A Message From the Chief Anarchist For the Anarcho Capitalist Peasants.
I recently came across this meme in a group on Facebook that I feel encapsulates some of the key failings in anarcho-capitalist ideology. I have made several posts previously about the contradictions and denials in the idea of anarcho capitalism, let's recap...
First of all, if you are an anarcho-capitalist fan and are triggered here, just be aware that I have already (as usual) had to reply to several people in FB who use the mindless, standard replies of either:
- You don't understand economics.
- You are a communist.
- Capitalism isn't the problem, the state creates all the problems.
Briefly, here's why these points are an invalid rebuttal to the point made by this meme:
- Disagreeing with capitalist logic and process does not automatically mean you are a communist, support 'socialism' or promote the overpowering of people. The idea that there is only capitalism or communism is short sighted, limited thinking that denies alternatives.
- Part of the point of the meme is to highlight that capitalism itself facilitates overpowering of others through the accumulation of resources in the hands of the few. This is a basic feature of capitalism that exists with or without the 'state'.
- If you are going to claim that anyone who highlights the imbalance and flaws in capitalism simply "doesn't understand economics", then you are going to have to precisely and thoroughly address points 1 and 2 before being able to be taken seriously here.
What Do I Think This Meme Is Saying?
For me, this meme highlights the way in which capitalism is fundamentally an opposite to anarchy and how anarcho-capitalism is basically an oxymoron that contradicts itself.
Anarchy means 'no rulers', which means no power hierarchy that goes against anyone's will. There must be total agreement between all parties if there is any kind of control of one by another - otherwise there is a kind of 'ruling' taking place. Capitalism requires the ability for ownership of land and resources, plus therefore also the enforcement of the rules of the land owner over that land - in other words the landowner becomes a ruler in his/her own jurisdiction (the land he/she owns/controls).
The claim I see made by anarcho capitalist thinkers is most commonly that owning land is not an act of ruling others because it is a situation that has arisen purely through 'free trade' - however, they conveniently 'overlook' the points made in the meme - namely, that if we inherit wealth (possibly vast wealth) - especially from a history that was built up without anarchy and which did involve murder and theft as part of the process of wealth accumulation - then, no, the wealth and land ownership was NOT built up through free trade. Additionally, even if there was some form of a total reset on wealth and we all started again with nothing - building things up by free trade - there would still be a situation where whoever manages to accumulate the most wealth and land can actually control so much that children are born on that land... If the children are born into a world whereby they see hierarchy all around them and that their parents are basically at the mercy of the 'land owner' then they will be imprinted with a sense of power loss and of subservience from birth - this will then go on to weaken them and make it all the more challenging for them to break free from the control from above.
Money goes to money, so this wealth gap will always be hard to correct, just as it is today for the majority of people.
The claim that monarchs are not representative of the free market is irrelevant here, since it makes little difference whether we call someone a 'king' or a 'great trader' - the result is the same in that they get to limit and control the destiny of many people simply because they can control the resources. Failure to acknowledge this is a form of serious denial.
What do you think and feel here?
Wishing you well,
Ura Soul
Vote @ura-soul for Steem Witness!
View My Witness Application Here
(Witnesses are the computer servers that run the Steem Blockchain.
Without witnesses there is no Steem, Steemit, DTube, Utopian or
Busy... You can really help Steem by making your 30 witness votes count!
Don't forget, there are more than the 50 witnesses you see on the witness voting page in steemit.com)
I can not posses the lands i walk on , it's not mine to take .
It's there to provide for my children and generations to come .
I can not sell what is not mine to sell .
An native American answer to a western nation's question .
The Capitalist's took it by force anyway s . singing songs about the land of the brave .
The Native Americans believed in private property. If an outsider tried to make home in their camp without permission, they would be killed.
Private property did not include the land they walked on .
As nomad's they did protect there camp sites yes .
That's called the right of self-defence .
" without permission " can only mean that one uses force to get what one wants .
