Anarcho-capitalists - Free markets on steroids, Rothbardian lunacy, and other Ancapistan stupidity

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
Given that your average anarcho-capitalist is a chubby, euphoric, middle class dude who spends most of his time on his ass
Click to expand...
61Vmb60.jpg


https://liberty.me/

Seems they have substantial overlap with Bitcoin Tards.
 
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
I almost envy that level of faith in people; they must have a very pleasant view of the world.
Click to expand...

They actually have a rather dark and paranoid view of the world, where the government is pure evil and stamping on a human face for all eternity and all that shit, but somehow this coincides in a schizophrenic way with the belief that if government is simply abolished, everything will suddenly be puppies and petunias and everyone will get a pony.

That or you have the edgelords who think that it will be a dark, apocalyptic wasteland, they like that idea, and they think their dumb, fat asses will somehow end up at the top of this situation, even though they'd really starve without their Hot Pockets.
 
Anarchism is inherently unstable. A new society would simply arise immediately amongst those who did not want anarchism, and the disorganized anarchists would be unable to effectively oppose them.

Source: all of human history
 
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
1. People who were incredibly wealthy and paranoid before the system fell apart, and used those resources to consolidate power immediately (essentially becoming the new ruling class, which just kinda defeats the purpose).
Click to expand...
I think that they think they are this
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
Exactly. Why would anyone bother with any kind of market in a state of anarchy? You don't need to pay for anything owned by someone who's a worse shot than you are. And if the situation was reversed, why would they offer to let you buy or trade for something? If you had anything they wanted, they'd kill you and take it.
You know, for such an edgy bunch, they're almost overly optimistic. This belief that humans will behave civilly without a society that's built around forcing them to do so is bordering on childlike in it's naivete. I almost envy that level of faith in people; they must have a very pleasant view of the world.
Click to expand...
Very few anarcho capitalists are against policing all together. Generally they are in favor of a free market of force in which there are several paramilitary organizations in a constant arms race with each other and are played off from each other by the capitalist class. Effectively what we have right now but with lower taxes.
Splendid Meat Sticks said:
Anarchism is inherently unstable. A new society would simply arise immediately amongst those who did not want anarchism, and the disorganized anarchists would be unable to effectively oppose them.

Source: all of human history
Click to expand...
I think that anarchism in the form of an opposition to the state as opposed to merely not following the law is incoherent for this reason

I think that this link is of note
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MarySuetopia
 
autisticdragonkin said:
Very few anarcho capitalists are against policing all together. Generally they are in favor of a free market of force in which there are several paramilitary organizations in a constant arms race with each other and are played off from each other by the capitalist class. Effectively what we have right now but with lower taxes.
Click to expand...
But that is, by its very definition, unsustainable.
Let's start with the paramilitary forces. For arguments sake, let's say I'm one such soldier. Why would I defend you for money? By virtue of you trying to hire me, you are uncomfortable defending yourself, so why wouldn't I just kill you and take whatever you'd planned on offering me? There is no reason to work for anyone in a situation where you have a gun, they don't, and they have anything to offer you.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's say you did magically get these paramilitary groups to work without simply raiding their own clientele. Why would they ever compete in a free market? I compete in the free market right now, and we openly try to undercut, outsell, and fuck our competitors out of work, because we want more money. The only reason we aren't burning each other's houses down is that we live in a civilized society, but if you look at places like Somalia, that shit absolutely flies. If there's no oversight, there's no reason to not try to establish a monopoly as quickly as possible, and do whatever is necessary to get rid of competitors.
Anarchy doesn't promote a free market, it promotes a single company owning everything and everyone while the rest of society eats each other.
 
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
But that is, by its very definition, unsustainable.
Let's start with the paramilitary forces. For arguments sake, let's say I'm one such soldier. Why would I defend you for money? By virtue of you trying to hire me, you are uncomfortable defending yourself, so why wouldn't I just kill you and take whatever you'd planned on offering me? There is no reason to work for anyone in a situation where you have a gun, they don't, and they have anything to offer you.
Click to expand...
In order to properly analyze this a game matrix needs to be created looking at the payoffs of different strategies for the soldiers and capitalists. Although the soldiers may get a short term benefit from betrayal they do not get a long term benefit from economic control and will be worse off in the event of such a betrayal. Just look at the mismanagement of the soviet economy by the communist party for an example of this in action. Likewise the capitalists do have the ability to harm the soldiers if they are aggressive to them in the form of lowering their productivity. Technological change can lead to differing outcomes but it is far more likely that the military will lose in the long run rather than the capitalists with the advent of AI drones that require capital as opposed to labor. With this in account it is possible that soldiers will attempt to create a command economy so that the corporations can't make them outdated with drone strikes a la outer heaven but that is highly unlikely since the corporations could just buy off the generals (colonels may be more difficult since there are far more of them so there is a risk of a colonel driven coup).
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
Now, for the sake of argument, let's say you did magically get these paramilitary groups to work without simply raiding their own clientele. Why would they ever compete in a free market
Click to expand...
I don't understand what you mean right now
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
I compete in the free market right now, and we openly try to undercut, outsell, and fuck our competitors out of work, because we want more money.
Click to expand...
Again the market for private security will likely be one that is an oligopoly. There may be a large amount of vertical integration in it in order to secure supply (that is companies have their own paramilitary units under the command of the CEO) or it may involve low levels of vertical integration (the private defense companies are relatively independent from their clients) but the companies will lose if they engage in mass wars. Likely in the scenario of low vertical integration we will see clients putting the defense companies under a large amount of surveilance and hiring multiple defense companies with whom they will share the data of the other companies if they see anything suspicious going on. We need to find the Nash equilibrium of such a game in order to figure out what the world would look like under anarcho capitalism but it likely would be one of a constant cold war utilizing quantum computers in order to search through massive amounts of surveillance data.
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
The only reason we aren't burning each other's houses down is that we live in a civilized society, but if you look at places like Somalia, that shit absolutely flies.
Click to expand...
I would say that the better explanation is that in somalia they don't have the human capital to use game matrices for their everyday decisions.
I don't understand what is meant by a civilized society and I don't think that it has much explanatory power.
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
If there's no oversight, there's no reason to not try to establish a monopoly as quickly as possible, and do whatever is necessary to get rid of competitors.
Click to expand...
The thing about monopolies is that they only easily form under certain conditions such as legal enforcement, network externalities, or large economies of scale. Diseconomies of scale will likely prevent a monopoly of private military companies from forming mostly due to the principal agent problem.
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
Anarchy doesn't promote a free market, it promotes a single company owning everything and everyone while the rest of society eats each other.
Click to expand...
I don't believe that it promotes a single company owning everything as I explained above but a consistent anarchist (or at least anarcho egoist influenced by max stirner) would only care about their own freedom regardless of whether they claim otherwise (and it would be completely acceptable for them to lie in order to trick people into letting them gain power)

