You say that as if it's a bad thing. In an Anarchist society, we are all free sovereigns (above the jurisdiction of rulers) and our property is our state in which we have monopoly of force (self defense.) We preside over what's ours and what's ours alone. I really don't get the objection because there is zero moral comprise being free and protecting what's yours.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Anarchy is the destruction of all unjustified hierarchy actually. Private property is created by the workers, labored on by the workers, and yet somehow is controlled by the rich.
They do not create it or use it, they should not control it. That is unjustified hierarchy.
"Ancaps are as much anarchists as Christian Scientists are scientists. Traditional anarchist movements originated on the left, and do not consider anarchy and capitalism to be compatible, and thus consider anarcho-capitalism not to be an authentic form of anarchism. Ancaps have proven to be one of the greatest tools for anarchist unity in living memory, as more or less every single major anarchist group and tendency stands united in despising them. Needless to say that socialists, communists, social democrats, progressives, liberals, and centrists aren't exactly fans of them either and will more than often unite even with the aforementioned anarchists to beat up on the ancap. Even Conservatives (even and especially of the Neo variety) aren't above taking the occasional pot shot at them"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
that is a weak analogy because there is only one scientific method and if you do not follow it, you cannot then call yourself a scientist. Anarchism on the other hand is a loose term, in and of itself, meaning "No Rulers." I really should not have to explain. Anarchy means nothing but a negative belief. The term has broadened to encompass divergent philosophies past its historical contexts. There is nothing inconsistent with a person that believes in personal property rights and voluntary exchanges and not believing in the legitimacy of rulers. Just because you, presumably an Ancom, and many others popularily disdain Ancaps, does not make you correct. Are you familiar with the Argumentum ad Populum logical fallacy? This happens when people think something is (or isn't) true due to popular belief.