Smashing Anarcho-Communists

So this guy, DA RENⒶTO on youtube, just cannot seem to understand basic logic, economics or philosophy. Here is just a sampling of how to smash wrong headed thinking like this. You can click here to see everything if you feel like giving yourself an headache.

DA RENⒶTO: How do you want enforce the right of private property if the workers expropriate your property for themselves ? We find capitalism as the source of all innovations and productivity, but that is because it is – in the US – helped by the state’s anti-strike laws and lack of minimum wage.

Anarcho-capitalism would fail, firsty because it considers animals and nature as property, but also of the numerous workers who would also revolt against the system. You and other private owners wouldn’t stand against the majority.

Me: “How do you want enforce the right of private property if the workers expropriate your property for themselves?”

What makes you entitled to the fruit of another’s labor? Why are laborers attacking the person and property of others? That isn’t anarchism that is statism. You want to replace a voluntary hierarchy (business relationships) with a coercive one where the collective is above the individual in a hierarchical scheme. That’s statism, not anarchism so who is the anarchist now? Not you. The laborer is the simplest business owner since they sell their labor in exchange for wages. The entrepreneur takes their own property, money, labor, whatever, and invests in trying to predict the demands of consumers and their preferences. They can succeed or fail in this. If they fail, they are financially ruined. However the laborer can go off and get another job someplace else if they choose.. If the business owner bears that much risk in starting a business, they should make more in profits than the laborer WHO VOLUNTARILY agreed upon their terms of employment. What you want is to have someone else build up wealth with their blood, sweat and tears so that you don’t have to. Gee, that sounds an awful lot like the state. You are not an anarchist. You are not against involuntary hierarchies. You’re philosophy leads to a state and I have proven that again and again, but your bug brain can’t seem to comprehend that. If laborers want a lion’s share of the profits, they need to share in the risk then. As an example I am a freelance concept artist in the video game industry. The project I am a part of now is on a profit sharing model meaning I’m not making a regular wage but I am entitled to a share of the profits upon the games release. If the game fails, I bear the financial burden along with the business owner. If the game succeeds, I share in the business owners success. This all voluntary. What you want requires violence and flies in the face of all common sense and basic economics. “We find capitalism as the source of all innovations and productivity, but that is because it is – in the US – helped by the state’s anti-strike laws and lack of minimum wage.” This is completely false. I have stated this multiple times. We have corporatism right now. Not capitalism. The markets are far from free and you know this or are willfully ignorant to that fact. The state hates capitalism and private property. Ludwig Von Mises said it best in his book “Liberalism”: “Private property creates for the individual a sphere in which he is free of the state. It sets limits to the operation of the authoritarian will. It allows other forces to arise side by side with and in opposition to political power. It thus becomes the basis of all those activities that are free from violent interference on the part of the state. It is the soil in which the seeds of freedom are nurtured and in which the autonomy of the individual and ultimately all intellectual and material progress are rooted.” This is why if you abolish private property, you are inevitably creating a state. It’s why you are not an anarchist but a whiny statist. Minimum wage does not create jobs either. It limits them by OUTLAWING any voluntary contract in regards to employment that could occur. This is economics 101. Murrary Rothbard on minimum wage: “In truth, there is only one way to regard a minimum wage law: it is compulsory unemployment, period. The law says: it is illegal, and therefore criminal, for anyone to hire anyone else below the level of X dollars an hour. This means, plainly and simply, that a large number of free and voluntary wage contracts are now outlawed and hence that there will be a large amount of unemployment. Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result.” This isn’t capitalism and this isn’t the FREE market exchange of goods AND LABOR. So stop creating a strawman of capitalism buy saying that corporatism, the product of the policies YOU are advocating for, are the same. They are not.“Anarcho-capitalism would fail, firstly, because it considers animals and nature as property, but also of the numerous workers who would also revolt against the system. You and other private owners wouldn’t stand against the majority.” You just refuted yourself. Your barbaric philosophy is essentially that the majority is right. Might makes right. If that is true, than slavery of Africans was ok because the majority said so. The current state of government is ok because the majority says so. Killing the Jews in Nazi Germany was ok because the majority says so. Eating animals is ok because the majority says so. So why don’t you actually try rational thought for once please? This conversation wouldn’t be me constantly refuting everything you say. In regards to animals, they are not people and they never will be. Humans are not even on the same playing field as animals since they lack collective cognition and the ability to tap in their species knowledge as a whole like humans can. The beauty of anarcho-capitalism, like I said, is that if a community want’s to voluntarily pool their resources together and live in a communist fashion they can. The only rule they have to follow is that they cannot coerce others into associating with them and following their ideas on property and wealth. If you leave me alone, I leave you alone. It’s simple. No violence. But you have vocalized time and again that you are not willing to extend that same respect to anyone who believes differently than you. You will use violence and coercion to get what you want which makes a damn statist. Not an anarchist. Come back when you have logically sound arguments please. I would also point out that your argument against owning land is based upon the idea that man did not create nature. But neither did the collective so why should the collective take precedence of the individual in that regard?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *