What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist

Many arguments are made by conservative and libertarian types towards anarchist's that generally amount to "but anarchy won't work" or "we require certain things to be provided by the state", but these arguments are confused. For one to be an anarchist does not mean that they believe that an anarchist society will "work" or that they believe it will or can be achieved. Many anarchists are pessimistic about the possible existence of their ideology. To be an anarchist only means that you hold the belief that aggression is not justified, and that the existence of the state means the existence of aggression. Therefore, anarchists believe that states and the aggression that they employ, are unjustified. STATE = UNJUSTIFIED VIOLENCE.

Based in this principal, anyone who is not an anarchist must hold the opinion that:

1. aggression is justified
   or
2. states are not necessarily aggressive

Anarchists believe that the state taxing its citizens is a form of aggression. They believe that when a state outlaws a competing defense agency, that is also aggression. Victimless crime laws that states enforce on the populace, which has been the case in every state run society to date, is also an act of aggression. With this in mind, it is easy to see why anarchists like to compare socialists with criminals, as the anarchist sees the pro-statist as someone that is pro-aggression, and therefore criminal.

Conservative and minarchists criticize anarchism as being "unpractical" or saying that it wont "work". Again, many anarchists don't believe that an anarchist society will ever exist. I, for one, believe that such a society will exist in the future, but I do not believe that the human race is ready for it. We need to further evolve and become overall more intelligent as a species for such a world to exist - in my opinion of course.

The reason I say this is because I believe that in order for an anarchist society to work completely, people have to be ready to respect each others rights (right to property, right to liberty, etc). This is what will allow an anarchist society to emerge. Eventually, this will not necessarily be true, as private security/police will become a big part of society. Is it possible that a period of no crime will ever exist? Technically, yes. If everyone decided all at once to respect others rights, there would be no crime. But, like I said, the human race needs to evolve for this to happen as it is not possible for this to occur as of now.

Those who say "but we need a state" do not contradict that states employ aggression and that aggression is unjustified. It simply means that a state-advocate realizes and does not mind the initiation of force against innocent victims - he shares the criminal/socialist mentality. A private criminal is only interested in his own needs and is therefore willing to commit violence in order to satisfy those needs. A statist believes his opinion of "we" need things justifies committing violence against innocent individuals. This is not libertarian. It is not opposed to aggression. It is in favor of public "needs" being met, despite the cost. It is not advocating peace and cooperation. Socialists, welfare-statists, and even minarchists all share this; they are willing to condone violence, even if they don't realize it. Obviously some more than others, but it is simply an unavoidable part of being pro-state.

To be an anarchist is to believe in non-aggression, to believe in property, to believe in liberty, to believe in security, and to be against the state. Thanks for reading!

My Blog: Sailormann