When I change my mind about something important its usually for a good reason. On the topic of religion, it took me months to switch from a theist to an atheist through debate... not to mention my agnosticism and pantheism in between.
So now, after years of political persuasion, i am able to call myself an anarcho-capitalist with a clear and vivid definition of what that is.
Other titles include...
[Free] Market Anarchist.
Extreme Libertarian.
Individualist Anarchist.
It is a negative philosophy. I have found myself advocating it in class for about 2 years... before that, I was the complete opposite. A statist communist... although, much like Karl, I believed that the state would dismantle itself.
Because it is a negative philosophy, it not against any type of system... even fascism, communism or other forms of extremes...
This crucial idea came to me about 4 months after my political conversion. It made me realize that the governmental system we live in now runs on anarchistic principles, proving its worth.
Forcing people to reject the use of force is contradictory.
Combine that with capitalism and its fascist, vice-versa and its communist.
So how is it possible to change peoples minds?
How can one agree with another?
They can:
A) Use force and make people do what one says with a gun or a threat.
or
B) Use Trade or Contract for goods or services to provide an incentive to agree.
In any other case, they have already agreed (C) or they will always disagree (D).
However there is also a method of debate, argument and persuasion - otherwise, logic (E).
More directly, how is it possible for people to agree to 'anarcho-capitalism'.
1. C
One barrier is ignorance. People simply do not know this option. For most people, statism is always the answer.
"The government should be doing something about it."
Spreading the knowledge is the first sollution and all people who fall under the category of C will agree.
2. E
Now, that we have taken care of ignorance, what about the people who initially disagree?
The next group of people must be taken in by using the best method, logic, reason, science and debate. Ultimatly, the ones who are knowledgable in society will be taken in... giving incentive for those who are not as knowledgable to also accept it.
A moral argument is needed here.
3. B
A vast majority of people will not fall under the second category... In the US about 80% of the population is religious... and many atheists are not even logical. These statistics may be wrong, Religion is very subjective and may change any second.
An effeciancy argument is needed here. The masses will realize the economic power of an anarcho-capitalist society.
4. D
Finaly, those who still find themselves disagreeing will be in the minority by the time we get into this phase. It will still pose a problem that must be solved later in this post.
The biggest problem:
These same tools of persuasion can be used by the statist as well. Not only that, the statist has a fifth tool, the tool of force. The only tool an anarcho-capitalist has against that is the tool of self defense. Their tool of providing incentive is also a huge blow to the anarcho-capitalist movement because they can buy anyone out... any prof would inevitably agree to a life filled with money and security, it goes with the capitalist philosophy anyway.
The last category for the statist to deal with is me, and others like me. Those who disagree.
Again, they can use force to deal with a minority such as ours... (not to mention governmental student loans).
So, this is the biggest [philosophical] problem I face today.
Is it possible that if I wait, the majority will become less ignorant and more willing overtime as history shows it has?
Or, will tyrants find a new way to control the masses as history has also shown (religion -> states)?
My only sollution is to try to convince the people of group E and help stop the spread of ignorance... but I must think of a better one.
No comments:
Post a Comment