For the record, I've seen you reference your username before and I still don't entirely understand what the word means, though I did look it up at one point.
Anarcho-capitalism is a similar ideology to libertarianism, only more extreme. Proponents are called Anarcho-capitalists or "ancaps" for short. The idea seems to involve being able to start a private alternative to government (with your own private police force enforcing your own laws, etc.)
Imagine your police force is just a bunch of robots controlled via AI. The AI control problem is generally applicable to anything with the authority to project force. How do you make sure you build an AI that won't harm you?
Now think about swapping the AIs with humans. How do you make sure you build a private police force that won't harm you? You cannot earn trust with money because a private police force can just point their guns at you and take your money.
I'm an anarcho-capitalist as well. For me, there is nothing that could make the case that it's morally wrong because the premises are entirely moral and correct in my world-view. It basically starts with very few solid premises that (I think) most people would agree on, and builds an entire moral framework of rules on-top of those to define how human interaction should go.
The Non-Aggression Principle(NAP) is what it all boils down to. I would argue that a lot of the laws we have are just re-iterations or complex versions of the NAP.
This does mean some things "slip through" that we're used to as being laws/rules in our society, but I think that in the such a society, we would organize and solve them to a satisfactory degree using means that don't violate the basic rules as set down. There are huge volumes of people trying to solve them without violating the NAP and I think it's possible if we built a society slowly over time on such a framework that it would work.
Pragmatically, however, I know we won't be able to achieve it in the near future (or ever) without a "reset" or a "fresh start" that allows the idea to practice, be fleshed out, and hopefully flourish. It can't just be "slapped onto" our current society and hope things work out, that'll result in chaos and put us in apocalypse territory. This is also why I'm very disappointed with all the "outer-space" related laws and treaties that are basically disallowing the possibility for new societies to form without the old ways of doing things.
I would feel very sad, and I would want to do something about it. But I would do so without breaking the NAP. Which means not taking other people's money/labor and letting some third-party spend it as they see fit under the guise of "reducing suffering", even though the goal is noble. I would spend my own money to the degree with which I'm comfortable and how strongly I feel.
This doesn't mean it's a "less moral" system. As a counter-example: Would putting surveillance cameras inside every house to prevent domestic violence be a "more moral" system just because it reduces more suffering? Where do we draw the line for which rights we're okay with violating in order to stop suffering? I just put it at a very non-arbitrary spot, which is the NAP.
Another one that confuses me to no end is how anarcho-capitalism isn't a paradox? Capitalism is inherently authoritarian while anarchism is libertarian. They are opposite ends of the same spectrum.
Capitalism isn’t the most precise term to use, honestly - it’s an economic system, not a social system.
Capitalism is not in any way “inherently authoritarian”. That assertion is false on its face - it basically boils down to private ownership of property and voluntary exchange. The means through which those things are ensured is outside the scope of an economic system.
I may differ from most ancaps in this respect, but I don’t think so - I don’t expect that we could flip a switch tomorrow, eliminate the state, and live in peace. In most places, it would be violent chaos.
The key thing to implement a stateless society is to change the root expectation that a central authority is a necessity. That happens over generations, piece by piece.
I don’t want to overthrow governments - I want them to wither away due to lack of interest.
It's a differentiator from "pure" anarchy (which is opposed to hierarchy in relationships) and the other more specific subsets like anarchy-communism (which rejects private property).
The idea that is shared is that individuals own themselves, and therefore own the product of themselves.
Why do you feel so strongly about it that you have to derail the discussion with a cheap/petty jab that adds very little to the conversation? At least in this thread it was mostly civil and borne out of curiosity on the topic.
It's akin to me saying "Oh, such a lovely well-functioning government and society you have there that allows X-thousands of people to die of treatable medical issues every year and Y-thousands of people to be living on the streets homeless and without any assistance, and watches idly as millions die of malaria and hunger across the ocean".
I expect it - it always happens in public discussion of extreme ideas. I either ignore it or use it as an opportunity to clarify my own thoughts on the subject and to share them with others who are reading the thread.
If I’m correct, my conviction is that my ideas will win in the end. That will require them to be spread to a public as a whole, and “cheap/petty jabs” draw eyes. This discussion honestly rather unlikely to change any minds, but if it does, I doubt it it will happen through throwing insults.
The fact that you yourself call it an extreme idea should be a dead giveaway that it probably isn't tenable. When designing a system always be sure to design from the perspective of the losers as well as the winners. Being a loser in an ancap world would be one of the shittiest lives one could imagine.
“Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”
“Extreme” only means that it’s outside what is currently in place and what is generally accepted. I’ve arrived at an extreme political position because that’s where logic has lead me, not because it is extreme. It gives me pause, but my position has been only reinforced by introspection and discussion with others.
> When designing a system always be sure to design from the perspective of the losers as well as the winners. Being a loser in an ancap world would be one of the shittiest lives one could imagine
I don’t disagree - but I would also point out that being a loser in our current system is no walk in the park, and that being poor isn’t the only way to lose. At least in the system I envision, there’s recourse against the dominant powers in more cases than there is today. If you have a serious dispute with the state... you’re pretty much out of luck.
For the record, I've seen you reference your username before and I still don't entirely understand what the word means, though I did look it up at one point.