The word "anarchy" is synonymous with "chaos". "Anarchists" are thought to be "bomb throwing criminals". It seems like unwise branding to continue to use these terms. It's the reason companies rename themselves because their name may hurt their business.

"Woke" musicians like the former "Dixie Chicks" renamed themselves to "The Chicks" because they thought their name had connotations their fans didn't like. I think it's the same kind of thing here.

It immediately puts people on the defensive when they talk about this issue, they'll say, "I'm an anarchist but not the bomb throwing sort". The bad reputation of the name is already acknowledged.

It's the difference between tyranny and "good" monarchy. For the anarchist, maybe they think there is no "good" monarchy. For most people, they'll recognize there can be some "decent" kings and some bad ones. "Anarchy" just sounds like the "tyranny" version of monarchy. Instead some other term would put a more positive spin on things and be more accurate.

For me, "anarchy" isn't even accurate. Some of the anarchists say they are for "no gods, no masters". There is quite a difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism. Let the leftist anarchists continue using the term "anarchy" and for people to associate them with criminality. I am ok with some kinds of "anarchy" (like "anarcho-capitalism"?), but it's a lot more like what we already have than anarcho-communism.

I believe "anarchists" can believe in God and follow hierarchical leadership in private institutions that compete in a market. There may be more freedom to do different things, but we would still end up with a lot of what we see now with policing and enforcement of laws with courts. Taxes may go away, but they would still exist in the form of "fees", they would just hopefully cost less and be "voluntary" (although a lot of things are pretty much needed in life, so they seem less "voluntary" in a way - it may be "voluntary" for you to choose not to have a subscription to police help, but then you're kind of exposed to criminals more).

I don't know what exactly might be good to replace the term "anarchism" with though, maybe that's up for people to debate about.

Do you think the terms "anarchy", "anarchist", or "anarchism" are hurtful or inaccurate or do you think they should be "reclaimed" because "people will just continue to make them in to bad terms so it's pointless to keep renaming things"?

Kind of a random topic, but there are often laws banning public nudity. Presumably even nudity that can be seen in public, but which takes place on private property (say someone is showering or sunbathing in the nude outside).

How would this issue be dealt with in ancapistan or under a "free" government?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe on his view of the importance of division of labor in capitalist-technological society:

A member of the human race who is completely incapable of understanding the higher productivity of labor performed under a division of labor based on private property is not properly speaking a person… but falls instead into the same moral category as an animal – of either the harmless sort (to be domesticated and employed as a producer or consumer good, or to be enjoyed as a “free good”) or the wild and dangerous one (to be fought as a pest). On the other hand, there are members of the human species who are capable of understanding the [value of the division of labor] but...who knowingly act wrongly… [B]esides having to be tamed or even physically defeated [they] must also be punished… to make them understand the nature of their wrongdoings and hopefully teach them a lesson for the future.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

I think Hoppe is denying the humanity of such people perhaps incorrectly, but unironically some primitivists might agree and say yes, they are animals or like them, and that's a good thing, that's the point, they want to be "wild and free". The primitivist might in response argue that dependence on technology and specialists is not particularly "libertarian".

Case in point, when technology becomes so complicated that "superviruses" are unleashed that we are compelled to rely on mRNA technologies we may not understand and "specialist doctors" who we basically have to decide if we trust or not.

A lot of ancaps or people in general seem to be ignorant of the anarcho-primitivist or anti-civ(ilization) critique of technology's impact on freedom, so I'm not sure what Hoppe would think of such critiques. Perhaps I or someone could email him or some of the Mises Institute people to ask their opinion (note: one email sent). This quote sent me on a deep dive of economics topics like of the idea of "comparative advantage" that two people could separately produce only so much, but if they decided to divide labor and specialize they might be able to produce more that they could trade together. I accept this as being true in theory.

However, take an example of two people, one foraging for strawberries exclusively and the other producing meat. If they decide not to trade, the meat hunter gets scurvy from no vitamin C from the strawberries (accept this for the sake of argument), while the strawberry gatherer gets no protein. So the division of labor creates a kind of fragile depedence and removes their primitive liberty that they possessed previously, of self-sufficient freedom but with less productive output.

While growing up to enjoy the idea of "American freedom", this led me to consider anarchism as the full expression of freedom, but more specifically "individualist anarchism", which was kind of a mix of primitivism but open to a little technology and not necessarily capitalist or socialist: the ideal of a self-sufficient homesteader who could make some tools and produce much of what they needed, of someone living before or shortly after the Industrial Revolution. Personally I encountered problems with authorities or experts offering potentially bad advice which I was dependent on. The fragility of such a scenario did not seem particularly liberating.

However, of course having less productivity seems limiting as well. And the development of technology and free arrangement in a division of labor seems to be a genuine expression of liberty in the beginning. But it then seems to foster a kind of technological slavery, and slavery of dependence on capitalist division of labor.

If one cannot opt out of using certain technologies, or of joining teams as a specialist in a capitalist society, then is one "completely" free?

Does this imply that libertarianism requires primitivism on some level, or rejecting an unrestricted development of technology and the division of labor involved in capitalism?

https://infogalactic.com/info/Liberty_dollar_(private_currency)

The Liberty Dollar (ALD) was a private currency produced in the United States.

