Reading about unabomber manifesto, I started thinking that socialism is bad and that the best system is AnCap.
Not a serious concept and anyone who thinks otherwise is very mistaken.
Can you elaborate further?
Capitalism is almost by definition a tool to create hierarchies. You can’t have an anarchy where the entire economic system generates unbalances of power as a core feature.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Where is this from?
deleted by creator
Lol classic.
There is no such thing as anarchic capitalism, private property is built on authority by private individuals.
Can you explain exactly why do you think that AnCap society would not have ownership ?
Also can you compare that to the current system in real life?
A couple of things you must understand before talking about “AnCap”:
The state, in this day and age, is run by the capitalist class.
“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it ’the reality of the ethical idea’, ’the image and reality of reason’, as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ’order’; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state.” - The origin of the family, private property and the state by Engels
Now to answer your questions:
Can you explain exactly why do you think that AnCap society would not have ownership ?
I didn’t say that. How would it be capitalism if the capitalist themselves didn’t exist? The characteristic of the capitalist class is that it has private ownership of production, it pockets the products of the processes of production. How is this ownership enforced? With violence, laws are made to protect these relations of production and when broken violence is used to enforce them. Who enforces this ownership? The state, through police and military.
Also can you compare that to the current system in real life?
“AnCaps” want the same society we have but without the state, in their twisted mind the state is some commie plot and must be gotten rid of.
What would happen if the state magically disappears? There would be no one to enforce private property, the capitalists would have to enforce these relations themselves by turning into some sort of warlords, imagine a world where each capitalist needs a private army to enforce their property (who would stop their army itself of taking over?), it is literally going back to the past it is comically dumb.
Another point is that AnCaps are grifters, see Milei in argentina for example. He claimed to be an AnCap but he is doing everything in its power to turn argentina into a police state run by the US!
In those two months, the Milei government has signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States allowing members of the US Army Corps of Engineers to operate along the Paraná-Paraguay Waterway, including large parts of the river Plata basin, upon which roughly 80% of all Argentine exports travel. It has agreed to buy $300 million of second-hand, 40-year-old F-16 fighters from Denmark, with the help of US financing. It has also announced the establishment of a US naval base in Ushuaia, on the southern tip of Tierra de Fuego, often described as the last stop before Antarctica.
Accused of selling out his country’s sovereignty for seemingly nothing in return, Milei argued, with a straight face, that allowing the installation of a US military base in Usuahia is the greatest act of sovereignty of the past 40 years since it will strengthen Argentina’s territorial claims over the Antarctic.
You couldn’t come up with an argument against a man with serious mental health issues who terrorized people?
The guy who scored 167 at IQ test when he was a kid?
Sadly logic does not follow emotion.
If you want to argue back, then you need reason to be on your side.
Scoring high on an IQ test as a child means you’re advanced compared to other children. It doesn’t mean you’re going to be a genius as an adult. It also doesn’t mean you can’t have stupid beliefs that don’t work.
Kaczynski’s madness was manufactured through calculated psychological abuse in the Harvard laboratory of one Henry Murray. Look it up, dude.
The unabomber was a reactionary, being good at solving math problems does not make you good at understanding our world.
High IQ doesn’t mean someone is always correct. He was also a test subject in MKULTRA which fucked up his brain big time.
Also, don’t accuse someone else of being illogical when you are using one of the most basic logical fallacies (appeal to authority, ie. “Ted was smart therefore he was correct”)
I am answering his Ad hominem, as he did not dispute the problems raised within the manifesto.
Ah, one fallacy begets another. Very logical debating! Carry on then.
To me if a certain method of organizing fails to give people power over their own needs without infringing on the needs of others than it should be avoided. Privatization of -everything-, which is core to ancap theory, is itself an aggression. The enclosure movement in the UK is a good example. The ‘best’ way for people to organize would incentivize people to be good towards each other and good stewards of the planet. It would not allow one person to gain power over anyone else’s right to exist. You should be highly skeptical of a movement whose theorists support slavery, free market organ sales, etc. which are antithetical to freedom of the individual (at least one person in the relationship is getting the shitty end of the deal).
It will default to despotic states, corporations, or gangs where the one who has the most gold makes the rules.
So, what is the optimal system in your opinion?
Economic system? Anything that has policies to prevent inequalities and massive concentrations of wealth. With the right frame of mind, capitalist, mixed market, or communistic systems can work. Even anarcho-capitalism, if it’s willing to stray from 100% purist theories of the system and allow some structure that prevent the haves from monopolizing economic power at the expense of the have-nots.
Free markets can’t exist without enforcement of rules against violence and fraud. Without such enforcement, race-to-the-bottom effects mean that employment devolves into slavery and all markets in goods become dominated by “lemons” (fraudulent goods).
An actual free market in labor requires limits on what a powerful employer can demand from workers. An actual free market in goods requires protection of customers from fraud, and arguably also from monopolies. Both of these require something like a state, an entity empowered to intrude into other people’s business in order to enforce rules.
Even starting with anarcho-capitalist principles, consistency ends up endorsing a minimal state: see Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. (However, Nozick’s path is not the only path by which a state-like entity could arise; rather than from ‘protection agencies’, we could imagine it arising from labor unions or cooperatives instead.)
In gist, “freedom isn’t free” — if you want to have a free market in labor or goods, you have to have enforcement against those who would deprive others of freedom through force or fraud.
Kaczynski was not an anarcho-capitalist, in any event, but an anarcho-primitivist — whose beliefs led him personally to commit murder, and who endorsed the mass murder of almost all humans. It’s worth noting that Kaczynski was also arguably manufactured by psychological abuse; he was a gifted mathematician until he became the victim of an MK-ULTRA program.
So, what is the optimal system in your opinion?
It’s not clear there is one! One of the nice things about liberal-democracy is that different people can create different forms of social and economic organization to meet their needs and interests. A family business, a worker-owned cooperative, and a publicly traded corporation can coexist in the same economy (and even on the same street). People can start monasteries or communes in the woods if they want to; or move to the big city to seek their fortunes.
But again, freedom isn’t free: there has to be enforcement of individual rights and fair trade to ensure that the most powerful & successful don’t get to run over everyone else with force and fraud. Right now I suspect this looks like some form of liberal social democracy; probably with more worker protections than the US has right now, but probably with less bureaucracy than the EU has right now.
For starters, the name, as well as the “ideal” itself is an oxymoron - anarchism is about abolishing hierarchy, and capitalism is the epitome of it. The two are inherently incompatible, in the same way nationalism and socialism are, and will lead to similar results.
In case you’re not trolling (which I seriously doubt, but still) - stop watching whatever content it is that got you here, the pipeline you’re on leads directly to a bunch of fascists and child abusers.
Bro lead with “after I read a mass murderer’s manifesto,” there’s no way
To be clear, OP said they read about the manifesto, not that they read the manifesto and bought into that.
But
That’s worse!
