Questions for AnCaps, Voluntaryists, Libertarians
Right wing anti-authoritarian politics, not necessarily nationalistic or religious, seem to be rather popular lately. I find myself in agreement on many issues with people expressing such views, more than I would expect. However, I doubt the end result of their adoption in practice would be as anti-authoritarian as suggested. I tend to believe the conclusion would be the exact opposite. I also often disagree on other things (which can often be more varied between, say, AnCaps and Libertarians), but will only focus on the power/wealth/control aspect here. If you're not interested in my rants you can just skip to the questions towards the end. I theorize that the core of our growing shared problems comes from increasing physical and psychological abuse. Also, that people reading this understand more or less where the - by far - most impactful abuse comes from. That Totalitarianism is the end game to the quest for power, and the closely related quest for more. I'm not claiming that anyone who wants more than they have is evil. I'm claiming that anyone who has much more than others is very dangerous, and potentially evil. Power corrupts. Possessions corrupt. All that boringly true shit we should sometimes pay more attention to. I'm also not one to say that greed or thirst for power are inevitable aspects of human nature. Maybe they can be parts of our nature depending on circumstance. I know people who are and others who aren't like that. I know of societies who mostly are or aren't like that. Some tribal societies might even be completely free of such trappings. No matter their source, such forces have to be at least sufficiently checked for any relatively healthy society to exist. If left rampant for long, we end up with something resembling the end times, especially when coupled with modern technology. History, moral and religious tradition can also attest to that. Many of those boring tales of greed, corruption and fall are based on true stories. What we live now is the result of extreme hubris, even among relatively powerless people; in my opinion mostly acquired through organized conditioning. But no matter their source, such forces have to be checked if we want free lives for all of us, by any reasonable definition. With the above in mind , here are my questions for AnCaps, Voluntaryists, Libertarians:
Who holds real power in a no (or low) government capitalist system?
What would prevent the strongest of the haves from conspiring against the have-nots and/or the rest of society?
What would prevent increasingly more subtle manipulation through the use of technology and psychology?
What would prevent greedy and hubristic powerful people from creating a mess, in a myriad other ways we can't predict or prevent in time?
Since a free market can exist even in barter economies, do we really need capitalism?
What’s your opinion on simpler, more local based systems, with less room for wealth inequality (and less room for mafia-prone “services” replacing the state)? Are you willing to slow the pace of progress in exchange for more natural and humane lifestyles, or are you much like your progressive rivals?
Bonus (ignore if you’re not that naive): Is China Communist? Is Globalism Communism? By what definitions?
Addressing each one of your questions:
1. "Who holds real power in a no (or low) government capitalist system?"
This is begging the question. No one holds power (in this context, authority). That is the point. Capitalism in the ancap context means property rights. That is all. No, capitalism does not mean Wall Street bailouts or favourable regulations for monopolies; that is statism. Property is secured through private insurance through a shared decentralized registry. No need for government at all for this. Already competing insurance companies share decentralized databases for credit ratings, for example.
2. "What would prevent the strongest of the haves from conspiring against the have-nots and/or the rest of society?"
You ask this question as if government succeeds in preventing the haves from conspiring against the have-nots. The usual ad hoc fallacy to this is “but it would have been worse without government.” False. If anything, the haves have the means of lobbying the government to use the coercive power of the state in their favor. Statelessness is the great equaliser. Without the state, all businesses would be subject to ruthless competition. It would be extremely hard for anyone to amass much greater wealth than others. And if they did, the free market would punish them the second they decided to act unethical. Show me one instance of government protecting the have-nots from the haves. Voluntaryism is the moral argument precisely because of this.
3. “What would prevent increasingly more subtle manipulation through the use of technology and psychology?”
This question applies even more to the centralized monopoly of force of the state, so it is a self-defeating argument.
4. “What would prevent greedy and hubristic powerful people from creating a mess, in a myriad other ways we can't predict or prevent in time?”
This has already happened with our misplaced consent. It is called government. Again, you ask questions assuming that government ever acted in the best interests of the common people.
5. “Since a free market can exist even in barter economies, do we really need capitalism?”
It seems you you don’t understand the concept of capitalism from a voluntarism perspective, but rather insist on using its deceptive Marxist definition. Capitalism is the right to won property and the right for workers to keep the product of their labour. Denying these rights is called slavery, also known as statism, because government taxes most of your income in hidden taxes and inflation. This is the definition of slavery. We are deluded not to see it as such. If the term “capitalism” is too triggering (and I can understand that decades of leftist propaganda have smeared it), then we don’t need that term. Free market, property rights, and the right to keep the product of your labour is all we need.
6. “What’s your opinion on simpler, more local based systems, with less room for wealth inequality (and less room for mafia-prone “services” replacing the state)? Are you willing to slow the pace of progress in exchange for more natural and humane lifestyles, or are you much like your progressive rivals?”
I’m glad you admit that the state is a mafia “service”. No one can forcibly “slow the pace of anything” in a voluntaryist society. Things take their path according to free-market dynamics, meaning, if you don’t offer value to people, and if you are oppressive, then you starve, because people have a choice to take the business elsewhere. We are afforded no such choice in the state-enforced monopolies that the government enforces on behalf of the lobbyists that buy our politicians. Without government, there would be no such tool for big corporations to hijack at the expense of people. Why doesn’t the state crack down on organised crime and mafia protection services? Why is it that the state police itself, through its enforced monopoly, act as yet another layer of “protection” mafia, threatening and harassing businesses for preferential treatment? So, not only is the state useless, but it is dangerous.
7. “Bonus (ignore if you’re not that naive): Is China Communist? Is Globalism Communism? By what definitions?”
Does it matter? It is yet another all-powerful dictatorship, a state with insane levels of authority over its people. It brands itself as “communist” because this is how it traditionally emerged. Communism is the absolute totalitarian dictatorship. Over the years, China understood the benefits of international trade, so they loosened their leash a little bit, but not enough to lose the whole propaganda narrative of a state supposedly “for the people”. Communism, just like fascism, are based on lies designed for gullible people.
* According to Mises et al., consumers hold the power in capitalism.
* Central power concentrates and decentralization decentralizes. Competition doesn't allow megacorporations because big crews are very hard to manage, shipping is a great disadvantage for the broader companies, an so on. Competition promotes the enterprise market where small companies cooperate with each other. In an ancap society the only conspiring possible is the aggregation of enterprises that doesn't get you anywhere in competition.
* Don't know really. People are stupid and prone to manipulation. Maybe we should talk about manipulation after people stop drinking fluoride and injecting mercury to their arms and teeth.
* Greed is a vice and vices create mess. But in a society of responsible people, people would protect themselves from vices of other.
* Is this question about money overall? Money is cool as long as not fiat.
* Yes, they sound better than living in the modern psy-op utopia.
Did I pass?