آنارکو-کاپیتالیسم: تفاوت میان نسخه‌ها
محتوای حذف‌شده محتوای افزوده‌شده
جز ویکیسازی رباتیک (درخواست کاربر:Freshman404)(۷.۶) >سازمانهای خیریه، لیبرالیسم کلاسیک، آنارشیسم فردگرا، هنری دیوید تورو، جامعه بی حکومت، نیروهای نظامی، اقتصاد دستوری، مالکیت خصوصی، حکومت محوری، فلسفه اخلاق، فلسفه سیاسی، حالت طبیعی، حقوق طبیعی، بازار آزاد، آزادی فردی، قرن نوزدهم، علم تجربی، قرن بیستم، قرون وسطی، بخش خصوصی، حق تکثیر+تمیز (۱۰.۷) |
Freshman404 (بحث | مشارکتها) |
||
خط ۱۵:
دفاع روتبارد از اصل مالکیت خویشتن به اعتقاد خود او ریشه در «رد تمامی نظریات جایگزین» دارد.<ref name="Rothbard-1982.2">Rothbard, Murray N. (1982) [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp ''The Ethics of Liberty''] Humanities Press {{ISBN|978-0-8147-7506-6|en}}:p162 Retrieved 20 May 2005</ref>
[[هانس هرمان هپه]] معتقد است که نه تنها مکتب اخلاقی لیبرتارینی را می‌توان «به نحو ماقبل تجربی» توجیه کرد بلکه به نحو استدلالی از هیچ مکتب جایگزین دیگری نمی‌توان دفاع کرد. او در رد نظریات مدافع بازتوزیع ثروت می‌گوید: «همه مکاتب جایگزین لیبرالیسم، چه همه آنها که تجربه شده‌اند و چه بیشتر مکاتب غیرلیبرالی که به لحاظ نظری پیشنهاد شده‌اند، حتی از آزمون نخست و صوری '''فراگیری''' نیز سربلند بیرون نمی‌آیند و تنها به خاطر همین یک واقعیت نیز زیر سؤال می‌روند. همه این نسخه‌پیچی‌ها هنجارهایی را در چارچوب دستورالعمل‌های قانونی‌شان گنجانده‌اند که چنین ظاهری دارند: «برای برخی افراد آری و برای برخی دیگر نه.» به هر رو، چنین دستورالعمل‌هایی که حقوق یا تعهدات متفاوتی را برای دسته‌های گوناگون مردم مشخص می‌کنند، به دلایل ساده صوری، هیچ بختی ندارند که توسط هر شرکت‌کننده بالقوه‌ای در یک گفتگو، منصفانه شناخته شده و پذیرفته شوند.. تا زمانی که این تمایز ایجاد شده بین طبقات گوناگون مردم، آن طور شکل نگرفته باشد که برای هر دو طرف به عنوان [[حالت طبیعی]] اوضاع پذیرفته شود، چنین دستورالعمل‌هایی مورد پذیرش نخواهد بود؛ زیرا پذیرش چنین دستورالعمل‌هایی به این معنا است که برخی گروه‌ها از مزایایی قانونی به بهای تبعیض معادلی علیه گروه‌های دیگر، بهره‌مند خواهند شد.»<ref name="donya-e-eqtesad.com" />
=== مالکیت ===
خط ۲۷:
بنابر نظر همه متفکران کلاسیک لیبرال، پایبندی به آزادی فردی مستلزم تأیید نهادهای مالکیت خصوصی و [[بازار (اقتصاد)|بازار آزاد]] است. مارکسیست‌ها و برخی از سوسیالیست‌ها معتقدند که مالکیت خصوصی محدودیتی بر آزادی است و لیبرال‌های تجدیدنظرطلب مکتب مدرن لیبرالیسم می‌گویند گاهی اوقات لازم است تا [[حقوق مالکیت]] تحت‌الشعاع مطالبات مربوط به سایر حقوق قرار گیرد.<ref name="ReferenceA">جان گری، لیبرالیسم، ترجمه محمد ساوجی، انتشارات وزارت امور خارجه، ۱۳۸۱، صفحهٔ ۱۰۱</ref>
جان گری معتقد است مالکیت خصوصی مظهر [[آزادی فردی]] در ابتدایی‌ترین شکل آن است.<ref name="ReferenceA" /> منتقدان مالکیت خصوصی به بازتوزیع ثروت معتقدند و می‌گویند حق مالکیت خصوصی نمی‌تواند حقی مساوی برای همه باشد چرا که ممکن است به معنای تصاحب حق دیگری به کار رود و حق برده‌داری را مثال می‌زنند. [[مایکل اوکشات]] در پاسخ می‌گوید: «حق مالکیت خصوصی مثل هر حق دیگری خود-بازدارنده است: این حق، برده‌داری را نه از سر دلبخواه بلکه بدین دلیل ممنوع اعلام می‌کند که حق در اختیار داشتن یک انسان دیگر هرگز نمی‌تواند حقی باشد که هر عضو جامعه بتواند به‌طور مساوی از آن بهره‌مند شود. تنها به وسیله نهاد مالکیت خصوصی است که حداکثر توزیع قدرت ناشی از مالکیت حاصل می‌شود.<ref>Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics, London: Methuen, 1962, p.46</ref>
===== مالکیت معنوی =====
