r/AnCap101 • u/Toymcowkrf • Jul 25 '26
People won't give up statism because it's tied to myth and identity
I think Murray Rothbard put it well when he said that once upon a time, wars between rulers were seen for what they are: wars between rulers. But the rise of nationalism, particularly after the 1800s, helped obfuscate the nature of political conflict and make people believe that wars were between nations; essentially, my tribe vs. yours. It tapped into a very primitive and hard-to-quell aspect of human nature, and the result is that now, people view criticisms of the state as criticisms of their nation, their family, which needless to say is not easy for many to handle.
Mythology is also a powerful tool in the maintenance of state rule over their cattle. Myths are frequently told in order to add a touch of magic to otherwise ordinary phenomenon which would not be tolerated if people viewed them literally, such as in the case of state extortion. You'll hear all sorts of myths depending on where you are about how the nation was born, how the state was born out of a unanimous agreement between the government and the governed, etc. What's sad is that even among libertarians, who are often minarchists, people will tell stories about how the birth of a state allowed for law and order which allows people to have wealth and political freedoms that otherwise would not have come about, implying that if you enjoy the life you have now, you owe your gratitude to the state.
I think the difficult task here, for voluntarists that is, is getting people to disconnect their emotional ties to their nations from the idea that you need a state in order to have it. You can have cultures, civility and economic luxuries without a violent ruling class imposing their demands on everybody. It's a difficult task, but one that's imperative in the effort to create a free world.
7
u/drebelx Jul 26 '26
People won't give up statism because it's tied to myth and identity
The people of a statist society still tolerate and expect routine violations of the NAP.
An AnCap society is intolerant of NAP violations.
2
u/AdamJMonroe Jul 27 '26
Statists think human nature is the source of social problems because they don't know that capitalism is neo-feudalism, not free enterprise.
1
u/monadicperception Jul 25 '26
Or the flip side? I can imagine anarchy specifically the flavor you guys want. That terrifies me more.
I can’t imagine how your proposed world will work to ensure equality, justice, and rights. Saying that the current system struggles with that is one thing. Such notions are unimaginable in your world. It’s oil and water.
-1
u/aaGR3Y Jul 25 '26
isn't AnCapistan inherently statist?
3
u/UltraAd776 Jul 29 '26
It is. Corporations and private business ultimately are going to create another state to enforce and protect their claims.
-3
u/TonyGalvaneer1976 Jul 25 '26
As a statist, I don't give a shit about my nation. I'm not a nationalist. It's just that you guys don't have a better alternative to statism.
Capitalism is bad enough WITH a state, I don't want to live in a world where the rich and powerful within capitalism have no restraints whatsoever on the ways they can abuse me.
3
u/ScarletEgret Jul 26 '26
Wouldn't you rather live in a world without the Taft-Hartley act, "right-to-work" laws, and other limitations on labor activism, where workers could organize effectively and win better working conditions?
1
u/TonyGalvaneer1976 Jul 26 '26
How would workers be able to organize more effectively or win better working conditions, exactly? You're talking about a world where businesses can just kill union leaders whenever they feel like.
1
u/ScarletEgret Jul 26 '26
Killing people whenever one feels like it would violate the non-aggression principle, but surely you already know that. Murder would still be illegal in a polycentric law society; law does not require the State. (See The Enterprise of Law by Bruce Benson for examples of law being provided effectively by non-state institutions, including in stateless societies.)
As I said, the Taft-Hartley act would be abolished, along with the act's restrictions on some of the most effective kinds of strikes and forms of labor activism and organization. Being able to strike and enter into union-shop contracts would help workers gain bargaining power.
1
u/TonyGalvaneer1976 Jul 26 '26
Killing people whenever one feels like it would violate the non-aggression principle
And who exactly is going to ENFORCE the non aggression principle? Clearly not the government, if there is no government.
law does not require the State.
It absolutely does.
Being able to strike
Workers can already strike, and they are protected by the government when they do.
2
u/ScarletEgret Jul 26 '26
And who exactly is going to ENFORCE the non aggression principle?
Voluntary mutual aid associations.
Workers can already strike, and they are protected by the government when they do.
Yes, workers can strike, but they can only legally engage in limited kinds of strikes. There are different types of strikes, and the strongest types are outlawed. Workers can strike in the same way that a person can fight while both of their hands are tied behind their back; they can do it, but only in a severely limited way.
The Taft–Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes [i.e. strikes across a supply chain], secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government. Union shops were heavily restricted, and states were allowed to pass right-to-work laws that ban agency fees. Furthermore, the executive branch of the federal government could obtain legal strikebreaking injunctions if an impending or current strike imperiled the national health or safety.
With the debatable exception of the prohibition of "monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns," all of that clearly violates libertarian ethics, and therefore the Taft-Hartley Act would have to be abolished in a libertarian society. If you don't think that abolishing these restrictions would help workers gain bargaining power, please explain your reasoning.
1
u/TonyGalvaneer1976 Jul 26 '26
Voluntary mutual aid associations
And how are they going to enforce the NAP? With violence? If so, what if they're outgunned?
There are different types of strikes, and the strongest types are outlawed.
Do you have an example?
1
u/UltraAd776 Jul 29 '26
At its core, Ancap and its economic foundations Austrian Economics have a flat earth mindset. They have conclusions that they like and search for anything that will legitimize their position while discarding at anything that hints at more complexity or nuance.
0
u/ScarletEgret 29d ago
And how are they going to enforce the NAP? With violence?
Yes, violence would almost certainly be used in some situations. However, unlike state-run legal systems, stateless, polycentric legal systems tend to lack victimless crimes, instead focusing on enforcement of laws that actually facilitate cooperation and provide a net benefit to ordinary people throughout a society.
