I agree the more decentralized the better. And the government is just a business with the worst incentives - evidenced by other, more efficient businesses following their own incentives to protect their interests by lobbying the government to use the impetus of legal violence. The existence of the government provides the avenue for corruption. There isn’t a great workaround, the Constitution was the best attempt and a single clause enabled the federal government to argue for basically everything it does.
Best just to nix the idea of an institution that can legally demand resources regardless of how well they perform their job.
And yeah, sorry about the seriousness- I’m no fan of billionaires but they can theoretically exist just by providing things people want. The government, with taxes and wars, figuratively and literally suck the blood out of people.
When we started talking, I didn’t notice your username. If I did, I would have taken a different non reformist approach, so this is a bit messy because of me.
I think power corrupts, and I mean almost any level of power will make a person go insane(in a sane looking way).
Capitalist institutions will prefer to keep govt style arrangements with no power to the pretend democracy so they can protect themselves from themselves in a basic contract style way. What we see lately is the libertarian/ancap/conservative group gaining power. As they gain power, the govt becomes the capitalists puppet and rejects democracy entirely.
The correct way to handle this in my eyes is for a cultural shift where everyone reduces allowed max power. The govt is plato’s shadow of the peoples will. It’s currently being coopted by capital more and more. The corruption you speak of, is capitals power over us.
It seems to me we have fundamentally different ideas of what capitalism is. To me, capital is savings - immediate consumption forgone to create something which provides more in the future. I haven’t yet encountered an argument that isn’t reducible to a complaint against the way market mechanisms interact when the government is involved.
I agree about reducing the maximum wieldable power to the greatest extent possible. I think we just disagree about what this actually looks like. The problem is that any institution which would deign to be the authority on this matter is the very one where power coalesces. A system wherein no one single entity has the ultimate authority is the only one that won’t get worse on this over time. The participants should be governed by the incentives inherent in the system, not the dictates of one of the participants.
Anarcho-pacifism is a very respectable political position, btw. I think studying economics from the Austrian school would at least give you a better idea of where ancaps are actually coming from.
First, I want to say that I’m very happy with the way you are civilly discussing this. I’ve had constant bad faith arguments from practically everyone that’s disagreed with me, and I think you are the first since I’ve made this account that’s acted in good faith. Thank you.
It seems to me we have fundamentally different ideas of what capitalism is. To me, capital is savings - immediate consumption forgone to create something which provides more in the future. I haven’t yet encountered an argument that isn’t reducible to a complaint against the way market mechanisms interact when the government is involved.
The official view, is that capitalism is an economic system that allows the private ownership of capital(capital in this case is the means of production etc).
My view is that capitalism is just another form of authoritarianism involuntary hierarchy, that consolidates more power(money/capital) into fewer hands. It’s inherently totalitarian and self strengthening.
Just like a large scope government will be corrupted easily, large corporations will ultimately end with the most bloodthirsty parasites at the top, as decent people will not be willing to be as ruthless.
I agree about reducing the maximum wieldable power to the greatest extent possible. I think we just disagree about what this actually looks like. The problem is that any institution which would deign to be the authority on this matter is the very one where power coalesces. A system wherein no one single entity has the ultimate authority is the only one that won’t get worse on this over time. The participants should be governed by the incentives inherent in the system, not the dictates of one of the participants.
To me, I want to see people chose to progressively reject power structures and power in all forms. Obviously it will take generations to build culture around it, and we will only meaningfully start while under duress as we currently are. I totally agree that institutions will be useless for the reduction in power, which is why cultural change and peaceful communication and education are key. There is a reason our masters want us fighting and uneducated.
Money/currency itself is inherently evil in the form that its power to corrupt and change things, it’s easily abstractable, collectable, worshipable . Money itself, just like any institution has powers to progressively self corrupt, which is why I want to minimise them quickly.
Anarcho-pacifism is a very respectable political position, btw. I think studying economics from the Austrian school would at least give you a better idea of where ancaps are actually coming from.
Thanks :)
I’ve learned a bit about ancap theory, and am willing to do a bit more research and googlin’. The issue is that what I know, says: Ancaps are a co-option of anarchist thought, to hijack some anarchists, or slander the anarchist movement as a whole. I feel that ancap ideology makes no sense in the way of capitalism and anarchism being absolutely in disagreement with each other. Capital(ism)/money is naturally hierarchy forming in a very bad way.
I truly see ancaps, libertarians and conservatives as fundamentally being the same thing. The minimisation of government to maximise corporate powers. Their minimisation of government power is seen by us as the corruption of money, and corporate influence in politics.
I’m happy you are doing the same, and discussing civilly. It’s the only way we can understand each other. Hopefully the quality of discussion will be better on this platform - I think I had a grand total of three or four legitimate conversations on Reddit over the course of several years, so at least we’re off to a decent start.
