Another one that confuses me to no end is how anarcho-capitalism isn't a paradox? Capitalism is inherently authoritarian while anarchism is libertarian. They are opposite ends of the same spectrum.
Capitalism isn’t the most precise term to use, honestly - it’s an economic system, not a social system.
Capitalism is not in any way “inherently authoritarian”. That assertion is false on its face - it basically boils down to private ownership of property and voluntary exchange. The means through which those things are ensured is outside the scope of an economic system.
I may differ from most ancaps in this respect, but I don’t think so - I don’t expect that we could flip a switch tomorrow, eliminate the state, and live in peace. In most places, it would be violent chaos.
The key thing to implement a stateless society is to change the root expectation that a central authority is a necessity. That happens over generations, piece by piece.
I don’t want to overthrow governments - I want them to wither away due to lack of interest.
It's a differentiator from "pure" anarchy (which is opposed to hierarchy in relationships) and the other more specific subsets like anarchy-communism (which rejects private property).
The idea that is shared is that individuals own themselves, and therefore own the product of themselves.
Why do you feel so strongly about it that you have to derail the discussion with a cheap/petty jab that adds very little to the conversation? At least in this thread it was mostly civil and borne out of curiosity on the topic.
It's akin to me saying "Oh, such a lovely well-functioning government and society you have there that allows X-thousands of people to die of treatable medical issues every year and Y-thousands of people to be living on the streets homeless and without any assistance, and watches idly as millions die of malaria and hunger across the ocean".
I expect it - it always happens in public discussion of extreme ideas. I either ignore it or use it as an opportunity to clarify my own thoughts on the subject and to share them with others who are reading the thread.
If I’m correct, my conviction is that my ideas will win in the end. That will require them to be spread to a public as a whole, and “cheap/petty jabs” draw eyes. This discussion honestly rather unlikely to change any minds, but if it does, I doubt it it will happen through throwing insults.
The fact that you yourself call it an extreme idea should be a dead giveaway that it probably isn't tenable. When designing a system always be sure to design from the perspective of the losers as well as the winners. Being a loser in an ancap world would be one of the shittiest lives one could imagine.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
“Extreme” only means that it’s outside what is currently in place and what is generally accepted. I’ve arrived at an extreme political position because that’s where logic has lead me, not because it is extreme. It gives me pause, but my position has been only reinforced by introspection and discussion with others.
> When designing a system always be sure to design from the perspective of the losers as well as the winners. Being a loser in an ancap world would be one of the shittiest lives one could imagine
I don’t disagree - but I would also point out that being a loser in our current system is no walk in the park, and that being poor isn’t the only way to lose. At least in the system I envision, there’s recourse against the dominant powers in more cases than there is today. If you have a serious dispute with the state... you’re pretty much out of luck.
