I understand the confusion with the academic basis of Ancap and the people wearing the gadsden flag, storming the capitol, but sadly the article does not debate against the fist, that would have been a more enriching reading.
I mean, even if we don’t call it fascism, you still cannot call it anarchism. The two terms are simply mutually-exclusive, as capitalism is a hierarchy. If you get rid of the state but retain capitalism, simply the most powerful company will take the role of the state. The reason we are against the state is because of its dominant position, not because it’s some mythical monster. Anarcho-capitalists seem to rebel against the label, rather than the actual essence of the state. Or, I guess, some might genuinely believe that capitalism is in fact not a hierarchy and somehow can provide free and equal society. But I dunno how to deal with delusion.
Thanks, that whas the explaination I was looking for. As I undertand you refer to anarchism to the lack of hierarchy.
What I can tell you from other side to give you other perspective is that ancaps don’t go against hierachys, just want that all the interactions are voluntary, understamdig the state as a non voluntary interaction thet needs to be desolved and that is the pont in common I see with other flavours of anarchysm.
I wouldn’t call it delusion, just a lack of common terminology between schools of thougt that leads to missinterpretations from both parts because of a poor interactions between both sides.
Well, what I called a delusion is the potential belief that capitalism is not a hierarchy, or somehow maybe a fair hierarchy. I think it is an obvious fact that capitalism needs poverty to exist. The fact how some people are rich and others are poor is capitalism working as it should. Even if you look at the Great Depression, when it happened the economy was much freer. Then Roosevelt started implementing regulations, and it (in combination with WW2) launched America into half a century of economic progress. Then, starting with Reagan, these regulations were being taken down one by one, thus freeing up the market again, and that led to the 2008 recession. These are all documented facts that you can find from even centrist sources. But even on the larger scale, America was able to stay rich because it intentionally kept other countries poor. Because you need poverty for capitalism to exist. This is a video I like that kinda breaks down the basic issue of capitalism: https://youtu.be/i-VsLNOduJA
We don’t really want no interaction with Ancaps (at least I don’t). Because we don’t see their school of thought as being in any way compatible with ours. Every single branch of Anarchism rejects capitalism. I would even say capitalism is in fact a bigger problem than the state. Perhaps the state’s main role in modern society is to maintain capitalism. So the differences between Ancaps and the rest of Anarchists are irreconcilable, as far as I can see.
Why you say that? “capitalism needs poverty to exist” given thet people are different in capabilities is reasonable to espect difference in outcome of welth for each individual.
That also fit with the well known “Prices law” (not refered to the price of something) that show that in all fields the 10% of the people produce the 50% of the outcome, and since welth is not a cero sum game, even if you improove your income over time, if othes improove faster if you look in relative terms seems like someone is taking thing from other people.
I’ll take a look at that, thanks for sharing.
Some really good reading to understand the counterintuotivness of things in economics is “Economy in one lesson” (Henrry Hazzlit)
If other improve faster or have more capabilities and wealth is based on it, you set the current elitist society which, even sharing the same world, gives more rights to some people than other and in most cases the less-capable people will have greater needs.
Welth is based on what other members of the society are willing to give to you voluntarily either for free or in exchange for a product or service, so to be succesfull mean to be someone trully usefull for your society (people gives things to you because they value more what you give to them rather than what they are loosing)
If what you want is the same output no matter what imput you give to the society, the you have killed the only incentive to do something rather than nating.
If what I do it gives me the same “output” (wealth, house, car, status, health, etc…) then why would I ever do anything?, because doing something certainlly cost more resources than not doing it, and that is a statement in wich we may agree.
That is why you can’t just say if you need something you automatically have the right to have it, an that sadly apply even to the basic things we need to survive, it is just a matter of inventives.
The only real solution in those cases of people in need is to put our money where our mouth is and help out of our own pocket, but that came at a cost of manifesting and quantifying “how much” (time, money, etc…) we really care about people in needs, wich is awful to our self image if we don’t like what we see ourselves doing.
