How do you argue against the classic ancap/libertarian position of "All of these bad things you mention about Capitalism is because of the government, take away government and the free market will fix everything"?
It's essentially their core argument for Capitalism and they use it at the drop of a hat. Is there any arguments or facts that conclusively disprove it?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
texasobserver.org
rationalwiki.org
en.wikipedia.org
youtube.com
twitter.com
Late 19th/Early 20th century American history.
Just say that without the planned parenthood and state prisons, all these brown people could come together to implement white gen0cide
Shining example of free market entrepreneurship (except for the bad stuff which was caused by government)
Yes. Explain how capitalism and the state grew and evolved from each other using examples such as the enclosure act. You can follow this by explaining how capitalism needs the state to enforce capitalist property rights,
both of our recessions correlate with private (free market) debt
So on.
Not real Capitalism. Capitalism can only exist in a stateless free market.
All of these things could only have happened because of government intervention. A free market wouldn't have allowed that.
fuck I think I'm making myself retarded
How do you protect private property in a true ``stateless´´ society as you say?
The capitalists themselves influence the government, and not the other way around.
On a slightly related note,
youtube.com
They think capitalism is trade when trade isn't inherent to capitalism but rather scarcity. Having laws that restrict slave owners from whipping their slaves on holy days doesn't make it no longer slavery. The slave masters still benefit from the system. Having a constitutional monarchy doesn't mean it is no longer monarchism. The royalty still benefit from the system. Having social democratic policies doesn't mean we no longer live under capitalism. Capitalists still benefit from the system the most.
With private security for the rich and maybe community militias for the poor (if they feel like it).
Marx actually assumes a free market in his economic analyses.
true capitalism has never been tried
We have a plan for that. What's yours?
Tell them that without government, any and all public goods will be under produced. And that doesn't just mean food stamps/welfare/subsidies, it includes things like functional roads, clean air, clean water, legally valid contracts, effective policing, etc. While these might still exist to some degree, they would not be anywhere near the quality and/or effective as they are now. This in turn would resultin lower standards of living for almost everyone. The only people who could possibly benefit from the implementation of a system like this are people who have already accumulated controle of a significant amount of resources. These people would then in turn exploit the people without controle of a sizable portion of resources, leading to a true oligarchy without any feasible means for the people to change it.
basically. You address this to libertarians, it becomes clear they think companies are mostly ethical already, and all the meddling government is doing is forcing them to hire black people and pay carbon taxes. by "Ethical" I mean the absolute bare minimum that companies can't even uphold today: not using slave labor (I mean literal slaves, not sweatshops), not committing wage theft, not using debt bondage, not killing people who try to unionize, not locking fire escapes to keep people from leaving early. they don't ever think about these things. Libertarianism isn't a real ideology, it's just the embodiment of "get off my fucking lawn" mentality.
American here. I was born in the Reagan administration. My Grandpa was a Department of the treasury official, and my dad was a CIA foreign advisor.
I have a message for you ancaptards. the Anarcho-capitalism you dream of will never happen.
I will tell you what will happen if a libertarian rEVOLution aka non-agression redistribution will occur.
Who do you think this Capitalist and "oppressed" people are? You? No. You hipsters are the harmful trust fund kiddies. The true ones are Oil tycoons, silicon valley and retail owner Billionaires. You hipsters may lead the revolution at the initial stage, but they will be the revolutionaries and they will hate you with the strongest class-hate with all your extravagent public education and subsidized roads. Liberal Technocrats are more likely to form a common bond with Coal Mine owners than with "intellectuals". It has been proven many times in many lands where capitalism was forced, that when class warfare begins the races and nations forget the hate and unite.
I tell them all about Enclosure laws during the transition from feudalism to capitalism in England, and how the state played a central role in establishing the conditions for capitalism's existence.
The free markets of Smith, Stuart Mill, and Marx were markets free of rent-seeking behavior and usurious debt.
Tell them to at least take econ 101 and learn what a public good or externalities are and ask them how capitalism solves those issues in the absence of ""intrusive government"".
the answer is it can't
Who cares. My grandfather was a school teacher and a pastor, yet that doesn't make me an expert on primary schools and Calvin.
Can we gas ancaps after the revolution?
Ancap expectation: Pay a private army to protect my property amd shoot intruders
Reality: Someone else pays them more and they shoot you instead
You shouldn't need to argue against that since the burden of proof is on them. They should provide evidence of how unregulating capital will provide better living standards and freedom for all. Obviously they can't, outside abstract liberal theories and fantasy scenarios, and should be rightfully mocked for it.
it's a meme you dip.
anuddah shoah
Oh shit, I hadn't heard of that one.
rationalwiki.org
I know, Rational Wiki sucks, but check that list out.
It was a fun read so far, but that is so stupid it genuinely soured my mood.
Ancap's don't believe in intellectual property
Intellectual property currently makes up most of the value of today's richest companies
Destroying intellectual property would be a massive redistribution of wealth
You'd probably end up with voluntary communism within a year because of no artifical scarcity
reality
what about McMercenaries
Ask them to justify their claim.
You can explain how the economy is a political institution and cannot exist without a government
Or you could explain how the market does not produce good outcomes re: Marx, Keynes, Kaleki, etc
Reality: goon squad takes all of your money rather than some of it
In the post-Enlightenment era, mercenaries completely lack institutional legitimacy. Not to mention, a regular army with compulsory service is far, far cheaper than a numerically equivalent mercenary force.
This is one thing libertarians really can't get: they think the economy is a closed system, or at least that it can somehow be decoupled from its society and studied by itself. This is related to why the bastards refuse to consider externalities. It's all patently ridiculous, and I wish I knew who the fuck came up with this retarded concept in the first place.
unironically human nature
...
Related:
got into an argument with an ancap who linked this video for me to criticise without getting "postmodern". Sry for linking youtube directly, I always use an external program to download the videos instead of using the website.
I'm doing my "leftypol reading homework" and not that educated in ideology. Can you
help me dissect this video? youtube.com
underrated post.