28 ms·
A better way of framing the question would be "how is Mexico not the inevitable consequence of anarcho-capitalist systems?"
by nmfisher 6y ago
A better way of framing the question would be "how is Mexico not the inevitable consequence of anarcho-capitalist systems?"
- rorykoehler 6y agoI'd love to hear the answer. Another one that confuses me to no end is how anarcho-capitalism isn't a paradox? Capitalism is inherently authoritarian while anarchism is libertarian. They are opposite ends of the same spectrum.
- Ancapistani 6y agoCapitalism isn’t the most precise term to use, honestly - it’s an economic system, not a social system. Capitalism is not in any way “inherently authoritarian”. That assertion is false on its face - it basically boils down to private ownership of property and voluntary exchange. The means through which those things are ensured is outside the scope of an economic system.
- rorykoehler 6y agoCapitalism as we have it today is inherently authoritarian. If you have no money you do whatever money tells you to do or suffer the consequences.
- Ancapistani 6y agoWhat we have today doesn’t define “Capitalism” - it’s a combination of political and social systems with a big helping of cultural biases thrown in.
- Ancapistani 6y agoPerhaps it is. We know it’s an inevitable consequence of the state in Mexico, though.