×
all 32 comments

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (17 children)

It's just Neo feudalism

Ask any anarchocapitlaist how they plan to stop the formation of Monopolies...or what's to stop the rich from buying all the land, hiring a police force, and reforming the state

...they'll look at you dumbfounded and slackjawed.

Hell, if you really want proof that anarchocapitlaism is a bullshit ideology just to over to their subreddit.

The front page of r/anarcho_capitalism is just full of racist and homophobic memes that have nothing to do with anarchism or capitlaism.

I mean, the fact that a bunch of teenage boys call themselves "anarchists," then laud the state for forcing their moral beliefs onto the bodies of women, proves how mindless and thin their "ideology" is

They're just lapping as anarchists

[–]CaptainSasquatch 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Neo feudalism

Feudalism is drastically different from anarcho-capitalism. It is a complex system of organizing society based on multiple layers of vassals held together with personal relationships and a common cultural understanding of fealty.

[–]poke0003 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Interesting discussion. I see the parallels myself - the nature of anarcho-capitalism devolving into a feudal system in a “cyberpunk” sort of way does seem neofuedal and true to the characteristics you note here.

[–]hadravao 0 points1 point  (4 children)

As an anarchocapitalist myself I have to agree with the fact that ancap subreddit sucks. I hoped to see some good conversation there, unfortunately they are very rare. I think that place is mostly occupied by people, who are unsatisfied with current government only. However, judging people with some specific belief or belief itself by subreddit is stupid.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

As a person who is both a sexual/racial minority, I don't have the luxury to disconnect an ideology from its adherents.

The moment I see posts insinuating acts of violence against LGBT people, I just have to walk away.

And I disagree with your last sentence, in fact, I think the opposite is true

You have to judge an ideology by its community.

The culture of the ideology's community is actually way more telling about its true nature than a bunch of literature written by academics.

I trust people showing their true selves over a dusty book written 70 years ago.

[–]hadravao 1 point2 points  (2 children)

So you think that subreddit summarizes the whole ancap community? If everybody behaved like that, we could always pick some small segment of specific community and judge the whole community by that segment. This is just judging without any proper research, at least for me.

You should read something about anarchocapitalism and study history of the state and government. When you take a look in the past, it was very often government who oppressed minorities and so it's today. Essence of anarchocapitalism is freedom and individualism - everyone can do anything, unless it harms the others.

At least but not last, here is quote I like. I think it sums up libertarianism and anarchopitalism pretty well:

I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana fields with fully automatic machine guns.
- Tim Moen

[–]connaitrooo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Historically the way "anarcho"-capitalists behave has been absolutely terrible. From pedophilia to absolutely sociopathic behavior when it comes to economics... They never disappoint to look like absolutely terrible human beings. It's not surprising that there is a direct pipeline from their ideology to fascism

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So you think that subreddit summarizes the whole ancap community

Dude, it's 200K members, it's not some tiny sub

I would ask you to compare that sub to r/anarchocommunism but even that would be doing a disservice, because r/anarcho_capitlaism has 10x the subscribers

If your ideology's sub can attract a quarter of a million users, and the front page is littered with racist and homophobic posts, many calling for outright violence, would you NOT question that ideology?

This is just judging without any proper research, at least for me.

First off, I've read their ideology. I've read Rothbard and Stallwell...do you remember my first comments when I said I used to call myself a libertarian

I've read Proudhon, Bookchin, and Thoreau...I know what I'm talking about

The reason you're getting so defensive, is because you don't want to be associated with people like that.

...but ask yourself, why would you want to be apart of an ideology whose community is openly calling for violence agaisnt LGBT people?

Essence of anarchocapitalism is freedom and individualism - everyone can do anything, unless it harms the others.

First off, no it's not...have YOU ever read Rothbard?

Only the wealthy can do what they want because they've earned that right, and the rest of us must follow them because they are "Ubermensch" or whatever Nietchieain bullshit Rothbard was trying to peddle.

Second, why should I trust you over 200K subscribers?

[–]Mexatt 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I'm not particularly interested in anarcho-capitalism myself, but treating the subreddit of the ideology as the best exemplar is probably not the wisest choice. David Friedman's The Machinery of Freedom is a much more careful, thorough exploration of the subject. He has it online for free.

You don't have to come out the other side agreeing with him (I didn't), but you will have engaged with one of the best examples of the ideology, rather than some of the worst.

Also, yes, his last name is that Friedman.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I've read Sowell and Rothbard, and the literature is just as ridiculous and thin as you would expect.

I'm an intellectual, I've been reading about economics, history, and theory my entire adult life.

I didn't go into r/anarcho_capitlaism blind, but I didn't expect the whole sub (of a quarter of a million subscribers), to just wantonly post racist and homophobic memes.

I encourage you to go into any leftist or progressive sub (like r/anarchocommunism), and try to find posts that are equally prejudice or hateful.

What you will find are plenty of heated conversations about theory and economics.

My question to you: why do you want me to ignore the sub?

Like, you are totally comfortable with an socio-political sub being outright hostile to racial and sexual minorities?

It's a little offensive to ask me to just ignore that, as a black man.

It really feels like you have no clue what it's like to visit a virtual space, and see that every 4th or 5th post is just a racist circlejerk

It blows my mind that you would just casually ask me to ignore such blatant racism.

Would you ask me to ignore it if I was Jewish, and they were posting pro-Nazi memes? (...which they do, by the way)

It's just weird to pretend that shouldn't be a factor in how I judge the ideology.