A healthy community would not let that happen .
Now for you to learn a thing , go and try make home in the cave of a grizzly bear without using any force .
I think this meme is a legitimate criticism of the degree to which many people who identify themselves as anarcho-capitalists have underdeveloped standards for original appropriation of property and what constitutes abandonment of property. All forms of anarchy are based on applying the same ethical principles symmetrically across relationships such that some cannot forcibly externalize the cost of their choices on others.
If I demand that my property ownership must be recognized in the absence of any ongoing detectable maintenance/use relationship between me and the property in question, then I am externalizing the cost of determining ownership onto those who encounter the property I claim.
I don't think it's legitimate to simply claim ownership of undeveloped/unused land. Claiming and maintaining ownership for a person requires some observable mixing of action with the property in question. Whether that action is performed exclusively by the claimant or through consensual delegation to others is no concern of third parties.
To the top my friend.
Homesteading requires one mix their labour with the land in order to have any claim to own it.
It also requires they be personally responsible for the cost of enforcing any such claims.
I'll put up cameras and fences to protect my factory, because it makes me money.
I won't put up fences and cameras to protect 'my' forest, because it doesn't.
'Wealthy landowners' currently enjoy unlimited protection of assets courtesy of the state, with the cost of that protection externalised onto workers via taxation.
End that free ride, and vast tracts of undeveloped land become white elephants.
The way I interpret that meme is saying that 'rent is theft', which is a common argument from communists. It's arguing that people who own and rent out property are enslaving the rest of the population, which I think is false.
If I happen to accumulate wealth legitimately, buy some property, and rent out that property to others, I'm not 'exploiting' or stealing from anyone - provided the interaction is voluntary.
I don't think it's actually referring to kings, queens, and rulers who have took land via conquest, but that's my interpretation. Obviously, acquiring land and wealth through conquest is illegitimate and completely immoral, but that's not what I think the meme is getting at.
Rent is not theft, provided the property has been acquired through honest and non-violent means.
Well said!
I suggest re-reading what I have written in the post because you appear to be doing exactly what I said most commenters do, which is to overlook the points I made.
I might be wrong, but I think the guy who uploaded the meme made it and in the conversation in the comments on fb it was clear he was thinking the same as me here.
"Additionally, even if there was some form of a total reset on wealth and we all started again with nothing - building things up by free trade - there would still be a situation where whoever manages to accumulate the most wealth and land can actually control so much that children are born on that land."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the assumption here is that the accumulation of wealth, or wealth inequality, is inherently wrong, even if said wealth was acquired legitimately. If I make a living buying and renting out property, and my children want to continue in that business, what's wrong with that?
The way I see it, poverty is the natural state of man. Some people acquiring vast amounts of wealth, while others have very little wealth, is not an indication of exploitation or wrongdoing on anyone's part. Provided no coercion, fraud, or theft is used, I couldn't give a damn whether some people are vastly wealthier than others. The world doesn't owe me wealth, or even shelter. It's up to me to acquire those things.
Provided no one is infringing on my free will to acquire those things - shelter, food etc., there is no problem, even if I'm much poorer than you. I couldn't care less.
I generally aim to not make assumptions, though I may do sometimes without noticing. I am pointing at the practicalities involved that result in there being a kind of race whereby the greediest and most cunning are likely to accrue the most, not those who have the most to offer in a balanced way. If my aim is to always ensure that all beings have their needs met - which is a noble aim - then I will not seek to amass huge wealth and ignore those who may not have enough to enjoy life (or even survive at all). On the flipside, those who are utterly heartless will tend to do the opposite and (partially due to a lack of self acceptance - which is spun to be a 'strong will to succeed') will often just strive to gain as much 'wealth' for themselves as possible (and thus power) without much concern for anything else. The main issue is not with wealth inequality, but with the very real reality that those who have the most can (and often do) make life extremely difficult for those with the least (and actually also for as many other people as possible).