The currency was issued in minted metal rounds (i.e. coins), gold and silver certificates and electronic currency (eLD). ALD certificates are "warehouse receipts" for real gold and silver owned by the bearer. According to court documents there were about 250,000 holders of Liberty Dollar certificates.[1] The metal was warehoused at Sunshine Minting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, prior to a November 2007 raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Secret Service.[2] Until July 2009, the Liberty Dollar was distributed by Liberty Services (formerly known as "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code" (NORFED), based in Evansville, Indiana. It was created by Bernard von NotHaus, the co-founder of the Royal Hawaiian Mint Company.[3]cy (eLD). ALD certificates are "warehouse receipts" for real gold and silver owned by the bearer. According to court documents there were about 250,000 holders of Liberty Dollar certificates.[1] The metal was warehoused at Sunshine Minting in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, prior to a November 2007 raid by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Secret Service.[2] Until July 2009, the Liberty Dollar was distributed by Liberty Services (formerly known as "National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Code" (NORFED), based in Evansville, Indiana. It was created by Bernard von NotHaus, the co-founder of the Royal Hawaiian Mint Company.[3]

Basically they were trying to get a bunch of people who like freedom to move to New Hampshire to make the state more free and to have a community of more pro-freedom people

So I think it's more like for libertarian minarchy (maybe ok with anarchy as well) than conservativism

https://www.fsp.org/

(I posted about this on other .wins but I assume this .win to be more familiar with FSP)

https://images3.memedroid.com/images/UPLOADED258/59aebc1e769e6.jpeg

Ok, so I was thinking about this, you may have seen the memes about mutualism (orange and black ball) where a person leaves their house and land to go to the store and since they have abandoned it for a few minutes, a "mutualist" can then go in to claim the property and house because it is not being "actively used". (Above link is an example)

If not, I think some mutualist (anarchists) believe that property only has validity so long as it is being used. Their concern is especially for someone who originally puts up a big fence on unclaimed land and then does nothing with it, while there are people nearby who want to make use of it and would do good with the land.

Capitalists and like ancaps in response argue this is a slippery slope to people just taking other people's property, like the aforementioned meme parody.

So I thought, what if as a compromise, that maybe the mutualists are correct that property has validity morally upon being used, but that it's not a good idea to recognize that process legally speaking.

In other words, unless you're making use of property, isn't it "superfluous wealth" that perhaps ought to be loaned or given to someone in need (in accordance with Christian thought)? There's no hard rule here on how much time is too much to not make use of such stuff, but I was wondering if you think it a useful principle or not.

So, not that the legal institutions or government should permit people to repossess such unused property, but perhaps one ought to think it more moral to voluntarily make use of such property actively or to give it away if they're not going to use it?

Overall, what do you think of the mutualist theory of property having legitimacy only when it is made use of?

This objection is sometimes raised, that anarcho-capitalism might not work because someone (who is wealthy?) might just try to create their own State, and anarcho-capitalism won't be able to prevent this.

I don't think this is a problem unique to anarcho-capitalism though, currently States are subject to secession or becoming worse, so anarcho-capitalism can't prevent a State from forming much more than the State can prevent being dissolved. There's somewhat of an equal problem, it seems like.

What are your thoughts on this objection that anarcho-capitalism can't work because it will just form into a State or State(s) again?

Another common criticism of anarcho-capitalism that I've seen is that people think that if people have freedom to have the ability to defend themselves, for there to be private armies, than then this will lead to warlords taking over and ancapistan would be warlords constantly at war with each other.

I think ancaps in response have argued that states are kind of like "warlords" and they sometimes go to war with each other, and often are at peace because peace can be mutually beneficial. I guess there's no real guarantee of how much war ancapistan would or wouldn't have, any more than there's that guarantee with states.

What do you think of the "warlord" objection and how do you respond to it?

What are the different schools?

What are their views?

Which do you agree with?

Someone argued that private prisons have an incentive to enslave people and that it would be bad for there to be private prisons under anarcho-capitalism

Others have argued that private prisons would be rarer and crime might be more in fines or other ways of making restitution rather than prison times

What problems exist with the idea of private prisons and what solutions do you suggest to these objections?

Say someone has a rattlesnake as a pet, and it gets on the loose in a place that doesn't usually have rattlesnakes - having pets like that is kind of a danger to people who live around you, kind of like nuclear weapons are (nukes could detonate and harm neighbors, exotic pets could escape and harm neighbors).

For that matter, how does the government deal with this issue now?

Ancap may not have involuntary taxes, but it will have relatively involuntary costs for the same things that taxes go to. You could live without police, but you're probably going to want to have police, so you end up voluntarily paying for police just like under a State. The hope is that there are more choices at lower cost and not one entity in charge of policing though (or at least competition is allowed).

Ancap may not have government-imposed regulations, but there will be only so many companies that provide the things that government does (like courts) and they will "govern", in a sense, creating the best rules they can, and people will follow along.

Rules will be agreed upon almost universally, like that things like trespassing, theft, etc. are unacceptable on any property, so you'd see a lot of standardization of rules that spread to each property.

So a structure emerges that ends up looking very much like government (just like a body is composed of individual cells but makes up a full unit, you could almost call ancap a kind of "State" or "UnState" really). This is why left libertarians and ancoms sometimes consider ancap-ism to not be a form of anarchy, because it ends up looking basically like governments we see today.

Companies that form in often have a CEO or central leader, with a board of directors. Someone remarked that this community forum should have no leaders as if this was "anarchist", but businesses form with a head moderator (like the CEO) with sub-moderators (like the board of directors) and then the other workers in the group (like posters here). It very much ends up looking like things in a "State", and this comes about naturally in "capitalism".

I'd argue ancap could end up looking very much like what we have now, only possibly with more options (sometimes people argue what ancap would look like is a mysterious unknown, or that it would look "very" different).

I think this is important to realize because then ancap-ism is not seen as being so different but is more accessible to show to the average person, as well as being actually workable because it's like our already existing conditions (only improved upon, is the hope).