Those of you who have discussed anarcho capitalism with me know
I’m not a fan of it. As a matter of fact, I flat out hate it and have
serious disdain for the very idea. In short, I’ll say this. It’s
basically what communism is to the right. An insane, extreme right wing
ideology that comes off as a form of religious fundamentalism. Take
libertarianism to the most extreme degree that you can think of, and
what you basically get is anarcho capitalism.
What is anarcho capitalism?
As mentioned above, anarcho capitalism is libertarianism taken to the further degree of extremism possible. While libertarians support the free market and minimizing state intervention, anarcho capitalists support the complete abolition of the state and almost prescribe god-like status to the institution of capitalism.
Anarcho capitalism’s primary principle is known as the “non aggression principle.” Basically, the summation of this principle is that using violence against another is bad. All persons are to respect others’ life, liberty, and property, and not infringe on it in any way, outside of self defense. This sounds completely innocuous until you look at the implications. For starters, the state is inherently evil in this worldview. States are considered to be “men with guns” who, by their very nature, use force to coerce people into doing things. Taxes are considered theft. Some even compare them to rape. Laws are also coercive. The mantra of ancaps is that if something is good, why wouldn’t people do it or contribute to it legally? They push this idea that you don’t need this big brother government to tell you what to do, people are smart enough to act in their own interests, and don’t need an institution committed to violence to get things done. They also glorify the idea of capitalism and the free market. To them, the concept of people voluntarily exchanging stuff in a market place is the very definition of freedom.
Problem 1: Human nature
Like communism, anarcho capitalism sounds great on paper until it is tried. Everyone does their own thing, everyone respects each other, blah blah blah. It would be nice to assume that humans are moral enough to act by this principle all the time, but I don’t believe people are. Nature is a very twisted thing. Humans, in a lawless universe, may sometimes work together if it is in their interests, but may also harm others if it is in their interests. Heck, some do it for craps and giggles. For thousands of years, humans have killed, enslaved, and exploited each other. But suddenly this won’t exist in an ancap’s fictional universe? Yeah, right, sure. They seem to forget how the first states arose when bands of people gathered together and projected their force on other human beings, and that over time, civilization arose because of this. And then eventually we worked to make governments more democratic and responsible to individuals. Ancaps, in abolishing the current democratic states, would be basically hitting the reset button on civilization, regressing us thousands of years. Even most libertarians want to have at least some state, if only to keep law and order. These guys want nothing, or at best, privatized police forces and courts. Yes, I have heard these guys talk about hiring “rights enforcement agencies” to act as private police forces to protect one’s interests and push for privatized courts too. Which brings me to point 2.
Problem 2: Capitalism doesn’t equal freedom
Capitalism, as I’ve hinted at rather strongly in previous posts, is a matter of power relationships. Buyers and sellers, workers and employers bargain with each other to reach mutually agreeable terms. However, as I’ve stated before, the deck is rigged. People can acquire significant amounts of property that people need to live, and then others need to work for them in order to acquire it peacefully. This leads to a relationship in which people have to work long hours for others in order to get the resources they need merely to live. Without an ability to opt out reasonably, capitalism leads to exploitation and de facto slavery. Ancaps deny this, saying it’s nature that compels you to work, but still, property isn’t really a right in my opinion, it’s a social convention. When someone establishes something as property and says this is mine, anyone who comes near it gets attacked, that’s pretty violent as well. Within a nation state system, I’m not necessarily opposed to it because property rights are a functional social convention of determining who gets to use what in a peaceful and organized way. I do think we need strong safety nets funded by taxation, as well as regulations to offset the excesses, but I support the institution with the proper safe guards. These guys just say, property is a right, period. And honestly, rights enforcement agencies are basically thugs these guys pay off to protect their claims. From anarcho capitalist philosophy, property owners are peaceful because their claims are legitimate, it’s those who dispute their claims who are the violent ones, because they’re the one’s aggressing. So basically, the people who rise up against this unfair arrangement are aggressors. I’ll revisit the concept of violence and aggression being the root of all evil later, but first I want to get to this whole business of private police forces.