My point is not specifically declaring that owning and trading property is wrong or an inherent problem - my point is more about how domination is taking place and overpowering of free will, with land ownership being one of the main vehicles of that domination.
Why do you think that? Is it because you know the intended, original state of humans on Earth? Or is it because you were born into a society and culture that pushes that narrative? I see the lack on Earth as being mostly engineered (manufactured lack).
If the world is naturally the birthright of all beings, then to cordon off some of it and prevent others from entering is an act of theft which is typically enforced using violence. Challenge to this situation is typically stifled through coercion or violence. The Kett's rebellion in England was the first attempt to fight back against the enclosures Act which was the first 'rule' that changed the land from being 'common land' used by all, to being owned by 'land owners'. The rebellion was a minor war in England's history that is rarely mentioned. The monarch at that time brought in battle hardened mercenaries and killed those involved en masse. My point is that the entire premise of putting up fences and having land ownership of this form appears to largely have begun under exactly the circumstances that you oppose.
You will only get them from the world, they are meant to be here waiting for you to claim them - not to struggle to work 9-5 just to have a chance at borrowing them from someone else!
"Whereby the greediest and most cunning are likely to accrue the most, not those who have the most to offer in a balanced way."
This, to me, is another assumption that those who are the most wealthy are 'greedy' and 'cunning' businessmen, with little to no sense of ethics or morality. Just because someone is wealthy, and chooses to spend that wealth how he sees fit, does not make him greedy or cunning. I find this assumption to be deeply ingrained in British culture, which is a heavily socialist-leaning society, hence the cultural adoration of services like the NHS.
"My point is more about how domination is taking place and overpowering of free will, with land ownership being one of the main vehicles of that domination."
Someone owning private property is not a violation of my free will. Everyone, including the Native Americans, valued their own private space, or private property. They might not have used those specific terms, but they absolutely believed in the concept of private property and privacy. If you decided to walk into a strangers camp and make a home for yourself without gaining permission, you would be promptly kicked out or killed.
"If the world is naturally the birthright of all beings, then to cordon off some of it and prevent others from entering is an act of theft which is typically enforced using violence."
The world is naturally the birthright of all beings, and people should be free to travel this beautiful planet. With that said, fencing off some land and making a home for yourself is not an act of theft and need not be enforced via violence. Humans and animals are naturally territorial beings. I like my privacy. I like having a private place I can call home, where yes, I do have the right to fence it off if I wish, and stop people trespassing. Fencing off some land, and making a home for yourself, is not in any way theft, provided I am not preventing others from exercising their free will and setting up their own home.
If everywhere was 'common land', I assume you wouldn't have a problem with someone entering your home and deciding to make it their own? Is your house 'common land', or is it inaccessible to strangers? Do people have a right to just enter your home, with the justification that it should be 'common land', or do you deserve your own privacy and territory?
"Why do you think that? Is it because you know the intended, original state of humans on Earth? Or is it because you were born into a society and culture that pushes that narrative? I see the lack on Earth as being mostly engineered (manufactured lack).!
It has nothing to do with culture, and everything to do with nature. We were born into this world with nothing. No shelter, wealth, and even limited access to food. That was, and still is, the natural state. The question isn't what causes poverty, but what causes prosperity and wealth. Through using our reason and will, we found ways to build shelter and acquire food more efficiently. The world, however, doesn't owe you any of those things. Cosmic Intelligence has ordained nature in such a way that man must work to eat, build, and create wealth of his own. None of those things are a given, for any creature on earth.
"Not to struggle to work 9-5 just to have a chance at borrowing them from someone else!"
For thousands of years, humans beings worked on the farm from sunrise to sunset, just to put food in their mouths. They worked until they couldn't work any more and died at a young age. The poorest people today live better than kings and queens of the past.
We have it easier now than we have at any point in history, in terms of wealth and prosperity.
