So, just recently, I've been exploring the weird world of anarcho-capitalist thinking.
Man it is weird little view of the world they have going on. Setting aside a weirdly large proportion of them seem to also hold some rather nasty sexist view, their whole political/economic mindset is a mess.
So I guess my question is. How come? What is it about Anarcho-capitalist ideology that seems to bring the crazy?
Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.
What is with anarcho-capitalists
Sat, 2014-11-15 15:06
#1
Zombieneighbours
What is with anarcho-capitalists
Sun, 2014-11-16 12:37
#2
Decimator
Your OP doesn't foster much
Your OP doesn't foster much meaningful discussion.
Mon, 2014-11-17 04:59
#3
Armoured
Fringe economics
Most people in the modern western society fully accept the democratic capitalism system. They usually know its not perfect, but for the majority of decision-making humans in the western world, the system works. There is no need to change it. Thinking about alternate social structures is hard, and any change would be enormously destructive to peoples quality of life, at least in the short term. So moderate people are unlikely to support AnCap, and they massively outnumber everyone else.
On the other hand, the people who spend a lot of time considering economic systems are people who don't fit into modern society, are the losers in the game of capitalism (a game which really is rigged by the winners), or are those with an academic interest in hypothetical systems. The first two of these groups are not likely to view and debate the issue dispassionately, and the third's members will often play devils advocate in arguments for interest's sake alone.
In short, fringe attracts fringe; AnCap is unpopular to the masses, and unfortunately the people it may attract were ostracized from other circles for reasons other than their political views.
Tue, 2016-03-01 02:13
#4
Daeglan
The thing one needs to know
The thing one needs to know about anarcho capitalism is that when you give the government the ability to regulate business. what rapidly happens is those businesses will buy regulations that benefit them and harm their competition. and over time big business starts squeezing out the smaller businesses with regulations they can't afford.
An anarcho capitalist believes in voluntary transactions between individuals. IE they believe an employee and a employer are capable of coming up with a mutually beneficial arrangement. Same with a customer and a business.
They also understand that a Business that screws over their customers won't be around long. As people talk about it.
Tue, 2016-03-01 10:48
#5
SquireNed
Yes. Most anarcho-capitalists
Yes. Most anarcho-capitalists are heavily into sousveillance; people who do bad business won't be loved forever. I mean, I have my own list of companies I won't do business with (for instance, too much reliance on Chinese manufacturing with dubious ethical standards or simply being politically over-involved in causes I don't support), but even then, there's just not that many companies willing to risk things by stirring the pot or doing things that the average person would find distasteful.
Tue, 2016-03-01 18:42
#6
ORCACommander
except its nearly impossible
except its nearly impossible to boycott companies these days with how wide they spread their umbrellas
Tue, 2016-03-01 23:17
#7
Daeglan
Perhaps. Regulation does not
Perhaps. Regulation does not work either. They just end up buying the regulators and use them as clubs on any competition.
With out regulation it would be far easier for smaller competition to get started and then one could go to them. Companies like keeping your choice limited to them or nothing.
Fri, 2016-03-04 18:38
#8
Zarpaulus
Government regulation isn't
Government regulation isn't the only way to become a monopoly. Economies of scale for one thing, once you're putting out more product than anyone else it's almost impossible to compete.
Even with nanofabricators making all physical goods you can achieve an economy of scale through advertising.
Not to mention hostile takeovers, cartels, even violence would be on the table in an anarchist society.
Tue, 2016-03-08 21:13
#9
OIA_D1ck
Main reason why AnCaps seem
Main reason why AnCaps seem to be full of crazies is because it's a self-contradictory ideology.
Anarchism is anti-authoritarian socialism with no private possession of goods other than those you make. On the other hand there's capitalism. Trying to mix these concepts requires crazy people lol
—
Yo! Give me that hoverboard, you vandal!
Tue, 2016-03-08 21:42
#10
R.O.S.S.-128
Nature abhors a vacuum
The main problem you run into is with the "anarchist" part.
Rules without enforcement are meaningless. And without rules, there's no rule that says I can't get a bunch of good ole boys together and start a dictatorship. Anarchy is inherently unstable and left to its own devices, quickly decays into tyranny.
Refusal to acknowledge that reality is a common thread among anarchists in general.
Government establishes and enforces rules. Rules, when followed, create trust. Trust is the grease that keeps the gears of capitalism turning. The goal for a maximally capitalist society should not be anarchy, then, but lean government: just enough government to enforce rules and create trust, but not so much that it suffocates the market.
Western style democracies usually fall vaguely within that band most of the time, at least close enough to be functional. Which is why they have done so well thus far. The functional band is pretty wide, with plenty of room for people to argue about where the ideal lies within it.
