The government will resist this tooth & nail until the whole thing collapses.
Never forget this.
Topic: The transition to AnCap - page 5. (Read 6697 times)
Never forget this.
If the government would cooperate in it's dismantling, that would be great, but we know that's not going to happen.
That's more or less what happened in the former USSR. When the government realized that the system was going to fail they looted what was left and then voted to disband. 
Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.
Possibly. It really all depends where the equilibrium for a state is. And right now (pre-bitcoin) the equilibrium appears to be a socialistic state. But once bitcoin becomes popular enough, that equilibrium could rapidly change. Just like freedom of press & speech via the internet is changing Syria, Egypt, Russia, etc. At the very least, bitcoin places huge restraints on government's control of currency. Worse case, people just stop paying their taxes. Will bitcoin dissolve governments to AnCap or smaller local governments? We'll just have to wait & see.
Transitioning a Society towards Anarcho-Capitalism is wrong.
Society ought to be transitioned towards Freed Markets. From within the scope of Freed Markets people may choose how they wish to organize themselves (this is where Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Syndicalism, Primitivism, Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Right Libertarianism etc come in).
Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.
Society ought to be transitioned towards Freed Markets. From within the scope of Freed Markets people may choose how they wish to organize themselves (this is where Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Syndicalism, Primitivism, Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Right Libertarianism etc come in).
Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.
You make a good point, that it's actually free markets we want, not a specific method of organizing those markets. But in my opinion, AnCap is the best way to ensure those free markets, because the services which define it are provided on those markets, and it is permissive of other systems within it's framework. "Enforcing AnCap" would amount to enforcing a free market, Which AnCap does quite well on it's own, without a State. Remember that market systems are not mandatory, nobody forces you to sign up with a defense agency, or any other AnCap construct. You're more than welcome to join a commune or arrange yourselves in any voluntary way you choose.
Transitioning a Society towards Anarcho-Capitalism is wrong.
Society ought to be transitioned towards Freed Markets. From within the scope of Freed Markets people may choose how they wish to organize themselves (this is where Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Syndicalism, Primitivism, Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Right Libertarianism etc come in).
Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.
Society ought to be transitioned towards Freed Markets. From within the scope of Freed Markets people may choose how they wish to organize themselves (this is where Anarcho-Capitalism, Communism, Syndicalism, Primitivism, Mutualism, Left Libertarianism, Right Libertarianism etc come in).
Why? Because many people will reject Anarcho-Capitalism and as such it will have to be enforced, through a State, the same problem Lenin and the Bolsheviks ran into. And once you start doing that... you make enemies and you need to protect a central hub (State) so it hires security (Soldiers/Law Enforcement) and then you're right back where you started.
Which is why I (and other agorists) believe that black market solutions are the only ones that will work.
Black market solutions are the only way bitcoin can succeed. There's just not enough incentive for law abiding citizens to switch to bitcoin right now. Too volatile, untested, and complicated. If it wasn't for silkroad, satoshidice, etc, bitcoin would still be worthless. Once those services grow, stabilize the market, and seed more consumer friendly applications, then it will start eating away at white/gray markets. And as gradual & long term as that sounds, I hope it takes over as peaceful as the internet has. But like in a few countries where the internet has spawned violent revolutions, I fear the same for 1st world countries this time around. Freedom of press/speech already existed in 1st world countries so the internet didn't do much but crush mostly non-government businesses. But bitcoin will crush government businesses & they usually don't go down w/o a fight.
That's why I suggest doing it industry by industry, to let those competitors develop.
This all implies cooperation from the government which I just don't see happening. There isn't going to be any planning involved. The government will resist this tooth & nail until the whole thing collapses. Obviously, that isn't ideal, but we aren't going to have a choice. Why would the government support something threatening its existence?
Which is why I (and other agorists) believe that black market solutions are the only ones that will work. If the government would cooperate in it's dismantling, that would be great, but we know that's not going to happen.
That's why I suggest doing it industry by industry, to let those competitors develop.
