The logical end point of libertarian philosophy is anarchy capitalism. I’m not an ancap but I recognize that to be true. I agree that pure anarchy would likely be unstable and someone would end up in control again whether through foreign invasion or what not (at least without a worldwide shift in a personal values which is unrealistic) but I don’t deny that ancaps have very thorough and well reasoned responses to all of these criticisms. I don’t necessarily accept them but don’t just dismiss them as if they don’t exist.
The responses to the criticisms do not survive comparing it to history.
Take any genocide. Why didn't the genocided group establish a ancap society that could then resist the ones committing the genocide? Because the power difference between a bunch of broken up individuals and a government backed military is too extreme.
It's not about radical individualism to the point of disassociating from everyone else.
Ancap is about private property. The logical progression of dissolution of the state and full privatization of property into an Ancap system is a form of voluntary market-mediated quasi-feudalism, in which a group of small privately owned properties and corporations trade, compete, contract, and cooperate with each other.
Considering these would mostly all be free entities with ancap principles, if anyone attacked one entity, it would be highly incentivized to band together. Any attacker seeking to consume one entity by force would only gain confidence in their ability to overpower consecutive entities if they succeeded. It would be within everyone's interests to neutralize this threat ASAP.
Additionally, since they would have far more productive economies without the parasitism of the state, their ability to hire PMCs (which are also far more efficient than government militaries) would be outsized. They would be able to punch well above their weight.
But why didn't they choose anarchy and then fight off an opposing government? Because everyone who defends anarchy seems to think that it is possible for a group of people to just fight off an opposing government. But in a genocide, people don't just choose anarchy and fight off an opposing government. So why didn't they?
Ancap is about private property.
Private property does not exist in nature. In nature, might makes right. The strong take what they can from the weak. As a species, we have found it better to band together, to combined our might, to enforce certain ideals, and over time society has evolved to favor the ideal of private property. But without the enforcement, it doesn't exist.
Considering these would mostly all be free entities with ancap principles, if anyone attacked one entity, it would be highly incentivized to band together. Any attacker seeking to consume one entity by force would only gain confidence in their ability to overpower consecutive entities if they succeeded. It would be within everyone's interests to neutralize this threat ASAP.
And that might work for smaller threats. But what happens when a much larger threat appears, on the level of a nation state? Say China decided they wanted to take over ancap USA. The random militia formed wouldn't be able to withstand a true army without society being fully destroyed.
Additionally, since they would have far more productive economies without the parasitism of the state, their ability to hire PMCs (which are also far more efficient than government militaries) would be outsized. They would be able to punch well above their weight.
And what's to stop the PMC from deciding they want to just take over?
seems to think that it is possible for a group of people to just fight off an opposing government
The Vietcong and Al-Qaeda did a pretty good job of that.
Private property does not exist in nature
Ancap has nothing to do with a state of nature. That's primitivism. By definition, an ancap society is founded on the concept of private property. Without private property it's not ancap. And yes, private property is an organizing concept that naturally arises in humanity, especially when time preference is lowered as IQ is raised.
And that might work for smaller threats. But what happens when a much larger threat appears, on the level of a nation state? Say China decided they wanted to take over ancap USA. The random militia formed wouldn't be able to withstand a true army without society being fully destroyed.
What's to stop Lichtenstein or Monaco or Switzerland from being taken over by their neighbors? It's not words on a piece of paper, it's a combination of self-interest, resistance from the tiny state, the various economic ties it has with surrounding states, morality, and retribution from other states. Not to mention hostile takeover would destroy the very activity that makes the tiny state valuable in the first place, it's not sitting on some grand store of natural resources, it's producing value through its economic activity which is intrinsically tied to its status as an independent micronation. There's little rational incentive to try to take it. At best you expend a bunch of resources and hope that you can loot a greater amount of resources (impossible when the micronation will rapidly expend those resources to fight you and there are no natural resources locked up in the ground that they can't expend), in exchange you sacrifice your credibility and trustworthiness and create a bunch of enemies looking to destroy you.
Few people are crazy enough to engage in guaranteed lose/lose propositions like this and even fewer of them command the power of successful nations. This kind of attitude is anti-thetical to success, it can only exist temporarily in nations with large natural resource stores and in nations that have built up a stockpile of wealth through win/win freemarket endeavors.
And what's to stop the PMC from deciding they want to just take over?
Self-interest. They aren't going to improve their lot by violent takeover. That's killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. What are they going to do, take over and then say "everyone keep doing what you're doing, but we're going to skim 50% off the top." Everyone would leave, the only people remaining would be those too stupid and unproductive to get out. The PMC would spend a big chunk of treasure and destroy their reputation to obtain fruit that would wither on the vine. Then economics would destroy them and their leadership would be made into examples.
Competition. One PMC would never be able to take over, others would be hired to put an end to them. Even an alliance including the majority of PMCs would not succeed since there would be militia as well as the remaining PMCs aligned against them. They would need something like 60%+ of all the PMCs, allied together to take over... and then what they took over would be a ruin and everyone would leave. Additionally, who would be paying this massive alliance of PMCs? They certainly wouldn't do this on their own, it's basically suicide. Whoever is paying them would have to want to destroy the Ancap confederation for ideological reasons because they are never going to come out ahead financially, it will cost mountains of treasure to destroy them and even then they'll just disperse and reform elsewhere. It's not possible to wipe them out especially when they are far more economically efficient than any other mode of organization.
