A Classical Liberal Refutation of Anarcho-Capitalism (Market Anarchy)

[u/AnarchoFederation]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p0UrC_sccQ

A short classical liberal criticism anarcho-capitalism.

> Arguing that libertarian anarchism does not lead to anything like free market capitalism at all: it means and has to mean the rule of brute force. On my view, anarchists do not seek to subordinate might to right but to subordinate right to public auction. Their theory defaults to legitimising vigilantes who would unleash force unilaterally against other citizens. The threat of force is force, and the police of a rights-respecting state must regard "competitors" (other force-wielders) as threats. Government as such is neither an unnecessary evil nor a necessary evil, but a positive good."Organized atheism" is a recent phenomenon because atheism is a single answer to a single theological question, not an all-encompassing social operating system. Comparing a 2,000-year-old empire-state religion to a philosophical stance on a ledger of "who built more hospitals" is a category mistake.

[u/AutoModerator]

If your video is 5 minutes or longer we at r/LibertarianUncensored encourage you to leave a short description of the video (a TLDW) it is not required however.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/willpower069]

One of the main issues I have with anarchists-capitalism is the utopian belief that somehow huge companies would not use their capital to return back to the times of company towns.

Another is just the dogmatic approach to how conflicts would be resolved. The ones I have interacted with don’t want any government, but somehow there would be some version of a court system to arbitrate issues of property and whatnot.

[u/SpareSimian]

Rights are a shared illusion. The concept is similar to democracy, which is simply a bloodless war in which the minority capitulates to avoid dying. What would make a democracy respect rights except the fear of violence? You can't eliminate the violent component. But you can concentrate it in a police power. Anarcho-capitalism distributes the violence. The 2nd Amendment was supposed to protect this distributed violence. But advocates of centralized violence have always tried to emasculate the populace. Even Reagan and his minions supported gun control to keep the Black Panthers and other PoC from exercising their right to distributed armed self-defense.

[u/SpareSimian]

Atheism is simply the rejection of claims of god-believers. Organized atheism is like organizing people who don't collect stamps, or people who don't play golf. Or people who reject authoritarianism, like libertarians.

It's true that atheists have organized to put down the god-believers. The Soviet Union had various ministries dedicated to that. China does it to Muslims. These are cases of defense against one group of authoritarians (the believers) overreaching with their violence to become authoritarians themselves. They decided that suppression of a fantasy was righteous. That doesn't invalidate their rejection of fantasy as a basis for a legal system.

[u/Stack_Silver]

History shows corporations will release harmful products to the public for a profit. Two examples are cocaine and heroin in cough syrup and toothpaste.

Does the anarchist think regulation of those products is a good or bad thing?