Anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchist pt.2

Argument I This argument is devolving into a semantics battle. It's obvious that there's some uncertainty in how my opponent and I define anarchism. "Rule" doesn't necessarily imply a government, but it does imply that you are forced to follow a principle. Further, "leader" is vague as well. If my opponent's arguments were to be followed to the extreme, then leadership should not be a good quality for people to have, which is blantantly false. The Greek "arkhos" could be literally translated as leader, but it is unlikely that, in the ancient Greek context, that it meant a non-governmental leader, since it is "-archy" that is the suffix of most government philosophies (i. e. oligarchy). [1] My opponent is essentially arguing that anarcho-communism's definitions of "anarchy" are axiomatic, when this is not true. "This is all good and well, so long as we realize that various groups of anarchists will radically disagree about what is or is not an instance of "rulership. " Thus, while left-anarchists will normally classify government, property, hierarchical organizations, and possibly religion, the family, male-female relations, and so on as "rulership," anarcho-capitalists will say that only governments (as well as private criminal actions) constitute rulership. The second definition thus winds up having the same extension as the first one, once one realizes that disagreement about the nature of rulership exists. Thus, on its own terms this argument fails to exclude anarcho-capitalists. "[2] Argument 2 When you dig into what many anarchist thinkers have said, this argument falls apart. It's interesting that my opponent brings up Proudhon's quote, which, actually, when taken in context, it actually fully backfires. Benjamin Tucker wrote, ". .. by property he means simply legally privileged wealth or the power of usury, and not at all the possession by the laborer of his products. " This supports the definition of anarchism that I've been putting forth. Further, even Kropotkin identified, Tucker, an individualist anarchist, as an anarchist. [2] Overall, this argument commits two fallacies and one misunderstanding at once " it commits the Ad Populum because majorities do not makes facts, and it assumes that the current meaning of a word is determined by how it was historically defined, which is not true. It also underestimates the individualist-collectivist debates in early anarchist thought. Argument 3 My opponent misunderstands "natural law". Market forces are not determined by forcable rules, but rather by rational argument. For example, if a consumer wants to buy a product, he will obviously choose the seller who gives him the product for the least amount of money. This is where the natural laws of supply and demand come from. The more of a product there is at equal demand, the less it is worth because another one can just as easily be obtained. The natural laws of the market are not determined by any person, but just arise as a result of a free marketplace. The private law comes from private individuals. "Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase protection of themselves and their property from private firms. Each such firm faces the problem of possible conflicts with other firms. " These firms come from the need to defend oneself without having to worry about interpersonal conflicts. So essentially, individuals and private contracts carry out legal principles. There's nothing against the anarchist philosophy here. [3] Argument 4 But it is not only the producers and the owners of the means of production that are the capitalists. Capitalism revolves around a mutual understanding between the consumer and producer. The producer is not in an inherently superior position because the consumer also benefits from the transaction. And again, the producers are not a set, unchanging group of individuals. My opponent's wage slavery arguments completely misunderstand the nature of capitalism itself. There are always multiple businesses that an individual can be employed by, and this gives them bargaining power when it comes to wages. Looking at conditions during the industrial revolution today is a perfect example of hindsight. Conditions before then were actually a lot worse than they ever were during the revolution. "The traditional social system was not elastic enough to provide for the needs of a rapidly increasing population. " Pure capitalism prevents things like this. Also, saying that the 19th century was the epitome of Laissez-Faire capitalism is a little hasty, as the government had a huge, albeit masked, involvement. [4] Argument 5 My opponent hasn't really addressed my arguments. Rothbard said in his article that, "The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. " This goes back to the semantics issues I mentioned in the first argument. Rothbard disagrees with the earlier individual anarchists on a few issues. Regardless, he does end up coming under the anarchist label. [5] Argument 6 Actually, this is another inaccuracy. Conditions before capitalism arrived were much worse (such as under communist governments or colonization). Plus, conditions in the countries where Americans get most of their labor are far from pure capitalist. The governments control a lot of the market, so much so that the economies are only capitalist under the name. As for my inclusion of Marx, he was just a part of a quote from an article I quoted that I was using to make my argument. But I feel it is relevant again considering my opponent's arguments. Again, Marx's predictions for capitalist society did not come true in the least. Lifestyles have improved enormously under capitalism. And once again, your judging pure capitalism by criticizing the effects of crony capitalism. Consumers can easily become producers, and vice versa. And once again, owning the means of production is not a better position to be in than a consumer. Sure, a producer is getting money, but the producer has to give up a product worth about that same price. As for my conclusion, I never said that anarcho-communism was not true capitalism. I was simply summarizing why anarcho-capitalism should be considered anarchism, with the ambiguity of the term. Socialism itself involves the owning of the means of production by the state, which is obviously against anarchism, but a viable form of anarchism was created from it. I pointed this out because the definitions of such systems (i. e. capitalism) can be different with different types of it. Conclusion Capitalism can easily fit under the definition of anarchism because anarchism is a vague term (as the semantics argument has shown). Also, the definitions of the economic systems can change according to whatever political system they are under. Anarcho-capitalism places importance on voluntary actions and no forced leadership, which are main precepts of anarchism. Overall, anarcho-capitalism is anarchist. Sources [1]: . http://en.wiktionary.org... [2]: . http://econfaculty.gmu.edu... [3]: . http://www.daviddfriedman.com... [4]: . http://mises.org... [5]: . http://mises.org...