Ancaps act like people can buy private police forces like people can currently buy insurance or something. They pay groups to protect their”rights” and anyone who screws with them gets arrested by these rights enforcement agencies. This sounds nice, until you realize most people in ancapland likely wouldn’t be able to afford these guys, and even if most could, a significant portion still would not, because the practice mirrors medical insurance today, which many people cannot afford. Moreover, we have had corporations use private police forces in the past and it worked out badly for people. Ever hear of the Pinkertons? They were private police forces corporations hired to beat up and hassle strikers and stuff. One more thing. Anarcho capitalists think rival rights enforcement agencies would not go to war with one another out of self interest, but don’t states go to war all the time? Don’t organized crime syndicates go to war with each other? People won’t go to war? Are you screwing with me? Of course they would! They do now. Many anarcho capitalist ideas are like this. These guys also want a privatized road system run by tolls. I can’t even imagine how this would work or be safe without a state to plan communities via zoning and eminent domain. All of these crazy ideas give me a headache and it baffles me to think this is a good idea. But anarcho capitalists are persistent and use all kinds of mental acrobatics in order to explain why it could work, at least in their theoretical fantasy land. Now, without further ado, let’s revisit the concept of aggression being bad.
Problem 3: Maybe violence isn’t the root of all evil after all
As I stated earlier, maybe a system where all forms of “aggression” or violence except in “self defense” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. If someone owns all of this property and denies it to other humans beings, and the people who rise up against them and use violence against them are bad, then maybe violence isn’t always a bad thing. Often times it is, don’t get me wrong. But the moral absolutism of the ancap philosophy causes all sorts of problems here. If one looks at social contract theory and all, people come together in a form of social contract in which they give up some of their absolute freedom in order to live in a civilized society. People might not be able to kill each other any more, but in return, they are protected from being killed too. People might have to pay taxes, but at least now there are armies and police and roads. People might have to pay a lot of taxes in some society, but this gives them free healthcare and economic security. States are a matter of giving up some of one’s absolute freedom for security, and maybe that isn’t such a bad thing after all. I don’t agree with hardcore collectivism. I don’t believe states should be able to do whatever they want. I don’t even trust them to do the right thing all of the time and as such believe they need to be responsible to the people via separation of powers and democratic elections. The point is, maybe what we gain from some loss of absolute freedom isn’t so bad. Maybe we can actually do great things and live better lives being a little less free and a little more responsible for the public good here and there than if you get your own way all the time. I’m not saying we should overdo it. I’m not saying the costs with the reductions in freedom shouldn’t be weighed against the advantages. Honestly, I don’t think states should intervene in peoples’ lives unless they can give a clear reason to do so, and unless the people ultimately consent to this via the voting system. Honestly, I’m more utilitarian in my outlook. “Violence” as defined by ancaps, is like fire. If used responsibly, it can lead to better results for everyone. If used wrongly, it can burn you. Anarcho capitalists are the kinds of people who think all fire is bad even if it means we freeze to death without it. Honestly, I think the state makes our lives better when utilized correctly, and is a major factor in all social progress.
Bonus: Other quirky problems that arise logically from anarcho capitalist philosophy
Anarcho capitalism can lead to a lot of weird conclusions. I’ve seen anarcho capitalists literally defend Scrooge from a Christmas Carol. I’m not making this up. The Mises Institute, an extreme libertarian think tank that panders to this crowd, wrote an article about it. Here’s another one they wrote about the evils of traffic lights. I’ve seen anarcho capitalists literally defend the idea of a “baby market” for unwanted babies. Yes, you read this correctly. If you don’t want a baby, you don’t have to take care of it. You have no obligation. The moral thing is to sell it to someone who does want it! Murray Rothbard actually came out in defense of this. They also defend child labor under the pretense that because both parties agree to it, that it’s okay, and say that if child labor didn’t exist these people would be in poverty. Some also make similar arguments about having sex with them. Yes, some anarcho capitalists appear to be flat out pedophiles at times, and think age of consent laws are evil. These guys can really be sickos sometimes.
That being said..
Honestly, I cannot cover the extent of the quackery of anarcho capitalism all in one post. I think I skimmed the surface enough and hit enough of the key issues here, but honestly, debating anarcho capitalists is really just a huge rabbit hole I would not recommend going down. The disgusting things they say, combined with the mental gymnastics they commit, blatant historical revisionism and cherrypicking to back up their perspective, and ridiculous strawmen they make of other worldviews is just frustrating and mentally exhausting to deal with. These guys behave like they’re in a freaking cult. They are often very eager to debate, despite the fact that anyone who isn’t flat out brainwashed will be able to see through their ideas, and even after debating with them for hours and hours, neither side will budge, and both will resent the other. Anarcho capitalists tend to view “statists” as people who have no morals because they support “violence” against others to coerce them and take their stuff, whereas I see them as supporting an extreme form of capitalism that would oppress and enslave most of humanity, as well as eliminate the state, which would likely cause all hell to break loose. Oh, and did I mention some of these guys literally defend screwing children? Yeah. They literally defend screwing children. I have no respect for an ideology that comes to crazy conclusions like that.
