Source
r/Anarcho_Capitalism•
MattVortex

Poll: Crossovers with other views and ideologies

In the Wings of the Anarchist Movement thread, some other views and ideologies were mentioned, so I'm wondering what other political, cultural and social ideologies and views the people in r/AnCap support.

Rules of the poll:

  1. If you agree with something, upvote.
  2. If you disagree, leave it alone - don't downvote.
  3. If you don't see an ideology you like, post it as another top-level comment. When posting a new one, include a short description and a link to more information (Wikipedia is probably fine).

Edit: I have added some more political views to get some more voting going that I don't personally believe in. These are marked with a *.

Posted Nov 28, 2011, 10:22 PM UTC · edited

1471
MattVortexOP•

Crypto-Anarchism - Support for the use of strong cryptography to secure privacy and freedom, particularly on the internet.

45
MattVortexOP•

Transhumanism - Support for fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities

34
MattVortexOP•

Voluntaryism - A philosophy according to which all human interaction should be voluntary, which emphasises the right of people to choose their own economic arrangement, advocating for achieving this through non-political means such as counter-economics, secession, civil disobedience, education, etc. *

Edit: Changed definition.

29
selfoner•

A form of Anarcho-Capitalism

Actually, I would say that it's the other way around. Voluntaryism can sometimes even refer to non-propertarians. Ancap is a propertarian variant of voluntaryism.

5
SuperNinKenDo無政府資本主義者•

I have to agree with this, Anarcho-Capitalism is a form of voluntarism.

4
JamesCarlinⒶutonomous•

To pull from wikipedia.....

  • Voluntaryism, or voluntarism, is a philosophy according to which all forms of human association should be voluntary. This moral principle is called the non-aggression principle, which prohibits the initiation of aggressive force or coercion. The word 'initiation' is used here to make clear that voluntaryism does not oppose self-defense.
5
SuperNinKenDo無政府資本主義者•

Certainly ain't going to argue with that.

1
Krackorø¤º°¨ ¨°º¤KEEP THE KAWAII GOING ¸„ø¤º°¨•

This is only true insofar as voluntaryism is poorly defined. Voluntaryism includes stipulations about the non-aggression principle and the prohibition of the initiation of force. If "force" and "aggression" are properly defined, then voluntaryism is either equivalent to ancap (in the case that "force" includes "violation of property rights") or incompatible with ancap (in the case that "force" does not include "violation of property rights").

1
selfoner•

Yes, you and I both include the defense of property in our definition of the non-aggression principle. But some voluntaryists don't. So, all ancaps are voluntaryists, but not all voluntaryists are ancaps. Like squares and rectangles, ancap is a sub-category of voluntaryism.

You might disagree with the accepted definition, but that is what it is.

1
Krackorø¤º°¨ ¨°º¤KEEP THE KAWAII GOING ¸„ø¤º°¨•

This is different than the distinction between a square and a rectangle. A square is a certain type of rectangle, even when both are well-defined. The definitions of square and rectangle fit into a logical hierarchy, under which "square" is a subset of "rectangle".

The distinction between voluntaryism and anarcho-capitalism is not a well-defined hierarchical distinction, but a poorly-defined semantic distinction. The two are only distinct if there is an invalid, imprecise definition in the works. There is a difference between being imprecise and being generalized. The "accepted definition" of voluntaryism is imprecise, rather than general. It is defined in terms of force and aggression without being precise on the meaning of those terms. By contrast, the attributes of a rectangle are generalized, such that there are many different specific implementations of a rectangle, but those general attributes are precisely defined.

I agree that in terms of the semantic hierarchy, you might say that anarcho-capitalism is one interpretation of what voluntaryism means, but they are not distinct, well-defined concepts. You are improperly conflating hierarchical distinction with semantic interpretation.

1
MattVortexOP•

Bright Green Environmentalism - Technological development and social innovation is the best path to environmentalism and sustainability.

27
MattVortexOP•

Infoanarchism - Complete opposition to copyright, patents and other so-called 'intellectual property'.

25
MattVortexOP•

Cultural Liberalism - a liberal view of society that stresses the freedom of individuals from cultural norms.

24
MattVortexOP•

Agorism - Support for counter-economics as a method to achieve Anarcho-Capitalism. *

16
SuperNinKenDo無政府資本主義者•

Whoeever downvoted this should read the guideline for the thread and/or stop being a dick.

3
JamesCarlinⒶutonomous•

This is the definition I have been using:

  • Agorism is a philosophy that holds as its ultimate goal bringing about a society in which all "relations between people are voluntary exchanges – a free market." The term comes from the Greek word "agora," referring to an open place for assembly and market in ancient Greek city-states. Ideologically, it is a term representing a revolutionary type of free-market anarchism. Agorism often advocates of untaxed black market activity.
3
Trygil•

Open Source Software - "Computer software that is available in source code form."

13
Trygil•

...in contrast to Free/Libre Software.

5
MattVortexOP•

So you support Open Source over Free Software? If so, why is source code alone preferable over all four freedoms of Free Software?

1
Trygil•

I support the source of all software being freely (as in beer) available. I see all software licenses as invalid because I do not believe in intellectual property. Free Software does not allow for non-licensed software. I also do not subscribe to the Open Source Initiative's definition as it also seems to require a license.

8
MattVortexOP•

Well that just isn't true. Free Software is software that fulfils the four freedoms:

0: The freedom to use the program for any purpose.

