Comments on: Discussion on Agorism vs. Anarcho-Capitalism http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611 the bottom of the rabbit hole Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:47:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: devon http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611/comment-page-1#comment-19807 devon Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:36:50 +0000 http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611#comment-19807 Semantics is exactly what I'm arguing. There is no "anarcho-capitalism" of which positions can be generalized. Anarcho-capitalism is simply the belief that defense should be provided my markets (and no labor theory of value, to rule out the mutualists). There are as many different positions beyond that as there are anarcho-capitalists. There is no anarcho-captialist "movement." There may differening applications of anarcho-capitalism, some of which could possibly be considered confined to a "movement" such as possibly agorism. Just as there is no "anarchist movement," but various anarchist philosophies or movements, there is no anarcho-capitalist movement but various anarcho-capitalist philosophies or movements. As an anarcho-capitalist I resent being stereotyped as a Rothbardian, as if his philosophy is the only "anarcho-capitalism" especially when Spangler even makes unknowledgeable claims about Rothbardianism. Don't make claims about posititions that "anarcho-capitalist" hold or what they believe or do not believe, beyond the fact that they support market provided defense. These things cannot be generalized. If you want to call your anarcho-capitalism by the name agorism that's fine, but please don't stereotype anarcho-capitalists. Even if I agree with agorism, I'm still simply going to call myself an anarcho-capitalist. But according to your definition I would no longer be an anarcho-capitalist. It's just nonsense. Semantics is exactly what I’m arguing. There is no “anarcho-capitalism” of which positions can be generalized. Anarcho-capitalism is simply the belief that defense should be provided my markets (and no labor theory of value, to rule out the mutualists). There are as many different positions beyond that as there are anarcho-capitalists. There is no anarcho-captialist “movement.” There may differening applications of anarcho-capitalism, some of which could possibly be considered confined to a “movement” such as possibly agorism. Just as there is no “anarchist movement,” but various anarchist philosophies or movements, there is no anarcho-capitalist movement but various anarcho-capitalist philosophies or movements. As an anarcho-capitalist I resent being stereotyped as a Rothbardian, as if his philosophy is the only “anarcho-capitalism” especially when Spangler even makes unknowledgeable claims about Rothbardianism. Don’t make claims about posititions that “anarcho-capitalist” hold or what they believe or do not believe, beyond the fact that they support market provided defense. These things cannot be generalized. If you want to call your anarcho-capitalism by the name agorism that’s fine, but please don’t stereotype anarcho-capitalists. Even if I agree with agorism, I’m still simply going to call myself an anarcho-capitalist. But according to your definition I would no longer be an anarcho-capitalist. It’s just nonsense.

]]> By: swilbur http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611/comment-page-1#comment-19805 swilbur Mon, 30 Apr 2007 16:30:32 +0000 http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611#comment-19805 Brad, your patience is admirable. Unfortunately, much of this response seems to be the familiar "talking points," such as they are, that we run across on the Talk pages of Wikipedia, etc. It's hard to know what is being defended here, when the defining characteristic of "anarcho-capitalism" seems to be its lack of coherent content. It leads us to arguments like: 'There is no anarcho-capitalist movement, but agorism is definitely part of it.' Sigh. We've been trying to move past the point of arguing over semantic, rather than substantive differences. I guess the only way forward is to keep that up. I thought it was very useful to see SEK3's comments and your notes. Thanks. Brad, your patience is admirable. Unfortunately, much of this response seems to be the familiar “talking points,” such as they are, that we run across on the Talk pages of Wikipedia, etc. It’s hard to know what is being defended here, when the defining characteristic of “anarcho-capitalism” seems to be its lack of coherent content. It leads us to arguments like: ‘There is no anarcho-capitalist movement, but agorism is definitely part of it.’ Sigh. We’ve been trying to move past the point of arguing over semantic, rather than substantive differences. I guess the only way forward is to keep that up. I thought it was very useful to see SEK3’s comments and your notes. Thanks.

]]> By: devon http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611/comment-page-1#comment-19801 devon Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:25:31 +0000 http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611#comment-19801 It makes no sense that you're defining anarcho-capitalism as necessary not having a theory of revolution. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. If I come up with a theory of revolution then I'm not longer an anarcho-capitalist? That's absurd. I suggest you look up a definition of anarcho-capitalism in an encyclopedia. There is no such requirement to be an anarcho-capitalist. It makes no sense that you’re defining anarcho-capitalism as necessary not having a theory of revolution. I’m an anarcho-capitalist. If I come up with a theory of revolution then I’m not longer an anarcho-capitalist? That’s absurd. I suggest you look up a definition of anarcho-capitalism in an encyclopedia. There is no such requirement to be an anarcho-capitalist.

]]> By: devon http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611/comment-page-1#comment-19800 devon Sun, 29 Apr 2007 06:07:52 +0000 http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/611#comment-19800 It's not true at all that "lacks a theory of revolution." It depends on the anarcho-capitalist. You don't seem to get that anarcho-capitalism is not ONE philosophy. It's a GROUP of different philosophies that merely have the same premise, which is that defense would be supplied by the market (and to rule out mutualism, does not have a labor theory of value). The number of different anarcho-capitalist philosophies is a great as the number of theorists, and there are many. Just as "anarchism" is not a single philosophy, and just as "individualist anarchism" is not a single philosophy, "anarcho-capitalism" is not a single philosophy. Maybe at one time there was a single "anarcho-capitalism" when Rothbard first named it, but that's not how it is anymore. Everybody and his brother has his own unique anarcho-capitalism. You define anarcho-capitalism as necessarily not having a theory of revolution. That makes no sense at all. I'm an anarcho-capitalist. If I were to come up with a theory of revolution, you're telling me I would no longer be an anarcho-capitalist? That's absurd. I suggest you look up a basic definition of anarcho-capitalism. There is no requirement that an anarcho-capitalist must not have a theory of revolution. It’s not true at all that “lacks a theory of revolution.” It depends on the anarcho-capitalist. You don’t seem to get that anarcho-capitalism is not ONE philosophy. It’s a GROUP of different philosophies that merely have the same premise, which is that defense would be supplied by the market (and to rule out mutualism, does not have a labor theory of value). The number of different anarcho-capitalist philosophies is a great as the number of theorists, and there are many.

Just as “anarchism” is not a single philosophy, and just as “individualist anarchism” is not a single philosophy, “anarcho-capitalism” is not a single philosophy.

Maybe at one time there was a single “anarcho-capitalism” when Rothbard first named it, but that’s not how it is anymore. Everybody and his brother has his own unique anarcho-capitalism.

You define anarcho-capitalism as necessarily not having a theory of revolution. That makes no sense at all. I’m an anarcho-capitalist. If I were to come up with a theory of revolution, you’re telling me I would no longer be an anarcho-capitalist? That’s absurd. I suggest you look up a basic definition of anarcho-capitalism. There is no requirement that an anarcho-capitalist must not have a theory of revolution.

]]>