Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“AnCap Has Never Been Tried!” and Other Myths
One of the great myths I hear from people who believe in a utopia is that things like Communist, Socialist, and, yes, Anarcho-Capitalist (AnCap) societies “Have never been tried”. This is, of course, nonsense. The USSR, China, Venezuela, Romania, Cambodia, and countless other nations give lie to the idea that a Communist Socialist society has not been tried. Dr. Jordan Peterson says it well here:
I really like his point, that this is an arrogant position: If I were in charge, I am so good and so competent I could usher in the utopia. I apply it to anyone making any utopian claims.
That brings us to the anarcho-capitalists, and the claim that their version of utopia has never been tried, either. This is also nonsense. We have seen, time and again in history, that when there is no state, there is not anarchy for long.
“Anarchy is the least stable of social structures. It falls apart at a touch.” — Larry Niven
What made me think about all this is this article today, on the death of an AnCap promoter: John Galton Wanted Libertarian Paradise in ‘Anarchapulco.’ He Got Bullets Instead
Galton and Forester were anarcho-capitalists who slipped U.S. drug charges worth 25 years in prison, they said in a YouTube video that night. They’d hopped the border and resettled in what Galton called one of the world’s “pockets of freedom,” a community billed as a libertarian paradise.
Almost two years later, Galton was murdered.
Last week, gunmen burst into the couple’s mountaintop home, killing Galton on the spot, and seriously wounding one of the couple’s friends. (Forester survived, badly shaken.) The killers are presumed to be a drug cartel; Mexican authorities say Galton grew marijuana at the home
Wow. In the absence of a strong government, a gang burst into his home and killed him.
Galton was part of a small community of fellow anarcho-capitalists formed by Jeff Berwick, who promised a drug-friendly haven and hosts the annual “Anarchapulco” festival. Berwick says Galton and Forester should’ve known what they were getting into.
“They started up a competing conference to Anarchapulco, called Anarchaforko and John continued to be involved in one way or another with the production or sale of plants,” Berwick told The Daily Beast in an email. “Unfortunately, that is the one thing that is very dangerous to do in Mexico as the drug cartels will attack anyone they see as competition and that appears to have happened to John.”
So, even in the AnCap utopia, you cannot grow weed in your own home and you cannot sell it because some other group, one with more guns, will come kill you. And there is no government to even punish them for it. I guess this really does mean might makes right in the AnCap world.
This whole story demonstrates, once again, that any real moves towards a libertarian AnCap utopia will always collapse into what I call “Warlordism”: He who has the biggest guns, wins.
Anarcho-capitalists who complained of robberies or street corner assaults faced ridicule, Mike claimed.
“Because this is a very ideological group, everything Jeff says is dogma,” he said. “If you said anything contra to the dogma, you’d be ostracized and in some cases doxxed. I know people who moved there and got robbed… However, when they publicly state this, the whole community turns against them and treats them as some kind of informant or spy.”
Heh. Cultish following of a leader. Not like communism or socialism at all, right? I love the way it closes:
“Anarchists understand that the government’s prohibition of plants and substances cause these problems and if anything it just makes events like Anarchapulco even more important in order to change the world and get rid of the violence and chaos caused by government,” Berwick said.
Blaming the government for everything is just like the socialists blaming racism for every ill under the sun. With no government, do we really think organized crime gangs would stop doing what they are doing? The price would drop? Somehow, I think the would just go into “legit” business, and their anti-competition behavior would go right on. No government to stop them. Heck, the one in Mexico right now is so weak it cannot.
Utopia is not coming to this world, not for communists, not for socialists, and not for AnCaps. Any attempt to create a utopia will always result in tyranny. Always.
Published in Economics
They do, but none of them are in politics.
He just wanted to retire. Came back to serve two terms.
Prisons may be capitalistic, but not very anarchistic. Anarchy is not by definition violence, it just fosters it. Anarchy, as far as I use the word, means lack of an overarching government or legal order, or some other imposed order.
Prisons are the archetypal imposed government legal order. You would be hard pressed to find another place where the government tells you where to sleep, when to go to bed, when to get up, when you may eat, what you may eat, supplies your room and board, and tell you when you may have sex, and with whom, lines you up frequently for role call, searches your room without a warrant and limits and directs anywhere you may be at any given time.
