Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The One and Only... 09-06-03, 10:29 PM	I actually don't have this written up. I'm just curious: how would you play one?
VirgilCaine 09-09-03, 10:10 AM	Well, he's definitely PC material. Unique, odd, and out of the ordinary. Lots of reasons to go exploring. An elf or half-elf might fit the bill nicely, since elves are chaotic. I use the old Greyhawk gods which the PHB gods are simply a cut down version of. As a cleric of Joramy (TN goddess of the literal and figurative exploding volcano--basically, they stop arsonists, and argue with people) or Trithereon (CG god of Liberty, Freedom, Retribution and Self-Defense), an anarcho-capitalist would work.
kamiblackflag 09-09-03, 04:56 PM	be careful, the socio-economic climate that saw the evolution of capitalism, as well as the rise of the different forms of its antithesis, from mercantilism to laizze fairre to keynsian hasn't taken place in the realms yet, i'm speaking of the industrial revolution. since the proletariat/bourgeousie has yet to exhist you would be forced to play a merchant if a capitalist you tuly wanted to be. also, anarchism is a variety of socialism, the libertarian variety, so is necessarily the opposite of capitalism, thus anarchocapitalist is a contradiction in terms.
TheMightyMcClaw 09-09-03, 07:04 PM	Anarchy and capitalism contradictory.... ho ho ho.... You need to play some cyberpunk, my friend. Also, I fail to see how absence of government (anarchy) is a part of government supporting personal welfare (socialism). But that is neither here nor there. As for the actual character, I would definitely recomend a merchant-flavored rogue. Think of the old swindler, just on a much higher scale.
Morka 09-10-03, 10:18 AM	If you play in FR, come from Sembia (ok for capitalism), and be a Rot Grub (ok for anarchie). Rot Grub are some kind of thief guild who want to establish a monarchie, instead of a council of merchant. Or perhaps should it be the reverse? You want to reverse the monarchie and lead your country with a council of merchant? So many possibilities, so few time to play!
Leap 09-10-03, 10:57 AM	Kami – McClaw is right when he (?) says that anarchy is not really a form of socialism; socialism is about state control of the old means of production (as opposed to communism which is about the state control of absolutely every-fragging-thing) whereas anarchy is anti-state……… It may be labelled as a form of socialism but its essence is anti something at the very heart of socialism…… I do agree that the social conditions have not really arisen in FR (post-industrial revolution) though………… One-and-only – When you say anarcho-capitalist, do you simply mean greedy, soulless, fragger who has no sense of responsibility for or empathy with anyone? ;)
Bishop Drazz 09-10-03, 01:18 PM	As an anarchist, you would be against the government, although not necessarily actively trying to overthrow it. Still, you would be unconcerned about laws, reights and restrictions, and might even go out of your way to flagrantly break some of them, especially if you thought they were unjust. As a capitalist, you are basically stuck with going merchant, or perhaps on a lower level banker/loanmaker. Eitehr way, assuming this is a feudal society, you would be at the bottom level. Below serfs and peasants. Right about were a slave would be. You see, capitalism in NOT a good thing in a feudal society. You are not contibuting to the society in terms of production and are actually counter to the system itself, which is meant to move the units of production from the masses to the king. So, anarcho-capitalist does work well together, at least in a true feudal society. However, you would have basically no rights: could not own land, hunt, travel, and in some cases even go to the lords for justice (say, your wagon is stolen with all your goods--no judegement or help from the local leadership). Still, it would be possible to play--perhaps you are a closet merchant, selling (stolen/smuggled) goods secretly and quietly denouncing the lords without trying to draw attention to yourself.
kamiblackflag 09-11-03, 08:43 AM	first of all let me thank you for the profound entries on this thread, until claw posted i had no idea that those operating under the bourgousie mentality had corrupted this A word that i love so much. at the risk of being winded let me say that if asked any of you to explain this"anarcho-capitalism" in terms of ideology you would no doubt regurgitate adam smiths classical liberalism colored in boring shades of juvenile. let me guess, it would go something like this......... "anarcho-capitalism" is concerned with the free market being truly unconstrained by regulation that has traditionaly come from the state, "anarcho-capitalism" seeks to leave up to the individual how he will govern himself and his capital/land/property, how he will interact with society. "anarcho-capitalism" says that in an environment of absolutely liberalised markets all social ills will be solved in light of a fair distribution of income that comes with this brand of capitalism. oh vomit. this philosophy is called classical liberalism, it was penned by adam smith in response to the centralised, mercantilist economies that states operated under prior to the industrial revolution. as i grow weary of these tedious moments that inch by you must excuse me if i cease lecturing you lot and leave the explanation of anarchism as a political philosophy to the original thinkers. instead i will remind you all that he who has the capital has the power, the two are one in the same, and what i say doesn't matter in the slightest, read Proudhon. read Kropotkin and Maletesta. read the works of men like Mikhail Bakunin who opposed Marx's camp of authoritarian socialists at the First International. "anarcho-capitalism" lol
pl 09-11-03, 11:08 AM	Here's a short explanation of anarcho-capitalism: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html A few more chapters can be found here: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Contents.html
Afghan 09-11-03, 12:55 PM	Surely though, the concept of property is socially defined. You can't have property without a society to recognise it. :D I'm confused! Certainly though, an individual who holds private property as the highest ideal and seeks to keep government intervention and regulation to minimum is going to be something of an oddity in medieval society. The idea of the individual is itself a modern idea. It was this sort of conflict, after all, that led to the American Revolution.