Also, some recommended further reading for those interested in a similar perspective that may be better articulated than my own post.
What is anarcho capitalism?
As mentioned above, anarcho capitalism is libertarianism taken to the further degree of extremism possible. While libertarians support the free market and minimizing state intervention, anarcho capitalists support the complete abolition of the state and almost prescribe god-like status to the institution of capitalism.
Anarcho capitalism’s primary principle is known as the “non aggression principle.” Basically, the summation of this principle is that using violence against another is bad. All persons are to respect others’ life, liberty, and property, and not infringe on it in any way, outside of self defense. This sounds completely innocuous until you look at the implications. For starters, the state is inherently evil in this worldview. States are considered to be “men with guns” who, by their very nature, use force to coerce people into doing things. Taxes are considered theft. Some even compare them to rape. Laws are also coercive. The mantra of ancaps is that if something is good, why wouldn’t people do it or contribute to it legally? They push this idea that you don’t need this big brother government to tell you what to do, people are smart enough to act in their own interests, and don’t need an institution committed to violence to get things done. They also glorify the idea of capitalism and the free market. To them, the concept of people voluntarily exchanging stuff in a market place is the very definition of freedom.
Problem 1: Human nature
Like communism, anarcho capitalism sounds great on paper until it is tried. Everyone does their own thing, everyone respects each other, blah blah blah. It would be nice to assume that humans are moral enough to act by this principle all the time, but I don’t believe people are. Nature is a very twisted thing. Humans, in a lawless universe, may sometimes work together if it is in their interests, but may also harm others if it is in their interests. Heck, some do it for craps and giggles. For thousands of years, humans have killed, enslaved, and exploited each other. But suddenly this won’t exist in an ancap’s fictional universe? Yeah, right, sure. They seem to forget how the first states arose when bands of people gathered together and projected their force on other human beings, and that over time, civilization arose because of this. And then eventually we worked to make governments more democratic and responsible to individuals. Ancaps, in abolishing the current democratic states, would be basically hitting the reset button on civilization, regressing us thousands of years. Even most libertarians want to have at least some state, if only to keep law and order. These guys want nothing, or at best, privatized police forces and courts. Yes, I have heard these guys talk about hiring “rights enforcement agencies” to act as private police forces to protect one’s interests and push for privatized courts too. Which brings me to point 2.
Problem 2: Capitalism doesn’t equal freedom
Capitalism, as I’ve hinted at rather strongly in previous posts, is a matter of power relationships. Buyers and sellers, workers and employers bargain with each other to reach mutually agreeable terms. However, as I’ve stated before, the deck is rigged. People can acquire significant amounts of property that people need to live, and then others need to work for them in order to acquire it peacefully. This leads to a relationship in which people have to work long hours for others in order to get the resources they need merely to live. Without an ability to opt out reasonably, capitalism leads to exploitation and de facto slavery. Ancaps deny this, saying it’s nature that compels you to work, but still, property isn’t really a right in my opinion, it’s a social convention. When someone establishes something as property and says this is mine, anyone who comes near it gets attacked, that’s pretty violent as well. Within a nation state system, I’m not necessarily opposed to it because property rights are a functional social convention of determining who gets to use what in a peaceful and organized way. I do think we need strong safety nets funded by taxation, as well as regulations to offset the excesses, but I support the institution with the proper safe guards. These guys just say, property is a right, period. And honestly, rights enforcement agencies are basically thugs these guys pay off to protect their claims. From anarcho capitalist philosophy, property owners are peaceful because their claims are legitimate, it’s those who dispute their claims who are the violent ones, because they’re the one’s aggressing. So basically, the people who rise up against this unfair arrangement are aggressors. I’ll revisit the concept of violence and aggression being the root of all evil later, but first I want to get to this whole business of private police forces.
Ancaps act like people can buy private police forces like people can currently buy insurance or something. They pay groups to protect their”rights” and anyone who screws with them gets arrested by these rights enforcement agencies. This sounds nice, until you realize most people in ancapland likely wouldn’t be able to afford these guys, and even if most could, a significant portion still would not, because the practice mirrors medical insurance today, which many people cannot afford. Moreover, we have had corporations use private police forces in the past and it worked out badly for people. Ever hear of the Pinkertons? They were private police forces corporations hired to beat up and hassle strikers and stuff. One more thing. Anarcho capitalists think rival rights enforcement agencies would not go to war with one another out of self interest, but don’t states go to war all the time? Don’t organized crime syndicates go to war with each other? People won’t go to war? Are you screwing with me? Of course they would! They do now. Many anarcho capitalist ideas are like this. These guys also want a privatized road system run by tolls. I can’t even imagine how this would work or be safe without a state to plan communities via zoning and eminent domain. All of these crazy ideas give me a headache and it baffles me to think this is a good idea. But anarcho capitalists are persistent and use all kinds of mental acrobatics in order to explain why it could work, at least in their theoretical fantasy land. Now, without further ado, let’s revisit the concept of aggression being bad.
