does Anarcho-capitalism work?
Does Anarcho-capitalism work?
Elijah Ross
Ryder Powell
not possible.
the exact example of anarcho-capitalism is you wanting dollars for an item and i pay you in grass clippings that you can sell for dollars.
Ian James
No. Anarchy implies that there is no state. In the long-term a capitalistic society will have groups within that naturally develop a power advantage. These groups will use their power to form a state, thus eliminating the "anarcho" of anarcho-capitalism. Whether that state uses its power for good or evil is up to them. Thankfully western states naturally formed from groups who believed in benevolent judeo-christian values
Owen Gutierrez
No
Jayden Watson
What exactly does AnCap actually require to be? Private property and... ?
You could say the world is anarcho -- with individuals competing in the law of the jungle without a hegemony. They're all groping the to find the most efficient and competitive structures to survive. Perhaps nations states were one such structure, nation states being the real owner of the land they possess -- the internal organization being mostly just a competitive advantage or disadvantage.
I dunno, just a thought. If you take AnCap ideas away from the individual and extremely low level that they talk about and look at it in a bigger picture. It kinda looks like it could have created a situation much like what we see now. Capitalism just seems like an organizational process that is highly competitive in that environment. AnCaps don't seem to really talk about rights, but consequences.
Asher Diaz
I'd recommend reading G.K. Chesterton 'The Outline of Sanity' and maybe some of Ted Kaczynski's work. Apart from reading, it really just takes some analysis of how industrialization and the changes in lifestyle even before it have directly resulted in the problems with modernity. TL;DR society's morals and culture are really a product of its way of life (imo)
Quality of life would improve. You are again making the materialist error that reducing physical struggle is the only way to improve quality of life. But that's a whole other argument.
Economics are a separate matter. By this I mean specifically the analysis of the economy, not particularly the economic system itself. as
alludes to, the issue is not whether the conclusions regarding efficiency (i.e. the entire IP argument) are right, but whether you're looking for the right metrics to measure success
I've never read evola nor even a leftist criticism of capitalism.
It's obvious why cultural exchange LEADS to cultural homogenization. Once culture is mass produced and mass spread a much greater amount of people will be consuming a much smaller amount of culture. As well, the methods of capitalism outcompete traditional methods of cultural transmission. They just can't compete. I'll commit a sin and make the very obvious empiric observation: look anywhere where capitalism (or any mass production ideology) has influenced culture and it has degraded traditional, regional, and local culture. Why do you think people around the world increasingly listen to the same music, speak the same languages, watch the same movies?
I already explained how capitalism degrades individuality. It disincentivizes and in some cases makes it impossible for people to sustain themselves without going directly to a market for anything they need, namely to sustain themselves through a wage and to produce (in this case buy) things they need or want.
Austin Collins
a commonly known tenet of ancap is that people follow the "NAP" which would mean that a specifically anarcho-capitalist society would quickly reject the legitimacy of any state that sprung up.
Dylan Lewis
>I've never read evola nor even a leftist criticism of capitalism.
i find this funny because your critiques are textbook marxist criticisms, down to the rejection of materialism and consumerism.
obviously, theres nothing wrong empiric observations but what youre doing is just anecdotal evidence. cultural degeneration is real, but youre wrong to attribute it to capitalism, just like marx was. just because the products of culture is now being consumed globally doesnt mean culture is being homogenized.
the natural utility of human interaction does not degrade individuality
Isaac Stewart
Yes, ignore leafs.
Hudson Price
What do you guys think of an
/ideology debate/ general? Libertarian, Natsoc, Fascist, Communist general don't exist anymore. The board is basically just /news/ now. This could give a good space for all ideologies to be debated and material to be distributed which is rare outside of threads like these.
Elijah Brooks
There's an off chance he was right about a few things or a lot of things, I've yet to read anything by any marxist. In any case, a rejection of consumerism and materialism is something more common in reactionary texts. I've read more austrian economic texts such as by hoppe and Hazlett
Cultural degradation is not a product of capitalism exclusively, It's a product of globalization, which is not entirely tied to any system. I did add my "priori" evidence, as if we assume (it's pretty fair to assume.) that an economically driven and industrialized effort to spread culture is more powerful than informal("folk") cultural transmission so it will have a greater influence than it.
