'Morning, Steven, you wrote:
>It seems to me that anarcho-capitalism deals primarily with healthy,
>rational, capable individuals with acquisitive tendencies.
>I'm concerned at how the unhealthy, non-materialistic, and emotional
>(i.e., non-rational) will fare under this system.
(Aside: why do you equate "emotional" with "non-rational"? That's a false dichotomy IMO.)
Anarchy is not a "system". It's simply freedom for systems to arise without force of arms.
>As a semi-related comment, I've noticed that anarcho-capitalists seem to
>spend and awful lot of time *planning* the alternatives to government.
Kinda hard to implement the alternatives these days, isn't it?
>Anarcho-capitalists also seem overly confident that these alternatives
>structures will work, which seems to mirror to an unsettling degree the
>of confidence that early socialist thinkers had in their models.
As I pointed out above, you're making the mistake of identifying A-C as a system in its own right. Our confidence in it is simply our confidence in freedom and in people's resourcefulness.
>If anarcho-capitalism really is based upon spontaneous order, we should
>the solutions to non-governance to be as unpredictable and remarkable as
>patterns we see in natural systems.
Exactly! I think this may be what really scares people. An anxiety we anarchists (and even minimalists) need to come to grips with if we expect to win the average bloke over. Any suggestions?
>If an anarcho-capitalist society were really that much better, I
>think you'd have no trouble winning over the masses.
Think about that for a minute. Consider Copernicus. Columbus. Or Darwin. The sorry fact is that people are (not without some reason) fanatically resistant to change, especially in their worldviews. The majority, especially in a democratic reqime, are comfortable enough to be afraid of rocking the boat. Also remember that most people are pretty busy going about their day-to-day lives and have little time to devote (so they think) to "philosophical" matters. It's going to take more than theory and history to impell people to embrace radical changes.
>The best way to speed the death of the state would be to set up
A great idea. Where would you suggest we try it? At the bottom of the
ocean? In the Alpha Centauri star system? What accessible area of the
planet is currently unclaimed by some "nation" or other?
>a fabulously successful anarcho-capitalist region as a model for
>the rest of the world.
A great idea. Where would you suggest we try it? At the bottom of the ocean? In the Alpha Centauri star system? What accessible area of the planet is currently unclaimed by some "nation" or other?
Actually, there are a number of similar projects afoot, but the diplomacy involved is pretty tough, as you might imagine.
>>>Certain Asian cultures have a much different perception of freedom
>>>and the value of freedom than Americans do.
>>No doubt, and that's precisely why they live in an economic quagmire.
>Perhaps they value other things more than material success?
Perhaps, but it's ingenuous to imply that the case for freedom reduces to a mere concern for material success.
>But the question, "Are you coerced?" is subjective because it depends on
>what a given individual wants versus what they are required to do.
>your view is correct for said individual depends on how they feel.
I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. It's a matter of testable objective fact whether someone is using physical force or threatening same against me. Guns are NOT all in my head. It's not a mind game. It's deadly serious.
>While I'm concerned that some people don't want to pay for what I'm doing,
>there are others that appreciate what I'm doing.
I'm afraid your concern looks like crocodile tears to me. How does your
belief that some people
apprecitate what you're doing (for that matter, I might be one of them if I knew what it was)
have anything to do with the ethical question of compelling or constraining the others?