I first want to say that I'm not making any of this up. This is what my friend really, truely believes.
Not long ago, a longtime friend of mine became an an-cap. We've been discussing politics a lot recently because of this. A few days ago we had a conversation that was something like this:
He answers with
How the fuck can people be this blind to reality?
He's an ancap, what did you expect?
It's not about being blind, ancapism is just an excuse for being a sociapath. You should kill your friend before he kills a lot more people himself.
Honestly? Probably just a very sheltered upbringing. The ones who extol "hard work" tend to be the ones who've experienced the least of it.
His father and mother are both very rich and he's always gotten all the money he wanted. I think he got like 200$ each month when he was 8.
It's pretty funny, because I was raised kind of the same way (not as much money, but a little spoiled) but my dad always told me never to flaunt wealth or show it or be proud of it. These values are probably the biggest reason I became Socialist. Pretty funny, I didn't know he was a Communist untill I became one myself. Now we discuss Marx and Zizek most evenings.
Anarcho-capitalism is literally monarchy by a different name.
Monarchy is the good ending to an ancap experiment.
because anarcho-capitalism is driven more by hatred of the weak and the desire to see the Free Market inflict its Justice upon them than it is by an real desire for freedom
You should report your friend to the FBI for being a pedophile because all ancaps are disgusting pedophiles.
Even I find the child molester = ancap meme ammusing
t. pedo commie SAY NO TO MOLESTING
Thanks for posting that. It made me think.
I'm actually going to ask him tomorrow if he thinks that the child sex slave marked should be exploited. He has said the world is evil if not every single market can be used, so it woulden't suprise me if he agreed with child sex slaves.
You haven't shown him his hypocrisy by mentioning how he's rich without having to do anything to earn it?
we need more negative non-aggression principle memes
...
I live in New Hampshire, so I've encountered more ridiculous "an"-caps than I'd like to admit.
He isn't a psychopath.
His wish is for a very simple society that allows him to categorize people (and himself) into 'obviously, objectively good' and 'obviously, objectively bad'.
It's the perfect solution to all anxieties. No more ruminating over whether the guy in power deserves his power or what course to take in life. If it's profitable, it's good and right.
(OP)
Expressing leftist ideas to ancaps -
Something that I gotta mention first: open up their mind to the idea that they could be wrong. This is fucking important. Arrogance of any kind of either side drives meaningful discussion away fast. And this goes for you, too, but since you two are friends, this might not be an issue.
Also: AGREE UPON A DEFINITION OF CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, AND ANY OTHER POSSIBLY AMBIGUOUS TERMS. Get the distinction of private and personal property out of the way along with the other terms asap. If you can't even get this much down, you'll never be able to get to this person. This may not be a problem in your specific case, but I've seen so, so many people mindlessly tossing thinking they're tossing shit at each other when in all reality they're actually just hitting their imaginary friend that's standing right next to them. Define your shit so each of you know what the fuck you're talking about. Moving on.
Question them about the absolute basis of what an ideology's goals should be. That gets right to the heart of it all, tbh. No bullshitting there. To leftists, it's something like "to distribute resources and create policy in a way that creates overall improved living standards and autonomy". Some ancaps would agree with this as the foundation of an ideology. If not, then they probably have a more individualist thing in mind, in that case, redirect them to Stirner. As memey as this guy may be, I've heard that he makes arguments for the left entirely based on the idea of individualism. I've never read him, but it's a guy that many people suggest when appealing to this kind of thing.
Whenever corporatism is mentioned: listen closely. Whenever this argument is raised, there's self-contradiction everywhere. Read part 2 of chapter 1 of Kropotkin's "Conquest of Bread". It talks about the idea of private ownership, but I'll interpret it slightly differently (for the sake of this context) and say that process of production and that it is never just from the manufacturing to the purchase. Every little thing goes much deeper than that. Every aspect of everybody's life today, everything that has ever been produced in the current capitalist market, has been effected by the state, whether that be for better or (more likely) worse. To say that you can point to anything and say "see now THAT'S capitalism! the state had no involvement in that! no corporatism there!" is absolutely absurd. Then you can maybe get into how the state and capitalism depend on one another, as they do. Something to remember: this is one of the beliefs that sits at the very core of their perception of the world today. It's what allows them to praise only what they see as positive aspects of the capitalist system today while shunning the parts they don't like by externalizing it then labeling it as something completely different. If you can get them to see why this is wrong, then it might, just might, be a downward slope from there. So call them out on their shit.
Ask them about monopolies. They be like "state does it". Google "sources of monopoly power". See that there are uh… one or two(?) valid arguments on the list on why monopolies could be held up by the state. What you need to focus on is what they don't bring up. It's the things that aren't caused by the state. That might get them to scratch their heads a bit. Might need to get to know the numbers on private subsidies so you can shoot down that shit when they might pull it up.
Remember, they're anti-state. Appeal to that. Ask them why they think the state is fucked up, the inherent problems that come with it, and then relate it back to capitalism when you feel you can draw a solid line of comparison.
How is this better than the present day? He's literally pursuing a dystopia and admitting it…
...
everyone would live like in Fallout: New Vegas where towns have their own politics
Yeah, and the Powder Gangers are free to take over Goodsprings if they can overpower its inhabitants. Anarcho-capitalism would be more like actual lawlessness and 'might makes right', no NAP involved.
He says it would be better because the 100% free market would solve everything. Also he thinks the state ruins everything and every politician ever has never done anything for anyone and everything they do is to keep political power.
Sadly, I think he's a bit too stupid for an inteligent conversation. He literally thinks that working for the state is real slavery and everyone who worked under any Communst country was a slave. The only people who work volentarely are the ones employed to a company.
He'd just say that his dad earned it and therefore he deserves it.