would get from damaging "government property". I shit you not. But this type of thinking is inevitable in a dispersed ownership economy.  I mean what are service sector jobs selling? And how would you "pay" for training. I can't believe it all could just be written off. I don't know. This may be a failure of my imagination.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Josh D on July 20, 2012, 12:57:18 PM
There were a group of ancoms pretty convincingly described in Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars series.  (Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars)  They make the same distinction between private and personal property.  The dynamics of property and ownership change over the course of the series as Mars goes from a place that will kill you without your suit to a place where you can swim in the oceans and sleep outside in the nude. 

It seems like the ancom groups work much better in a pristine, hostile Mars rather than a homesteadable one.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Syock on July 30, 2012, 06:27:31 PM
The dynamics of property and ownership change over the course of the series as Mars goes from a place that will kill you without your suit to a place where you can swim in the oceans and sleep outside in the nude. 

Is it just me, or do many ancoms seem to like this concept of sleeping outside in the nude? 


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Josh D on July 30, 2012, 08:50:06 PM
The dynamics of property and ownership change over the course of the series as Mars goes from a place that will kill you without your suit to a place where you can swim in the oceans and sleep outside in the nude. 

Is it just me, or do many ancoms seem to like this concept of sleeping outside in the nude? 

Sleeping outside in the nude is the best way to disprove the notion that 'all men were created equal'


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Freya on August 14, 2012, 08:10:07 AM
An coms are destructive, violent individuals, and the more I look at things, the more I realize that Adam is right. A cap is the only morale and rational stateless position. Ancom is a relic of the past that needs to be forgotten.

You've clearly met the wrong kind of "an coms". That sounds nothing like the rational people that through dialogue converted me to mutualism. Sometimes I get the feeling that the red scare is still going strong in the states. As much as mention socialism and a 100 libertarians jump in to tell you how bad socialism is. I'm a socialist. I considered myself a voluntary socialist even when I labeled myself as anarcho-capitalist. I do not in any way seek to violently enforce my beliefs on other people. Rather I believe in social change through dialogue, education, activism and leading by example. There are a lot of good socialist ideas that even anarcho-capitalists could get behind. Don't turn this into a second reddit please. Theres enough circlejerk on the /r/anarcho-capistlism subreddit.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: BobRobertson on August 14, 2012, 08:25:26 AM
That sounds nothing like the rational people that through dialogue converted me to mutualism.

Then you've met some folks whom I have not met: rational people that through dialogue can promote mutualism without resorting to force.

That's been the fatal error of every non-private-property "anarchist" I've yet met, they have not presented how they will abolish private property and money without a state to do the abolishing.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: Syock on August 14, 2012, 10:35:06 AM
That sounds nothing like the rational people that through dialogue converted me to mutualism.

Then you've met some folks whom I have not met: rational people that through dialogue can promote mutualism without resorting to force.

That's been the fatal error of every non-private-property "anarchist" I've yet met, they have not presented how they will abolish private property and money without a state to do the abolishing.

I consider them very different concepts.  The voluntary socialists need not abolish anything and already peacefully coexist.  We use to call them hippies.  I like the hippies.  The other group sees capitalism as something to destroy in order to free people from it.  We call them ancoms.

Ancaps claim other forms of government and social structures can exist within ancap.  Without the ancaps forcing socialists to do anything, everyone is free to setup as they wish.  The same can function in reverse with the hippies.  However the ancoms that are all about destroying capitalism do not offer that option (which is why we still consider them statists), nor do fascist type statists that wish to destroy socialism.  

Most libertarians are still capitalistic statists, even if it is a minarchy.  They are not the ones to look for support from for voluntary socialism.

The difference between ancaps and hippies is what they consider the best option available for their freely made associations.  


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on August 14, 2012, 08:25:40 PM
Personally, I find the concept of voluntaryist much more appealing than the anarcho "put label here". I see nothing wrong with an anarcho socialist society existing within a private property based one. I just ask that they respect other people.


Title: Re: Adam Kokesh: "Anarcho-Capitalists are the real anarchists"
Post by: MAM on November 05, 2012, 02:08:39 AM
Personally, I find the concept of voluntaryist much more appealing than the anarcho "put label here". I see nothing wrong with an anarcho socialist society existing within a private property based one. I just ask that they respect other people.

If they come for my property I'll have to take care of business. Until then who cares what they do?