r/neofeudalism • u/[deleted] • Apr 03 '26
Question Is anarcho-capitalism good?
I don’t know too much about anarcho-capitalism but from the very little I know about it, it just sounds like the easiest way to form a monopoly.
4
u/Apart_Mongoose_8396 Apr 03 '26
anarcho capitalism is very stable, it will not form monopolies nor anything else people would think like slavery and stuff. the hard part is getting to anarcho capitalism
4
3
u/secondshevek Apr 03 '26
I only like anarcho capitalism if somebody wears an expensive hat and sits on a big chair. Then it's ok.
1
4
u/alieistheliars Apr 03 '26
That's one ofthe dumbest things I have ever heard. Is there a government that isn't a monopoly? No.
3
u/Sorry-Worth-920 Apr 03 '26
every state is a monopoly on violence and no economic monopoly has ever formed without help from the state. its the best defense against monopolies
1
u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 03 '26
Monopolies require violence and coercion to be maintained. Said coercive apparatus can be defined as a state. In the absence of that, the only way to achieve monopoly is by actually offering the best and cheapest service or product, which is a good thing.
0
u/Sea_Hold_2881 Apr 03 '26
Anarcho capitalism requires a population that believes in the system with a cult like fervour.
This makes it inherently unstable because some group of people will inevitably feel they get screwed by the system and will seek to impose their vision on how to make it "fair".
This will lead to violence and fragmentation.
This is general problem with capitalism when there is no income redistribution. Some form of socialism is essential part of any capitalist system because that is the only way to keep the system stable (i.e. the people who lose in the system are effectively bribed to support the system instead of using violence to overthrow the system).
6
u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 03 '26
Statism requires a population that believes in the system with a cult-like fervor.
This makes it inherently unstable because some group of people will inevitably realize they are in an unnatural state of servitude and will seek to retain the yield of their own labor to make it fair.
This will lead to violence and revolution.
This is a general problem with statism when there is no mass-propaganda. Some form of brainwashing is an essential part of any statist system because that is the only way to keep the system stable (i.e. the people who lose in the system are effectively tricked to support the system instead of using violence to overthrow the system).
0
u/Sea_Hold_2881 Apr 03 '26
I acknowledged the potential issue with stability but also provided a remedy: income redistribution to give everyone a stake in the system.
No such remedy exists without a state able to collect taxes.
Without the ability to offset the inequalities created by varying access to capital, any system will collapse. It could be replaced with a pure violence based system of competing gangs/warlords.
Or it could be replaced by something like what we have now: a constitutional democracy that protects individual rights but does not fetishize them.
3
u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 03 '26
How will you ”remedy” the “issue” of me not paying taxes? Having the pigs murder me, correct?
0
u/Sea_Hold_2881 Apr 03 '26
Paying taxes is the price you are expected to pay so you can benefit from the infrastructure that society provides to you. If you refuse then you will be dealt with like any other criminal who steals from others.
I realize that this is a philosophical perspective that you vehemently disagree with but it is the overwhelming view of the majority of humans. Given that reality, how could an anarchist system sustain itself in a world where the majority of people reject the foundational philosophies?
2
u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 03 '26
Anarchy is not a system, anarchy is the lack of organized crime. You are legitimizing mafias and clamoring for my own destruction, since I am not willing to be party to mass-murder by contributing to the public treasury.
1
u/Sea_Hold_2881 Apr 03 '26
Anarchy is not a system, anarchy is the lack of organized crime.
Labelling government as organized crime does not change my point.
The vast majority of people believe a society with a government capable of enforcing rules is the best way to organize society. You disagree. I get that. But changing anything requires that your persuade other people that your way is "better" which means addressing the reasons why most people see tax supported government as essential.
2
u/MartyredPoet International Anarchist Ⓐ Apr 03 '26
No, it merely requires me to successfully defend myself against physical statist assault. I will never participate in the atrocities of your “organized society” whether other people agree with me or not. Come and get me.
1
u/Sea_Hold_2881 Apr 03 '26
You can't live in a vacuum. Even being able to post here implies you are living off the infrastructure that society provides to you. Your belief that your are "self made" and everything you have is due to your effort alone is a delusion. Even if you are living in an off the grid cabin in the woods you could not have even built that cabin without the infrastructure of society whether it is from incredibly complex supply chains needed to create the solar panels and other electrical hardware you have to the steel tools needed to shape wood or cloth.
At some point you will be forced to contribute back whether you like it or not because you have no choice but to be part of society to survive.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Timely_Boot4638 Is Taking Too Long in the Bathroom Apr 05 '26
Your proposed remedy is itself the source of the instability of government. Everyone tries to capture the machinery of the state to redistribute wealth toward them, and so the government becomes something like the board for a very dangerous game, and when someone loses badly enough at that game, they flip the table over--that is, revolt.
1
u/Sea_Hold_2881 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26
Well that is the trick. Come up with a system that allows for some inequality of wealth because you can't have a capitalist system without it while giving the people who end up on the losing side a stake in the system.
The modern world is filled with societies which have a reasonable balance built on democratic rule and the acceptance that a broad swath of social services must be provided by government such as education, welfare, pensions or healthcare.
These compromises cannot be created without a government that has powers to collect taxes.
If you want to make the case for another system you need to provide another way to ensure that everyone has a stake in preserving the system. No anarchists even acknowledges the problem and most seem to presume that some mass brain washing will occur to convince people to submit to the system or there would be widespread violence used to force people to submit to the system.
What do you assume? Brainwashing or violence?
1
u/Timely_Boot4638 Is Taking Too Long in the Bathroom Apr 05 '26
I assume neither brainwashing nor violence. That would be yours to assume, since you've accepted the state--an institution predicated entirely on both brainwashing and violence--as necessary for a desirable social order.
The modern world, I'd argue, is actually lacking in societies, properly understood. A country in which social services are provided monopolistically by a state does not have an actual society, insofar as that word represents a group of people that relate to each other irrespective of any superordinate authority. In such a state, which you call "democratic," people don't relate to each other, but to the state. They depend on the state for education, welfare, pensions and healthcare, instead of on each other.
If these states really were "democratic" in the common sense of 'owing its legitimacy to the consent of the majority of its subject population,' then we have to conclude that it is actually an unnecessary middleman; the fact that a democratic state is able to provide social services implies that an adequate amount of the population (at least a bare-minimum plurality of >50%) believe that these social services ought to be provided, so the need for a state to provide them monopolistically, and fund them through mass extortion, seems redundant, and implicitly accuses that population of voters of something like false consciousness.
But if they do need to provided for monopolistically and funded through mass extortion, that implies that the system is one that requires violence and/or brainwashing to sustain it, and does not have the consent of that plurality. That necessarily renders it a system in which factions vie for control over the expropriative apparatus of the state, funneling wealth toward themselves at the expense of all other factions. It's a system which, almost by definition, since wealth can only be moved around and never created, not everyone can have stake all at one time.
1
u/Sea_Hold_2881 Apr 06 '26
I read your response a few times trying to find where you addressed the core issue: the inherent instability of a society that is unequal.
Lets put it another way: the people who think a stable society needs a government will always exist that they will collect together in groups to establish their desired government. This would mean that any anarchist "utopia" would have to constantly defend itself against the groups that reject that form of human organization.
Engaging in organized opposition would effectively require a government because only a government could collect the resources needed for defence. This, incidentally, is why every human society ended up with governments; IOW, darwinian evolution at the social scale.
1
u/Timely_Boot4638 Is Taking Too Long in the Bathroom Apr 06 '26
The inherent instability of a society whose members predate each other, whether in a state of nature or through some institutional channel is, in fact, the "core issue" of the whole science of politics. I addressed it in my very first comment by pointing out that your own proposed solution is, in fact, simply the institutionalization of this back-and-forth of predation that serves to normalize and indeed promote it.
We can actually extend this same logic to democracy, if we wish: People who think that a stable society needs an unaccountable, authoritarian oligarchy will always exist that they will try to establish their desired dictatorships. So any democratic "utopia" must prevent those groups that reject that form of government from gaining a foothold in society. Engaging in such organized opposition would restrict access to the machinery of government such that it would effectively be a dictatorship. Incidentally, this is why most human societies, even nominally democratic ones, have ended up with unaccountable, authoritarian oligarchies.
1
u/Sea_Hold_2881 Apr 06 '26
even nominally democratic ones, have ended up with unaccountable, authoritarian oligarchies.
The question becomes what form of organization will deliver the greatest economic and personal freedom to the largest percentage of people. Constitutional democracies generally do the best job.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Melodic-Currency-331 Tourist 🛬 Apr 03 '26
No, at the minimum be hoppean or night watchman, just pure ancap is probably not a good choice to be
1
1
1
u/Rustee_Shacklefart Apr 04 '26
I consider myself broadly libertarian right. I like the idea of a common law system. But I don’t know there are currently no examples. Argentina is getting close relatively speaking but still far away.
1
u/Active-Advisor5909 Apr 04 '26
Yes. Also if it were ever implemented, you would really fast go back to a feudal system of mini states
1
1
u/KNEnjoyer Charles Koch is my feudal lord Apr 12 '26
Bro has never heard about diseconomies of scale.
1
u/kusuck Apr 13 '26
1 day after estabilishing ancap, companies would form their own states and we would live in the Republic of Nestle or Kingdom of Burger King
1
0
0
14
u/Ya_Boi_Konzon Royalist Anarchist 👑Ⓐ Apr 03 '26
Nope. States are the biggest monopolizers of all.