My problem with anarcho-capitalism

When I made the first post to the blog, I mentioned that I had views that were in alignment with many anarcho-capitalists, but I didn’t ellaborate as to what I saw as its flaws. Before you read, this is a pretty good overview of what anarcho-capitalism is (just ignore the Christianity of the site hosting it).

So to dig in, anarcho-capitalism relies on a society that gains its order spontaineously, that is, without central planning. It treats the complete society the way that languages and traditions get developed: almost by accident. Now, no one needs to centrally plan the English language, and no one sat down one day and invented Christmas, at least as far as I know.

Now, many capitalists try to treat a market in this same way. There doesn’t need to be a central planner to say: “you, cut down five rubber trees to make pencil erasers, and you, mine X amount of metal to make metal rims, and you, put them together”. It just kind-of happens. Ancaps extend this absence of central planning to the legal system as well, and it very well could work. Laws get made based on the value that they bring to the community, rather than based on majority rule. I can, personally, agree with this anti-democratic sentiment.

However, I have a problem with spontaneous orders in combination with ancapism: what do you do when your spontaneous order doesn’t work perfectly? How can you possibly change it without someone there to coordinate it? Let’s take the English language, again, as an example. There are so many parts of the language that just don’t work well: its verb system makes no sense, rules are rarely consistant, it’s hard to learn, similar words don’t resember each other. It looks exactly like what you would expect from a mutt of several different languages that just kind-of happened. Compare this to the consistancy that Esperanto has: rules are consistant, similar words are similar, words are flexible. The difference is that Esperanto was designed, while English emerged from history.

Now, I would also argue that capitalism isn’t really a spontaneous order in the same way that English is, because it is painfully easy to make changes. If something better comes along, people use it. Companies carefully design the products that they make. Sure, the coordination between companies is not centrally planned, but it is still planned by someone at that organization. This is why I find the two to not be comparable.

And the main reason why states didn’t move towards something like Esperanto has more to do with the fact that traditionalists didn’t want that change to happen. Figures like Stalin and Hitler which both opposed, and did their best efforts to squash the movement, largely was centered in eastern Europe.

Now, in Capitalsim, things can change quickly, as their is no democratic overhead to stop it. So why would this complaint apply for a privitized legal system? Let’s look at an example: many ancaps think that intellectual property laws are harmful, and I agree with them. I think that there are enough fowl things to be said about them that I will reserve it for another blog post. However, if you simply got rid of the government and moved the governing bodies into private competing institutions, how could anyone even think about getting rid of the policy? While it may be harmful, it is certainly one that many companies and individuals would be willing to pay for, and it has been around for so long that most people generally accept it. Getting rid of the state actually removes the primary mechanism for conducting change, in this particular instance.

And the means of attaining ancapism leave a lot to be desired. What seems most plausable would be to have a monarch (I may be biased in the choice of this word) design the neccessary decentrallized structures for a statless society to word and gradually phase out the monarchy, though this also means that the system isn’t really a spontaneous order. The other options, namely seasteading, sound interesting, though if one really was successful and implemented laws that turned into a (economically speaking) threat to larger powers, does anyone think that those states would sit idly by and let them get outcompeted into oblivion? Of course not. To have a proper self defence mechanism, there must be a decent amount of coordination, which would almost certainly manefest in a sort of state.

Thus while a fully decentrallized and voluntary society sounds great, it would practically require a lot of state to get it into affect, either from getting people to adopt and use the decentralized tools or defending itself for long enough that it can actually exist on its own. I actually agree with the moral philosophy of decentralization surrounding it, and consider it to be an ideal. It’s one of the reasons that I can say that a monarchist state, responding to market forces, would be substantially better than what we have now.

But the place where all anarcho-capitalists fall out is in coming up with a battle strategy to get there. I believe that I have a strategy with using the state to create the infrastructure necessary for it to work, but even that would take a lot of convincing others in the democracies we have now. I guess for now, I’ll do what all the others do, and rant on an irrelavant blog on an irrelavant corner of the internet.


Why I am not alt-right

Unless you have been living under a rock for the past year, 2016 saw the maintream surfacing of a political movement called the alt-right. A movement condemmed by the progressive mainstream as overtly racist. This is nothing unusual, as progressives have been screaming racist towards any non-progressive since seamingly the dawn of time.

