Amerika

The other day, an anarcho-capitalist expressed some ideas that made sense but not broad enough sense to be adopted. For those of us on the Right, it becomes important to clarify where we stand versus anarcho-capitalism and other nearby travelers to our path.

Anarcho-capitalism, like the anarchy from which its suffix derives, hopes for a self-organizing society. It implements Social Darwinism, or the idea that the more capable earn more money and therefore, rise in the society and gradually replace the weaker, less sane, less healthy, and less honest people.

In other words, it is Darwinism through capitalism. This appeals to the armchair voter because it requires little intervention on their part. All they must do is press the button, then go to their jobs, and somehow magically everything turns out okay.

Let us try a parable.

A man inherits a vast chunk of land in north Texas. It has little commercial value, but he wants to turn it into a forest. He has three basic options that he can pursue:

1. Humanist: get a whole bunch of similar trees, plant them in straight lines, and basically run his forest like a farm. On the plus side, this is the easiest to get started and everyone understands it; on the downside, this is not a very resilient order nor will it look like a real forest.
2. Naturalist: let nature rain on the land and seeds take root, and see what springs up out of the earth, then let the strongest trees dominate the weaker. This involves almost no activity on his part, we know it works, and it will be a resilient order; on the other hand, his land is separated from other land by highways and train tracks, and most of the land around it is populated with mesquite and shrub.
3. Realist: this combines the approaches by saying that he should clear out anything useless, plant more of whatever is already there and good, and then nurture the rising plants. This requires the most work and constant work, but will produce the healthiest forest in the gap between short-term and long-term.

The anarcho-capitalist wants the naturalist approach, but no longer exists in a natural state, so assumes that turning everyone into an economic actor will magically sort the population, when in fact it alienates many who have no interest in commerce and just want normal lives which will be productive in other ways.

The Leftist wants the humanist approach. He wants equality in his trees, so the only fair way to do this is to have lots of equal trees with equal spacing, then give attention to whichever trees are failing or sickly so that they can catch up with the rest.

The Furthest Right™ person wants to accept that nature is not what it was, nor do we have the time scale required, because the world has changed with human intervention, so what makes sense is to shape the forest in the best quality version of what nature offers.

After all, across Texas, if you leave the land up to nature, you might end up with a forest, or just a whole lot of scrub brush because not enough water sticks around to grow big plants and the wind tears up anything that rises above the norm. You are most likely to get a lot full of weeds.

Some of you may know that Europeans essentially changed the soil and forest wherever they went. They used their grazing animals and composting to restore the soil, then by cutting down the less healthy trees, made vast dark forests with tall trees that shielded and therefore nurtured others.

In this way, human intervention was an improvement, but only because it was both consistent with nature and geared toward a higher level of quality. They could have had fields of scrub, but through nurturing, made great forests, as nature tends to do when the conditions are already right.

Anarcho-capitalism would work great if we applied an IQ and morals filter. Everyone under 115 IQ points goes into the chipper, and everyone who is morally dubious gets drowned in the swamp, and then the remaining group will operate well under just about any system short of Communism.

In the same way, people see National Socialism as a miracle, but the real majesty and utility of the process involved the German people. If you take the foot off their necks, they can do just about anything better than anyone else, which is why the world hates them.

Capitalism is an economic system, not a political one. You need some method of leadership and some kind of social hierarchy where the best people are recognized and get bumped to the top; if not, you will get a landscape of McDonald’s selling garbage to morons because the efficiency of capitalism enables it to accumulate parasites.

Our ancestors failed because they did not take out the trash, and the accumulation of weak waste humans caused us to back off of what worked — manorial feudalism and aristocracy, ethno-nationalism, strong culture, paganism, and free markets — and instead to adopt a series of “systems” designed to manage the waste humans.

Anarcho-capitalism does not address the problem of waste humans nor of leadership, so despite having grand theoretical origins, it will end up at the same place that democracy does, albeit a little bit slower like the conservatives will destroy Western Civilization at a slower pace than the liberals will.

Anarchy is entropy. Entropy is the burden of choice, and when each decision has more burden than benefit, people stop making decisions other than continuing forward with inertia, and that inertia leads them to repeat working methods even after the conditions of their application change, which makes them destructive.

For example, a farmer who irrigates too much during a rainy year may find his crops die of fungus; if people rely too much on the church, they end up neglecting culture; when a society idealizes war in itself, instead of seeing it as a method towards an end, it becomes pointlessly destructive.

We can appreciate what the anarcho-capitalists want to achieve but simultaneously realize that self-organizing systems tend toward mediocrity once a factor is present that interrupts the removal of waste humans. If left up to nature, humans in agriculture civilization gradually revert back to being hominids or monkeys eventually.

One reason that around here we emphasize the Right-wing aspect is that the principle of the Right — Darwinian celebration of the best idea, but by quality instead of minimums — leads to the creation of an enduring society, at least so long as it remembers to remove the excess of waste humans it will produce.

Tags: anarcho-capitalism, anarchy, self-organizing systems, waste humans