On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 12:47 PM, John Newman <[email protected]> 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 >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Thanks to everyone for your replies! >> > >> > On Jul 11, 2017 9:16 PM, "Kurt Buff" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:22 AM, Kevin Gallagher >> > <[email protected]> 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