EDIT: a note on my opposition to altruism

When I oppose conventional standards of altruism and morality I do so not because I believe that it is always beneficial to engage in antisocial behaviour but rather because empathy is poorly evolved. Although antisocial behaviour can result in a good for oneself as a universal strategy it is a bad idea because it will lead to one being punished. I consider empathy to mostly fulfill the same purpose as the usage of game matrices but it will occasionally lead to being too forgiving and not creating enough of a disincentive from people taking advantage of you and it can sometimes lead to not engaging in competitive behaviour when it is rational. Natural selection would give empathy and no game theory but an intelligent designer wouldn't create empathy if they wanted to maximize fitness. The key adaptation that has enabled us humans to thrive is the advent of memes which can be horizontally transferred in a population in a manner similar to sexual selection, Taking a compatibilist position we can say that humans choose the memes that they express and thus have the ability to be their own intelligent designers and guide their own evolution. Because of this we can and should replace empathy with game theory if we value our own fitness and the trait of valuing one's own fitness will become more common in the population as it will have a significant selective advantage
 
Last edited:
autisticdragonkin has been thread banned, so please don't dignify his drivel with a response. Already tired of his deep thoughts-esque shit.
 
I think we had some of these on the forums, the old deep thoughts thread 'radical politics' has some. Be warned it is stereotypical of the worst of that subs threads and I'm sorry to say that is in part due to my own contributions (i think its one of the only times i lost my temper on the farms). Even still for those who are interested the anarchism stuff starts after a discussion on robot slavery (it is that bad) here:
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/radical-politics.4103/page-3#post-728959
 
Last edited:
Dr. Boe Jangles Esq. said:
These people always confuse the hell out of me.
There have been very few people in the history of the universe who both supported an anarchist society and would survive said society. As I understand it, an anarcho-capitalist society is essentially your middle school for all eternity. Strong rule the weak, every man for himself, and if you mess up you're completely fucked forever. Best as I can figure, the people who would succeed in it would fall into 3 distinct categories:
1. People who were incredibly wealthy and paranoid before the system fell apart, and used those resources to consolidate power immediately (essentially becoming the new ruling class, which just kinda defeats the purpose).
2. Weird, self-sufficient recluses and isolated survivalists who've cut off any attachment to the world.
3. Violent psychopaths, now free of the system that previously kept them from redecorating their block with the corpses of its former residents.

Given that your average anarcho-capitalist is a chubby, middle class dude who spends most of his time on his ass, it's somewhat perplexing that they so strongly support a system in which their new role in society would be a coin toss between "slave/occasional gangrape victim" and "cold cuts".
Click to expand...

I'd do okay tbh.
 
Dynastia said:
You can render their fat into biofuel clean enough to run a diesel engine or tallow for lamps, candles and small cookers. You can also combust their bones into charcoal to forge more abbo-killing spears and arrows.

Trust me I'd do okay.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be faster to just steal the fuel they huff?
 
Mrs Paul said:
Would these be any relation to Randites?
Click to expand...
Yes. I was actually thinking about how sometimes the ancaps tend to crossover quite well with the objectivists. I am sure that objectivists as a whole are something of their own to talk about.

Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand really didn't like each other at all though. Go look up Mozart was a Red. There's so much projection in the below article because I could argue that a lot of the Rothbardian shit is cultish too.


http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
 
Mrs Paul said:
Would these be any relation to Randites?
Click to expand...
It seems they try to outcapitalism Randroids. While the latter want to reduce governmental competence to military, police, jurisdiction (and occasionally delivering the mail), the euphoric ancaps want to privatize everything, including military, police, etc., cuz government sux, anarchism for teh win...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom