You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Intro to Anarchy with The Pholosopher
Cool. I was probably splitting hairs a bit here. I mainly like to have the distinction to distance myself from the vulgar libertarianism that is often associated with self proclaimed anarcho-capitalists or voluntaryists.
Why do we need government to enforce private property?
He's talking about situations like an individual claiming to own something like all the coconut trees on an island. The local residents would not allow that to happen, so the only way to enforce it would be through violence (i.e. government).
These absurd examples never work. How is one person going to even do what is suggested? It isn't possible. You wouldn't need violence to stop them either. How is one person going to guard all the trees? When they attack you, defend yourself.
I don't think it's an absurd example, it's basically what's happening around the world right now with government and corporations working together.
An example, Nestlé buying up water rights all over the place, and saying water isn't a human right. Why can they do that? Because government will back up their claim to property with guns.
That's fascism or corporatism, not capitalism. It has nothing to do with property rights as they should be. Nestle is allowed to get away with what they are doing because of government, yes. They would never be able to get away with it without a government. Are they going to raise and pay for an army to steal and secure all the land without a government? Armies are expensive.
Maybe this will help clear up some nuance in defining non-social(ist) capitalism:
https://steemit.com/anarchy/@joesal/removing-social-constructs-from-capitalism