Very well said. I am very attracted to AnarchoCapitalist/Libertarian ideals but understand they are most useful as ideas by which other ideas are analyzed. One big problem I can see with it is its rigid individualism allows for mass degeneracy. Things like drugs, abortion, and gay marriage weaken a nation and shouldn't be tolerated, but in a libertarian society those things will be commonplace.
If vices contain their own punishment, why do you need to ban them? (In a society with actual free speech where degeneracy can be discussed openly.)
And if they don't contain their own punishment, then you really shouldn't need to ban them, no?
This strikes me as Jewy semantic bullshit.
Why should I accept your definition of an "ism"?
It's just a etymological artifact that communicates we're talking about an abstraction, the same as -tas, -tatis 3rd declension nouns (libertas, dignitas, nobilitas, e.g.) from Latin get rendered with an -ity in English (liberty, dignity, nobility).
Narcissism is an abstraction of the story of Narcissus. To argue that narcissism is a negation of the self because is has "-ism" in it makes no fucking sense to me.
AnCap criticisms of government systems and authority are fair. However, like u/darth_biden said in his comment, a significant percentage of people are evil, power-hungry psychopaths. So then the problem with the "not my circus, not my monkeys" perspective is that it will inevitably become your circus sooner or later, so a proactive approach toward monkey management is better than a reactive one.
This is fascinating, because I think Dunbar's number is the limit for authoritarian communities. The social bonds do a lot of the heavy lifting in the kibbutz or co-op down the way that your idiot nephew points to as an example of "communism working".
Here's the part I don't understand. Authoritarian societies, regardless or whether they're communist or fascist, are characterised by the centralisation of power, often into one position.
Now, you're right, psychopaths exist. On a long enough timeline (usually not THAT long) you WILL get a Caligula. Stalin WILL kill Trotsky.
Why do we want the power of the state concentrated into one position when, not if, a psychopath takes power?
Yes, and it's far more concentrated than it was in, say, 1800. You're not advancing the claim we live in any kind of a libertarian society now, are you?
You're not grappling with the core issue. If power were as distributed even as it was in the Battle of Athens, we wouldn't have these problems.
(post is archived)