On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:47 PM, John Newman <jnn@synfin.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:08:00PM -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 7:13 AM, Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:
Thanks to everyone for your replies!
On Jul 11, 2017 9:16 PM, "Kurt Buff" <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Kevin Gallagher <kevin.gallagher@nyu.edu> wrote:
Here is where I start to have questions. To my understanding, anarchy is the rejection of heirarchies. Isn't anarcho-capitalism therefore an oxymoron?
No, anarcho-capitalism is grounded in the understanding that free trade among free people is a the only road to peace and prosperity. People arrange themselves in hierarchies all the time, and it's no crime if they do so freely.
For the life of me I can't think of any heirarchies that aren't, at least in part, founded on deceit or force (or both). Can you please give an example of one?
Go into almost any small business with a few employees. By small, I mean under 500 employees. If the employees are happy, you have your answer.
Just because someone is happy at their work, doesn't mean they aren't a wage slave.
"Anarcho-capitalism" has more in common with fascism and post-industrial feudalism than any real ideal of freedom and life without coercion. For a fair idea of how it might play out, just look back 150 years to the gilded age - the government was a fuck of a lot smaller, the masses were dirt fucking poor, and they were kept that way by private squads of pinkertoon goons hired by the bosses. This is "anarcho-capitalism".
You have a dim and rather confused vision of history. Kurt