It’s a little bit like 0bamacare and all other nuisance laws and regulations, ordered for our own good.
Of course there’s graft and crime in prison, but the stuff listed above is the legal and functional standard.
And interestingly,there is a subculture not only of graft, but of prisoners using the system, and in something far short of graft ingratiating themselves into the trust, or at least into a certain permissiveness within the group of those charged with enforcing the legal order. I once knew an inmate, the head cook of a prison, who was found to have enough sedatives to knock out the entire staff of a prison for a whole shift. He had been saving it up for a year or two. The stuff was found on a routine search. Guards were known to bring in money, drugs and cell phones (with chargers) for inmates; sure that all is understood. But what surprised me was the number of female prison guards who were pregnant by inmates (or so it was routinely said — I never asked them).
My point is that prisons are far from anarchic, they are nearly the purest form of the structured state. Take that AOC.
US Army, baby. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt.
Good point. But you did get to marry and go to a movie with your kids and have a beer I imagine.
And besides, from your writing I think you enjoyed it a bit.
I agree. And, natural coercive systems still arise inside of that.
@flicker: absotively posolutely.
Egad, I need to stop posting on my phone. Thanks for correcting that.
I was 20 and felt the same way. The word “altruism” suddenly had a new meaning and has remained so all my life as I watch the self-serving proclaim their so-called sacrifices for the good of the many. All this done with a straight face.
Do you think she was too harsh in her judgement of man?
Wow that was the word that changed my thinking as well! The minute she said dig deep enough and you’ll find a self-serving motive, even if it’s just making yourself feel good about yourself, it’s no longer altruistic, and you realize altruism doesn’t even exist. Game-changer.
If I could offer you an opinion.
The really brainiac libertarians don’t like Ayn Rand. I think it’s mostly due to her cold view of human nature, psychology, and religion. She did a lot of dumb things in her personal life that are counter to her idealism. I think her books are better viewed as textbooks with a mechanical view of how things work.
The left is always saying she’s just cruel and selfish. I think she’s just very good at exposing how the levers and dials work. She writes textbooks in one area of libertarianism, effectively.
Having said that, if the Objectivists controlled everything it would be a pretty good world. Better than what we have now.
I prefer the Austrian school. It’s more about incentives, the “knowledge problem”, and how people actually behave, rather than right and wrong. They are more into the consequences of bad central banking, but Ayn Rand discussed it as well. That’s the big problem.
Finally I’m not an expert on any of this. Just throwing that out there.
I don’t know where I heard this, or even if I’m quoting it correctly, but:
“If it’s not your money, it’s not altruistic.”
Having politicians point a gun at our heads to force us into an auction of tax brackets and deductions so they can central plan with the money is a complete joke. The End.
I think she was as unrealistic as anyone who is a libertarian. Where are the children in her novels? Where are the ugly people? Where is the humanity.
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2007/11/whittaker-chamberss-review-of-ayn-rands-novel-atlas-shrugged-in-the-national-review/
Libtertarianism at least allows for government to help ensure others are not harmed.
Liberalism doesn’t allow for markets to improve the human condition.
We got a lot right for a long time. The Federal Government had a very limited but vital role, states had more power but also limited and most power was held by people sorting things out through trial and error. The Federal government grew because that’s the nature of things but also in part because State government grew and so on. All political compromise is toward more government power and less power for individuals. Only real people actually sort things out, imperfectly, clumsily but always, at least eventually, in the right direction unless, of course, they can leverage some level of government in their favor which some groups always seem to be able to do. There is no compromise that works unless it’s one that reduces centralized and regional political power. That’s a real b..ch but one we must keep in mind as we compromise with the left. No matter how much we win, we’re losing unless we’re moving power away from the centers.
Speaking of governments and power structures, it is interesting to note that the power of Islam as a conquering force lies in its tribal orientation. Raymond Ibrahim talks about this in Sword and Scimitar. If you are a member of the tribe, you are part of the clan, the extended family, and deserve protection. If not, you are an outside enemy, an unredeemable threat who must be destroyed.
It sounds a lot like leftist orientation, in fact.
By the way, Jorden Peterson is one of the best most articulate and relevant thinkers out there. We need to send him (at least short clips of him, we want them to try to concentrate a little). to all our leftist, or even centrist friends.