This all implies cooperation from the government which I just don't see happening. There isn't going to be any planning involved. The government will resist this tooth & nail until the whole thing collapses. Obviously, that isn't ideal, but we aren't going to have a choice. Why would the government support something threatening its existence? We are talking about the death of a huge industry. The US military is the largest employer in the world according to BBC. Not to mention the non-military & state employees and whole other industries built off government contracts/grants. They will not go down without fighting. I really hope people won't resort to violence, but one side is better trained & armed. Maybe bitcoin will start to make the US dollar so worthless that the government will be looted of supplies & resources long before an act of war is declared.
I agree, any small/no government approach would most likely completely fail if implemented in the US right now. These approaches actually benefit from the relative stability we currently enjoy. In some thread somewhere Mathew N Wright made an interesting analogy between different social philosophies and the process of growing up and aging. For an ancap society to really flourish it may be necessary that it is spawned from some more restrictive state, similar to moving out of your parents house.
So really, should we want a libertarian government right now when almost everything is off the charts? I think probably not. The problems are pretty much beyond fixable, it is better to just build things in the background and encourage attitudes to lessen the blow when this non-robust system fails.
So really, should we want a libertarian government right now when almost everything is off the charts? I think probably not. The problems are pretty much beyond fixable, it is better to just build things in the background and encourage attitudes to lessen the blow when this non-robust system fails.
Oh, small government, even no government, could work just fine, here and now, if all the competition were available. With a few notable exceptions, those alternatives to the government systems don't exist, and aren't well known if they do exist. That's why I suggest doing it industry by industry, to let those competitors develop. Of course, developing those competitors in the black market, especially the justice industry, Is a fine alternative, and allows for a "proof of concept" before implementing it in the white market.
Another way of putting the same concept i am trying to articulate is that states are unethical entities, but ethics are a luxury.
I agree, any small/no government approach would most likely completely fail if implemented in the US right now. These approaches actually benefit from the relative stability we currently enjoy. In some thread somewhere Mathew N Wright made an interesting analogy between different social philosophies and the process of growing up and aging. For an ancap society to really flourish it may be necessary that it is spawned from some more restrictive state, similar to moving out of your parents house.
So really, should we want a libertarian government right now when almost everything is off the charts? I think probably not. The problems are pretty much beyond fixable, it is better to just build things in the background and encourage attitudes to lessen the blow when this non-robust system fails.
So really, should we want a libertarian government right now when almost everything is off the charts? I think probably not. The problems are pretty much beyond fixable, it is better to just build things in the background and encourage attitudes to lessen the blow when this non-robust system fails.
Because Rarity apparently can't take criticism, the thread was locked before I could post this. Ah well, it was off-topic anyway.
Fixed.
I think it is important to acknowledge that even if this is the case, immediate transition into a ancap or libertarian structured society may not be a wise decision when starting from as crappy a situation as has been created by our forefathers. The current situation is similar to the 1930s, when Hoover thought that people would help each other out and things like that but didn't understand the extent to which people had been made dependent on easy credit and centralized services to solve their problems.
No, of course, such a rapid change would cause serious social disruption. We may not have much choice, but given the option, I would rather a gradual shift away from government solutions, preferably one industry at a time, to allow society to adjust. The best way would be to simply remove the laws granting those industries government monopolies. Failing that, of course, there's always black market opportunities, but that opens a whole can of worms. Not least of which is making dispute resolution available to the entrepreneurs and customers, since black market means necessarily remove the government courts from the equation.
Government is the only solution to cause of systemic homelessness.
Fixed.
I think it is important to acknowledge that even if this is the case, immediate transition into a ancap or libertarian structured society may not be a wise decision when starting from as crappy a situation as has been created by our forefathers. The current situation is similar to the 1930s, when Hoover thought that people would help each other out and things like that but didn't understand the extent to which people had been made dependent on easy credit and centralized services to solve their problems.
No, of course, such a rapid change would cause serious social disruption. We may not have much choice, but given the option, I would rather a gradual shift away from government solutions, preferably one industry at a time, to allow society to adjust. The best way would be to simply remove the laws granting those industries government monopolies. Failing that, of course, there's always black market opportunities, but that opens a whole can of worms. Not least of which is making dispute resolution available to the entrepreneurs and customers, since black market means necessarily remove the government courts from the equation.
Jump to: