Is Singapore an AnCap society? If not, why are the evils of Singapore being blamed on AnCap principles? There is some sort of logical trick going on there. If two things share a subset of the same properties, then they will share all the same properties, or something.
I don't see any trickery. It's just that all the other countries seem far less AnCap-ish. There's always a lot of theorising going on, but no real-world examples to back up assertions of AnCap's awesomeness.
It seems plausible that the Singaporean leaders see themselves as a very large shipping conglomerate with all sorts of HR and Marketing chores that keep eating into their profit margins. That would mean there is no conventional 'State' in Singapore, just Capitalism. Does that fit the definition of AnCap, or is the "non-aggression principle" a compulsory part of it?
Also its funny that the main criticism of AnCap (which I agree with) is that there is a threat from assholes who want to create governments... yea, exactly. Thats what we want to figure out how to stop.
But that has already been solved. It's not as if there are
so many criminals in society that they can't be dealt with. Just create a State instead, which is run by some of the many normal,
nice people who are also inhabitants and who therefore have a stake in their society's overall well-being. The 'assholes' tend to be opportunists -- lovers of Capitalism -- who look for profitable niches to fill, such as a power vacuum. However, if normal, nice people lend their support to a friendly State apparatus, then the criminals would have a much harder battle.
I wouldn't expect half-assed AnCap to result in the same type of society as full on AnCap, I consider them categorically different things.
Why do you assume it was half-assed? And what are your expectations based on? Past experience? Other, more pleasing examples? You seem to be unfairly writing-off Singapore for aesthetic reasons:
Further, in my opinion, a crucial part of any type of anarchism is that the populace doesn't recognize any legitimate rulers, I don't think how the rulers view themselves really plays a role.
But looking up to our leaders seems like such a natural thing. Even as children, younger siblings look to their elder siblings for leadership. Surely it must be a law of nature, but let's not split hairs about semantics. If "Singapore Inc." markets itself as such, and anyone is welcome to set up their own private police or other organisations that are usually monopolised by States, does that negate the substance of the earlier criticisms? (Namely the moral concerns about bonded labour, and low value of human life and whatnot?)
Think about it this way, to have a successful AnCap society, it will probably have to grow organically from within a successful state. This isn't just because there are already states everywhere, but because the path from chaos -> peaceful anarchy requires passing through a very low probability space. The state can bridge this gap.
Now you're just changing the goal-posts. Since when did AnCap have to organically grow from a 'successful' State for optimal results? What makes a State 'successful'? If it's already successful, why change it? And also, how do you know?
This thread is not the first case of corporations and other profit-driven structures being criticised for being sociopathic or amoral in nature. There are books written about it. Thus, Singapore seems like the perfect prototype to test AnCap's mettle. They're a Capitalist/trade-driven oasis nestled in the middle of Asia, so there's a near-infinite supply of people who want to go there. If everything is left to market forces, who or what protects the sanctity of human life (or other illogical moral stuff) when its market value is super-cheap? To be fair, that's a weakness of Capitalism in general. But it doesn't exonerate
Anarcho-Capitalism, since their proponents always seem unable to explain how the Anarchy part manages to fix anything. Sure, there's the Non-Aggression Principle", but I think they decided not to enforce that.
Half-assed as in does not meet my definition of AnCap. Namely, people still recognize legitimate rulers. I'm sure there are many more reasons Singapore wouldn't meet the definition but honestly I don't know much about that place. The moral problems are problems with states and will be there without states as well. Most of them sound like they are in need of technological solutions (robot maids and plentiful energy). As I said earlier in this thread, this is generations away. In the meantime I dunno, I just know what we should be working towards.
With regards to changing the goal posts, I just gave my personal views without regard to where others have set the "goal posts". Also, "books are written about it" doesn't matter to me. Why would it? Most books are full of opinions and nonsense.
The anarchy part is that people stop accepting that violence is a solution to problems.
Edit: Also, stop making it into some competition. AnCap ideals are to produce useful things for people to the point where a government is unnecessary. Do your ideals discourage you from producing useful stuff, and instead survive via other methods? If not, then we are on the same team.
