Tuesday, March 31, 2009

How to Spot a Naïve Ancap

We will make a quick post to list some 10 planks to distinguish a naïve ancap from a radical ancap.

Plank one. The naïve ancap estimates that labor productivity will merely double in ancapistan. Contrastingly, the radical ancap believes that ancapistan would have at least five times greater productivity than what we have now. The naïve ancap believes that taxation and inflation more-or-less cause only a 50% productivity loss, while the radical ancap knows that the state squanders at least 80% of our labor productivity.

Plank two. The naïve ancap follows mainstream supply-side celebrities like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, and/or the conspiracy nut Alex Jones. The naïve ancap almost exclusively focuses on bail-outs, while avoiding all the other draconian privileges that the plutocrats loot from us. Contrastingly, the radical ancap focuses on the entire scope of state privileges, besides taxation. The radical ancap understands that state regulations, interventions, licensing, urban planning, and prohibitions more greatly impoverishes the economy besides merely taxation and inflation.

Plank three. Because the naïve ancap have a less radical view of economics than the radical ancap, they will often resort to a fetish for the past American government, in what they call "Restore the Republic." In doing so, the naïve ancap clungs to the U.S. Constitution, an obsolete document. Likewise, the naïve ancaps more likely vote for the "fiscal conservative" candidates who promises to slash the tax brackets by an only few percentage points. They will often fall into Ron Paul's traditionalist "Campaign for Liberty," the totalitarian "Free State Project," the theocratic "John Birch Society," or "Peter Schiff for Senator."

Plank four. The naïve ancap more likely follows stock market indices than the radical ancap. The stock-market indices, such as the Dow Jones Index, most likely measures the well-being of the most privileged firms. The 30 components of the Dow Jones Index consists of mega-corporations which gets subsidies and bailouts from the government, and regulations that cartelize them.

Plank five. The naïve ancap more likely favors gradualist and reformist polices that compromises the their goal. For example, the naïve ancap more likely praises welfare reform programs, such as FairTax, school vouchers, Health Savings Accounts, and the other of the so-called "market-based" solutions. Contrastingly, the radical ancap recognizes these schemes as simply the government as expanding out to quasi-statist firms.

Plank six. Because the naïve ancap trusts the state more, they will likely hold the status quo of legitimizing some state practices, such as immigration restriction or disallowing the "illegal" immigrants to use the bureaucratic hospitals or the state schools (indoctrination prisons).

Plank seven. The naïve ancap, in general, has greater faith in the state and its bureaucracy than the radical ancaps. We do not mean that the naïve ancap supports or even tolerates statism. We mean that they only believe that bureaucracies have 50% or so inefficiency than the so-called "private" companies. For example, the naïve ancap claims that school vouchers can more efficiently indoctrinate children than state schools. However, the naïve ancap never questions the state indoctrination centers itself. Contrastingly, the radical ancap believes that truly free market schools will have 95% more efficiency, not at indoctrinating children, but at educating them.

Plank eight. The radical ancap views the state as a criminal monster that deceptively steals at least 80% of our productivity, at least not as much as the naïve ancap does. Therefore the naïve ancap will likely vote and participate in electoral campaigns rather than education. Even if the naïve ancap wants to educate others, they will tend to use arguments justifying the status quo of our income distribution as a "natural" outcome of human nature or the economic system. Most of these arguments sound indistinguishable from what Such Limbaugh or Sean Hannity makes, that "tax cuts" benefits the economy, or "welfare" creates a spiral of dependence. They never question the state impoverishes individuals by its licenses, building codes, land-use regulations, red tape, and certification requirements which impoverishes them by wasting 90% of their productivity (the state steals 80% of the productivity from the middle class, but 90% of the productivity from the lower classes).

Plank nine. The naïve ancap will more likely get fooled by the glittering generalities and the vague words spoken by conservative politicians and radio hosts.

Plank ten. The naïve ancap still trusts mainstream media.


Varrin Swearingen said...

I had to laugh at the "totalitarian Free State Project" jab. I hardly think a project whose goal is a government whose ***maximum*** role is the protection of life, liberty and property could be called totalitarian. But it was cute anyway.


Anonymous said...

needs proof-reading badly

anarcho-mercantilist said...


I identify as market anarchist. Therefore I see "government" as totalitarian.


I apologize for this. I wrote this post too fast.

George Donnelly said...

Why is the Free State Project totalitarian? The project itself is not totalitarian, even if you think government is.

I'll go you one better, the constitution is not obsolete because it was never really in force. It's just 4 pieces of parchment that a few people only signed "in witness of".

Another fallacy: schools educate. They don't. Students can only learn.

anarcho-mercantilist said...

"Why is the Free State Project totalitarian?"

George, thanks for tuning into my blog!

I knew that some would get confused of why I label the "Free State Project" as "totalitarian."

If you carefully analyze the word "totalitarian," you will eventually notice the meaningless of this word. Can you identify the essential attributes of a 'totalitarian' society? High taxation rates? The rule by arbitrary decree? Ubiquitous paternalistic legislation? If so, then even a Constitutional Republic displays those characteristics, thus we can label it as 'totalitarian'. The tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution permits states to enforce paternalistic and moral legislation.

I, myself, consider moral legislation (such as drug laws) as 'totalitarian.' And, according to various sources, Ron Paul actually supports moral legislation at the state level. Ergo, I could label Ron Paul as a 'totalitarian' too.

Therefore, the word 'totalitarian' can represent anything, because no one can agree to a specific interpretation of the vague word.

George Donnelly said...

Hey there, my pleasure. :)

Ok, I think I get your meaning now.

btw I'm a voluntaryist and I'm moving to NH with the FSP in a few weeks. I think it works even for us anti-totalitarian types. :)