If you do not like borrowing property from others, then build your own property. There's more than enough land. The only thing stopping you, of course, is the state - not private property owners. If you do not like your 9-5 situation, get another job. The only thing stopping people is their limiting beliefs. Choosing to work 9-5 is just that, a choice. An unconscious one, but still a choice nonetheless.
I think "rent is theft" is a rhetorical flourish. Rent is rent. Rent-seeking behavior is bad, in general.
Rent seeking for capital accumulation is considered a drag on the economy. That's definitely what happens during a surge of gentrification, and it's being opposed by tenants in numerous cities.
The more radical position was Proudhon's famous saying: "Property is Theft!"
Would banning interest be a solution to much of capitalism's drawbacks. Free trade and exchange for money is still possible. Margrit Kennedy has detailed the cost of interest within the economy and how it transfers wealth from 90% of participants to the wealthiest 10%.
Without interest prices across the board drop by 40%, in her estimation.
Margrit Kennedy - Interest:
I am still considering her ideas, so I haven't come to a conclusion on banning usury or on anarcho-capitalism, for that matter, as yet.
The modern fiat and fractional reserve banking system is literally an enslavement system and interest is one of the main causes of the enslavement. There is not enough money in existence to pay back the interest allegedly owed - which therefore guarantees that statistically, many will 'go broke' almost regardless of what they do.
This is not a 'mistake', this is entirely by design!
How do you 'ban' interest in an anarchy though? If some people voluntarily choose to pay interest then that is for them to deal with. In my view, the problem is that they are in the position of thinking they need to borrow money in the first place.
In anarchy, there is no money. At least that's the theory.
I like the point you are making here, in particular, one of no real competition/free market. Consider a reset button and a type of resources accessible to anyone. The first 4 players will grab the resources and turn them into profitable ventures and seek to accumulate most amount of wealth. Players who enter the market later are "late to the game" : They cannot establish their own venture as the market is now dominated by 4 players, the cost of entry is too high, the other players can always outcompete newcomer with lower prices and squeeze them out - and essentially the new players get blocked out from participating in this "free market".
There is a fundamental problem in the system.
Absolutely, yes - there is no mechanism present to correct this within the basic process of commerce and trade. The main practical response I have heard from (a prominent anarcho capitalist on steem) to this is, ironically, along the lines of:
"Do you really think that the people will allow for such domination? They will stand up and rebel/revolt with force!"..
Oh, you mean like a communist revolution? lol
There is no mechanism to incentivize "stopping or reduction of accumulation". Where does it stop? If it's profitable, it never does. Why should it stop, what's the reward?
A good practical example is the Big 4 Telecom companies in the US who own all the cables and the rest of infrastructure. They are doing a bad job, but they have all the infrastructure and the cost of market entry is too high for anyone who wants to setup an independent ISP.
Yes, that is a pattern that applies in many industries, not least anything that involves a requirement for peer reviewed 'science', such as pharmaceuticals and to some extent even herbs and foods - since those who use their wealth to dominate move ever closer to shutting down trade and production of anything that hasn't gone through costly processes that mostly only they can afford.
Empire building is exactly that!
I think there is a fine balance and rarely, if ever, does any one way of doing things work. If someone has a house and by mutual agreement rents a room or the house out, then that's freedom of choice. When things start to become accrued on such a scale that there is no longer any chance of anyone else ever having being able to do anything, but rent, then it's coming out of the realms of free choice. It becomes a monopoly and monopolies don't allow for choice.
On the other side, if you have a bit of land and you produce to provide for yourself and family, but you're now not allowed to own land so anyone is allowed to come go as they wish taking what is grown there, then your labour is potentially lost. So that's not a desirable situation either.
Both capitalism and communism have their merits, at least in theory. Generally communism becomes tyrannical sooner, so we've already seen the outcome of that. Capitalism has only recently become problematic as the more powerful companies are monopolising and the more control they have the more we start looking tyrannical.