Would you explain this a little more please?, I dont quite understand the main idea
“If you are more capable and get more things in the end, that is not being equal with me as I would receive less (in this hypotetical case) because of the lulz. This is to try to show the faulty sense”
“You should lose (wanting or not) in order to fit my needs too. In the opposite case, you should not be part of the society”
Lets say we both live in that society, one in woch that statement is morally true, then
¿What would keep me from “needing more” and think: "no need to provide to myself, society will do it for me?
“certainly, an utilitarianist justification (you consider something good or wrong based on the relationship between the benefits and detriments to you).”
What we are discussing is at the core utulitarist (of not we would be discussing moral values that cant be really discussed, you either accept a moral sistem or not, at the second you start to explain “why someone should accept the moral sistem X” you are making an utilitarist point.
Whay I’m trying to explore are the consecuences of adopting one moral sistem over other, for example:
What would be the incentives withing a moral sistem that states that you have the right to have something if you need that (even if you need to take it from other).
I think that since the concept of need is a very foggy and subjetive ond plus the nature of our mind tends to find a way to unconciously rationalize almost anything we see as beneficial for us (see stanley milgram experiments on obedience to authority), unther such moral sistem the outcome is a constamt war to show that I need more than you, and the better at that game will be benefit more at the expnse of the people that is capable of “not need anything” to put it simple.
Beware of relating correlation with causation, effects in economics are often late and difficult to relate to its real causes.
In your 2nd paragraph;
I think that is kind of a misconseption. You hardly will find any ancap (a properly readed one) that will defend the state as we know it nor any form of it, becaus it is not based in voluntary cooperation, I belive that would be a point in common with other anarchys variants.
Capitalism is not inherently hierarchical, human societies are… Capitalism is simply a description of an economic system, and economic systems are reflections of more fundamental forces in societies.
I understand the confusion with the academic basis of Ancap and the people wearing the gadsden flag, storming the capitol, but sadly the article does not debate against the fist, that would have been a more enriching reading.
Thanks for the article!
I mean, even if we don’t call it fascism, you still cannot call it anarchism. The two terms are simply mutually-exclusive, as capitalism is a hierarchy. If you get rid of the state but retain capitalism, simply the most powerful company will take the role of the state. The reason we are against the state is because of its dominant position, not because it’s some mythical monster. Anarcho-capitalists seem to rebel against the label, rather than the actual essence of the state. Or, I guess, some might genuinely believe that capitalism is in fact not a hierarchy and somehow can provide free and equal society. But I dunno how to deal with delusion.
Thanks, that whas the explaination I was looking for. As I undertand you refer to anarchism to the lack of hierarchy.
What I can tell you from other side to give you other perspective is that ancaps don’t go against hierachys, just want that all the interactions are voluntary, understamdig the state as a non voluntary interaction thet needs to be desolved and that is the pont in common I see with other flavours of anarchysm.
I wouldn’t call it delusion, just a lack of common terminology between schools of thougt that leads to missinterpretations from both parts because of a poor interactions between both sides.
Well, what I called a delusion is the potential belief that capitalism is not a hierarchy, or somehow maybe a fair hierarchy. I think it is an obvious fact that capitalism needs poverty to exist. The fact how some people are rich and others are poor is capitalism working as it should. Even if you look at the Great Depression, when it happened the economy was much freer. Then Roosevelt started implementing regulations, and it (in combination with WW2) launched America into half a century of economic progress. Then, starting with Reagan, these regulations were being taken down one by one, thus freeing up the market again, and that led to the 2008 recession. These are all documented facts that you can find from even centrist sources. But even on the larger scale, America was able to stay rich because it intentionally kept other countries poor. Because you need poverty for capitalism to exist. This is a video I like that kinda breaks down the basic issue of capitalism: https://youtu.be/i-VsLNOduJA We don’t really want no interaction with Ancaps (at least I don’t). Because we don’t see their school of thought as being in any way compatible with ours. Every single branch of Anarchism rejects capitalism. I would even say capitalism is in fact a bigger problem than the state. Perhaps the state’s main role in modern society is to maintain capitalism. So the differences between Ancaps and the rest of Anarchists are irreconcilable, as far as I can see.
