Part of the reason why I’m an anarcho-capitalist-primitivist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzuviYRse3E
If one understands “more complex” to strong division of labour, it comes down to the fact that this division of labour allows the society to be wealthier and the destruction of wealth by the state more tolerable.
I consider myself to be an anarcho-capitalist-primitivist too.
The anarcho-capitalist part is just like everybody else here – probably more so. However, the primitivist side is because I believe that most of our modern societal infrastructure would not exist without the state. The main example is the transportation sector. Over-seas trade would not exist as it does now because the cost of fuel, for one thing, would be much higher.
In general, I am convinced that a truly anarchist society would be technologically regressed. It sucks because I like gadgets but I have to be honest.
How could you be more like everyone else here than everyone else here? Or do you mean to say you’re “more anarcho-capitalist” than everyone else here? I don’t even know what that means.
You’re literally saying that on net the state doesn’t cost anything…that it actually provides more benefit than the costs it imposes on everyone. You seriously believe this? You think that central planning and coercion actually leads to better outcomes, that a small group of elites can actually command into existence a better economy than free individuals making their own choices?
So I guess that means you’re an anarchist not just on moral grounds alone, but also in spite of a personal belief that in a utilitarian sense it makes you worse off.
I never expected anyone hear to say something like that. Certainly not someone who claims to be “more anarcho-capitalist” than everyone else here.
Oxymoron.
How is it an oxymoron? Capitalism has existed since the beginning of human time. Hunter gatherers freely traded and had private property w/o the state.
Why would technology be regressed in the absence of the “legitimized” initiation of aggression that is the State? I would argue that it would advance more quickly, save for perhaps weapons of war.
Why would technology be regressed in the absence of the “legitimized” initiation of aggression that is the State? I would argue that it would advance more quickly, save for perhaps weapons of war.
The state originated b/c of civ and I believe most of the technology we use (incld. the internet) is a way for the state to keep us in control. Civ is also collectivist in nature so my ideal plan is to leave civ and live hunting and gathering.
The terms are separate for a reason.
It sounds like you’re throwing in the “capitalist” so that you can try to “fit in” here more.
The terms are separate for a reason.
It sounds like you’re throwing in the “capitalist” so that you can try to “fit in” here more.
Human society was ALWAYS capitalist. All voluntary actions are market actions therefore capitalist.
Probably the most one-sided way of looking at something I’ve ever heard.
Great. Good for you. Have fun. Wait. Why are you even still here?
Still doesn’t address the point. If you’re going to get that technical and claim that anything involving voluntary action is “capitalist”, why do you even need the word? “Anarcho” should suffice. (again, this is why the two hyphenated terms are separate…and why “anarcho-capitalism” isn’t redundant.)
The State emerged because of civilization? Sure…There has definitely been no local States, such as the tribal governments which ruled over the Indians of North America. If there were no tribal governments, those Indians would never have had the technology of teepees!!! They would just sleep out in the open. The teepees were a way that the State kept the Indian subjects in control.
By the way, I have no problem with men leaving civilization into the wilderness. I have pondered it myself. But your argument is fundamentally flawed and indubitably erroneous.
I know what primitivism is. Please address the point I made.
Dude, if you’re not going to address the point I made, or answer the question I asked, then I think you’re done here. I don’t care about your civilization videos and your notions about the world. All I did was address the asinine double hyphenated term you used, and you have yet to actually offer a coherent response.
I would also like to see my point addressed that there were tribal States in the old, primitive days…The State did not merely arbitrarily appear with the dawning of “modern civilization.”
Capitalism is anarchy. All voluntary human actions are market interactions, capitalism means free markets, therefore capitalism is freedom and anarchy. Civ is coercive.
I would also like to see my point addressed that there were tribal States in the old, primitive days…The State did not merely arbitrarily appear with the dawning of “modern civilization.”
Where and when?
Indians, North America, colonial/pre-colonial times. And there are many other examples as well.