And yes, you’re right about the definition of capitalism. The terms capital, ownership, private, and means of production are unfortunately not that clear when people coming from different perspectives have different definitions of all those component parts, so I was trying to phrase a bit of my perspective of it in less ideologically-loaded terms.
It’s not surprising you’d feel that way about anarcho-capitalism if you believe money is evil. I think money is man’s greatest invention, the foundation of peaceful cooperation, and primarily good.
I know you already touched on it, but could you explain in more detail why you think money is inherently evil? My view is - there are a very limited number of ways people can interact with each other to obtain things they need or don’t have. If you wish to obtain something from someone else, the fundamental options are trade, beg, steal, or enslave. Outside of reshaping the nature of man into one of complete selflessness, I think the only consistently good option there is trade - which money enables us to do very efficiently. That’s probably already a lot to unpack, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.
It might be easier to describe why money causes problems by contrasting with an alternative.
A simpler society could enjoy socialising and bartering for trade.
A simpler society could freely give what they make and refuse to help people that don’t contribute.
A complex society could run computer models to automate and simplify advanced logistics, while still giving everyone personal control within reason.
A complex society could break down into much smaller communities and democratically decide allocations of work, with minor threats of authoritarian interactions.
Money can absolutely help start and simplify trade, and in the early days it was likely beneficial. Money these days though, has become a religion of sort, where people don’t know how things interact other than monetary value. They don’t get the benefits of social interactions through the hardships of barter, they can detach socially like a billionaire can, and even buy friends and status, charity orgs and can ultimately manipulate so much of their lives, that they destroy aspects of themselves with it.
There are tons of reasons why the USD is toilet paper for example. It used to be money, and now its currency. That change slipped past most peoples awareness because of how complex this system is. Corruption through excessive complexity. Secret doubling of USDs over the last 4 or so years wouldn’t even be known by a quarter of the people here.
Bonus trump projection quote from twitter. iirc “The Chinese yuan has been weaponized to hyper-inflate at the pull of a trigger, invalidating their debts”
I think simple trade and letting go of a complex life is fun and enriching. We as kids will clean up for fun, until the first time we are forced to :P society is the same. Id just fix the pothole if it was a dirt road. Bit harder these days as id probably break something by putting dirt onto a bitumen road. I want to work a bit in many fields, but under this current system i have to “win” a job and abuse myself in the process, just to be a slave under totalitarian workplaces.
Now I have a question for you. How do you feel about companies being the most totalitarian aspect of our lives?
We show up or get fired.
We need a doctor note or cant have a day off/get fired.
We dress and act how directed or get fired.
We work when told, for as long as told or get fired.
Now all this in combination with most other work places being just as bad, and poor social safety nets. You realistically have to submit or die. I take their control as threats against my life, no different than slavery. We do have some options, but they are really bad most of the time. Nothing can really allow an average person without luck to break free of cycles of poverty and submission to totalitarian businesses.
Also, we spend most of our lives realistically tied to, or at work. The freedoms I lose from work exceed the freedoms I lose through direct govt action.
Agreed on USD (or any government currency for that matter) being basically toilet paper. Real money is historically a physical commodity, and it’s perversion here is a function of the State. It’s nothing new, even kings in the past would debase their currency by literally shaving coins to be smaller and making more for them to spend themselves. The problem here again is the State, but I guess you probably don’t need convincing of their shortcomings, being an anarchist yourself.
I think this view of barter is a bit romanticized, and I’m not sure you are fully accounting for what a barter society can sustain. Complex production processes are the result of many intermediate steps throughout which prices in terms of a single unit of account are necessary to function. For example, computers cannot be produced in a barter society. It’s actually impossible, and that’s true of even the most seemingly simple goods. I recommend a short essay called “I, Pencil” by Leonard Reed which demonstrates this idea using a #2 pencil. Considering the hardships barter introduces, I’m actually surprised a pacifist would advocate for it. The more difficult it is for a person to get what they need to survive, the more likely it is they become desperate and violent.
I don’t think it’s possible to buy friends. Money can buy a lot, but friendship, love, and happiness remain outside its purview. You can perhaps buy the appearance of friends, but that’s a sad thing to do.
I don’t think a job is totalitarian at all. I know it’s easy to take for granted the infrastructure that we have in an industrialized society, but work is necessary to live. If it didn’t exist, you would have to procure food, shelter, and clothing on your own and then nature would be oppressing you. Work is just a fact of life, and at least we have the option to go somewhere for half a day and procure everything we need to survive and more. Obviously, some jobs are better than others, and you do actually have the option of making up your own job. You just have to provide something people are voluntarily willing to pay you for, because whatever it is you would like to do that day may not actually provide value to anyone else. Whether it does or not is revealed to you through the actions of others when they choose to give you their resources in exchange for what you provide. A job simplifies this difficulty by allowing otherwise non-entrepreneurial people to engage in productive activity (that is demonstrably valuable) without the risk of loss inherent in trying to do this on your own.