خط ۴۵:
<!--One particular ramification is that transfer of property and services must be considered voluntary on the part of both parties. No external entities can force an individual to accept or deny a particular transaction. An employer might offer [[insurance]] and [[Bereavement benefit|death benefits]] to [[same-sex marriage|same-sex couples]]; another might refuse to recognize any union outside his or her own faith. Individuals are free to enter into or reject contractual agreements as they see fit.
Rothbard points out that corporations would exist in a free society, as they are simply the pooling of capital. He says limited liability for corporations could also exist through contract: "Corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation...."<ref name="Rothbard-1962" />
Corporations created in this way would not, however, be able to replicate the limit on liabilities arising non-contractually, such as liability in tort for environmental disasters or personal injury, which corporations currently enjoy. Rothbard himself acknowledges that "limited liability for torts is the illegitimate conferring of a special privilege"<ref>Rothbard, Murray N. (1962) Man, Economy & State with Power and Market, [http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap15d.asp#_ftn11 Mises.org]</ref> -->
<!--There are limits to the right to contract under some interpretations of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard himself argues that the right to contract is based in [[inalienable rights|inalienable human rights]]<ref name="Rothbard-1982.2" /> and therefore any contract that implicitly violates those rights can be voided at will, which would, for instance, prevent a person from permanently selling himself or herself into unindentured [[slavery]]. Other interpretations conclude that banning such contracts would in itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.<ref name="Nozick-1973">[[Robert Nozick|Nozick, Robert]] (1973) ''Anarchy, State, and Utopia''</ref>
Included in the right of contract is the right to contract oneself out for employment by others. Unlike anarcho-communists, anarcho-capitalists support the liberty of individuals to be self-employed or to contract to be employees of others, whichever they prefer and the freedom to pay and receive wages. Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail over wage labor. For example, David Friedman has expressed preference for a society where "almost everyone is self-employed" and "instead of corporations there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each sells not his time, but what his time produces."<ref>Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism. Harper & Row. pp. 144–145</ref> Others, such as Rothbard, do not express a preference either way but justify employment as a natural occurrence in a free market that is not immoral in any way. -->
خط ۹۸:
==== Medieval Iceland ====
[[پرونده:Law speaker.jpg|راست|بندانگشتی|۱۹th century interpretation of the [[Althing]] in the [[Icelandic Commonwealth]], which authors such as [[دیوید دی فریدمن|David Friedman]] and [[Roderick Long]] believe to have some features of anarcho-capitalist society.]]