1: The freedom to study how the program works.

2: The freedom to modify the program and use your changed version.

3: The freedom to distribute your changes to the community.

If you make an application then release the source code into the public domain, that counts as free software under the four freedoms.

2
[deleted]•

open source software = I use the the law to force you to release your code if you use mine

free software = no fuck is given.

0
arto•

As one of the founders of the Unlicense movement, I, also, am an imaginary-property skeptic and public-domain advocate. The article The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World is a good overview of the statist origins of IP in the outgrowth of the privatization of government censorship in 16th-century England.

I care about the freedom of people, not the 'freedom' of software at the expense of people. Once you accept, as I have, IP as null and void from an ancap perspective, some of the so-called freedoms the folks at the FSF believe the state should enforce are as harmful to human liberty as are modern statist notions of positive so-called 'human rights', e.g. a 'right to free health care' or, more recently, a 'right to Internet connectivity'. Thanks, but no thanks.

Anyone here who hasn't seen it yet really ought to read Stephan Kinsella's article The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism to catch up with the post-Randian zeitgeist.

4
Trygil•

Thank you so much for posting this! I don't know how I've missed Unlicensing. This is exactly how I think about software.

6
MattVortexOP•

I upvoted, because I think there's great benefit to society if source code is freely available, but I do believe any developer has the right to not release his source code if he chooses.

2
Trygil•

While I obviously support and advocate for open sourced software, I still whole-heatedly agree that the developer has the right to not release the source.

I also believe that the developer has no right to prevent me from sharing/copying the object form of the code if I have a copy of it. The developer may restrict initial access to the object and/or source code, but once someone else obtains legitimate access to the code, everyone has legitimate access to it through sharing. However, the person who gained that first legitimate access also has the right to not share the code (and may have an incentive not to if, for example, they paid for it).

This is actually setting up a scenario that is stacked against proprietary code.

4
arto•

Seasteading - the concept of opening a new frontier and experimenting with new societies by creating permanent dwellings, called seasteads, in international waters outside the borders of territories claimed by nation-states.

11
Trygil•

Remix Culture - A culture "permissive of efforts to improve upon, change, integrate, or otherwise remix the work of copyright holders."

4
Trygil•

...independent of the issue of the validity of copyrights.

4
MattVortexOP•

Do you believe copyrights are valid at all?

1
Trygil•

I do not as they are predicated on intellectual property which I believe is not real.

2
MattVortexOP•

The justification for copyright isn't always on some 'intellectual property' perspective, it is often justified from a utilitarian perspective, that granting a limited monopoly gives the author greater economic incentive to create, which results in more creation. I don't believe this utilitarian justification is correct either - it seems clear to me that lack of copyright would result in more works, particularly derivative works.

2
Trygil•

This is true. I'm again ignoring my own bias here. =)

Personally, I disagree with utilitarian arguments because, by using them, one can very easily paint oneself into a corner. It is also very hard to measure utility, and it is sometimes very unclear what action to take if you are only considering each action's universal utility.

1
[deleted]•

Cultural conservatism - the preservation of the heritage of one nation, or of a shared culture that is not defined by national boundaries.

1
hirsh39•

Anarcho-pacifism - anti-violence and force in all instances. Opposition to the state is based on the fact that it is inherently violent.

1
MattVortexOP•

Could you elaborate on why you think force isn't OK in self-defence? I've always found pacifism somewhat odd in that sense.

2
hirsh39•

The main difference between the NAP (which I assume everyone who identifies as AnCap agrees with) and pacifism is the position on retaliation, or self defence. Essentially, the idea adhered to in the NAP is that force is always wrong, unless someone else is the aggressor. I understand the logic behind this but I do not agree to it. If the premise that force is wrong is accepted, than the premise that all force, in all circumstances is wrong should also be accepted.

A widely-held belief in pacifism might result in negative consequences, but I'm not really concerned with that, only with living by a moral standard I feel comfortable with.

Additionally, I do think that violence begets violence, and that it is naive to think that aggression and retaliation is going to be a bijective relationship between two individuals. Retaliation may look like aggression to someone else, leading to what would be deemed by the NAP as legitimate counter-attack. I know that this is a problem that some anarchist thinkers have found solutions to, but I don't find any of them particularly compelling.

2
throwaway-o•

If the premise that force is wrong is accepted, than the premise that all force, in all circumstances is wrong should also be accepted.

The NAP is the Non Aggression principle, not the Non Force principle.

If you are against all force, then you are against self-ownership and against property, because force is the only way you can preserve self-ownership and property when someone wants to violate it. Thus, you are anti-anarchist fundamentally.

7
hirsh39•

You're correct in stating that the NAP is anti-aggression rather than anti-force. I guess what I cannot get past is how to prove that retaliation is not itself an act of aggression, or at least, that it could easily be interpreted as such by another party.

However, I think you're incorrect to suggest that my position is anti-anarchist. There are several ways to preserve self-ownership and property without resorting to force. For example, ostracization of the aggressor through refusal to trade and broadcasting their aggressive endeavours. But this is sort of beside the point because your comment presumes that property and self-ownership only exist if there is a method of protecting it. I don't think this is accurate.

2
Trygil•

Veganism - The practice of eliminating the use of animals and animal products.

1
SuperNinKenDo無政府資本主義者•

Mutualism - A form of market Anarchism emphasising the "Labour Theory of Value" and a distinction between Private and Personal property or "possesion".

1