Problem 3: Maybe violence isn’t the root of all evil after all
As I stated earlier, maybe a system where all forms of “aggression” or violence except in “self defense” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. If someone owns all of this property and denies it to other humans beings, and the people who rise up against them and use violence against them are bad, then maybe violence isn’t always a bad thing. Often times it is, don’t get me wrong. But the moral absolutism of the ancap philosophy causes all sorts of problems here. If one looks at social contract theory and all, people come together in a form of social contract in which they give up some of their absolute freedom in order to live in a civilized society. People might not be able to kill each other any more, but in return, they are protected from being killed too. People might have to pay taxes, but at least now there are armies and police and roads. People might have to pay a lot of taxes in some society, but this gives them free healthcare and economic security. States are a matter of giving up some of one’s absolute freedom for security, and maybe that isn’t such a bad thing after all. I don’t agree with hardcore collectivism. I don’t believe states should be able to do whatever they want. I don’t even trust them to do the right thing all of the time and as such believe they need to be responsible to the people via separation of powers and democratic elections. The point is, maybe what we gain from some loss of absolute freedom isn’t so bad. Maybe we can actually do great things and live better lives being a little less free and a little more responsible for the public good here and there than if you get your own way all the time. I’m not saying we should overdo it. I’m not saying the costs with the reductions in freedom shouldn’t be weighed against the advantages. Honestly, I don’t think states should intervene in peoples’ lives unless they can give a clear reason to do so, and unless the people ultimately consent to this via the voting system. Honestly, I’m more utilitarian in my outlook. “Violence” as defined by ancaps, is like fire. If used responsibly, it can lead to better results for everyone. If used wrongly, it can burn you. Anarcho capitalists are the kinds of people who think all fire is bad even if it means we freeze to death without it. Honestly, I think the state makes our lives better when utilized correctly, and is a major factor in all social progress.
Bonus: Other quirky problems that arise logically from anarcho capitalist philosophy
Anarcho capitalism can lead to a lot of weird conclusions. I’ve seen anarcho capitalists literally defend Scrooge from a Christmas Carol. I’m not making this up. The Mises Institute, an extreme libertarian think tank that panders to this crowd, wrote an article about it. Here’s another one they wrote about the evils of traffic lights. I’ve seen anarcho capitalists literally defend the idea of a “baby market” for unwanted babies. Yes, you read this correctly. If you don’t want a baby, you don’t have to take care of it. You have no obligation. The moral thing is to sell it to someone who does want it! Murray Rothbard actually came out in defense of this. They also defend child labor under the pretense that because both parties agree to it, that it’s okay, and say that if child labor didn’t exist these people would be in poverty. Some also make similar arguments about having sex with them. Yes, some anarcho capitalists appear to be flat out pedophiles at times, and think age of consent laws are evil. These guys can really be sickos sometimes.
That being said..
Honestly, I cannot cover the extent of the quackery of anarcho capitalism all in one post. I think I skimmed the surface enough and hit enough of the key issues here, but honestly, debating anarcho capitalists is really just a huge rabbit hole I would not recommend going down. The disgusting things they say, combined with the mental gymnastics they commit, blatant historical revisionism and cherrypicking to back up their perspective, and ridiculous strawmen they make of other worldviews is just frustrating and mentally exhausting to deal with. These guys behave like they’re in a freaking cult. They are often very eager to debate, despite the fact that anyone who isn’t flat out brainwashed will be able to see through their ideas, and even after debating with them for hours and hours, neither side will budge, and both will resent the other. Anarcho capitalists tend to view “statists” as people who have no morals because they support “violence” against others to coerce them and take their stuff, whereas I see them as supporting an extreme form of capitalism that would oppress and enslave most of humanity, as well as eliminate the state, which would likely cause all hell to break loose. Oh, and did I mention some of these guys literally defend screwing children? Yeah. They literally defend screwing children. I have no respect for an ideology that comes to crazy conclusions like that.
Also, some recommended further reading for those interested in a similar perspective that may be better articulated than my own post.
No comments:
Post a Comment