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
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.
Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply. If I go point to point this could end up to be too lengthy of a conversation. So I'll try to give a short-ish general reply.
I didn't write this from a pro-statist perspective. In fact quite the opposite. I also think the system you describe could start as something far more liberating than the current one in many aspects. That is, if current corporate dominance, along with it's strongmen and ideologues, gets disempowered in some way or another other together with the state. Let's say this happens.
Everything then gets assigned to private contractors. Some of them outcompete the other, not necessarily (and I'd guess rather obviously) on ethical terms. Most people are still who they are after living all this madness. Confused, fearful, sickly, gullible. I can't see them wise up fast enough to prevent new entities - practically states under different name and new rules - arising. Maybe it could delay totalitarianism for a while, but I can't see it preventing it.
But I also fear that the promise of something like this could be intentionally used as bait, from within the system, to further accelerate globalization and control. Especially if we only see states weakened, but corporations remain strong in a way or another.
On the thing with China/Globalism and Communism. Non-statist Communism doesn't alienate me that much. Same if we replace Communism with Anarchism or Direct Democrary. I don't claim to have the answers. Neither Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism equal Communism, even if many self-described Communists are dirty little manipulators. When I notice right wingers raging about anything they don't like being Communism, I'm thinking: even more division, almost none on the left will pay attention no matter what they say. That said the matter of terminology is annoyingly complex and I'm also guilty of occasionally doing similar things.
I know you were playing devil's advocate in your article. I replied in kind.
"I can't see them wise up fast enough to prevent new entities - practically states under different name and new rules - arising. Maybe it could delay totalitarianism for a while, but I can't see it preventing it."
You are absolutely right here. Most people cannot imagine a self-governing society, so the moment a state collapses, a power vacuum arises BECAUSE people need power over them. Instead of forming self-governing entities, they rush to form a centralised government, which takes more sweat and blood to make, if you ask me. But this is the thing: belief is the problem. If we don't believe we can go to the stars, we'll never attempt to go to the stars.
This is part of what makes me think that some limits to economic freedom(=power) leads to more freedom overall. The problem on how to do that in a non-state society, especially one starting from where we are, still remains though.
If enough people know statelessness can work then it will work. We have government because the vast majority of people believe it is necessary. This is what we deserve. If enough people thought like you or I, government wouldn't be possible.
Still I'm not sure people could become/remain perpetually ethical even if some sort of utopia was somehow reached. Especially if we also account for crises that trigger survival instincts and messianism. I'd rather no one being able to have too much power/authority, and see any form of capitalism or large scale property ownership as a gateway to that.
I never said being ethical is the prerequisite for freedom. Self-interest is the only prerequisite for statelessness to work, as long as people understand that it is in their best interest to be free. Ayn Rand spoke extensively on the virtue of selfishness. It’s one of the things I agree with her on. Best example of your self-interests to have friends around you. This gives you the incentive to be good and offer value to them.
* 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.
According to me, consumers are increasingly brainless and powerless. Not sure how much of it is chemical, I think most of it is visual and linguistic voodoo though, which ofc allows for more chemicals and that for more programming etc.
I more or less agree on megacorps, but highly doubt people can prevent the rise of new state-like entities, even if we somehow get into a true ancap society. Some will get more powerful through money/followers and any real or manufactured crisis would allow for great power concentration. First locally, then further out. That's why I lean towards decentralization without capitalism, while still having no real answers.
Real money would be cool if it didn't provide a basis for more control and reverting towards where we're already heading. I find modern society so oppressive that I'd rather have a real, harsher life. I'm slowly training myself towards that path.
(No one ever passes, not even myself! Both cause we don't do grades here and we're largely agnostic if opinionated.)
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.
Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed reply. If I go point to point this could end up to be too lengthy of a conversation. So I'll try to give a short-ish general reply.
I didn't write this from a pro-statist perspective. In fact quite the opposite. I also think the system you describe could start as something far more liberating than the current one in many aspects. That is, if current corporate dominance, along with it's strongmen and ideologues, gets disempowered in some way or another other together with the state. Let's say this happens.
Everything then gets assigned to private contractors. Some of them outcompete the other, not necessarily (and I'd guess rather obviously) on ethical terms. Most people are still who they are after living all this madness. Confused, fearful, sickly, gullible. I can't see them wise up fast enough to prevent new entities - practically states under different name and new rules - arising. Maybe it could delay totalitarianism for a while, but I can't see it preventing it.
But I also fear that the promise of something like this could be intentionally used as bait, from within the system, to further accelerate globalization and control. Especially if we only see states weakened, but corporations remain strong in a way or another.
On the thing with China/Globalism and Communism. Non-statist Communism doesn't alienate me that much. Same if we replace Communism with Anarchism or Direct Democrary. I don't claim to have the answers. Neither Socialism, Fascism, Totalitarianism equal Communism, even if many self-described Communists are dirty little manipulators. When I notice right wingers raging about anything they don't like being Communism, I'm thinking: even more division, almost none on the left will pay attention no matter what they say. That said the matter of terminology is annoyingly complex and I'm also guilty of occasionally doing similar things.
I know you were playing devil's advocate in your article. I replied in kind.
"I can't see them wise up fast enough to prevent new entities - practically states under different name and new rules - arising. Maybe it could delay totalitarianism for a while, but I can't see it preventing it."
You are absolutely right here. Most people cannot imagine a self-governing society, so the moment a state collapses, a power vacuum arises BECAUSE people need power over them. Instead of forming self-governing entities, they rush to form a centralised government, which takes more sweat and blood to make, if you ask me. But this is the thing: belief is the problem. If we don't believe we can go to the stars, we'll never attempt to go to the stars.
This is part of what makes me think that some limits to economic freedom(=power) leads to more freedom overall. The problem on how to do that in a non-state society, especially one starting from where we are, still remains though.
If enough people know statelessness can work then it will work. We have government because the vast majority of people believe it is necessary. This is what we deserve. If enough people thought like you or I, government wouldn't be possible.
Still I'm not sure people could become/remain perpetually ethical even if some sort of utopia was somehow reached. Especially if we also account for crises that trigger survival instincts and messianism. I'd rather no one being able to have too much power/authority, and see any form of capitalism or large scale property ownership as a gateway to that.
I never said being ethical is the prerequisite for freedom. Self-interest is the only prerequisite for statelessness to work, as long as people understand that it is in their best interest to be free. Ayn Rand spoke extensively on the virtue of selfishness. It’s one of the things I agree with her on. Best example of your self-interests to have friends around you. This gives you the incentive to be good and offer value to them.
* 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?
According to me, consumers are increasingly brainless and powerless. Not sure how much of it is chemical, I think most of it is visual and linguistic voodoo though, which ofc allows for more chemicals and that for more programming etc.
I more or less agree on megacorps, but highly doubt people can prevent the rise of new state-like entities, even if we somehow get into a true ancap society. Some will get more powerful through money/followers and any real or manufactured crisis would allow for great power concentration. First locally, then further out. That's why I lean towards decentralization without capitalism, while still having no real answers.
Real money would be cool if it didn't provide a basis for more control and reverting towards where we're already heading. I find modern society so oppressive that I'd rather have a real, harsher life. I'm slowly training myself towards that path.
(No one ever passes, not even myself! Both cause we don't do grades here and we're largely agnostic if opinionated.)
συμφωνώ. πολύ συμφωνώ
γενικά όλα αυτά είναι κάπως ανούσια κατά την άποψή μου, και μου αρέσει που το βλέπεις και εσύ κάπως
Θα δουμε, μαλλον ειναι αλλα μακαρι οχι.