Leap 09-11-03, 01:54 PM	Strictly speaking individualism is probably a child of Protestant Christianity and the general values of Northern Europe.....which is, strangly enough, where capitalism came from! [shock horror!] ;) Thinking about it, given Good's desire to help everyone it is very Socialist (well LG is), whilst Evil's unwillingness to share is more Capitalistic - note: see the topic on Good and Neutrality for my views on Good and Evil in dnd!
pl 09-11-03, 02:04 PM	You still have a society even without a state. But even without a society, I still think you can have property. Consider territorial animals. They have territorial property. Their property rights are, of course, violated from time to time by other animals (but so are our property rights.) But to get back to the topic. I think you can play an anarcho-capitalist almost any way you want. The only constraint is that he should be in favour of some kind of anarcho-capitalism. But he could be evil and steal and murder whenever it suited him.
Arilou_skiff 09-11-03, 02:45 PM	Originally posted by pl You still have a society even without a state. But even without a society, I still think you can have property. Consider territorial animals. They have territorial property. Their property rights are, of course, violated from time to time by other animals (but so are our property rights.) But to get back to the topic. I think you can play an anarcho-capitalist almost any way you want. The only constraint is that he should be in favour of some kind of anarcho-capitalism. But he could be evil and steal and murder whenever it suited him. Here I think we disagree, IMHO property comes from property rights, not the other way 'round, unless you have the right to something it ain't your property.
VirgilCaine 09-11-03, 04:08 PM	Thinking about it, given Good's desire to help everyone it is very Socialist (well LG is), whilst Evil's unwillingness to share is more Capitalistic - note: see the topic on Good and Neutrality for my views on Good and Evil in dnd! ...the market system obliges individuals to be other-regarding... - Michael Novak, WILL IT LIBERATE? True free enterprise is consistent with the nature of all humans. - Ron Smothermon, TRANSFORMING #1 Thank you for playing! Evil isn't "not willing to share" it's not willing to leave others alone thats the problem. An evil character has less (sometimes no) consideration for others rights and such than a Neutral or Good character. As for all these people talking about society and technological and religious developmentsnot being conducive: Read the second post on this topic--there are GODS that promote these views! They probably do it much more blatantly than Protestant Christianity does. So, the Oerthly developments would match the divine ideals. Possibly.
Leap 09-11-03, 04:35 PM	Virgilcaine – “the market system obliges individuals to be other-regarding” Nonsense. Capitalism is about private ownership, but there is no reason to assume that is many individuals. When you exist in a capitalist market you regard the products of others, not the person themselves (and as such if you can under cut them and go elsewhere (regardless of the impact on them) you will do). “True free enterprise is consistent with the nature of all humans” Nonsense part 2. Human nature is social but enterprise recognises no limits (and thus, as we see in the modern world, an enterprise economy lead lifestyle is increasingly riding roughshod over families and communities). “Evil isn't "not willing to share" it's not willing to leave others alone thats the problem.” I beg to differ. It is both.
VirgilCaine 09-12-03, 08:07 AM	“the market system obliges individuals to be other-regarding” Nonsense. Capitalism is about private ownership, but there is no reason to assume that is many individuals. When you exist in a capitalist market you regard the products of others, not the person themselves (and as such if you can under cut them and go elsewhere (regardless of the impact on them) you will do). "Governments keep their promises only when they are forced to do so, or when it will be to their advantage." Napoleon Bonaparte Companies are inherently ephemeral and rely on a variable source of income, unlike governments, which have a virtually gauranteed source of income from bullied taxpayers. The fact that the market has multiple choices and companies can fail make businesses attentive to the public's wants and needs. “True free enterprise is consistent with the nature of all humans” Nonsense part 2. Human nature is social but enterprise recognises no limits (and thus, as we see in the modern world, an enterprise economy lead lifestyle is increasingly riding roughshod over families and communities). Yes, there are limits to enterprise--those within human beings, namely morals and ethics. What is this "riding roughshod" idea you have? Government intereference in global economies makes the world market much less than "free."