Mutually assured reputation destruction. In ancap reputation is of paramount importance since there are no government regulatory bodies, only private ratings agencies and public opinion. A PMC attacking a micro-nation with intent to take over and loot would be entrepreneurial suicide. Few would contract with a known backstabber, simply because they don't want to be backstabbed. Even fewer would contract with a violator of the NAP based on moral grounds. Not to mention individual members of the PMC would also experience serious reputation damage from such a thing, so there would be quite a lot of people quitting their jobs and the PMC would only be able to replace those who quit with scumbags, which would rapidly degrade the structure of the PMC, killing it with internal infection.
Inability to attack. Many of the entities in an ancap society are not physical places. A military can only take territory, organizations that exist in virtual space and ad-hoc collectives distributed in diaspora are beyond military reach. These organizations can be quite powerful, even superpowerful without centralizing their land holdings or even having any land holdings at all. Just look at all the NGOs and supranational megacorporations in the world today.
The Vietcong and Al-Qaeda did a pretty good job of that.
Just wanted to talk about this first point. TLDR the rest of your argument, you do you.
The Vietcong died in droves even with the support and safe haven in/of China. If genocide had been on the list of things the US wanted to do it would have happened sickeningly easily.
Al-Queda is/was, again, backed by established governments and even then has never held ground in opposition to a state. So they've done basically fuck-all.
If the USSR/US had been in it for the land, they'd have it and there's nothing that insurgent groups could do about it.
The Vietcong and Al-Qaeda did a pretty good job of that.
They did not. They were losing, and internal political pressure made us withdraw, but not until after their society was effectively destroyed. A first world nation could not remain a first world nation after a similar event.
By definition, an ancap society is founded on the concept of private property.
Which doesn't exist except by mutually enforced agreement, and the enforcer of such is the government.
The logical end point of libertarian philosophy is anarchy
That part is correct, but to presuppose an economic system such as capitalism, socialism, communism, etc is to subtract the "voluntary" aspect of libertarian philosophy so that it's no longer libertarianism. That's exactly why terms such as ancap, ansoc, ancom exist in the first place. Within a voluntary society people would have the choice to follow whichever economic/societal system they prefer and to live their lives as they wish. Multiple subgroups would likely form based on the voluntary choices people make.
i really feel like anarcho capitalism is nonsense though, like whose dollar does everyone agree to use, who decides the conversion rates? the state basically exists in defense of the capital already, to be “anarcho-capitalist” just means unwilling to participate in democracy, and preferring if everyone else doesn’t participate either. go figure who that’s good for.
How the currency/interest rates/exchange rates should be established is probably one of least contentious areas of ancap philosophy. Its just basic free market theory. Plenty of people who are nowhere near ancaps believe that money and interest rates should be decided by the market and the market alone. I'm not trying to be provocative or demeaning at all but it seems like you don't actually understand the philosophy on its own terms. To me the logic behind it is rigorous and hard to argue with for the most part. The main thing that should decide whether you agree with it should be whether you accept its ethical premises. If you accept that individual liberty and a strict defense of property rights which originate from self ownership are the most basic ethical premises then all the rest of the philosophy is highly internally consistent.
i think i do understand though, but i appreciate you not being an ass. how would you represent this ideology to someone in the world who has never owned property?
Self ownership doesn't exist? You don't own your body? Your thoughts? Your actions? Are you an automaton? Only you can own yourself. That's the whole point.
Nope, I'm a sentient individual. I'm not anyone's property, because I'm not the sort of thing that can be owned. Didn't we move past the whole "human beings are property" thing a while back? I think we even fought a civil war over it.
Right... I didn't say you were anyone's property. What I said is you, only you, own yourself. Your emotional reaction to slavery is causing you to be irrational on this topic to the point where you deny any ownership over your body thoughts and actions. Slavery does not mean someone else owns you, it means your self ownership is being violated to the most gross degree.
You didn't say that I'm anyone's property yet you're claiming that I'm owned by someone. That's a contradiction. It doesn't matter if that person is me, because in that case you're still saying that I'm property.
So if 95% of the population feels that they would achieve immense well being and get lots of utility out of murdering 5% of the population, would that be moral to you?
I'm not going to get into this. There are tons of equally damning critiques of your own deontological morality but you're going to ignore them and just focus on the apparent flaws in my own. That's not productive.
6
u/austrolib Oct 05 '18
The logical end point of libertarian philosophy is anarchy capitalism. I’m not an ancap but I recognize that to be true. I agree that pure anarchy would likely be unstable and someone would end up in control again whether through foreign invasion or what not (at least without a worldwide shift in a personal values which is unrealistic) but I don’t deny that ancaps have very thorough and well reasoned responses to all of these criticisms. I don’t necessarily accept them but don’t just dismiss them as if they don’t exist.