Comments by "Rusty Shackleford" (@POCKET-SAND) on "Am I an Ancap? And what is Anarcho-Capitalism?" video.

  1. My home state of Pennsylvania (state within a state technically), does possess a voluntary tax, the Pennsylvania Lottery, colloquially known as the "stupid tax." Unfortunately, they only use it to supplement the mandatory taxes they already collect.
    7
  2. Most monopolies have formed due to state interference, either directly or indirectly.
    2
  3. I highly doubt the Commonwealth could be considered "AnCap." Firstly, it existed at a time when Capitalism really didn't exist on scales larger than business in small villages, at a time when Europe was dominated by Mercantilism. Secondly, it was a nobles' republic. They owned the estates, the peasants worked for them, and they controlled the state (yes, the Commonwealth was a state), and as such held power over over sectors of society. In fact, the way the Commonwealth functioned really wasn't all that different from how most of Europe functioned during the High Middle Ages, where the nobility held a lot of power. Poland retained that balance of power while the rest of Europe moved into the age of the absolute monarch, which allowed for a central central entity (basically one person) to dictate pretty much whatever they wanted, allowing for massive armies to be formed and paid for.
    2
  4.  @bakters  Every landowner was also basically an extension of the state, having legal powers over those under him in addition to economic. It was Feudalism, not Capitalism you're describing. Peasant life was rarely reasonable throughout European history. And it wasn't like most of them had anywhere else to go. Again, not private. The szlachta were the state, and held legal authority over those around them. People were not free. You don't know where to start simply because you have no argument. During the High Middle Ages, the nobility held most of the power in most European kingdoms. Poland remained that way while the rest of European entered the age of the absolute monarch. It's pure nonsense to argue a Feudal society like Poland-Lithuania was "AnCap."
    2
  5. A Capitalist is not a "master" for the simple reason that they have no legal authority over you, or at least shouldn't if the market is truly free. If you work a job, you are free to quit and leave at any point. And if you decide to stay, your boss doesn't have any pull on you when you're on your own time. Contrast this to Socialism, where the workers become slaves to the state.
    2
  6. And if you don't vote, they still force you to pay taxes.
    1
  7.  @bakters  "If you were a noble . . ." And your argument falls short right there. By implying the "AnCap" practices only apply to a certain group of people, you are unknowingly admitting it wasn't an AnCap system. Non-nobles, who comprised well over 90% of the population, were ruled over by the szlachta, who ran the state. Because there was a state, the system could not have been AnCap. Even the szlachta themselves were subject to laws and could do things that the majority of their peers did not approve of. It sure sounds like you're inventing it out of the blue. Poland-Lithuania had a king (a weak one, but still a king), it had a government filled with szlachta, it had an army, it had regional armies. What part of any of this screams anarchism? It was also a lot harder to become a "citizen" than you are letting on. Yeah, it was easier than most other European countries, that doesn't make it likely though. You don't seem to understand that the szlachta having access to all of those things isn't "AnCap." The szlachta themselves were the state, they ran the country and made the laws. Them having private security and low taxes is more comparable to modern-day politicians having private securities and kickbacks than common people. The common people in Poland-Lithuania were not free, people in any European country were not free. It's funny you mention the peasant revolt in Galicia, considering it was a revolt against the szlachta.
    1
  8.  @bakters  Again, you're completely ignoring what I am saying. Feudalism is not "AnCap." And Poland-Lithuania was a mostly feudal society. It may interest you to know that in Colonial America, roads and bridges were not usually built by governments. Colonial America also had many militia groups who did not really fall under the control of any federal or state government outside of times of war. And they weren't constantly warring with each other during peacetime. Not saying Colonial America was AnCap, but it was certainly closer to it than the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which was an empire in all but name. Well than Wacław Potocki seems like an idiot who doesn't understand what anarchy is. If there is a government, then you have no anarchy. And Poland-Lithuania clearly had a government filled with szlachta, who ruled over those around them with both legal and economic power. You are not helping your case, you are only confirming the vast majority of people were not nobles, and thus basically had no rights. And judging off the fact that the szlachta always were a small minority, then what you say cannot be true. One would expect there to be a lot more citizens if it really was as easy as you claim. And you are running away from me explaining that the szlachta were the state, simply because you have no counter against it. They exclusively ran the government and were much more lax on themselves than they were on other people, much like modern politicians. To argue it was "anarchism" is just plain idiotic. You couldn't be more wrong. In Galicia in the 19th century, people were still living under basically Medieval conditions. It was one of the poorest and most underdeveloped regions in Europe. And again, the peasants revolted against their szlachta landlords, not the Austrians.
    1
  9.  @philliphessel6788  My friend, it is you who are speaking in newspeak and doublethink. You're completely mischaracterizing what Capitalism is in order to make your politics sound better. The whole "we are the government" is completely nonsense. Politicians in any nation that is a democracy rarely appeals to the will of the people. For example, in the U.S. people are overwhelmingly in favor of term limits for Congress. However, it's unlikely that Congress will ever place term limits on itself. Fact is, the government mostly does its own thing. And you are not "subject" to your boss at work. As I explained before, you are free to quit whenever you want and go elsewhere and your boss can't really do anything to stop you. We have a lot of freedom within a free market: work where you want, quite when you like, go into business for yourself . . . Things that centrally planned economies don't allow. There's simply no logic to be found in any of your claims.
    1
  10.  @philliphessel6788  You have not. Very little of what you have said about Capitalism actually applies to Capitalism. Capitalism is when the means of production and distribution of goods are in private control, with the state not interfering in economic activity. The Capitalist does not "govern" a firm because a firm is not a body that is "governed" in the sense of how a state is governed. Involvement in a company is voluntary, involvement in a state is not. As I have explained before, in a free market you are free to quit whenever you want. Your boss holds no real authority over you when you are not on company time and you can quit your job, severing any connection you had with your boss. In contrast, a state is mandatory. You have no choice whether or not you want to participate, pay taxes, or live under the state. And the state will use violence against you should you oppose any of its demands. Capitalism is what abolished slavery and serfdom, my friend. And it did so without the involvement of the state at first. Historically, the reason why slavery fell out of favor was that new technological developments lessened the need for manual labor and increased the demand for skilled labor. At the same time, Capitalists discovered that productivity increases when you employ paid laborers instead of slaves, because slaves care little for productivity, as they are not incentivized to anything above the bare minimum. Paid laborers, on the other hand, do better because they are incentivized to work, unlike slaves. Issues like slavery had been a moral issue for some time before this, but it was largely the economic changes brought about by Capitalist innovation that drove the final nails into the coffin of slavery. The state, when it does involve itself in the economy, usually makes things worse. And the violation of a contract simply means that business will no longer be done between two entities. Compensation may be sought in court, but it is often not received. Frequently, the biggest blow to the entity that breaks the contract is a strike at its reputation, like a bad credit score. You comments lead me to believe you've never actually worked a job before. I've never seen so much ignorance of things that are common sense to any working adult. Once again, I implore you to stop reading Communist drivel and actually educate yourself properly on the field of economics. Marxism is to economics what science fiction is to astronomy.
    1