Upon glancing into what the alt-right actually stands for, it appears that (for once), this mainstream enemy is actually, genuinely, unapolegetically racist. And alt-righters don’t seem to care, which should terrify some progressives, as they will actually have to explain why racism is immoral, both in this context and in general. However, as progressives have a great deal of trouble explaining anything to anyone (especially if they are targeting non-progressives), allow me to assist.

To begin, we need a more in-depth overview of what the alt-right believes, what racism is, and what the actual moral responce should be. Because /r/debateAltRight is a thing, and I would prefer to not put words in other’s mouths, I will allow the alt-right to explain to the world what they believe without misrepresentation.

First, before you post, please know that debating the alt. right will get nowhere if you do not acknowledge that we at least, do not buy into the cult of egalitarianism. The alt. right does NOT believe that every person was created equal. The alt. right recognizes that each race has distinct differences in physiology, and psychology, including intelligence.

This is stated by a stickied post. Immediately, there are a few things we can gather: the alt-right is anti-egalitarian and anti-racial-egalitarian. Let’s continue reading.

Secondly, the alt. right is not a unified ideology. You may find a free market libertarian and a national socialist and a monarchist.

Although I find the claim that “free market libertarian” and “alt-right” are combatiable to be a bit questionable/laughable, I guess this is them trying to state that what one of them says does not apply to the movement as a whole. That’s fair, I guess.

We do not all accept democracy as inherently good (some of us do support it though).

Well, I don’t accept democracy. My blog has “royalist” in the title. It’s a shame that some alt-righters do though, for them at least. It also makes me wonder what alt-right democrats will say when whites overwhelmingly reject their movement.

Finally, the alt. right believes in identitarian politics, that people are tribal, and that society at large should accept that.

So people inherently group together based on their identities, and that this is not only permissible, but desireable. On the sidebar, there is a link to another blog, in which the author hosts links to other posts about some specifics, and tries to summaraize the alt-right based on some “principles”. Glance through it if you’d like, but it’s mostly redundant with what has already been mentioned, though here’s another point worth reading:

The Alt-Right is a synod of dissident right-wing, nationalist, identitarian, and fascist thinkers opposed to the postwar liberal order in the White nations of Europe and the Anglosphere. This order has presided over and enacted government policies that result in Whites becoming an increasingly smaller share of the global population and of the population of each country where we form a majority, every year.

This is mainly to provide some additional context, that the alt-right is reacting against post-WW2 progressivism, and that it perceives it as a threat against whites.

From all of the above, this is how I would summarize their beliefs: people are inherently unequal and tribal, different races of people are different, races have very limited compatibility due to their differences and inherent tribalism, and segregation is mandatory in order to preserve a stable and orderly society. Some of these are acceptable, even progressive, positions to take when taken by certain non-whites, in the form of “decolonialism”, as it is progressive to state that non-whites have been held back by the actions of whites. The alt-right simply reverses this position, and states that whites have been held back by non-whites, and thus non-whites should be seperated out for the good of white society.

And now we get to the point of this blog post where I state why I am not alt-right, and to do so, I’m going to introduce a new variable to the equation: culture. According to the Cambridge English Dictionary, it is defined as such:

the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time

I introduce this into the equation because it allows me to illustrate my problem with the alt-right’s reasoning. The alt-right associates race with culture as inherently interconnected, but people are not slaves to their cultures. People have the ability to change what they believe over time, and can adopt different traditions and values. In addition, different cultures are not equal and can have excell in different, competing ways.

Now the libertarian responce is that these cultures should not be protected, as if they have merits, they will succeed on their own. If a culture is more effecient at managing resources, or results in smarter people, then it will have a marketable advantage. The proper solution seems obvious: to be willing to explore and understand other cultures, but to similarly understand your own culture in combination with their benefits and problems. A culture that stones people to death for no reason doesn’t hold as much merit as one that respects due process and private property rights, as an example.

This is a rejection of both multiculturalism, which tends to be culturally egalitarian (or even culturally Marxist), and cultural isolationism. And when you judge the successes of various cultures, it is quite clear that Europeans have done a lot of good: the invensions of capitalism, meritocracy, and individualism have led to the most prosperity that the world has ever seen. The aspects of European culture that have led to this are worthy of emulation by others around the world. Significant parts of Asia have been emulating them, in many ways better than the original, as Hong Kong and Singapore enjoy the freest economies in the world, while China and India have been rapidly industrializing and eliviating poverty.

The same cannot be said, however, about sub-saharan Africa, where foreign aid has walled the natives away from capitalism and NGOs have been attempting to preserve their ancient traditions in their entirety, even when they involve stonings and massacres. To the alt-right, this is because the native sub-saharans are low-IQ and asians are high-IQ, and the story ends there. They then invoke the international community’s protection of this as example of an anti-white conspriacy.

However, I do not believe that this is the case. I believe that the difference between the region has more to do with the geography and historical circumstances between which the different groups came into contact with each other. This also means that the proper responce to helping the developing world is not isolation (though the cultural Marxists would like to believe that) but a form of renewed cultural imperialism, as instilling the region with successful values, rather than free goods, will eventually bring them up to parity with everyone else.

We still have not addresses the principle issue about why racism should be avoided, though the answer is reasonably simple: racism is wrong because judging people purly on the color of their skin will negatively impact all parties, as it prevents those who have merit and skill from properly using said ability to benefit everyone else. Now, IQ statistics may be accurate, or they may not be, but they have the invariable problem of being non-isolatable: we do not know whether it is the result of a group’s culture or genetics that determine these descrepencies.

Another problem with IQ statistics is the fact that they are averages over relatively large groups. There are both high and low-IQ members of all races, and to say that because the average of one group are higher or lower than that of another means the lower group must be unilaterally penalizes is absurd. It directly leads to the type of unmerited descrimination that I previously mentioned, hurting all parties.

However, this does justify descrimination by culture, as certain values may be more or less compatible with each other. If two parties in an organization are culturally incompatible, then it may decrease their productivity in addition to everyone else’s. This is a problem, and thus (at least) one of them should be removed from the organization. However, if one culture is better than the others at something, then maybe it is worth working to appropriate said culture into the rest of the organization.

In fact, based on what I have described as the ideal solution, there is more reason to believe that the responces of the international community, NGOs, and postwar western governments have been operating in a way that is fundamentally immoral. I have already used the term “cultural Marxism” in this post, but it is part of the underlying philosophy that these groups have been operating under. It is perfectly appropriate to have problems with them. I certainly do.

However, this makes the alt-right worse, as it is a completely inadequate responce. It will only serve to make all other reactions weaker via association. It is a feable attempt to preserve the worst aspects of a culture by completely violating its successful aspects. For this reason, the alt-right is doomed to fail its stated goals, and it should be completely marginalized and resisted by all reactionaries, conservatives, and libertarians. If your objective is to preserve Western culture, focus on what made the West strong to begin with, which, as previously stated, are free economies, meritocracies, and individual liberties.

An introduction to libertarian royalism

Hello world. You have stumbled across some random guy’s ramblings on politics, and are probably wondering what the hell any of this is.

I’d like to give a simple introduction to what I believe, so that you know roughly what you are getting into. I am primarily a libertarian, in that I have libertarian views regarding economics and social life: I generally do not care how individual people conduct their lives, and individalism provides a fantastic moral framework for individuals to follow. However, I am also a royalist, in that I support absoltue monarchies and cameralist states.

These views may not, at first, seem compatible, as libertarians are generally anti-authoritarian, and the list of abuses under unlimited government seems rather unlimited. However, I will argue that the combination not only works, but is the only method of maintaining a truely libertarian world.

The words “libertarian royalist” were first used in conjunction (as far as I know) by Mencius Moldbug in his web blog, Unqualified Reservations, though similar statements have been made in a plethora of libertarian works this century. Start with Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Herman Hoppe for some literature on the subject, and note that many libertarians have expressed anti-democratic sentiments.

However, the problem that they ran into is an advocacy of anarchy. Not that kind of anarchy, but a form of statelessness in which governance gets carried out in a decentralized manner. Anarcho-capitalists bear the anarcho prefix while presenting a philosophy that is far similar to that of absolute monarchy than what most anarchists advocate. How so? Libertarians generally (and correctly) understand that businesses are able to function effeciently to serve their customers, that democracies are ineffecient, and that governments are only limitied by the actions of the individuals in charge.

And, because effecient governance would almost certainly grant their citizens significant freedom (either to outcompete their neighbors or to reduce their burden of enforcement), this is actually a path to liberty. This is why anarcho-capitalists believe that conflict resolution agencies can actually work, and that different regions may generally adopt different sets of laws as the result of spontanious order.

So let’s review: a buisness will generally serve its customers, effeciency generally means liberty, and regions can have single sets of laws. Consider that a monarchy is effectively a private law enforcement company. Why is monarchy off the table, again?

This is just an introductory post, just to give you a taste of what is to come. I haven’t dug deep into claims I’ve made, or given sources, but that can come later. Just note that this blog exists, so stay tuned.