What I find to be oppressive is a third party inserting itself into these interactions and demanding a cut. Day after day, every time I would like to make an exchange, they are collecting their tribute.
Thank you for providing your perspective. I really do recommend reading some economics texts. The best work is Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard which is a beast of a book, but I understand Choice by Bob Murphy is easier to digest. It seems to me we have a similar mindset - in that we want people to be better off and especially hate war. Best of luck to you, friend
I agree the more decentralized the better. And the government is just a business with the worst incentives - evidenced by other, more efficient businesses following their own incentives to protect their interests by lobbying the government to use the impetus of legal violence. The existence of the government provides the avenue for corruption. There isn’t a great workaround, the Constitution was the best attempt and a single clause enabled the federal government to argue for basically everything it does.
Best just to nix the idea of an institution that can legally demand resources regardless of how well they perform their job.
And yeah, sorry about the seriousness- I’m no fan of billionaires but they can theoretically exist just by providing things people want. The government, with taxes and wars, figuratively and literally suck the blood out of people.
When we started talking, I didn’t notice your username. If I did, I would have taken a different non reformist approach, so this is a bit messy because of me.
I think power corrupts, and I mean almost any level of power will make a person go insane(in a sane looking way).
Capitalist institutions will prefer to keep govt style arrangements with no power to the pretend democracy so they can protect themselves from themselves in a basic contract style way. What we see lately is the libertarian/ancap/conservative group gaining power. As they gain power, the govt becomes the capitalists puppet and rejects democracy entirely.
The correct way to handle this in my eyes is for a cultural shift where everyone reduces allowed max power. The govt is plato’s shadow of the peoples will. It’s currently being coopted by capital more and more. The corruption you speak of, is capitals power over us.
It seems to me we have fundamentally different ideas of what capitalism is. To me, capital is savings - immediate consumption forgone to create something which provides more in the future. I haven’t yet encountered an argument that isn’t reducible to a complaint against the way market mechanisms interact when the government is involved.
I agree about reducing the maximum wieldable power to the greatest extent possible. I think we just disagree about what this actually looks like. The problem is that any institution which would deign to be the authority on this matter is the very one where power coalesces. A system wherein no one single entity has the ultimate authority is the only one that won’t get worse on this over time. The participants should be governed by the incentives inherent in the system, not the dictates of one of the participants.
Anarcho-pacifism is a very respectable political position, btw. I think studying economics from the Austrian school would at least give you a better idea of where ancaps are actually coming from.
First, I want to say that I’m very happy with the way you are civilly discussing this. I’ve had constant bad faith arguments from practically everyone that’s disagreed with me, and I think you are the first since I’ve made this account that’s acted in good faith. Thank you.
The official view, is that capitalism is an economic system that allows the private ownership of capital(capital in this case is the means of production etc).
My view is that capitalism is just another form of authoritarianism involuntary hierarchy, that consolidates more power(money/capital) into fewer hands. It’s inherently totalitarian and self strengthening.
Just like a large scope government will be corrupted easily, large corporations will ultimately end with the most bloodthirsty parasites at the top, as decent people will not be willing to be as ruthless.
To me, I want to see people chose to progressively reject power structures and power in all forms. Obviously it will take generations to build culture around it, and we will only meaningfully start while under duress as we currently are. I totally agree that institutions will be useless for the reduction in power, which is why cultural change and peaceful communication and education are key. There is a reason our masters want us fighting and uneducated.
Money/currency itself is inherently evil in the form that its power to corrupt and change things, it’s easily abstractable, collectable, worshipable . Money itself, just like any institution has powers to progressively self corrupt, which is why I want to minimise them quickly.
Thanks :)
I’ve learned a bit about ancap theory, and am willing to do a bit more research and googlin’. The issue is that what I know, says: Ancaps are a co-option of anarchist thought, to hijack some anarchists, or slander the anarchist movement as a whole. I feel that ancap ideology makes no sense in the way of capitalism and anarchism being absolutely in disagreement with each other. Capital(ism)/money is naturally hierarchy forming in a very bad way.
I truly see ancaps, libertarians and conservatives as fundamentally being the same thing. The minimisation of government to maximise corporate powers. Their minimisation of government power is seen by us as the corruption of money, and corporate influence in politics.
I’m happy you are doing the same, and discussing civilly. It’s the only way we can understand each other. Hopefully the quality of discussion will be better on this platform - I think I had a grand total of three or four legitimate conversations on Reddit over the course of several years, so at least we’re off to a decent start.
And yes, you’re right about the definition of capitalism. The terms capital, ownership, private, and means of production are unfortunately not that clear when people coming from different perspectives have different definitions of all those component parts, so I was trying to phrase a bit of my perspective of it in less ideologically-loaded terms.