According to [[دیوید دی فریدمن|David Friedman]], "[[Icelandic Commonwealth|Medieval Icelandic institutions]] have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions."<ref name="Friedman-79">Friedman, David D. (1979) [http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case]. Retrieved 12 August 2005.</ref> While not directly labeling it anarcho-capitalist, he argues that the Icelandic Commonwealth between 930 and 1262 had "some features" of an anarcho-capitalist society – while there was a single legal system, enforcement of law was entirely private and highly capitalist; and so provides some evidence of how such a society would function. "Even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially "public" offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system."<ref name="Friedman-79" />
==== American Old West ====
خط ۱۲۱:
The early liberals believed that the state should confine its role to protecting individual liberty and property, and opposed all but the most minimal economic regulations. The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of [[laissez-faire]], a [[spontaneous order]] of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants.<ref>Razeen, Sally. ''Classical Liberalism and International Economic Order: Studies in Theory and Intellectual History'', Routledge (UK) {{ISBN|978-0-415-16493-1|en}}, 1998, p. 17</ref> Some individualists came to realize that the liberal state itself takes property forcefully through taxation in order to fund its protection services, and therefore it seemed logically inconsistent to oppose theft while also supporting a tax-funded protector. So, they advocated what may be seen as classical liberalism taken to the extreme by only supporting voluntarily funded defense by competing private providers. One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of privatizing protection of individual liberty and property was France's [[Jakob Mauvillon]] in the 18th century. Later, in the 1840s, [[Julius Faucher]] and [[Gustave de Molinari]] advocated the same.
Molinari, in his essay ''The Production of Security'', argued, "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity." Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical economics. Historian and libertarian [[Ralph Raico]] argues that what these liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism."<ref>Raico, Ralph (2004) [http://www.mises.org/story/1787 ''Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th century''] Ecole Polytechnique, [http://www.crea.polytechnique.fr/index.htm Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee], Unité associée au CNRS</ref> Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people – society – and the institutions of force – the State. This ''society versus state'' idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs. artificial society, liberty vs. authority, society of contract vs. society of authority, and industrial society vs. militant society, just to name a few.<ref name="Molinari-1849" /> The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings of [[Herbert Spencer]], as well as in thinkers such as [[Paul Émile de Puydt]] and [[Auberon Herbert]].
Ulrike Heider, in discussing the "anarcho-capitalists family tree," argues [[Max Stirner]] as the "founder of individualist anarchism" and "ancestor of [[laissez-faire liberalism]]."<ref>Heider, Ulrike. ''Anarchism: Left, Right and Green'', San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994, pp. 95–96</ref> According to Heider, Stirner wants to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members" and "derives his identity solely from property" with the question of property to be resolved by a '[[Bellum omnium contra omnes|war of all against all]]'." Stirner argued against the existence of the state in a fundamentally anti-collectivist way, to be replaced by a "Union of Egoists" but was not more explicit than that in his book ''[[The Ego and Its Own]]'' published in 1844.
خط ۱۴۱:
== تعریف‌ها ==
موری راتبارد لفظ '' آنارکو-کاپیتالیسم '' را به کار گرفت تا فلسفه‌اش را از آنارشیسم که با مالکیت خصوصی مخالفت می‌کند، متمایز کند<ref name="Encyclopædia Britannica Online" /> و همچنین با دیگر اشکال آنارشیسم فردگرایانه نیز مرزبندی مشخصی داشته باشد.<ref name="autogenerated1">Murray Newton Rothbard Egalitarianism As A Revolt Against Nature And Other Essays: and other essays. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000. p.207</ref> برای اشاره به این فلسفه گاهی از الفاظ دیگری نیز استفاده می‌شود، از جمله
* کاپیتالیسم ضد حکومت
* مارکتیسم ضد حکومت
خط ۱۴۸:
* آنارشیسم بازار
* آنارشیسم [[بازار آزاد]] * آنارشیسم فردگرا<ref>"Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), American economist, historian, and individualist anarchist." [[Paul Avrich|Avrich, Paul]]. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282 "Although there are many honorable exceptions who still embrace the "socialist" label, most people who call themselves individualist anarchists today are followers of Murray Rothbard's Austrian economics, and have abandoned the labor theory of value." [[Kevin Carson|Carson, Kevin]]. Mutualist Political Economy,</ref>
* ترتیب طبیعی<ref name="Hoppe-2001" />
* آنارشی مرتب<ref name="Hoppe-2001" />
* حقوق چندمرکزی
* جامعه حقوق خصوصی<ref name="Hoppe-2001" />
* آنارشی مالکیت خصوصی<ref name="Hoppe-2001">[[هانس هرمان هپه|Hoppe, Hans-Hermann]] (2001)[http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html "Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography"] Retrieved 23 May 2005</ref>
* کاپیتالیسم ناب
| |||