"The plans differ; the planners are all alike..." ~Frederic Bastiat
Do you agree with the following statement?
Collectivism is anti-individual rights. Whether voluntary collectivism or forced collectivism, the hatred for the individual is ever prevalent.
What I find strange about it is the sudden disdain for something that is "voluntary". Anarcho-capitalists ordinarily seem to celebrate anything that is "voluntary":
Voluntaryism is a popular ideology amongst people who like Anarchism but recoil at its leftist implications. By adopting the simple principle, “whatever is voluntary is ethical,” they believe that they have found the high ground, the ruler with which all other ideologies must be evaluated.
Some openly advocate a “rule by landlords,” a sort of extra-small minarchism where whoever owns the land can impose whatever laws he wishes on anyone who works or lives within his land. This is the “ultimate decision-making power” which defines the State: these landowners are effectively rulers over that land. Although they refuse to see this pretty direct deduction (but to be fair, even Rothbard was too blinded by his pro-property bias to see it), it is clear that the voluntaryists who hold to this ideology have nothing to do with Anarchism.
One famous example from the Mises forum is the question of whether we are justified in shaking off someone who is hanging for his life on a flagpole that we own. Many people there were of the opinion that “property rights” alone justified an act which is, to be clear, nothing more than murder.
Most voluntaryists recoil at the idea that their ideology might justify this sort of baseless murder, and as such adopt a “softer” position. They then try to draw a line, beyond which their belief in “property rights” becomes harmless and does not affect other people’s rights. But as I have pointed out in my past exposé of “anarcho-capitalism,” there is no line beyond which voluntaryism, in its support of “property rights,” does not suffer from this sort of contradiction, because “property rights” are by their very nature an obstacle to all other, real human rights.-Check Your Premises: The voluntaryist delusion.
And what are the "justly acquired" property rights the narrator in the video refers to? Isn't that the issue? I've stated before that the anarcho-capitalist notion that private property (as we know it) could continue without the state to support it is a fantasy of epic proportions. Without a state, any rights in property would have to be based on something self-evident, such as occupancy and use. Otherwise we would just return to what amounts to de facto mini-states and horrifying hierarchies that could be much worse in some cases than what we have now.
The hyper-individualism celebrated is also misplaced. Individualism, yes, but we must also recognize that we as humans are social beings, and it is normal and natural for us to do things in common (without disparaging or infringing on individual rights).
I'm not an anarcho-communist, by the way, but the anarcho-capitalist support of "private" and "voluntary" (when they approve) hierarchies, such as in the workplace, is anti-anarchist. And it's simply ridiculous to say, as the video does, that the state is not the defender of private property. If it is not the state that is defending capitalist private property now, who is it?
Some other videos for possible discussion: