A Message To My Anarcho-Capitalist Friends

Since I have been asked so much I will now issue a formal appeal on why I made my conversion from Anarcho-Capitalism to Libertarian Socialism.

First, in-case your not entirely sure what Libertarian Socialism is, it can be summed up quite well in just one statement:

The abolition of as much hierarchy as possible.

Now my reasons:

1. The Educational System

As I have a described in one of my earlier blog-posts, I reeeally despise the system we have now. Not the matter of which it is privately or publicly funded but for the reason that most all of them being based upon “learning” via indoctrination. It does this through a coercive hierarchy. This is my single most passionate political issue and I feel the system we have now must be abolished.

2. The Vice of Manipulation

Anarcho-Capitalism is all centered around abolition of the initiation of force. While I was an Anarcho-Capitalist this seemed to me to obviously produce the most free and consequentially efficient society. But what it utterly fails to take into account is the possibility of manipulation; trickery. Lets face it, the average person is a sucker and that’s why we’re even in the mess we are now. More injustice has come out of government due to people just not knowing any better than that which has come from simply being over-powered. Voluntarism is just not enough. If we all freely decided to enter into contract with a complete dictatorship that certainly wouldn’t be in our best interest nor make us any more free. The educational system is one such manipulative entity and as such, I believe, is the Capitalist business model. The owner of a business is able to decide not to work yet also make more money than any of the workers he hires, simply because he owns the property and convinced the workers to go along with it. The richer he gets the easier it is to get richer, while the workers are left only making just enough to get by. And not to mention if they do anything against his all-righteous will than they are fired.

3. Government = Business/ Business = Government

Both governments and businesses offer a product and/or service in return for revenue. The only difference is that, IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, governments primarily use force while business primarily use manipulation. An Anarcho-Capitalist government however does not use force, it becomes purely a business operating upon consent. But Anarcho-Capitalism again completely forgets about manipulation. If your an Anarcho-Capitalist just think about this; would you freely enter into a dictatorship? If not, than why would you enter into a business controlled absolutely by one dictatorial person? Because you need a job? Aw, well..you see in that lies the problem, they have the upper hand, you have not very much freedom at all to choose. You may ask, “Well it would be great to be in a business that wasn’t governed like a dictatorship but where would I find someone willing to make such a business?”. Aw, you see, after that I must ask you this; if you cannot find such a business than where would you find such a government? Since governments in your system have been reduced to mere businesses, this means they also have an owner; one who possesses the guns and other utilities of government. The answer is now clear even from Anarcho-Capitalist theory that revolution is in order. If no one is to make a non-dictatorial government than you must use force to make it yourself. OH NO! You may be saying now. But I say to you don’t worry, it is not an initiation of force but that of retaliation. Retaliation from what? From manipulation. In order for us to really be free we must include voluntary manipulation within our theory of force so that it can be revolted against in order to obtain more freedom. To trick someone, even though they voluntarily submit, is the same exact thing as to force them to do something they normally wouldn’t. So now I ask you; if you indeed see now as I do that businesses are also governments, even according to your very own Anarcho-Capitalist theory, will you continue to submit to it?

Comment if you have any questions or statements.


3 Responses to “A Message To My Anarcho-Capitalist Friends”

  1. In a non coersive, producerism world, the bosses are the consumers, the leaders are the ones that lead the producers. If the producers don’t like the leader, they can go find another or change the leader. Its as simple as that. The consumers have the power. The educational system would be a business just like the auto repair, the donut shop, the restaurant. If the consumer doesn’t like what is going on than they can shop and go elsewhere, or try to work with the leaders with-in the school to make the them happy.

  2. minarchist Says:

    “Anarcho-Capitalist government”? That, my friend, is an oxymoron.

  3. Misteriousness Al Says:

    The only trickery or manipulation is fraud. Anything categorized as trickery or manipulation other than that could be as well called “persuasion,” which may or may not involve logical discourse. By this standard, I would say you yourself are as well tricking and manipulating me and therefore holding a form of hierarchy over my thoughts. Would that be a valid statement? Ah, and of course humans are victims of circumstance. To liken having a limited set of jobs, whether they all involve dictatorial bosses or not, to slavery, the State, or hierarchy is equivalent to making the statement that humanity is a slave to..nature itself. But no! Jobs do not have to be dictatorial, so it is not akin to nature, you may say. However, the thing is that these types of jobs arose out of voluntary association, i.e. from the bottom-up. Why? Because the one’s who have control in a society are the consumers: the one’s who consume, which also includes producers. It is a true democratic system. To liken consensually-arising structures to slavery, is thus like equating nature to slavery, and like equating agreement to disagreement. Every agreement involves persuasion and circumstance, whether ordained by coercion or consent, and thus, by your standards, all interactions, regardless of their nature, involve manipulation and trickery. In the end, you thus set an impossible standard. If both consent and coercion is slavery, than the act of being alive is slavery. But you hesitate to respond with insurrectionist suicide. Nay. Instead you propose the use of force to disestablish “manipulation and trickery,” ironically. Which by anarcho-capitalist standards, is authoritarian, and by your standards (and most leftists’ standards), just as authoritarian (and, seemingly then, correct) as voluntaryism. So what are you driving towards? In the end, your self-defeating perspective degenerates into a nihilistic egotistic politic that has no clear goal in mind, since it does not discern action. In a situation where I consent to follow someone who claims he can see when I am blind, and he is the only person there, is it you who has the authority to say he is taking advantage of me? And if I profess he is, does it look like I care? If I profess he is, why did I choose this path? Is it not because I think the benefits outweigh the costs of doing otherwise anyway? Don’t I want this out of all contemporary possible alternatives? And if I force this person to lead me–is that good? Or if he forces me to follow him? If they’re all equally unethical, then what is there to do? Nothing. That’s what you’re reasoning leads to: nothingness. Your anarchy does not serve anything but what become lies dressed up in semantic rhetoric. “Libertarian socialism” does not exist. Co-ops can exist. Syndicates can exist. But a whole, consistent, permanent socialist society can only be even attempted, through use of coercion. There’s nothing “libertarian” about that. Anarcho-capitalism is not enough: choice is not enough. Bottom-up consumer defined structures are not enough. We must have a top-down structure decided by some elite individual or group of individuals. We must add institutionalized force into the stew. Otherwise, an ideal pure socialist society is, in practice, pretty impossible or limited without recourse to force (which, in the end, will fail, since liberty [or “choice” I should say] reacts) and use “self-defense” as euphemism for it. That is what you have turned to.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: