Political Interest wrote:I do not see why not. If one trajectory is having an influene on society (in this case somewhat deregulated markets) then surely having them completely deregulated with absolutely no regulation at all will produce the same but more?
No, I would say the opposite. I could make a very good case that consumerism, massive corporations, and all manner of decadence would not be possible under stateless conditions.
Political Interest wrote:Anarcho capitalism you speak of could go in any direction. It will allow people to be even more liberal to push boundaries even further.
Nature is a constraint, which is what you are missing in a critique of Anarcho-Capitalism.
feminism and transgenderism do not thrive and cannot thrive under stateless conditions because such lifestyles do not aid in survival and the transfer of land.
AnCaps advocate for the natural order being permitted to play out, homosexuals cannot produce heirs to tend their lands and to pass on property and they tend to die out, under AnCap conditions people can discriminate against such deviants and often form private communities that forbid their existence.
The only reason that does not happen under liberal democracies is because democracies MUST enfranchise as many people as possible to grow the state's power. All social contracts tend towards communism for this reason, its the expansion of public control.
Political Interest wrote: Already this was possible under the freedoms we have today and you want to push this further and give everyone complete freedom, anarchism.
This is false, the reason people are "free" to pursue decadence is because its protected and even funded by the state. Single motherhood for example, when and why did it become endemic? It did so once the state subsidized it with welfare. The father was replaced by the state. In Ancap conditions, single-motherhood is a veritable death sentence, and so, marriage would be ubiquitous. This is a praxeologically predictable result.
Political Interest wrote:How will this suddenly produce a return to old ways? It will just be worse.
This assumes that all lifestyles are equally viable in a state of nature, when only traditional ones are. The ONLY reason egalitarianism can thrive is because the state protects it and funds it. There is no egalitarianism in nature, only traditionalism. This is the point.
Political Interest wrote:I am sorry, this is not correct. In the Middle Ages social codes were written into law. It was nothing like liberalism or complete freedom. A person was tied to their lord, the church, their land and the monarch.
You misunderstand, the medieval ages has a plethora of privately retained duchies, fiefdoms, independent manors, etc., that subscribed to canon law and their own laws on their own property.
For instance, I am a Theonomist (basically the Christian version of Sharia) and such would be enforced in towns that covenant together on private property and in fealty to the Lord of the Manor.
Likewise, the minarchist monarchies of the middle-ages (which are my second favorite form of social order and closest to AnCap conditions) has a small government in the hands of a private family, and it all privately owned. A King in Baden did not have the resources or the need to police child-rearing in the Black Forest. The natural conditions of life without oversight and subsidy are what perpetuated traditionalism outside of his direct control.
Living under a minarchist monarch was closer to living without a state than anything we can currently comprehend.
But beyond this, large swaths of both Feudal Japan and Medieval Europe were NOT under monarchs, many were under independent lords, which is exactly what anarcho-capitalism implies. Patriarchy and Fecudnity were matters of the natural order playing itself out. Likewise, such values were reinforced by traditions and especially the church, which keep in mind, was able to exert substantial influence and power
without having to be a state over these peoples (a third-party monopolist of coercion), which was similar to the influence of the Japanese Emperor in the feudal era, he was ultimately symbolic, but revered with great zeal in a manner commensurate to the Latin pope. (
such a system might be called Anarcho-Monarchism, which I include as variant of my own position). Political Interest wrote:But those monarchies did not give peope the freedom to do what they wanted.
Sure, but I don't believe in absolute freedom of speech or lawlessness.
That you are ignorant of my position is the issue here.
I am only for absolute free-speech
inasmuch as I oppose a state controlling private agents; however, if I want to kill people who live on my property for heresy as the terms of a covenant I have made with them voluntarily, that is and should be my natural right (besides the fact that God commands it).
Monarchs privately owned the state and continued to enforce the same canon-law that any faithful catholic landowner would on his own land over his own peasants. The entire feudal order is as close to my ideal social-order as you can imagine. It was a state of private-property absolutism.
Political Interest wrote:Perhaps not affirmative action but there would still be transgenderism and feminism.
Feminism cannot exist without a state, because women cannot overcome and surpass men in nature, they would be subjugated to their rightful place.
Every feminist political accomplishment, EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. required a state to accomplish such ends and none of these accomplishments existed
de facto under conditions of a smaller state or no state.
So don't be silly.Political Interest wrote:Just because it is not enforced by the government does not mean people would not drift to those tendencies.
If they did, they would quickly die or fail. That is the point, degeneracy requires state protection to perpetuate. Its unnatural and abominable.
For instance, if there were not a state, drug addition would not be a problem. Why?
Because addicts would be dead, not protected and paid for. If you don't work, you don't eat.
Only the affluent would ever entertain such "habits."
Political Interest wrote:And you have not addressed what happens to the weaker members of society who cannot survive under such a system.
The same thing that happens without a welfare state:
the family and the church.For instance, as a Christian, I actually oppose social security because Christ our Lord upheld the responsibility of the First Born to care for his parents in their old age in exchange for the double-portion of their inheritance. St. Paul likewise commands the family to take-care of the widows and only secondarily is the Church to do so. This is NOT the responsibility of a state. The Prophet Samuel even warns against kings and states, so why should we unequivocally embrace them? Sure, we as Christians are to be obedient to the state and are not forbidden from participation, and both kings and emperors are called to submit to Christ The King, but is that state-itself the ideal form according the Holy Scriptures? Absolutely not.
Free patriarchies (anarcho-capitalism) are this ideal, as it was under the time of the Judges and prior to the time that God instituted such under Adam and then the Patriarchs.
So.....
what about the weak?The weaker are the responsibility of Christian families and the church. That is what our Lord commands.
But those who refuse to work, refuse to do what is right. Let them not eat. Their own destruction is just.