Primal theory as it pertains to ancap

Economics Political Theory
1

I thought I would make this post because I dont endorse the views in some of those videos in the other thread, and primal living has broad philosophical implications that might be useful to other austrians.

Primal thought is derived from the realization that the greater part of human history depicts a a worldwide anarchotribal system, the garden of eden. Roughly 6 to 10 thousand years ago, in mesopotamia, humans invented totalitarian agriculture. This technology enabled a population explosion, and surplus labor meant division of labor on a broad scale enabled both large scale capitalism and statism. Lack of regard for the property rights of aborigines and the surplus of labor necessary to construct a war machine allowed totalitarian agriculture society to steamroll tribal societies wherever they encountered them. Surplus labor allowed the development of all kinds of technologies, the unintended effects of which are still being discovered today. The destruction of property rights in the form of zoning laws inhibits the abilities of modern humans to reconstruct a sustainable lifestyle. State mandated reliance on state subsidized agriculture creates large amounts of low quality food with widespread subtle poor effects on health.

Key to understanding of totalitarian agriculture is the idea that tot-ag turns all nutrition that can be recovered from a patch of soil into human beings. Humans are not designed to spend all day in boxes made by humans looking at boxes made by humans with images of man made objects looking at man made things. Nor were they designed to get a large percentage of their calories from sugar, or anything from grain. Ruminant herbivores were not meant to eat grains either.

Again, the answer is property rights, because without intrusive state institutions factory farming wouldnt have a monopoly. The free market would create scarcity in food which would inhibit population to a program of sustainable growth based on available land.

This isnt meant to “demonize western society” or advocate that everyone “go wild.” rather, to clarify on a few points of inferred knowledge based on a broad reading of human history.

2

The free market would create scarcity in food

What is your reaoning here? Because from what I understand, free markets will create more food, just like they create more of everything else.

3

The difficulty in production of safe, nutritious food means that without subsidies, there will be plenty of food, but the price will not fall below a certain amount based on the price of land and the price of skilled labor.

4

While I was at work today, I thought about this some more. I think it would come down to the relations amongst the price of labor, the price of land, and the price of food. Right now, food production is subsidized more than land is. So more food means more people competing for the same land. Without food subsidy, the ratio would even out.

Someone else mentioned something a few days ago that caught my attention. They said that safe food production may not be possible on the mega-industrial scale that is attempted today. A return to smaller local food producers would likely entail increase in cost until the market compensated.

You are right to say that eventually the market would correct all of this and there would be lots of cheap food. But I do believe that the ratio between food and land would change to reflect cheaper land (relatively).