Jeff Swann @Jeff Swann - 2y
Extremely accurate in my case. nostr:nevent1qqszut5zn83f5ek066qr0qpj39q0xn4lvz9jcfzy6vju52eew94aulgpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzp06phmxgsv08x9we4x0c8ugkjzvevp0mkk28gg60pydxzcfackv3qvzqqqqqqy8jq4kd
It's only temporary to the degree that money is corruptible. A sound monetary system is a fairly effective check on arbitrary authority & political parasites. Corruption of money (centralized manipulation of trade) is always foundational to establishing a sustainable ruling class, which is just the destruction of capitalism. As stated in the communist manifesto, central banking is a key step in their efforts to infect a society.
Consistency. "Big tent" lbertarianism tends to include minarchists. The establishment or legitimization of any organization funded by force basically guaratees the growth of a parasite class.
This is an overview of the basic argument. Having trouble thinking of any writing on the subject specifically, it just seems obvious after studying libertarian principles & political incentives. People in govt do better the more they steal. People in other sectors do better the more value they produce. But the more the govt steals the more resources they have to infect everything else. The more wealth created by a free market, the more theft people can afford to tolerate if they can be convinced it's legitimate in some form or fashion. I will see what other relevant content I can find. Something like "The Use of Knowledge in Society" might be helpful, or the chapter(s) on prices & the broken window fallacy in Economics in One Lesson might be helpful when trying to grasp how market coordination works outside of govt direction. The Bootleggers & Baptists theory of regulation is also probably relevant. And understanding that a law which steals $1 from each person but rewards some special interest to the tune of hundreds of millions will pass every time, because each individual only has $1 worth of incentive to fight the law, while lobbyists have millions in monetary incentives to promote it. https://youtu.be/SjTy4bV0Rro?si=gBCQGokZi6Nfe5uV
What part of capitalism do you believe to be propaganda? The only propaganda I see seems to be focused on making people believe that the results of some authoritarianism or political parasitism is actually the result of some capitalist principle. It seems to me that the goal is to get people to hate critical aspects of actual freedom & identify them as things that need to be smashed. If people are innoculated against the ideas that make their freedom & prosperity possible then they are much easier to maintain as slaves. If you get the slaves fighting capitalism (free trade & property rights) for you, then authoritarianism reigns.
I think voluntary cooperation & mutual aid are natural hallmarks of free market capitalism. A cultural respect for property rights is quite literally the only thing that ensures weak people are able to own anything at all. Everything else is some version of might makes right. I DO think that people who contribute little to society should not be able to command resources out of all proportion to the value they create for others, but that's just rooted in a basic sense of what is fair or sane IMO. I have no desire to see people suffer or struggle unnecessarily, but I know that systems which tear down the capable & productive to prevent the discomfort of the unproductive have historically imposed more senseless suffering on human kind than any other sort of arrangement. I believe that allowing productive people to create as much value for others as they can without anyone stealing from them produces the best sort of society & benefits the poor & unskilled more than any amount of structural theft possibly could. I don't believe that allowing others to create good & services that I want (but cannot be forced to buy) gives anyone power over me. I don't believe another person having a lot of money can force me to sell anything I own.
The concept of "social justice" is one of the most evil things ever conceived. It is both anti-social & unjust. It can be very fulfilling & spiritually rewarding to help others, but being forced to support others against your will is completely destructive to both the human spirit & human relations. Transforming some ethnic group or minority into an economic & politcal burden is the surest way to sew hatred among the people being burdened. The sort of threats & actions needed to steal from one group & give to another are neither social nor just. Collective punishment or attempting to impose some collective responsibility for the actions of others is widely recognized as a war crime. #socialjustice #socialism #capitalism #freetrade #anarchocapitalism #agorism nostr:nevent1qqsvra9h8pp99nzxsps5qmfuxy9pnl9gzy3e3u0lm3eeclwk4ve05ccppamhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5pzpmyeahz4vlszs90mz5pq9p0zl2pepycuah6eeq7khvk97mhp2v9eqvzqqqqqqyqh63rc
Capitalism is just free trade with respect for indiviual rights. It is entirely possible for voluntary communes to exist within an honest capitalist system. Mutual aid societies, & cooperatives were far more common when the US govt was far smaller, suggesting that libertarian ideals (smaller or no govts) are very friendly to voluntary communes, mutual aid, & cooperatives. The key is that individuals cannot be forced to contribute to a commune if they decide they'd rather not, which basically means the existence of the group must benefit all participants. If it doesn't then it is likely to naturally dissolve. Slavery is not acceptable in an honest capitalist system. In contrast, capitalists are not free to exist or to trade within socialist & communist systems. One is freedom, while the others are different forms of slavery which can only exist by destroying freedom. If you desire some form of communism that doesn't involve enslaving anyone, then an honest capitalist system is no threat to you. You can object to my definition of capitalism, but I haven't seen you provide any meaningful definition for the word. All of the anarcho capitalists & agorists I know believe that capitalism is free trade with respect for individual rights. There is no public school teaching that, so I fail to see how that is propaganda. It's just respect for private ownership (individual ownership) of capital (tools, money, etc). I am trying to describe to you what I (and others like me) believe, & you seem unusually hung up on the words I am using rather than trying to actually understand me
How are you ruled or controled by anyone in a free market? Anarchy means no rulers. Minarchy means there is a limited ruling class. Oligarchy means there is a ruling group. Monarchy means a single ruler. There is no meaningful power hierarchy in any trade relationship. Both parties are free to stop dealing with the other at any time. The only remaining hierarchy, social status, is a completely inevitable part of society. You can't make people equally confident, equally skilled, equally funny, equally happy, equally intelligent, equally fit, equally clean, etc. All of those things (and more) matter can play a role in social status. Anything you could equalize would only cause other things to matter more. There will always be different skill levels in all things so social status is absolutely going to always exist. The flattest possible social graph is going to be one where any person is free to find (or even create) whatever they are good at, so long as doing so isn't creating a power hierarchy by politically or economically burdening anyone else. In other words, anarcho capitalism.
The main problem among left anarchists seems to come when their ideas do not pan out the way they would like because most people do not enjoy being vaguely socially obligated to one another. For example, a gift economy is just a less precise version of trade & the lack of precision is really only preferred by those who have less to offer & therfore something to gain from keeping things vague. As an ancap I tend to be wary of anyone from the left because I have seen the mental gymnastics they will engage in to justify stealing (even from friends) when things aren't going their way.
I think most people find ways to make themselves the good guy in their own mind while doing shitty things. That's not a Machivellian indifference to morality, it's an effort to twist or reframe reality in order to feel better about themselves because they do care about morality. I have no plans to stop using the word anarchist or agorist & I suspect there are more ancaps using those words more effectively in the spread of ideas than people on the left at this point. The left stole "liberalism" and transformed it into something completely illiberal. At least "anarchy" in the ancap sense makes sense. I don't really care if people who don't think ownership should exist feel like I'm stealing their word 😏
In a free market, the more value you produce for others, the more money you make, as determined by the people giving you money in exchange for stuff. It's quite literally a collectively determined status. If you piss people off they can stop giving you money. Value is subjective, but the amount of a sound money that people are willing to trade you in exchange for your stuff or your services is basically the most objective measure of value there is. What people spend hard earned money on is a much more honest confession of their values than anything they say. Having more money in an honest society doesn't actually create any sort of power hierarchy. No matter how much I have I can't force anyone to do anything. Money is not a threat of force. It's peaceful persuasion. I can offer you a million dollars, but if you say no I can't take your car or your house. It doesn't matter how much money Walmart has they can't make me shop there or support them, except when there's a pool of govt funds already stolen from people which they can use political connections to acquire. The structural theft of taxation is incompatible with a respect for property rights.
I think in the long run Bitcoin will make it impossible for govts to print money, very difficult for govts to collect taxes, & very easy for people to move with all of their wealth. Exit taxes will be (is already for the knowledgeable) almost completely unenforceable. The lack of money printing means that govts like the US gov & China cannot exist in anything like their current forms. I think a breakup is likely & competition between smaller states will provide a pretty effective check on govt abuse as adoption spreads. It's possible that it may actually increase the number of competitive monarchies in the world & reduce the number of democracies. Lichtenstein is one of the most libertarian nations in the world today & it is a principality. But maybe private ownership or management will trump them both, idk. The libertarian continuum in my mind is something like Milton Friedman > Hayek > Ayn Rand > Murray Rothbard David & Patri Friedman (son & grandson of Milton) are definitely on the Rothbard end of things, as are Tom Woods, Dave Smith, Karl Hess, Larken Rose, and my brother & I