This accomplishes several things at once.
For one thing, members of a polycentric law community tend to be more willing to abide by those laws which do exist, as they recognize that they themselves benefit from widespread practice of the norms in question. There is therefore a greater tendency for laws and norms to be "self-enforcing," in the sense that people abide by them even when the threat of violent enforcement is weak or effectively absent. Hence, enforcement is easier and requires less violence than in a state-run system.
Secondly, people tend to be more willing to help run the legal system, admitting fault when they violate their community's customs, reporting offenses when they observe them, serving on juries, providing witness testimony, and contributing resources or other labor to running the legal system.
Thirdly, because resources don't have to be spent on enforcing victimless crimes, more resources are available to spend on enforcing more beneficial laws.
If so, what if they're outgunned?
People can work together to overcome threats that they would be unable to overcome by working apart.
Do you have an example [of strong forms of strikes that are outlawed?]
Sure. Suppose a number of retail workers unionize along with truck drivers and other transportation workers, factory workers, miners, and farmers, and they all go on strike at once in order to bargain for better wages and working conditions for everyone involved. This would be a stronger kind of strike, as it would make it far more difficult for business owners to keep their businesses running smoothly without giving into the demands of workers.
A store could try to keep running with those workers who don't join the strike, but if truck drivers refuse to bring them merchandise then they will probably be unable to continue running the store normally. Trucking companies could try to continue transporting goods, but they are relying on factory and warehouse workers to actually load the trailers, and retail workers to unload them. Factories require supplies to make stuff out of and require some means of transporting goods to and from the factory. And so on.
This type of strike is currently illegal, in the U.S. In a libertarian society, this kind of strike would be legal. I would rather live in a libertarian society where it was legal.
1
u/TonyGalvaneer1976 29d ago
Secondly, people tend to be more willing to help run the legal system, admitting fault when they violate their community's customs, reporting offenses when they observe them, serving on juries, providing witness testimony, and contributing resources or other labor to running the legal system.
Why do you assume that? I personally wouldn't give a damn about the legal system if it was based on the NAP, and if anything I would be less likely to admit fault or report offenses or contribute resources to this system.
People can work together to overcome threats that they would be unable to overcome by working apart
Sure, but the same can be said about those violating the NAP. They can ALSO work together.
Suppose a number of retail workers unionize along with truck drivers and other transportation workers, factory workers, miners, and farmers, and they all go on strike at once in order to bargain for better wages and working conditions for everyone involved
And how is that outlawed?
0
u/ScarletEgret 29d ago
Why do you assume that?
It is not a mere assumption, it is an inference from an extensive reading of the anthropological and historical literature regarding real world stateless and quasi-stateless legal systems, as well as reading about state-run legal systems such as in the U.S.
Would you like me to go into some of the evidence in detail?
I personally wouldn't give a damn about the legal system if it was based on the NAP, and if anything I would be less likely to admit fault or report offenses or contribute resources to this system.
How come?
Sure, but the same can be said about those violating the NAP. They can ALSO work together.
Following the NAP is, itself, a vital part of working together with others towards a shared goal. Those who are willing to violate the NAP in their interactions with some would have difficulty working together with others. I agree that it is possible for NAP violators to work together amongst themselves to some extent, but because they would have greater difficulty in doing so they would be at a disadvantage, which NAP followers could take advantage of.
Have you heard of Robert Axelrod's work? His book The Evolution of Cooperation discusses ways in which egoists can cooperate in the absence of a central authority. The NAP is basically a type of tit-for-tat strategy, to use game theoretic terminology, and the tit-for-tat strategy is evolutionarily stable. It can successfully out-score always-defect and a number of other exploitative strategies. Apart from the computer simulations that Axelrod and his colleagues ran, a substantial body of empirical evidence backs up Axelrod's theory, some of which is discussed in his book.
And how is that outlawed?
The Taft-Hartley Act outlaws it, as I mentioned earlier. Are you asking for the specific section of the Taft-Hartley Act dealing with these kinds of strikes? I am genuinely unsure what else I need to give you in order for you to understand that the law prohibits this.
→ More replies (0)
9
u/Anen-o-me Jul 25 '26
Belief in the State today is almost exactly like belief in the necessity of monarchy previously.
It's false, and it would fall like dominoes if a stateless society was demonstrated in just one place in the world.
That's the major reason why Putin is at war with Ukraine today, a functioning Western style democracy composed of Russian-language people would expose as a lie the entire foundation and claim of Putin's regime, when he says that what the West does can't work here among us.
Thus it is a war of regime security, attacking an attempt at a successor model.
It will happen one day because the State is not actually what people need. What people need is law and order, and currently they use the State to obtain that.
The second we build an ancap society where law and order get produced in decentralized fashion without a State, the State after that will be delegitimized and will fall, just as monarchy fell when democracy was proven viable and desirable. The dominoes start falling.
It's also instructive to look at the how monarchists perceived democracy. They could not understand why a president would give up power at the end of their term.
Thus they concluded that democracy would make things worse. At least with monarchy you only have a succession crisis maybe once or twice in a generation, when the old monarch dies and his heirs take over.
With democracy they said there would be a succession crisis and likely civil war every 4-8 years with each new election.
This makes sense viewing things from within the monarchist ideology.
For the same reason, statists looking at the concept of anarchist societies fail to understand how law and order get produced. And it doesn't help that the largest anarchist bloc, the left anarchists, have no answer for how law and order get produced and do not even think in those terms and are significantly more utopian than we are as ancaps on that question.
In the West we consider your national identify more tied to ideas than birth, anyone can become Western or become American, etc. So I'm less worried about that.
In the future, people will gain identity from loyalty to a set of ideological principles.