As well, you say that culture being consumed globally doesn't mean culture is being homogenized. I don't know how you can make this observation with any form of sincerity. Anywhere where international culture seeps in it begins to degrade local culture. Do you really need examples? Just look at how many languages are dying, how many countries no longer use traditional dress, how even accents are being lost, how international/nationwide entertainment is much more popular than local entertainment.
>natural utility of human interaction does not degrade individuality.
It doesn't at a (more) natural level. But when an individual can not provide virtually anything for himself (and is strongly disincentivized from doing so) without either working for a wage and purchasing it from the market. The less an individual (or even an individual family or community) produces culture and resources for itself, the more it inherently is subservient to society as a whole, as it is dependent on an outside force (the market) to provide for it. If we don't measure individuality by the level of subservience to society as opposed to onself, then what the hell does it mean?
Evan Johnson
>I don't know how you can make this observation with any form of sincerity.
its just inherently not the case. most of your gripes are essentially the result of imperialism and not anything that could be called free exchange/capitalism.
yes capitalism strongly disincentives self-sufficiency but does not make it impossible, just undesirable. if a person wants to exit society, nothing would stop him. individuality is not degraded
Justin Thomas
With yoeman farmer ethnostates, yes. Otherwise no.
Kevin White
if facilitated by a federalized tribe yes
Mason Torres
Only if we revert to ~100k human species population levels.
Grayson Martinez
Haven't you played any strategy games until now?
At the end, there is only one winner that controls everything.
Josiah Fisher
>its just inherently not the case.
How is it inherently not the case, do you mean it's not inherently the case? I'd disagree for both. Stronger forms of cultural transmission eventually trump weaker forms.
> most of your gripes are essentially the result of imperialism and not anything that could be called free exchange/capitalism.
The mass production of culture is itself cultural imperialism. This is my point in itself. No one is forcing people around the world to integrate culturally, at least not as a whole. But are you going to tell me China becoming more liberal over time and latin america adopting american media is a result of imperialism in any political sense? It's almost entirely handled through capitalism and free exchange of culture.
>yes capitalism strongly disincentives self-sufficiency
I'm glad we can agree on this. We can conclude naturally from this that it results in a society with less self-sufficient communities and individuals, even if you take it to be a voluntary reduction in freedom.
> but does not make it impossible, just undesirable.
It also makes it more difficult. Yes, a community or individual can choose to be self sufficient, but what are the odds they will? It makes it much more difficult for individuals or communities to choose to do so when they are already economically integrated into the free market. They would have to actively work towards undoing their material, "political" ties to the rest of society, which imposes a difficulty which would not exist without this dependence on society.
1/2
Hunter Cruz
>if a person wants to exit society, nothing would stop him.
1. He wouldn't easily have the economic capability of emancipating himself from society if he is integrated into it economically
2. There is no guarantee he can physically find a place to live apart from a society when society incentivizes both growth and codependency.
> individuality is not degraded
self-sufficiency is not made impossible, at least not inherently. But since we have agreed it inherently dicincentivizes it, we should also be able to agree that this creates difficulties in doing so as the hypothetical individual/community seeking self-sufficiency would have less opportunity to find a place where a self sufficient economy exists, or to exit society entirely if there was no alternative.
TL;DR Self sufficiency is directly made more difficult by the existence of a capitalist society, and if we take individual freedom to mean the extent to which an individual can exist without depending on other people (what else would it mean?) then we can conclude it does in fact directly degrade individualism.
Jackson James
>The mass production of culture is itself cultural imperialism
not true
>No one is forcing people around the world to integrate culturally, at least not as a whole
not true historically, arguable today
>China becoming more liberal over time
not true
freedom is not a lack of codependence, it is the ability to do what you please. a voluntary reduction in freedom is a paradoxical concept
Hudson Sanchez
Dominic Brown
besides contracts...
Luke Lee
Jace Cox
>>The mass production of culture is itself cultural imperialism
>not true
I'm not necessarily making an observation as a statement. The same way hunter-gatherers generally lost to industrial imperialism because of inferior technology, folk culture is losing to the "imperialism" of a more powerful force of influence driving it out of existence i.e. commodified culture.
