So I read my old post on anarcho capitalism after cutting off a debate with a very pushy ancap (by the way, I still don't recommend debating them), and I kind of realized that I have gotten more sophisticated in responding to them in recent years due to my growing indepentarian ideology. They still won't respond to them well, as they still are stuck in their own heads in terms of morality and can't comprehend someone not simply agreeing with their premises, but I did want to outline a few new arguments I have.
If I had any pet peeve with my original article on them, it's this. I kind of gave ancaps the high ground on the use of violence. I said it was okay to sometimes use violence to achieve positive goals, in terms of how they frame it (any mandatory state action), when in reality, my evolving perspective on property rights and their origins, as well as the origins of capitalism, have kind of made me realize that capitalism itself is backed by violence. It can't really exist without it.
As a matter of fact, let's go back to more minarchist theory. To them, the role of the state is to protect their natural rights of life, liberty, and property. For them, these rights just exist, as ordered by God, and were "discovered" in the 17th century for some reason. The concepts never existed before that point, but now they do, and anyone who violates their rights is evil. This is why these guys are so hard to debate. Youre literally dealing with people who have views that are backed with the zeal of religious extremism.
But...lets face it. Despite all of their theory, their worldview didnt exist until the enlightenment. And it didnt go mainstream until the rise of liberal democracy and capitalism. And what do we know about the rise of capitalism? Well, it didnt emerge peacefully, if that's what we're asking. My historical ventures to find out the truth on that have indicated to me, both from Widerquist's works, as well as the Elizabeth Anderson work ethic book, that capitalism arose violently. That it was forced on people. That people were FORCED into working, FORCED into servitude. That the work ethic was imposed on them with great violence and cruelty. And now we live in this system, and we act like all choices are "voluntary." They're not. As Widerquist pointed out in books like the prehistory of private property, hunter gatherers had no concept of property. They couldnt even develop one until they developed states and were able to use violence to enforce their ideas of property. And then, they basically forced people to work and be part of their projects. Some people resisted this with great vigor, but eventually the whole world and all habitable land was conquered, giving people no place to go, and forcing them to be part of their system.
Ultimately, capitalism is based on violence. It is backed with violence, with a state that establishes a certain perspective on property, and violently enforces it. And everyone is forced to play by the rules, whether they want to or not. Everyone is forced to work, within these systems, indirectly of course, via the use of violence to defend this system and property rights regime. Leftists kind of have it right. I just dont agree overthrowing this system is the way to go. Much like with states themselves, the answer is reform.
And this is where these ancaps get uppity. They think taxation is evil, that it's slavery. Except, taxation is literally as old as property is. And in my view, its fine to use this form of violence to right the wrong of wage slavery. Giving people a UBI via taxation is a way to free people from coercion. But for these guys, literal wage slavery isnt slavery, but somehow, forcing them to pay taxes is. Even if the labor that the taxes come from is voluntary, because of the UBI itself.
But they just have this idea that everyone is to work and provide for ourselves and no one should be forced to provide for another. Even though their system forces people to work for people with property, and that system is backed with violence. It's a joke, it really is.
Oh, and while ancaps wanna get rid of "the state", i dont know how this would actually function in practice. It sounds like the corporations would run everything directly in practice, making it look like Neon in Starfield where the entire thing is owned by some rich dude who "owns" the place takes a cut of everything (basically taxes), or it would devolve into chaos, similar to like fallout or something where you got raider gangs ultimately taking up the role of the state.
It's like these guys have no idea how we got states in the first place. But this is how. They basically evolved out of strong men just taking land and subjecting people to their rule. It took centuries of evolution to reform states into the more just state that they exist in today (in the west at least). And these guys just wanna abolish them and their progress to go back in time because they dont like taxes. Whatever dude. I don't care. Pay your fricking taxes to the entity upholding your property rights to begin with. because without them, people would just be taking what they want in the first place. Instead of the emissary in starfield, you get the hunter. Is any better? No. It's a step back, really.
I mean the more I think about their ideology the more nonsensical and incoherent it is, but don't tell them that. They can't be reasoned with.
No comments:
Post a Comment