It’s not surprising you’d feel that way about anarcho-capitalism if you believe money is evil. I think money is man’s greatest invention, the foundation of peaceful cooperation, and primarily good.
I know you already touched on it, but could you explain in more detail why you think money is inherently evil? My view is - there are a very limited number of ways people can interact with each other to obtain things they need or don’t have. If you wish to obtain something from someone else, the fundamental options are trade, beg, steal, or enslave. Outside of reshaping the nature of man into one of complete selflessness, I think the only consistently good option there is trade - which money enables us to do very efficiently. That’s probably already a lot to unpack, but I’d like to hear your thoughts.
It might be easier to describe why money causes problems by contrasting with an alternative.
Money can absolutely help start and simplify trade, and in the early days it was likely beneficial. Money these days though, has become a religion of sort, where people don’t know how things interact other than monetary value. They don’t get the benefits of social interactions through the hardships of barter, they can detach socially like a billionaire can, and even buy friends and status, charity orgs and can ultimately manipulate so much of their lives, that they destroy aspects of themselves with it.
There are tons of reasons why the USD is toilet paper for example. It used to be money, and now its currency. That change slipped past most peoples awareness because of how complex this system is. Corruption through excessive complexity. Secret doubling of USDs over the last 4 or so years wouldn’t even be known by a quarter of the people here.
Bonus trump projection quote from twitter. iirc “The Chinese yuan has been weaponized to hyper-inflate at the pull of a trigger, invalidating their debts”
I think simple trade and letting go of a complex life is fun and enriching. We as kids will clean up for fun, until the first time we are forced to :P society is the same. Id just fix the pothole if it was a dirt road. Bit harder these days as id probably break something by putting dirt onto a bitumen road. I want to work a bit in many fields, but under this current system i have to “win” a job and abuse myself in the process, just to be a slave under totalitarian workplaces.
Now I have a question for you. How do you feel about companies being the most totalitarian aspect of our lives?
Now all this in combination with most other work places being just as bad, and poor social safety nets. You realistically have to submit or die. I take their control as threats against my life, no different than slavery. We do have some options, but they are really bad most of the time. Nothing can really allow an average person without luck to break free of cycles of poverty and submission to totalitarian businesses.
Also, we spend most of our lives realistically tied to, or at work. The freedoms I lose from work exceed the freedoms I lose through direct govt action.
Long reply, excuse the mess.
Agreed on USD (or any government currency for that matter) being basically toilet paper. Real money is historically a physical commodity, and it’s perversion here is a function of the State. It’s nothing new, even kings in the past would debase their currency by literally shaving coins to be smaller and making more for them to spend themselves. The problem here again is the State, but I guess you probably don’t need convincing of their shortcomings, being an anarchist yourself.
I think this view of barter is a bit romanticized, and I’m not sure you are fully accounting for what a barter society can sustain. Complex production processes are the result of many intermediate steps throughout which prices in terms of a single unit of account are necessary to function. For example, computers cannot be produced in a barter society. It’s actually impossible, and that’s true of even the most seemingly simple goods. I recommend a short essay called “I, Pencil” by Leonard Reed which demonstrates this idea using a #2 pencil. Considering the hardships barter introduces, I’m actually surprised a pacifist would advocate for it. The more difficult it is for a person to get what they need to survive, the more likely it is they become desperate and violent.
I don’t think it’s possible to buy friends. Money can buy a lot, but friendship, love, and happiness remain outside its purview. You can perhaps buy the appearance of friends, but that’s a sad thing to do.
I don’t think a job is totalitarian at all. I know it’s easy to take for granted the infrastructure that we have in an industrialized society, but work is necessary to live. If it didn’t exist, you would have to procure food, shelter, and clothing on your own and then nature would be oppressing you. Work is just a fact of life, and at least we have the option to go somewhere for half a day and procure everything we need to survive and more. Obviously, some jobs are better than others, and you do actually have the option of making up your own job. You just have to provide something people are voluntarily willing to pay you for, because whatever it is you would like to do that day may not actually provide value to anyone else. Whether it does or not is revealed to you through the actions of others when they choose to give you their resources in exchange for what you provide. A job simplifies this difficulty by allowing otherwise non-entrepreneurial people to engage in productive activity (that is demonstrably valuable) without the risk of loss inherent in trying to do this on your own.
What I find to be oppressive is a third party inserting itself into these interactions and demanding a cut. Day after day, every time I would like to make an exchange, they are collecting their tribute.
Thank you for providing your perspective. I really do recommend reading some economics texts. The best work is Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard which is a beast of a book, but I understand Choice by Bob Murphy is easier to digest. It seems to me we have a similar mindset - in that we want people to be better off and especially hate war. Best of luck to you, friend