—
End of line.
Sun, 2016-03-13 01:38
#11
Daeglan
You have absolutely no idea
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. That is not Anarcho capitalism. I have no idea what it is but it is not what you claim it to be....
Sun, 2016-03-13 15:10
#12
R.O.S.S.-128
Query: define anarchy
If anarchists do not advocate a complete absence of government, then what, in your opinion, is anarchy?
If anarcho-capitalists do not actually advocate anarchy, then why do they call themselves anarchists?
Anarchy, regardless of what economic model you try to attach to it, is inherently unstable and disfunctional. It quickly collapses into tribalism and dictatorship.
And of course, if nobody actually advocates anarchy then it is best to not muddy the waters by throwing around the anarchist label. Because that would mean that anarcho-capitalists, or anarchists in general, simply don't exist.
—
End of line.
Sun, 2016-03-13 16:18
#13
SquireNed
I think he was referring to
I think he was referring to this:
Anarchism is not solely socialist; most "anarchists" do fall under that creed, but it's not integral: the philosophical anarchism of Tolstoy and the non-left wings of anarchism do not necessarily fall under that.
Keep in mind that there are really two anarchist assertions:
1. Government is illegitimate, inefficient, or incapable of creating greater moral/ethical progress than the lack of government.
2. Individuals operating with various degrees of cooperation or isolation are capable of creating a functional society.
Not necessarily. Such has been the case throughout history, but keep in mind that there have been few philosophical anarchy movements throughout history. Most large-scale anarchism comes from the fall of an existing government or regional power, and doesn't reflect an ideal of the citizens of that area, but rather a lack of power, creating a vacuum.
Anarchism is also less unstable than people give it credit for: we live most of our lives in situations where there is no authority present, but joint social, moral, and ethical codes keep us from getting into any real trouble. Sure there's the power of a government, but the fact remains that knowing that someone's got weapons (I live in a region where open carrying firearms is legal, even though I don't myself) or has the potential to cause serious social harm in response to an assault will mitigate the tendencies for predators to prey on each other.
Anarcho-capitalist societies in Eclipse Phase rely on transhumanism and the digital age as stability enforcers: nothing goes unnoticed, and you can't be sure that causing harm to someone doesn't end in a trip to the resleeving joint. Throughout history small societies have functioned under anarchic principles, even if they haven't adhered to the theories of anarchy, due to pressing needs and mutual respect between individuals.
Likewise, there seems to be a common trend in thought that anarchists simply don't care about society, because having centralized structures is the only way to do so. I would argue that this is not necessarily true, either in the slimy lawyery layers of Extropia, or in less sleazy societies where voluntary groups govern behavior codes. Most importantly, however, anarchism doesn't necessarily mean that nobody is able to enforce judgements, it just means that the people who do so are not protected under an umbrella of protection. For instance, soldiers receive a limited protection for the acts they commit in a war, and that comes from codified rules. However, even in an anarchic society, nobody's gonna say "You shot an invader! That's murder!" (well, maybe in some left/pacifist, but not traditional @-cap circles).
The thing about power in an anarchic society is that it rests in the hands of those who seize it, but those who abuse it suffer retribution. Tribalism is a sort of side effect, but doesn't necessarily actually sacrifice anarchic principles: anarchic societies trend toward the xenophobic because outsiders can capitalize on the lack of centralized structures. Reputation economies are how this is dealt with in EP; having good @-rep is basically "This dude won't cause problems", but from a large crowd of witnesses.
As far as despotism as a natural consequence of anarchy, I think that it depends on the extent to which a society is monolithic versus fractured. For instance, the Ultimates are themselves a quasi-anarchic movement: even though they have a tier structure, outside of the military hierarchy I don't see them being the following orders and dropping titles to coerce each other. Rather, they're strictly meritocratic, which is not @-cap, but when you consider the fact that they do not have enforced centralized proscriptions and are rather unified by dogma and creed, there's elements of anarchic societies in there.
@-cap societies in Eclipse Phase rely on the fact that they're made up of @-capitalists. If you're not @-cap, you aren't "welcome" in the sense that you can never really be a member of society; you might physically reside there, but you're not going to get the @-rep or the social influence to exert any influence except through force. In EP, where most fringe groups live on space stations, you can't really force an @-cap society under your control: the collateral damage of space station combat means that any military force is marginal, and @-affiliated groups tend to be resistant to memetic attacks from outside (though not necessarily from within @-groups, but that's a question for another day, and tends to do more with the various flavors of @-affiliation than pro/anti-@ rhetoric.