The hardest thing seems to be finding a middle ground. One thinks capitalism alone is the answer, another communism, another socialism. They all have their faults and no one way works for everyone. An ideal situation would be everyone having the option to join in with whatever system or community they choose and having the choice to opt out if it isn't working for them.
Voluntarism is essentially the state of being able to freely choose to live in whichever way you prefer and change at will. Everything is done voluntarily.
The problems arise when someone tries to control others and limit their free will - at which point, for them, things are not voluntary. Did I voluntarily agree that x/y/z corporation can stop me walking on what they say is their property (that may once have been a forest that my grandparents played in?) - absolutely not - so from my pov, it is valid to say that such systems of control and ownership are not voluntary at all.
In fact, the moment anyone lays claim to land and says that others may not enter, they are forcing their will on others who may not agree. They are literally saying "No, you don't get to decide whether or not you want to live totally free on this planet, you must abide by my boundaries and rules, whether you like it or not". That is not anarchy!
In an ideal world, to my mind at least, we wouldn't need to worry about ownership because everybody would have enough respect to consider that others have the right to make use of everything too and curtail their own use to what is necessary instead of using in excess. Unfortunately this isn't an ideal world, so it's no surprise when people want to be able to keep what they've worked for, especially when the example they see is what it currently is.
In some ways it probably comes down to tolerance levels. Why begrudge ownership if that's what someone feels they need to survive, as long as it causes no harm or impact on others? The hard line to draw is where that starts to impact others. If someone had a belief that capitalism/communism/ socialism is the way for them, then who am I to judge as long as it doesn't impact me or others? My issue is when others feel that their way needs to be forced onto everyone else. I agree that voluntaryism is probably the closest description we do have to a live and let live situation.
Just a point of fact, at the height of the Gilded Age, the US engaged in replacing governments in the former Spanish colonies in Central America, mainly to benefit the United Fruit Company.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/United_Fruit_Company
So, capitalism turned toward implementing tyranny abroad by the late 1800s, not more than a couple centuries into its existence.
But, before it did that, it created slavery for Africans in the Americas. That predated capitalism a little bit, but not by too much. It wasn't "government tyranny", but it allowed slaveowners to implement private tyranny at a small scale, or, sometimes, in the cases of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, medium to large scale.
The governmental folks who founded the government kept their tyrannical actions to their own households, where they certainly engaged in torture regularly, for the sake of agricultural productivity, and possibly their own personal entertainment.
Excellent post. I have seen a lot more of "people often making assumptions" lately in debates, usually ones claiming that you are part of the opposite version of their own personal belief system.
.
Will money retain its current status of one and only real god and one world religion or not? I think not, if we were to live in a truly free society that has reached a higher state of consciousness. We have to consider this, in my opinion.
There seems to be a greater question here: What is the nature of man? (I use the term "man" inclusively... female, male, trans, etc.) It seems to me that if we are, indeed, the products of nature, Natural Man, then it seems that "survival of the fittest" is the rule and the norm. Certainly this appears to be what humans have done in that we have dominated all other animal species on the planet, or are in the process of doing so; and we do so with each other. It matters not what institution, religion, government, corporation or endeavor we are engaged in, the few will rise to the top, while the many, the masses will remain at the bottom, with another group of aspirants jockeying for position on their way to the top. Currently I'm a (55) for example... working my way up. But will I ever make the top 1%? Not likely...for various reasons. Let's look at Steemit for example: a million have signed up. How many remain? (I've forgotten the number.) Fewer than 100,000 to be sure, and of those less than 1% are Whales or Orcas. Of course we modify our purely animal behavior here somewhat by implementing Cooperative Abundance: by lifting others up we lift ourselves. (Notice that the general motivation for lifting others is that we too are lifted. So even with this, our strategy is "survival" leading to dominance within this system. And so it goes in virtually all human endeavors. And those at the top definitely have more "property" than I do. And I/we must admit that the more Steem the better! Right? If not, then let's head back to Facebook.