I find no end of amusement in the fact that 99.99% of Randians assume that they are good enough / smart enough /people like them enough to be admitted into
GlitterGalt’s Gulch.Their standards for admission? Their own, of course!
News flash: If I’m the one setting the standards for entry into heaven, sonuvagun I’m going to set them at a level that pretty much guarantees my entry into the pearly gates*.
* Thou Shalt Not Use Microsoft Windows…Thou Shalt Not Drink Light Beer… The Designated Hitter Is An Abomination In The Eyes Of The Lord, to name a few.
Collectivism creeps in in so many sneaky ways. Our education system, for example, is essentially collectivist.
But what if I wanna be anarchy?
Is it coming sometime, and maybe
If I give a wrong time, stop a traffic line
Your future dream has sure been seen through?
Followup question: Are you talking about the MPLA?
Or the UDA?
Or maybe it’s the IRA?
I thought it was the U.K.
Or just another country… another council tenancy!
The same way leftists always assume they’ll be in the politburo and not be one of the kulaks.
This is exactly the feeling I get from watching Minnesota leftist Twitter. If you get enough people being functionaries and mandarins and being dependent on the system, everything goes one way. It’s sickening. They will do and say anything in service of that. It’s a racket.
Ms Skinner and I watched “Trotsky” on Netflix. The two impressions I came away with was that Trotsky was the second most unscrupulous Bolshevik, and that he assumed that being in the leadership would overcome his being a member of a hated minority group.
Excellent. I am fascinated by this stuff. I loved The Death of Stalin and The Lives of Others.
This type of weirdness has to be eradicated somehow. Ugh.
I read a long interview of Trotsky’s grandson. He still lives in Mexico. He left Russia when he was seven, and he has forgotten how to speak Russian. It’s just so weird that Stalin went to so much trouble to kill him.
All of this garbage these guys have in their heads. It’s insane.
Bryan,
It may be of interest to you that Hayek defined “Liberty” in his “Constitution of Liberty” as the absence of coercion. Liberty isn’t defined as zero government or the right to do anything you want. Liberty is the absence of being coerced. To carry this forward, one should be aware that Kant’s categorical imperative is only about how one handles one’s personal morality. A government is formed not by the categorical imperative but by another Kantian concept “The Law of Right”. The Law of Right is usually framed as “It is Right to coerce a coercer in such a manner that the freedom (liberty) of all is maximized.” Kant uses the term freedom here again but I think Hayek’s definition of Liberty is what Kant really intended. (BTW, I am quite sure that Hayek was aware of Kant’s Law of Right and was aiming directly for it.)
Thus a government’s job (formed by our slightly modified Law of Right) is to coerce coercion while maximizing the Liberty of all. The Anarcho-Capitalist model has no role for government at all. The Socialist model denies that government’s job is to coerce coercion but rather that government’s job is to use maximum coercion to redistribute resources.
Many people without understanding Kant just think he is a Utopian. As all dealers in abstraction (this is what philosophers do for a living) are to some extent removed from the everyday, the charge isn’t completely false. I simply think that the Kantian point of view is much more likely to ‘point us in the right direction’ than the other crude ideologies. ‘Point us in the right direction’ doesn’t sound like much. However, it is much better than being pointed in the wrong direction or no guidance whatsoever.
Regards,
Jim
I think she was too simplistic about it. I actually consider her an important thinker with a lot to offer to American conservatism (which has built-in classical liberal elements), but I also think she had a skewed perspective, in which one (important) insight became, for all practical purposes, the only one she viewed as relevant, while I consider human nature to be far more complicated than that. The end result is that her philosophy is in many ways like a right-wing version of both Marxism and cultural Marxism, with the ‘producers’ and ‘looters’ taking equivalent roles as the ‘victim’ and ‘oppressor’ classes. The primary difference, of course, is that Randian philosophy is still at its core an individualistic ideology, with classical liberal safeguards, which makes it so that it can’t really be a viable tool of oppression against those designated as ‘looters’, either through state auspices or at the societal level.
I strongly prefer Hayek (not that I’m an expert on either), but I think Rand should be considered required reading for any conservative.
Just out of curiosity, do you think Pelosi or Schumer understand anything of what you wrote here? Or is it possible they do understand and don’t care one way or the other?