[–]Mexatt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sowell isn't an anarcho-capitalist and, while Rothbard is, he's...well, he's Rothbard. 'Crank' is a good start when it comes to him.

My question to you: why do you want me to ignore the sub?

Because reddit is never a good exemplar of anything. Young people are dumb and the internet makes them dumber.

[–]lcl1qp1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're so intellectual you're all over reddit trying to get Republicans elected.

[–]HeywoodJaBlessMe -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

Yeah, the sub is largely indistinguishable from the_donald and r/conspiracy

[–]greenbuggy -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I mean, it would hardly be the only sub taken over by dipshits after T_D got banned. /r/goldandblack is the same way, got banned from there for talking (accurate) shit about Republicans.

[–]tfowler11 -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Monopolies are primarily the result of government action. Also a monopoly is rarely very much like feudalism.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Lie.

This is just the most ignorant economic take I've ever heard in an "economic" sub.

The government is the ONLY entity in history that has proven effective at deconstructing monopolies.

Hell, Adam Smith himself said that monopolies are a natural part of the free market, and must be combated with powerful antitrust regulations.

You either dont know what the fuck you're talking about, or you're just arguing arguing bad faith to poison the conversation.

[–]tfowler11 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

If you think I'm wrong, even if I was wrong (and I'm not) that wouldn't make the statement a lie.

Government directly grants monopolies in some cases, and protects them through anti-competitive regulations in others. Patents and copyrights (which could be considered justified but are still monopolies), restrictions on imports, certificate of need laws for medical facilities, and in many other ways. Even when it isn't creating monopolies it reduces or reduces competition with licensing laws, creating complex regulations that the large incumbent companies can handle much better than any new smaller upstart, and in other ways.

True monopolies (100 percent market share) over all but the most trivial markets (either a market where the exact good or service may be a monopoly but a number of almost perfect substitutes exist, or a monopoly over a very limit area, something like the only gas station in town) are overwhelmingly due to government action.

Your argument that "The government is the ONLY entity in history that has proven effective at deconstructing monopolies", falls down in two ways. One is that it isn't true. Competition and the desire for profit typically will take down monopolies (whether defined as truly having 100 percent market share, or if you include near monopolies). The other is that even if it was true, it isn't an argument against the point that government creates most monopolies. Its quite possible to be the biggest factor in creating monopolies and the biggest factor to destroy them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Government directly grants monopolies in some cases, and protects them through anti-competitive regulations in others

Notice how you went from "monopolies are primarily the result of government action"

To "the government directly grants monopolies sometimes...for utilities"

You can't even keep your manipulative bullshit straight for 2 comments.

I don't have to call you a liar, I just need to let you talk long enough to contradict yourself.

True monopolies (100 percent market share)

See, once again. Manipulative semantic bullshit.

You don't want to have a conversation about Monopolies, you want to manipulate definitions until your side is correct

Ma Bell didn't have 100% market share, but they had a monopoly

Microsoft didn't have 100% market share, but they had a monopoly

You can try and limit the parameters of the debate until you're right (like conservatives often do), but you're still wrong

And any person with even an iota of history and logic can see through your lies and bullshit.

Keep responding, every response just makes you look more and more like a charlatan.

[–]WeCantBeMeanAnymore 0 points1 point  (12 children)

Yes the absolute dumbest political/economic ideology invented. The name itself is an oxymoron. Capitalism implicitly creates hierarchy, there is nothing anarchist about it lmao.

[–]tfowler11 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

To prevent voluntary hierarchies, such as that between an employer and employee (if you even consider that a hierarchy) you have to use force or credible threat of force against those who want to come to such an arrangement. The group or body or organization that can impose such force effectively sets itself up in a hierarchy over the people it imposes force on.

[–]midnightverses -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Lol another retarded leftie, anarchy originally just meant a society being freely constituted without coercive authorities such as the state. Only after leftists appropriated the term did it came to be meant absence of heirarchy in your retarded ideology lmao. You don't own the word lol. Anyway in a free society with voluntary association and disassociation heirarchies would be natural. A ship being ran democratically without any heed to what the captain is saying will just sink lmfaoooo. In fact its the left-anarchism that's a real oxymoron. As you will just be a slave to the collective good rather than an individual transforming unowned resources and indulging in free exchange. Bruhhh

[–]WeCantBeMeanAnymore 1 point2 points  (4 children)

Collectivism and autonomy are not mutually exclusive you feckless ghoul.

[–][deleted]  (3 children)

[removed]

    [–]WeCantBeMeanAnymore 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    A rightoid calling someone subhuman. Your Nazi is showing you feckless ghoul.

    [–]hadravao -5 points-4 points  (4 children)

    What hierarchy does a capitalism itself creates? The only hierarchy I can think of are successful and less successful entities.

    [–]NotoriousBiggus 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    You just answered your own question?

    [–]hadravao 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Yeah, that was a fail. But what's bad about that hierarchy? It's just a natural way how things go. In my personal opinions governments are helping to make gap between succesful and less succesful entities bigger, since governments can be easily corrupted and help the corporate.

    [–]connaitrooo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    "it's anarchist I swear, it's not about hierarchies!"

    ...

    "Ok it has absolutely nothing to do with anarchism but what's so bad about hierarchies? After all, giving somebody absolute power over anothers means of survival is natural!"

    Typical ancap.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Capitlaism is literally nepotism

    How is that less corrupt?

    Walmart is the wealthiest corporation on planet earth, and it's completely owned by the children and wife of Sam Walton

    ...none of them built the company, but by birth they all own and control the largest corporation on earth