Yes, with the major exception of individualist/post-left anarchists, most anarchists are not anti-state at all. They just want a highly egalitarian political structure (e.g. direct democracy), equality of outcome etc.
Consider that: 1. Ancoms are not interested in trying to replace coercive state functions, with voluntary ones. Many ancoms only see the state as evil insofar as it serves the bourgeois/financial elite, through Wall St, IMF, etc, rather than "the people".
2. Examples ancoms point as practical implementations of their program include the CNT/FAI. But the CNT, as with other 'anarchist' political parties, ran considerably interventionist states which attempted to monopolize force and which regulated/prohibited many different kinds of exchange.
Easton Mitchell
To have meaningful "exchange" you need to have a state that reliably enforces bourgeois private property rights. This is antithetical to anarchism. An anarchist society is one where people freely renegotiate property relations. "Interventionism" is the name of the game. This is my main problem with anarcho-capitalism, and it's a huge one. You are all about "voluntary contracts," but allow the individual no freedom to voluntarily determine which property rights to uphold and which to abolish. Beside this, you regard any contracts made as absolute, they become objects of law rather than simple statements of intention, ones that need to be enforced even if this doesn't please the individuals enforcing it. This isn't freedom. This is slavery. All in all what I'm saying is that you faggots need to read Stirner. You'll turn into a socialist. I guarantee you.
Jonathan Stewart
If there is no normative idea of of property, then the most powerful will just grab whatever they want. Freedom entails the ability to make things your own, ie. ownership. Contracts are not just 'statements of intent', that would render them meaningless.
-Jeremy Waldron, "Enough and as Good left for others"
Moreover, I've already read Stirner, and anyone who isn't a brainlet realizes that he's an individualist anarchist, not a socialist. Using Stirner to support Socialist Ideology is retarded. The real-world consequences of socialist programs are enough to deter me from socialism, anyways.
Adrian Ortiz
...
Jason Murphy
Exactly. The idea behind anarchy is that the masses of free individuals ARE the most powerful people around. All they have to do is take charge. If you don't believe this, you aren't an anarchist. Sure. You might be able to negotiate such ownership with your neighbors. You can write it down on a piece of paper: "If they don't enter your house without permission you won't enter theirs. If someone from outside the community enters either of our houses without permission, we work together to get rid of them. If one of us breaks this agreement, their ownership over their property becomes null and void." Now, this piece of paper has no magical significance, it just states your intentions. It doesn't hate to be enforced, but as things stand, it is in advantageous to everyone in the community that it does. This can change at any time of course, you might stop thinking that someone has a right to the house they've claimed, and then a new piece of paper will need to be written. It is purely descriptive, meant to describe what you think the sensible course of action would be under certain circumstances. If I say "hit me and I'll hit you back" that's meaningful, right? But it isn't a contract. After you've hit me I might still decide not to hit you back. All I'm doing is making my projected intentions known to you. This is enough meaning to make contracts work, not to the extent that they work right now, but to enough of an extent to build a society. One that, contrary to our current one, is entirely free.
How does socialism in any way contradict this right? It does just the opposite: Ensure this right to every individual. Socialists want to abolish bourgeois property, property in as far as it is an exploitative social relation, property meant to coerce other people into offering something of themselves. This is not the personal property that enables people to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Stirner in "Stirner's Critics": >>Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc. It is entirely possible to support socialist ideology with Stirner. It is not possible, however, to support a "normative idea of property", and still think you are an individualist.
Tyler Price
Ancap was always a meme, the idea of it being a voluntary society is stupid, anarchy and capitalism are contradictory. How can it be voluntary when your life is dictated by the market forces and you have to work for someone else to survive? Also property rights were created to justify stealing of others land and resources and owning slaves.
