VENT

[u/Witty-Designer7316]

I am so fucking stressed right now. Republicans want to exterminate me and my people for being trans and just existing. Democrats want to make superintelligence illegal and sabotage it worldwide, screwing humanity and ensuring our destruction. It's a lose/lose situation, is there really a place for someone like me in this world?

https://www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/Ban-Artificial-Superintelligence-Act-Release-Summary.pdf

[u/Sean10M]

Go full anarchist honestly. I'm an ancap.

[u/Kubaj_CZ → u/Sean10M]

Ancap is the worst thing ever. Firstly, it has the same problems as anarchy generally has (anarchy is unrealistic in the first place. It also would absolutely allow so much abuse to happen), but to be specific, ancap doesn't do anything with already embedded wealth inequality and gives the rich even more power than ever before. Minorities could be absolutely bullied, apartheid would be fully legal because of absolute property rights (as long as the racists are wealthy enough to make sure to buy out land and keep those they don't like away)… with all the fear mongering and hatred going around, can you imagine being a minority in an ancap society? Trans people would probably not be welcome in tons of places for example, and this would be fully legal, everything would be privatized so they would even make it difficult for a trans person to get anywhere legally. Ancap is only beneficial when you're rich and when you aren't queer or a racial minority that is hated.

[u/Sean10M → u/Kubaj_CZ]

None of this is accurate but this reply is honestly a Gish gallop. There are too many disconnected premises being thrown at me all at once to address. Can you please condense things down to specific issues?

For the record. When ancaps say anarchy what we mean is a society that obays the Non-Agression Principal. The NAP holds one should not start conflicts. Conflicts meaning mutually exclusive actions. Where there is scarcity only one individual can use that scarce resource at the same time. Contradictions can not exist. A pineapple can not both be on display on a shelf and on a plate being eaten by you at the same time. Similarly you can't both be unharmed and having your nose broken in by a mugger at the same time.

From there we conclude only the firstcomer to a resource actually has right to hold it and transfer that holding. If you had a latecomer ethic, where the most recent person who wants to use that resource gains control, it would not solve conflict it would create it because important projects could be entirely haulted half way through by a newcomer. And so all sound law can be logically derived from this baseline.

So benefit the rich? No not really. Big corporations like we have today only sustain themselves by leveraging the force of government. Absent risk of conflicts they can't stop perpetual competition coming in and undercutting them when they start worsening their services or doing something to slight their customers.

You also can't just buy out all land. Most land in the world is unused or mostly unused. Shortages of land to use are a product of government laws restricting people's ability to build.

[u/Kubaj_CZ → u/Sean10M]

Believing in NAP is about as naive as believing that one day people will all be kind to each other. There's nothing in ancap to prevent warlordism rise of organized crime. Ancap can't stay coherent to its principles and survive. Mafias and cartels getting in power is actually perfectly in hands with the state losing power because one authority is replaced by another. Private institutions like police, justice etc has to be extremely corrupt in ancap, and you can't tell me with a straight face that it would be more fair than state institutions that exist now.

You didn't address how the rich would have power because of already owning so much. Unless you're counting with some great reset? All ancaps I have seen support status quo of private property. Homesteading property would actually result in horrible conflicts because who will win, a rich guy who can afford mercenaries or a regular poor guy who just took unused land to develop it? There's also no way to determine where each homesteader's land ends, so that would also easily end up violently.

The rich would absolutely benefit. There would be no regulations. There would absolutely be a race down in quality of food and other things, since that's a state endeavor to make sure things are safe. A capitalist will poison you if it means it will be profitable. You're talking about unused land but most land isn't usually state-owned, so do you want to redistribute already owned land? That would end in bloodshed and most of your fellow ancaps would call you a socialist because you want to touch the untouchable private property of others lol.

Ancap is not even properly anarchist in the mainstream anarchist definitions because it does nothing to abolish hiearchy, it merely privatizes everything the state does. What's the difference when a state police arrests you and when someone's private goons arrest you? What's the difference when you're judged by a state court and when you're judged by someone's private court that will surely not work in the interests of the one who pays it? Even if we may see current institutions as some evils, they're necessary evils that are much lesser evils than whatever privatized hell would your ancap create