What is anarcho-capitalism if not this very stratification of the "fittest"? And, if the world were by some miraculous means to become a paradise of anarcho-capitalists, would not the masses be just as they are now with a new Elite meeting annually in Acapulco? Perhaps a more benevolent elite, but still... Don't get me wrong, I am not denigrating those who are anarcho-capitalists. I know there are many kind and benevolent people among them. But really, little changes.
Here on Steemit we see the masses fade away and with disdain call their meager attempts "Spam".
So what are we then? What are humans? Are we something greater, more loving, more spiritual than we have been to date? Are we in the deepest sense possible One, all part of a Cosmic Source? And if that is true, then what we must do is raise our collective consciousness where we know and behave accordingly, with love, compassion, and all those other higher level behaviors. Are we capable in that state of consciousness to rise above the idea of personal property? I don't know, but in the meantime Personal Property remains the foundation of freedom.
However, a nasty unanswered question still remains: what of the masses? Out of our benevolence do we give them a "universal income"? Manna from heaven so to speak.
Back to the animal paradigm for a moment: If we are only animals, then what's the big deal? We glorify those who rise to the top of sports, of religion (Popes and prophets and Buddha's), of governments (Kings, Queens, Presidents), or even the Scout Troop (Senior Patrol leader), Military (Generals and Admirals) and of industry and finance (Jobs, Musk, Bezos and the hidden Elite), and so forth. Don't we put these, the few, who own vast amounts of property on a collective pedestal?
A quote regarding private property from Ludwig von Mises: "There is no experience to show that any other social system could provide mankind with any of the achievements of civilization."
As for me: I seek higher consciousness. It is our only hope to avert self destruction in our mad drive for dominance over each other. In the meantime, no spam from me. I want the SBD!
Many blessings, and peace.
Survival of the fittest is being sorely misused on Earth. The 'fittest' does not really mean 'has the most stuff' or 'invents the most desirable technology' (or 'can kill the most efficiently'). Co-operation ensures survival and the idea that conflict is needed is only a self fulfilling prophecy.
It is love that ensures survival and high consciousness, yes. The issue of how to ensure these are present among 'the masses' is the same as how to ensure it is in any given individual. Those who survive will achieve their destiny in this regard - we all have free will and there is never a better time to choose to align to loving, compassion, survival and benevolence than now!
When I think of anarcho-capitalists I conjure in my mind a group of people who are very self-responsible individuals. They see the crap going on in the world and they simply are saying, " Screw that, we'll take care of ourselves." While on the other hand we see the ugly head of "Equality, Fraternity, Liberty" rearing it's head again among the common people, and they go the other direction toward a paternal government. And then of course, those in the middle, while usually very responsible and doing the best they can are, nevertheless, trapped in a system that abuses them.
I agree with you, we all have the capacity and the free will to choose. However in our unique earth school evil finds its way into the hearts and minds of the Elite and equally so in those who suck at the teat of government. That's evil too in that it destroys ones self responsibility and independence and diminishes their ability to take care of themselves.
It seems that Steemit is a microcosm of the world to some degree. The least responsible or capable fall to the side, while those who cooperatively engage with each other move on and up.
Ultimately, in my opinion, there must be a transformation into higher levels of consciousness which includes greater self-love and love for others. The question is How will that happen? Having dealt with many clients in the past who were on the path of transformation, this usually came about as a result of some serious challenges, either in marriage, or career, or health, or addictions. It was the great challenge that moved them to change. Will it be the same for humanity as well? Apparently last century with it's wars and 200 million deaths from revolution and war was not enough to motivate people to change. What will it take? Or are the Christians right: Christ will come and toast the wicked, while the Believers will move on to a thousand years of paradise.
It is the ability to feel and to listen to real feelings that motivates change. Many people are disconnected from their feelings and thus no amount of triggering seems to reach them. That's the core issue here. Once emotional processing is given wider acceptance, the situation will change quickly.