Whant to break down a few things goin on
Why you say that? “capitalism needs poverty to exist” given thet people are different in capabilities is reasonable to espect difference in outcome of welth for each individual. That also fit with the well known “Prices law” (not refered to the price of something) that show that in all fields the 10% of the people produce the 50% of the outcome, and since welth is not a cero sum game, even if you improove your income over time, if othes improove faster if you look in relative terms seems like someone is taking thing from other people.
I’ll take a look at that, thanks for sharing.
Some really good reading to understand the counterintuotivness of things in economics is “Economy in one lesson” (Henrry Hazzlit)
If other improve faster or have more capabilities and wealth is based on it, you set the current elitist society which, even sharing the same world, gives more rights to some people than other and in most cases the less-capable people will have greater needs.
I set cooperation instead of competition.
Welth is based on what other members of the society are willing to give to you voluntarily either for free or in exchange for a product or service, so to be succesfull mean to be someone trully usefull for your society (people gives things to you because they value more what you give to them rather than what they are loosing)
If what you want is the same output no matter what imput you give to the society, the you have killed the only incentive to do something rather than nating.
If what I do it gives me the same “output” (wealth, house, car, status, health, etc…) then why would I ever do anything?, because doing something certainlly cost more resources than not doing it, and that is a statement in wich we may agree.
That is why you can’t just say if you need something you automatically have the right to have it, an that sadly apply even to the basic things we need to survive, it is just a matter of inventives. The only real solution in those cases of people in need is to put our money where our mouth is and help out of our own pocket, but that came at a cost of manifesting and quantifying “how much” (time, money, etc…) we really care about people in needs, wich is awful to our self image if we don’t like what we see ourselves doing.
I don’t agree with this point. That is leaving the things to the casuality.
If you are more capable and get more things in the end, that is not being equal with me as I would receive less (in this hypotetical case).
You should lose (wanting or not) in order to fit my needs too. In the opposite case, you should not be part of the society.
The same would apply if I was the person with advantages. That idea is pretty close to the social darwinism if not the same.
Human rights is based on our interests to ourselves if you remember.
Would you explain this a little more please?, I dont quite understand the main idea
“If you are more capable and get more things in the end, that is not being equal with me as I would receive less (in this hypotetical case) because of the lulz. This is to try to show the faulty sense”
“You should lose (wanting or not) in order to fit my needs too. In the opposite case, you should not be part of the society”
Lets say we both live in that society, one in woch that statement is morally true, then ¿What would keep me from “needing more” and think: "no need to provide to myself, society will do it for me?
“certainly, an utilitarianist justification (you consider something good or wrong based on the relationship between the benefits and detriments to you).”
What we are discussing is at the core utulitarist (of not we would be discussing moral values that cant be really discussed, you either accept a moral sistem or not, at the second you start to explain “why someone should accept the moral sistem X” you are making an utilitarist point.
Whay I’m trying to explore are the consecuences of adopting one moral sistem over other, for example:
What would be the incentives withing a moral sistem that states that you have the right to have something if you need that (even if you need to take it from other). I think that since the concept of need is a very foggy and subjetive ond plus the nature of our mind tends to find a way to unconciously rationalize almost anything we see as beneficial for us (see stanley milgram experiments on obedience to authority), unther such moral sistem the outcome is a constamt war to show that I need more than you, and the better at that game will be benefit more at the expnse of the people that is capable of “not need anything” to put it simple.
Beware of relating correlation with causation, effects in economics are often late and difficult to relate to its real causes.
In your 2nd paragraph;
I think that is kind of a misconseption. You hardly will find any ancap (a properly readed one) that will defend the state as we know it nor any form of it, becaus it is not based in voluntary cooperation, I belive that would be a point in common with other anarchys variants.
Capitalism is not inherently hierarchical, human societies are… Capitalism is simply a description of an economic system, and economic systems are reflections of more fundamental forces in societies.