>>No one is forcing people around the world to integrate culturally, at least not as a whole
>not true historically, arguable today
I used my words carefully. Imperialism is generally a thing of the past. The few countries in which imperialism still applies are some of the least culturally integrated countries in the world, like in sub saharan africa and the middle east. Russia, Latin America, Rural America for example has adopted much of western culture without being forced to.
>>China becoming more liberal over time
>not true
How? I'm talking about social attitudes towards gender, sex, etc. No one forced them, but I'd say they're definitely imported ideas.
>freedom is not a lack of codependence, it is the ability to do what you please.
And the free market restricts your ability to do what you please, which is exactly my point. If you don't want to be a part of it, it makes it more difficult than if you already lived independent of it.
Codependency means you have to depend on others to make decisions on what you're going to be doing within society. The more dependent you are on other people, the less decisions you make regarding your own life. The more self sufficient you are, the more choices you can make regarding yourself.
> a voluntary reduction in freedom is a paradoxical concept
I.e. the foundation of capitalism. You agree to be told what to do and to follow orders in exchange for a wage or a payment. You no longer have the freedom of using that time differently. You allow yourself to be constrained.
Samuel Howard
minarchism is better. Anything starting with "anarch..." is an autistic utopia which couldn't work on any town with pore than 5 people.
Leo Sanchez
I hope you're starting to get my point here. I know I'm being TL;DR
Codependency is intricately tied to the "ability to do what you please." the more dependent you are on others, the more other peoples decisions affect you and the less you can make decisions regarding yourself, You can do less of what you want to do.
Being codependent to a degree, is natural, as you've said. But if your goal is to maximize freedom it would require minimizing codependency and would then necessitate rejecting capitalism.
Hope that makes sense in a more compact way.
Asher Carter
Tyler Howard
One last thing:
The alternative is avoiding cooperative as opposed to self sufficiency based economies. This includes NOT collectivizing the MoP. Ideologically this means Individual/Family level production > local economy > National economy> Globalized economy
Hope these two posts are succinct enough, hope I at least made you guys think about it all.
Justin Reyes
We already settled this.
Ryder Martinez
This
Austin Foster
State dont work
Lincoln Watson
no.... if you CHOOSE to be codependent, your freedom is not limited, as the option to remain codependent is left open to you, unless you've previously agreed (voluntarily via contract) to limit your ability to leave in the future. that is why voluntary codependency does not diminish freedom.
the issue here is that you're framing the concept of freedom in a way that is invalid. freedom/agency is not a lack of codependence if codependence is voluntary.
Alexander Mitchell
Sigh, it's really just pointless to argue with you people as you'll always just resort back to "as long as its voluntary".
You didn't define freedom as doing things voluntarily, you defined it as doing what you want to do. Even if you're doing something
"voluntarily", you are limiting your present options *apart* from leaving. Regardless of which the capitalist system makes it harder to leave. So you have two choices here. You can define freedom as the freedom to do what you pleases that is to say to make decisions about yourself, Or you can decide that freedom exclusively means not being physically, directly, violently forced to do something, even if people who offer you the choice are actively working against your ability to make other choices regarding your life. I'm not going to bother with the absolutely absurd views on what constitutes a voluntary choice or coercion.
Let me just explain what you're doing here: You support a system which makes it more difficult to do what you want, that makes it more difficult to make decisions regarding your life, that makes it more difficult to exit society if you want to, that gives other people more power over you the more you participate in it, but you think it's the epitome of freedom because you're not forced at gunpoint to participate in it.
Bentley Martinez
>one post
>no arguement
>flag
>cucked country
>pic related
Charles Moore
Capitalism has nothing to do with freedom.
Noah Wilson
I'd say it requires some pretty heavy deregulation.
Aiden Wilson
It's inevitable.
Hunter Stewart
>Owning and directing your own capital isn't freedom
Idk about that I'm gonna need a citation or some kind of proof to back up this thorough retardation you've just displayed for us all
Evan Miller
Yes.
The power vacuum however will result in people forming collectives and trying to seize power. It only works for as long as there isn't some authoritarian collective.