With the exception of the rare absolute fact (such as if you stop breathing for too long, you’ll die), pretty much everything we believe is someone else’s opinion.
I used to make that same argument. Eventually I began asking ancaps about free trade in general. What happens when a foreign power outside of ancapistan begins to trade directly with one of ancapistans prominent businesses, what happens when that foreign currency begins distorting prices on goods in ancapistan? What happens when entire governments begin running operations with several businesses in ancapistan. It appears that subterfuge is unavoidable in any free market where free trade is permitted. I never got an answer.
Also ask why one would want to believe the notion that life would be better without any form of govt. I suspect there’s a bit of victimization happening there as well. Yes, it can be empowering to imagine govt is not the be all or end all but if there’s always some untouchable enemy keeping you down and it’s made of every stupid person on earth who won’t ever see the light, then you get to be mad at people you don’t know and you get you blame all of whatever shortcomings you have on an invisible entity that’s holding you back. Right now, the social capital of victimization, the world over May be as high as it has ever been in any point in history. I’d say that is the true sign communism has permeated every aspect of society.
People like that have a tough time explaining why things were so good for so many between VJ Day and Kennedy getting blown away. One wouldn't look at America's Happy Days and come to the conclusion that those guys free marketed and individualism'd their way to good times.
I feel like there is a lot of pretending the gilded age didn't happen as well. When you look back at all the coercion and violence used by corporations / industrialists (and the government acting as their stooge frequently) to get what they wanted. I Know there is a thread of revisionism out there saying the gilded age was actually a good thing (or not actually a gilded age) but I have generally found these talking points to be blatantly ideological and usually boil down to capitalism good so what happened then was good.
Discovering what a system does in fact is more important than discovering what the intent or alleged design purpose of the thing was. This is the main problem I have with Chesterton's Fence, it frames systems analysis under the naive assumption that the designer's declared intention is honest and that the design can be reasonably expected to have achieved its goals.
If someone sells you a device purported to make you safer, healthier and wealthier, but in reality everyone who uses it ends up fat, poor, and increasingly at risk of harm, then it is a device for making people fat, poor and injured whatever it says on the label. We may begin to analyze its design and function from the point of view of "why isn't it doing what it's supposed to", but it may be more helpful to first ask "are we sure it isn't supposed to do this?"
One of the big challenges to my confidence in free markets as solutions was observing corporations acting as powers unto themselves manipulating and controlling society. You're going to be ruled, but do you want an oligarchy that is looking out for you and setting the rules or the whims of the businesses with the biggest sticks?
It's a little fantastical to assume that any ruling body is ever going to be looking out for your best interests. They're humans, and they're going to look out for their own interests, as humans always do. It's only a question of incentive alignment. Do they perceive your long-term best interests to be in their best interests, or does compromising your interests provide more benefit to theirs?
How do you structure and maintain a set of incentives that selects for people aligned with you, and selects against people hostile to you? A difficult question but the only one real life politics is asking.
I don't have the answers, perhaps expressing my thoughts poorly. I used to think free markets solved most problems because it decentralized power, but it doesn't work that way. That power goes somewhere, governments, corporations or your friends. I prefer the latter.
I think the OG ancaps didn't really understand network effects. It's like the newtonian physics of economics. Big leap forward from mysticism and spirit animals, but not quite a complete description of the system.
I used to make that same argument. Eventually I began asking ancaps about free trade in general. What happens when a foreign power outside of ancapistan begins to trade directly with one of ancapistans prominent businesses, what happens when that foreign currency begins distorting prices on goods in ancapistan? What happens when entire governments begin running operations with several businesses in ancapistan. It appears that subterfuge is unavoidable in any free market where free trade is permitted. I never got an answer.
Also ask why one would want to believe the notion that life would be better without any form of govt. I suspect there’s a bit of victimization happening there as well. Yes, it can be empowering to imagine govt is not the be all or end all but if there’s always some untouchable enemy keeping you down and it’s made of every stupid person on earth who won’t ever see the light, then you get to be mad at people you don’t know and you get you blame all of whatever shortcomings you have on an invisible entity that’s holding you back. Right now, the social capital of victimization, the world over May be as high as it has ever been in any point in history. I’d say that is the true sign communism has permeated every aspect of society.
People like that have a tough time explaining why things were so good for so many between VJ Day and Kennedy getting blown away. One wouldn't look at America's Happy Days and come to the conclusion that those guys free marketed and individualism'd their way to good times.
I feel like there is a lot of pretending the gilded age didn't happen as well. When you look back at all the coercion and violence used by corporations / industrialists (and the government acting as their stooge frequently) to get what they wanted. I Know there is a thread of revisionism out there saying the gilded age was actually a good thing (or not actually a gilded age) but I have generally found these talking points to be blatantly ideological and usually boil down to capitalism good so what happened then was good.
“Yet when pushed as to how they can be assured of this, they have nothing except the theory they have read out of a book.”
Not just theoretical models, but empirical data, too (although all empirical data is theory-laden).
Discovering what a system does in fact is more important than discovering what the intent or alleged design purpose of the thing was. This is the main problem I have with Chesterton's Fence, it frames systems analysis under the naive assumption that the designer's declared intention is honest and that the design can be reasonably expected to have achieved its goals.
If someone sells you a device purported to make you safer, healthier and wealthier, but in reality everyone who uses it ends up fat, poor, and increasingly at risk of harm, then it is a device for making people fat, poor and injured whatever it says on the label. We may begin to analyze its design and function from the point of view of "why isn't it doing what it's supposed to", but it may be more helpful to first ask "are we sure it isn't supposed to do this?"
One of the big challenges to my confidence in free markets as solutions was observing corporations acting as powers unto themselves manipulating and controlling society. You're going to be ruled, but do you want an oligarchy that is looking out for you and setting the rules or the whims of the businesses with the biggest sticks?
It's a little fantastical to assume that any ruling body is ever going to be looking out for your best interests. They're humans, and they're going to look out for their own interests, as humans always do. It's only a question of incentive alignment. Do they perceive your long-term best interests to be in their best interests, or does compromising your interests provide more benefit to theirs?
How do you structure and maintain a set of incentives that selects for people aligned with you, and selects against people hostile to you? A difficult question but the only one real life politics is asking.
I don't have the answers, perhaps expressing my thoughts poorly. I used to think free markets solved most problems because it decentralized power, but it doesn't work that way. That power goes somewhere, governments, corporations or your friends. I prefer the latter.
I think the OG ancaps didn't really understand network effects. It's like the newtonian physics of economics. Big leap forward from mysticism and spirit animals, but not quite a complete description of the system.