Leap 09-12-03, 10:28 AM	Virgilcaine – “Companies are inherently ephemeral and rely on a variable source of income, unlike governments, which have a virtually guarantied source of income from bullied taxpayers. The fact that the market has multiple choices and companies can fail make businesses attentive to the public's wants and needs.” No, they are attentive to those needs and wants that can be quantified into a product. Not quite the same thing as “other-regarding”. “Yes, there are limits to enterprise--those within human beings, namely morals and ethics.” Ethics play no part in enterprise – they are a separate issue. Yes ethics CAN limit enterprise, but the point of the centrality of enterprise is that it over-rules ethics in the name of expediency (whether fiscal or the sheer enjoyment of ‘getting ahead’). Only when the economy is an inferior part of our lives, rather than the prime force of much of our lives, do ethics provide a limit…..and then of course enterprise is rarely a danger anyway………… ”What is this "riding roughshod" idea you have? Government interference in global economies makes the world market much less than "free."” Don’t get me wrong; I am no advocate of govt interference and no apologist for their ‘intervention’! What I mean by “riding roughshod” is that the centrality of market forces is leading to a destruction of community and family in favour of producing highly efficient production infrastructure and good little workers/consumers.
Afghan 09-12-03, 03:51 PM	My, aren't we getting off topic here. Never mind. I'm sure the putative character will want to have discussions like this. People who claim to things like anarcho-cpitalist tend be fond of the sound of their own voice... Don’t get me wrong; I am no advocate of govt interference and no apologist for their ‘intervention’! What I mean by “riding roughshod” is that the centrality of market forces is leading to a destruction of community and family in favour of producing highly efficient production infrastructure and good little workers/consumers. Right, back off-topic. The problem described here (and I agree it is a problem) is nothing to do with market forces. If anything, it is produced by a lack of market forces. That is, their are not enough employers competing for the labour of the poor abused workers. In general, (as I am sure the anarcho-capitalist will be at pains to point out) people conflate two different issues - the market-driven economy and the distribution of capital. Market forces do tend to make economies more efficient and offer greater freedom to people. Eonomies where the capital is concentrated in the hands of the elite, if anything, move away from that ideal. Markets should allow everyone to get the best they can in exchange for what they offer. However, when an elite is able to control the market (when it ceases to be free) then you observe the problems described by the previous poster.
Leap 09-13-03, 04:42 AM	Afghan – “Right, back off-topic. The problem described here (and I agree it is a problem) is nothing to do with market forces. If anything, it is produced by a lack of market forces. That is, there are not enough employers competing for the labour of the poor abused workers.” So you do not think it is actually primarily a matter of living in a meritocratic society that has forgotten the thing that gives life greatest meaning is spending time with friends and family and instead has let the needs of the economy overrule spending time with family / friends? ;) “Markets should allow everyone to get the best they can in exchange for what they offer. However, when an elite is able to control the market (when it ceases to be free) then you observe the problems described by the previous poster.” Actually I think that it is when the economy gains priority over family / friends that the problem arises. In DnDesque societies this is often found to be expressed through peasants in servitude to lords rather than wage-slaves in servitude to corporations (if anyone can spot a genuine difference here, please feel free to sing out!). A capitalist is just someone who wants to be a lord, essentially; it is as much class envy as socialism is. An ‘anarcho-capitalist’ went by a different name in DnD time; the term was “robber baron” [cast: protection from rotten missiles] :)
The One and Only... 09-13-03, 10:36 AM	Oh boy. I see a whole bunch of misconceptions around here. First of all, only the european meaning of libertarian came from socialism. The American libertarian movement is one put forth largely by Robert Nozick, and, as mentioned, it does indeed share a lot with classical liberalism. In modern day, most of us would call him a minarchist, or one who supports a minimal state so as to provide an army, a police force, courts, and a few other vital functions. The anarcho-capitalist is simply more extreme: turning Nozick's own logic against him, he asks why all of those things cannot simply be turned over to the free market. Here is a good site to read up on all forms of anarchism:http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm#part5 For those of you who claim that the anarcho-capitalist could not exist in a medieval world due to the fact that most of what he bases his opinions on have not existed, medieval Iceland has been used as a model for an anarcho-capitalist society simply due to the amount of characteristics it shares with one.
Arilou_skiff 09-13-03, 01:17 PM	I'd say medieval iceland is more of an oligarchic agrarian society than an anarchistic capitalist one.