Why I fear we're fucked
fucked...
Anarchocapitalism is cruelty. This is the general sentiment of most mainstream (particularly left-of-center) detractors of such a system. Indeed this is the reaction to any sociopolitical/economic system founded on principles of individual accountability - sound money, libertarianism, small government, Austrian economics, etc. Individual responsibility, while empowering to some, is outright terrifying to others. The consequent reality is that a large swathe of society generally operates under a premise that equates consequences with cruelty. This bias is preserved down to the individual level, most commonly expressed in different parenting styles. Why is this important?
It is important because it illustrates that what is needed is NOT a fact-based discourse highlighting the merits and drawbacks of the seemingly radical ideal of a predominantly individualist (as opposed to collectivist) system of governance. First a deep exploration of the underpinnings of morals and justice must occur. Before I can convince you that the libertarian vision is not one of cruel and indifferent individualism, we must first have a mutual understanding of notions like ‘justice,’ ‘kindness,’ and ‘cruelty.’ I am generally a proponent of facing the consequences of ones actions. This starkly opposes the opinions of many people I know personally who view this way of being as harsh or uncaring. So the problem is that when you view consequences as cruelty, then the type of society proposed by libertarians IS a cruel one. And this gap is unlikely to ever be bridged without catastrophe (e.g. Great Depression or Soviet-style civilizational despair).
Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed. As people and societies experience prosperity and insulation from nature - and its uncompromising Darwinian competition for survival - they become increasingly intolerant of hardship. Stated differently, the better able civilization is to subdue the forces of nature, the more misaligned with nature and its principles we become. The problem with this is that laws - be they of physics or nature - cannot be escaped. They can be deferred. So eventually, the bill comes due. If individuals are not required to pay the price for their actions, eventually, then society writ large will have to. This the case in much of Europe. And it is becoming increasingly the case in the United States as we forget our own rugged, self-reliant origins. I suspect the dislocation will only worsen as we opt for continued attempts at denying the axiomatic truth that NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE. This is the weak-men-creating-hard-times phase of the cycle.
If you’ve reached the end of this post, thank you. I don’t like to be a pessimist, but I just do not see a path forward, barring a major recalibration of society’s prevailing views on individual responsibility. Perhaps I am mistaken.
fucked...
Anarchocapitalism is cruelty. This is the general sentiment of most mainstream (particularly left-of-center) detractors of such a system. Indeed this is the reaction to any sociopolitical/economic system founded on principles of individual accountability - sound money, libertarianism, small government, Austrian economics, etc. Individual responsibility, while empowering to some, is outright terrifying to others. The consequent reality is that a large swathe of society generally operates under a premise that equates consequences with cruelty. This bias is preserved down to the individual level, most commonly expressed in different parenting styles. Why is this important?
It is important because it illustrates that what is needed is NOT a fact-based discourse highlighting the merits and drawbacks of the seemingly radical ideal of a predominantly individualist (as opposed to collectivist) system of governance. First a deep exploration of the underpinnings of morals and justice must occur. Before I can convince you that the libertarian vision is not one of cruel and indifferent individualism, we must first have a mutual understanding of notions like ‘justice,’ ‘kindness,’ and ‘cruelty.’ I am generally a proponent of facing the consequences of ones actions. This starkly opposes the opinions of many people I know personally who view this way of being as harsh or uncaring. So the problem is that when you view consequences as cruelty, then the type of society proposed by libertarians IS a cruel one. And this gap is unlikely to ever be bridged without catastrophe (e.g. Great Depression or Soviet-style civilizational despair).
Nature to be commanded, must be obeyed. As people and societies experience prosperity and insulation from nature - and its uncompromising Darwinian competition for survival - they become increasingly intolerant of hardship. Stated differently, the better able civilization is to subdue the forces of nature, the more misaligned with nature and its principles we become. The problem with this is that laws - be they of physics or nature - cannot be escaped. They can be deferred. So eventually, the bill comes due. If individuals are not required to pay the price for their actions, eventually, then society writ large will have to. This the case in much of Europe. And it is becoming increasingly the case in the United States as we forget our own rugged, self-reliant origins. I suspect the dislocation will only worsen as we opt for continued attempts at denying the axiomatic truth that NOTHING IN LIFE IS FREE. This is the weak-men-creating-hard-times phase of the cycle.
If you’ve reached the end of this post, thank you. I don’t like to be a pessimist, but I just do not see a path forward, barring a major recalibration of society’s prevailing views on individual responsibility. Perhaps I am mistaken.
3❤️1
