Anarcho-capitalism is based in market solutions which means p2p transactions. If you don’t like an offered service don’t take it.
Where is here the hierachy?

If you assume a switch from one system to another like todays to anarcho-capitalism all regulation/‘legal monopolies’ would disappear as the enforcer state is gone.

Anyway, I am still forced under threat of expropriation/imprisonment to pay taxes. Any solution to that?


On 12.07.2016, at 09:34, Penny Gaff <pennygaffgallery@???> wrote:

> Anarcho-capitalism is surely an oxymoron. Anarchy operates without hierarchy, capitalism is fundamentally based on hierarchy. So how can the two possibly be conflated?
>
> On Jul 11, 2016 7:44 PM, "psy" <epsylon@???> wrote:
> Amir:
> > Pablo, you made a good outline for a general anarchist theory which
> > still needs some development because it leaves out a path for creating
> > this society from our current context. Bookchin has very strong
> > arguments for a sort of federal democracy by creating civil society
> > movements that take political power through local municipalities. In
> > Catalonia for instance, there's an anarchist cooperative we work with
> > called the CIC (http://cooperativa.cat) organizing small local
> > businesses and cooperatives to evade the economic system through
> > economic disobedience, such as using the law to avoid paying tax (like
> > the big corporations do). The Kurdish movements in Turkey switched from
> > a struggle for de jure independence to a struggle for de facto
> > independence heavily influenced by Bookchin's ideas of libertarian
> > municipalism.
> >
> > Bookchin's ideas are refreshing because they point to a real path to
> > political power that is actually very contemporary and being employed by
> > anarchist groups in multiple places. Combined with free market mutualist
> > or syndicalist ideas which give a path to economic power, and we have a
> > solution for strong thriving anarchist societies. The key is civil
> > society development and this is where the postmodernists like Nietzsche
> > or Foucault have a massive contribution that point to big flaws in the
> > fabric of our moral systems that are life-denying and the propensity for
> > lying through rationalist positivism (which makes Objectivism look
> > ridiculous). Philosophy influences scientific development and rational
> > truth- words like central planning, command and control economy, and ...
> > are old fashioned today. Instead we're more likely to use words like
> > tipping point, butterfly effect, ...
> >
> > Ours is an age of movement, uncertainty and transition. By necessity
> > anarchism has to change with the times. It feels that this age of
> > materialist Marxism has tainted anarchist thought since Proudhon, making
> > anarchism anachronistic and dogmatic at times. That's not to say that
> > anarcho-communism has nothing valuable to offer. The liberating thing
> > about anarchism is that every strain of anarchism (even
> > anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism) tells us new interesting
> > things, and offers up new strategies and tactics for fighting
> > authoritarianism.
> >
> > By saying you are a proponent of anarcho-communism or anarcho-capitalism
> > means you believe that questions of class and economy are the most
> > important issues- not our ethics, how we administrate and govern, the
> > relations between people and culture. However one philosophy gives us a
> > history of experience for organizing economically. The original
> > criticism of capitalism emerged from Proudhon, the anarcho-syndicalist
> > and first person to call themselves an anarchist.
> >
> > The other philosophy gives us practical tools like Bitcoin, smart
> > contracts and agorism. It also teaches us about economics and the
> > destructive role played by central banks and corrupt government
> > intervention in the economy. These are all useful, valuable ideas and we
> > should not reject ideas completely without studying them all first, and
> > then you deciding what to take, and what to leave.
>
> +1.
>
> Really nice explained mentioning Bookchin as a point to start.
>
> We can also talk about some opposite views: Freud.
>
> His theories are directly related with individualism ("I", "super-I",
> etc..) which are intrinsically related, from a humanistic point of view,
> with capitalism methods.
>
> Nietzsche... +1
>
> What about capitalistic dogma: "More Benefit for Less Cost"?
>
> Can an "anarcho-capitalist" tell me that follows that doctrine by using
> contemporary market to engage anarchism?.
>
> Aren't they hidden "neoliberalism"?. For that to read
> "anarcho-capitalism" for me sounds confusing.
>
> To be pragmatic doesn't means to be individualistic. Collaborative
> pragmatism is a powerful tool. And capitalism, almost as I am realizing
> it, trying to be as most objetivist as possible, is fundamentally based
> on forgive problems derived by manufacture, such as plastics, CO2
> emissions, etc, but also slavery processes on "third development"
> countries like de-localization, tax evasions, etc...
>
> I think it is really easy to talk about "anarcho-capitalism" from a
> social classes point of view. Mostly if you are on the Occident part
> because capitalism has indeed "bourgeoisie".
>
> What about "anarcho-bourgeoisie"?.
>
> Maybe "anarcho-capitalists" are confused with "anarcho-bourgeoisie"
> which is more related with Marx's anarchists doctrines...
>
> > psy:
> >> You will cannot practice never anarchism by using capitalism.
> >> You always will be subjugated to market rules which are really
> >> anti-socials.
> >
> > That's a very dogmatic thing to say. How do you feel about projects
> > organized by the Catalan cooperative which are using the free market to
> > support socialist projects. Are they not practicing anarchism because
> > they are using capitalism?
>
> Well. I am agree with an interventionist market in which products and
> services are directly related with the ecological/human problems they
> cause to be made. Before and after consume them.
>
> I am not agree with "free" market rules. Almost, with actual neo-market
> doctrine based at offer/demand. I am agree with engage nature/humanity
> more up than "tagged projects", etc. So social/cooperative individuals
> greater than social technocracies.
>
> For that I on the way of that Catalan cooperative ideas. I just only
> remarking that needs more next steps to be done. And that is not
> "anarcho-capitalism" what they are trying.
>
> > If you like cooperatives, then you are supporting non-authoritarian
> > socialism.
>
> Even mutualism. +1.
>
> > Nietzsche teaches us that we can create our own moral systems. There is
> > nothing authoritative or intrinsically right. Just societies and values.
> > And this is where it gets exciting- the Kurds are postmodernists. When
> > you say this or that isn't anarchism remember Wikipedia:
> >
> > "Anarchism draws on many currents of thought and strategy. Anarchism
> > does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world
> > view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy."
> >
> > "Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are
> > mutually exclusive."
> >
> > Different strategies and tactics from different schools of anarchism can
> > be used side by side, and mixed together in different ways to create new
> > societies with different values. Anarchism is far too rich to reduce it
> > down to a single school or even reject recognized schools in their entirety.
>
> Totally agree.
>
> I just putting in context what "anarcho-capitalism" is giving to that
> theories/practices.
>
> By the moment, I cannot see any good one to follow it at the point to
> self-tag me as: "an anarcho-capitalist".
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem