Minimal Effective Stack
1. creatine hcl — 750 mg, AM
2. noopept — 10 mg, AM-12-PM
3. cdp choline — 300 mg, AM-PM
4. modafinil — 200 mg, AM
5. ashwagandha — 600 mg, AM-PM
6. bacopa — 300 mg, AM
7. cod liver oil — 1000 mg, AM-PM
8. melatonin — 500 mcg, PM
- muscle building
- muscle exertion
- general cognition
- extreme focus
- verbal fluency
- absorb information
- memory retrieval
- memory retrieval
- verbal fluency
- eye health
- general cognition
- extreme focus
- stimulant, non-jittery
- reduce cortisol
- general cognition
- memory formation
cod liver oil
- positive mood
- general cognition
- vitamin d
- vitamin a
- sleep quality
- sleep onset
- general cognition
- nicotine (1-2mg a day)
- raw unmodified potato starch
- citrulline malate
Rules Adapted from: 12 Steps to Dealing with Narcissists – Emotional Self Protection and Boundary Setting
Author/Producer: RICHARD GRANNON SPARTANLIFECOACH
Original Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Ud9tV90U0
A Twelve-Step Program
- Identify and admit that you are dealing with a narcissist.
- Test it: do you feel like crap when you speak to them?
- Clarify to yourself what you are feeling at the moment (while dealing with them).
- Clarify the boundary between your problems and their problems. (say “I’m not having that problem.”)
- Assert to yourself that you don’t let people treat you like this.
- Be aware they have ulterior motives and an interminable agenda. (It won’t get better.)
- Physically withdraw as much as possible and create distance between you and them.
- Psychologically withdraw from them. Don’t be tempted to share or be friendly.
- Recognize and remind yourself that you cannot help or fix them, no matter how reasonable or compassionate you may be.
- Manage your own state of being and remember that they are provoked the most by vulnerability (exploiting the weak).
- Remember that they need your pain and discomfort to feel good.
- Do not discuss personal issues with narcissists. Redirect the conversation.
I find I always have to remind myself most that they cannot be helped (#9) and it will not get better (#6). As a reasonable and empathetic person myself, I am so often flabbergasted by their inability to integrate new self-knowledge via external feedback, coaching, guidance, and so on that they receive from others. The fact that they engage in feedback-seeking behaviors without the fundamental capacity (and/or willingness) to induce personal growth in themselves using said feedback just confounds me. I constantly find myself feeling sorry for myself that it *truly* won’t get any better and I can’t do anything to change, halt, or unravel the narcissist’s indiscriminate vomit-spewing agenda.
And then I find myself caught in this rabbit-hole loop of positing new and ever more refined, plausible-sounding theories about the childhood trauma-based, alcoholism-exacerbated, insecurity-ridden, self-aggrandizing, other-invalidating behaviors that eminate from this pathetic shell of a person. This pathetic shell of a person who gets drunk and then cries for her mama after she’s done trash-talking you and your family for an hour. This pathetic shell of a person who pounds his chest and interrupts the meeting 38 times in 25 minutes so he can feel like Big Important Ape-Man and then go cry in his car for an hour in the office parking lot while drinking himself stupid.
And I feel the damned temptation to be merciful, compassionate, and understanding. But at least I am not damned like them. I have the ability to choose how I bring these patterns and this fluctuating dynamic into my conscious awareness, to choose to see things as they really are. I am blessed to have this burden that is empathy, that is other-awareness, that is sense-of-fairness, that is self-awareness. Not everybody has that particular giant boulder to push up the hill every day now do they?
The Myth of Sisyphus
We are dealing with information overload. The data overhang in fields like Big Data and Genomics is crushing us. We lack the means to process so much information. Entertainment, if allowed, could eat more of our time than exists in the universal time remaining. How can we personalize and streamline our data, our technology, and our experiences to maximize our time and innovate more?
System complexities such as climate and weather patterns, disease and globalization, macroeconomic and political trends, and other physical processes are almost certainly indomitable and inevitably impossible to synthesize perfectly for any unaided human individual at this time. Perhaps A.I. systems and algorithms, such as those being built by DeepMind at Google, can be relied upon to help us become the masters of our time and of our environments. This is the argument — presented quite compellingly, I might add — which Demis Hassabis effectively advances at talk at the RSA conference in November of 2016.
Demis Hassabis on the benefits to humanity of accelerating technology:
A concise and accessible exploration of Bitcoin’s internals and potential impact.
Main topics include:
- Technology: How Bitcoin allows for the secure transfer of unforgeable assets over the internet.
- Economics: Distinct advantages Bitcoin has as a deflationary currency (through a ceiling on the number of mine-able bitcoins) in a world full of inflationary fiat currencies being actively manipulated by central bankers and politicians.
- Potential Benefits to the Poor: How Bitcoin-based remittances, peer-to-peer/micro-finance, and development aid can help the poor route around corrupt financial institutions and inept governments in order to improve their lives.
- Additional Use Cases: Blockchain smart contracts as distributed, uncensorable, self-enforcing contracts; other programmatic aspects of Bitcoin to be exploited.
The Journal of Private Enterprise 30(3), 2015, 19–50
Economics beyond Financial Intermediation: Digital Currencies’ Possibilities for Growth, Poverty Alleviation, and International Development — [Download PDF]
By Saifedean Ammous
Lebanese American University
Bitcoin is the first technology for the final transfer of digital goods online, facilitating instant global payments without intermediation. Bitcoin’s operation is based on a distributed, decentralized, and transparent asset ledger that acts as an ongoing chain record of all transactions. The system issues coins to reward those who contribute processing power to the network’s operation. The possibilities created by this innovation are significant for the world’s poor, who could skip traditional political and financial institutions and move to digital currencies in the same way they have gone straight to using mobile phones and skipped landline telephones.
- “Through the use of cryptography, Bitcoin brings the scarcity, rivalry, finality, and irreversibility of physical transactions to the digital realm. A digital song can now be treated just like a physical cassette or CD, a rival good that cannot be played on two machines at the same time. This is not just true for music files, but for all kinds of digital data, goods, programs, and, most significantly, currency.”
- “Instead of utilizing a trusted third-party intermediary, Bitcoin is based on cryptographic proof verified by the central processing unit (CPU) power of the total network. As such, Bitcoin can be understood as being to currency what email is to paper mail: an infinitely faster and cheaper digital shortcut for a physical-world activity that has been carried out for millennia.”
- “As the network grows and currency adoption increases, bitcoin’s real-world purchasing power also increases, thus ensuring that the block-mining reward, while decreasing in terms of bitcoin and costing more in terms of CPU, is worth more in terms of real goods and services. This is the most strikingly ingenious facet of Bitcoin’s design: if the network grows, the rise in the currency’s purchasing power ensures that the reward to the computers that run the network increases, thus incentivizing ever-more processing power to be dedicated to verifying the network. The programmed decreasing rate of increase of coin issuance, combined with the fast growth of the network, ensures that miners who operate the network continue to be rewarded for running it as it grows.”
- “The Bitcoin network grows as fast as bitcoin adoption rises, or, in other words, as fast as the bitcoin economy grows. The money supply, however, only rises at a predetermined rate, which is roughly halving every four years, as the block reward declines. Though the supply of the currency is increasing, and will continue to do so indefinitely, the currency’s real purchasing power has increased drastically in the six years it has been circulating. The increase in adoption explains the rise in bitcoin’s purchasing power since circulation started in 2009. The first recorded exchange rate of bitcoins for fiat currency was 1,309.30 BTC for 1.00 USD, offered in October 2009 (Wallace 2011). By July 2015, the exchange rate had risen to fluctuate around 0.004 BTC for 1.00 USD, reflecting roughly a 330,000-fold (or 33 million percent) increase in the price of a bitcoin in US dollars in six years.”
- “Bitcoin exists as a real-world experiment in this inflation-deflation debate. Whereas traditional currencies are continuously increasing in supply and decreasing in purchasing power, bitcoin has so far witnessed a large increase in real purchasing power despite a moderate (but decreasing, controlled, and capped) increase in its supply. If bitcoin’s depreciation rate is measured with respect to the US dollar, it is highly negative, as table 2 shows, averaging a negative 24.5 percent depreciation rate in the four years for which data are available.”
- “While still a technology in its infancy, Bitcoin offers a blueprint for how billions of the world’s poor can partake in international, modern capitalism without having to reside in countries with supportive modern institutions. Bitcoin could be life-changing to those individuals and could also offer credible competition to national monopolies in financial services, currency issuance, judicial systems, and credit provision.”
DOWNLOAD THE FULL ARTICLE (PDF)
— Bitcoin ATM’s: Here’s an ATM next to us. Where are these made?
— Generally in America.
— There are more and more Bitcoin ATM’s around the world. We can see them on the map. There are 555.
— 16 in Japan, huh?
— Yes, there are different brands too: Genesis ATM is the leading manufacturer of Bitcoin ATM’s. Lamassu is #2. One’s that are easy to use are becoming more common. We are adding one Bitcoin ATM per day on average right now around the world.
— Recently the price has been going up and down. But it seems more people are buying bitcoin these days; we can safely ignore the recent Hearn debacle.
— There was a seminar recently that we attended. How was it for you?
— I thought that it was easy to understand, and I thought it was noteworthy that transactions are almost free of fees and the fact that everyone in the network secures bitcoin together I thought was interesting. I also thought, wow, I’ve never thought about the nature of money before either…
— A lot of people were buying bitcoins there, too, huh?
— Yeah, quite a few people.
— Some individuals were buying a large amount too.
— So let’s talk about how people are getting their hands on bitcoin these days… If you buy bitcoin at an ATM you’ll either send it to a wallet on your phone, or you’ll get one of these paper wallets with the private key and the public key showing. Of course if you’ve got a lot of money on your paper wallet, it’s insecure, and you stand to lose it all if anyone scans the private key before you transfer the bitcoin associated with it away to some other wallet (and a new address).
— So how do you secure bitcoin? If you look at the top 100 richest bitcoin addresses on BitcoinRichList, it shows there are some with over $60 million worth of bitcoin in them. And notice the addresses here, there are a few that start with a 3, and most of the rest start with a number 1. The number at the beginning of the addresses tell you something. A 1 tells you that it’s a normal single-signature wallet address. A 3 tells you that it belongs to a multi-signature wallet.
— Multi-signature wallets, such as the Trezor hardware wallet, or any number of multi-sig software wallets, allow you to divide the ownership or control over a bitcoin wallet amongst three or more keys. You can distribute these keys around the world, or have your neighbor or a friend hold a third key for you while you hold two. If you hold two keys, you can use those two keys to spend your bitcoin from the multi-sig wallet that you’ve got. If you lose one, your neighbor can still help you sign off on the transaction so it can be sent.
— It’s kind of like a bank, isn’t it?
— It is like a bank except only the wallet (account) owner can move the bitcoin to a new address.
— Only about 30 out of the top 100 bitcoin addresses now are multi-sig wallet addresses. It seems rather foolish. You’re much more vulnerable keeping all your bitcoin in a single-signature wallet. I think we’ll be seeing the number of multi-sig addresses increase a lot in the near future. We could expect more multi-sig addresses to be taking up the top 100 richest address spots in the next few years.
— There are some trends in top companies around the world (having to do with dematerializaiton). So many of the world’s most innovative companies have little-to-no property or inventory; they generally just coordinate others’ resources:
- Uber – The world’s largest taxi company owns no vehicles.
- Facebook – The world’s most popular media owner creates no content.
- Alibaba – The most valuable retailer has no inventory.
- Airbnb – The world’s largest accommodation provider owns no real estate.
— I could see bitcoin fitting into such a role in the future: “Bitcoin – The world’s largest bank holds no money”.
— The Trezor is a really cool way to protect your bitcoins. If you don’t plug it into your computer, you can’t spend the bitcoins. If your computer is hacked, you’re protected because the private key for your wallet is on the other device, the Trezor. Not only is the key separated from the network (offline), but you need to enter an pincode with on-screen obfuscated number pad, but also you need to confirm two times by pressing a button on the device before you can send money to someone.
— And now Trezor is selling this multi-sig set of hardware wallets. There’s three in each package. You could take two and trust me to hold the third as a backup. You’d need both of your keys, or one of yours plus mine, in order to withdraw from the account. I can’t ever withdraw from the account because I only have one key.
— You can see this being potentially very useful for companies to secure large accounts. For example, they could distribute 15 keys to members of the board of directors. Maybe they give one to a law firm they hire to arbitrate in the case consensus cannot be reached or if, heaven forbid, more than half of the board members die or lose their keys. You can set the minimum number of keys needed to send a transaction to whatever you want: 5 of 15, 10 of 15, etc.
— There are new physical hardware wallets that work just like credit cards, too, now. They use the same kind of chip technology and everything. As of right now, there is no standard way of securing your bitcoin with hardware wallets. The bitcoin ecosystem is still in its infancy, but it is developing quickly.
— What do you think about all this?
— I feel like I want to know more now, like it would be good to know about bitcoin and how it works.
— What about the economic and technological impacts that this technology can have? What do you think about this?
— It seems like it could be useful for many things. Since you can send money to anyone it would be great for charity, wouldn’t it?
— Yes, indeed. You can donate to any given cause around the world.
— Ultimately, it’s really a young technology and is not very user-friendly yet. But the developers in the space are working at a frantic pace to build it out and make it better and easier to use.
Trace Mayer, J.D., a long-time Bitcoin Guru and Investor in Bitcoin companies such as Armory and Kraken, explains the network effects that will lead to Bitcoin’s continued success.
From his talk hosted by CRYPSA at LaGuardia Community College – June 29, 2015.
Listen to the audio: http://www.bitcoin.kn/2015/06/crypsa-event-with-trace-mayer/
The 7 network effects of Bitcoin are as follows:
- Speculation — As a novel, cryptographically-backed asset class with the potential for appreciation and high volatility, Bitcoin is perfect for speculators with a high tolerance for risk.
- Merchant Adoption — Merchants will increasingly accept Bitcoin because they can increase their profit margins by avoiding credit card fees and chargebacks.
- Consumer Adoption — Consumers can use Bitcoin to save money at certain vendors. For example, getting a 20% discount on Amazon by spending Bitcoin through Purse. Additionally, consumers can buy things with Bitcoin that they cannot buy (easily) in any other way. Consider: An American can buy Persian rugs or Cuban cigars online despite trade embargoes. Bitcoin increases the efficiency of the economy, particularly in niche areas such as these.
- Security — Merchant, consumer, and speculator adoption lead to a higher price and thus incentivize more miners to participate and secure the system. The decentralized, immutable transaction ledger also serves as a form of Triple Entry Bookkeeping, wherein Debits plus Credits plus the Network Confirmations of transactions increase trust and accountability across the system.
- Developer Mindshare — Bitcoin is a “dumb”, predictable network with simple rules and a publicly-auditable codebase. It is fertile ground for the development of complicated algorithms, machine-to-machine payment protocols, smart contracts, and other tools. Its decentralized nature allows for innovation without permission. Altcoins (such as Litecoin and Ethereum) pose little threat as Bitcoin is already dominant as a store of value and as a medium of exchange in the cryptocurrency space. If you harbor doubts about the importance of this currency network effect — or worry about altcoins overtaking Bitcoin in some other way — I would point you to Daniel Krawisz’ insightful and though-provoking article on the subject: “The Coming Demise of Altcoins“. Ultimately, developers will continue to flock to Bitcoin.
- Financialization — Bitcoin will eat up progressively more of the market share of legacy banking institutions in areas such as remittances, micropayments, peer-to-peer lending, and the exchange of stocks and securities. This process has already begun (consider NASDAQ’s support of Open Assets/Colored Coins for the transfer of securities, NYSE’s investment in Coinbase, etc.). Old money risks dying out lest it embrace new protocols such as Bitcoin.
- Adoption as a World Reserve Currency — Eventually all transactions will be settled on the blockchain, including house titles, stock purchases, car titles, and other monetary instruments and currencies. Network effects one through six culminate in this final network effect. Any newcomer in the realm of cryptocurrency — or traditional currency, for that matter — would need to beat Bitcoin in all seven of these areas. This is unlikely considering the pace of development in Bitcoin Core, the level of investment in Bitcoin companies around the world, the growth in Bitcoin’s user base, and on and on… Further price increases will only accelerate the process. Finally, a speculative attack could dramatically boost the value of Bitcoin almost overnight.
Bitcoin is a strong currency: it thrives on the internet; it frees its users from 3rd parties; it saves merchants money; it is deflationary; its code can be audited by all; its developers work tirelessly to improve upon it; the list goes on. The above-listed network effects can only serve to strengthen it. Competitors beware.
READ THIS NEXT: Speculative Attack, by Pierre Rochard
An excerpt from the introduction of “Speculative Attack”:
Bitcoin will not be eagerly adopted by the mainstream, it will be forced upon them. Forced, as in “compelled by economic reality”. People will be forced to pay with bitcoins, not because of ‘the technology’, but because no one will accept their worthless fiat for payments. Contrary to popular belief, good money drives out bad. This “driving out” has started as a small fiat bleed. It will rapidly escalate into Class IV hemorrhaging due to speculative attacks on weak fiat currencies. The end result will be hyperbitcoinization, i.e. “your money is no good here”.
“The €uro is a Failure”
YouTube: Austrian Markets
- ECB to continue quantitative easing and maintain negative-interest rate policy through March, 2017.
- Stock exchanges primarily dependent on stimulus and tax-payer subsidies.
- ECB pronounce ‘no limit to the stimulus’.
- Maintenance of ‘Price Stability’ — Doublespeak for “guaranteed annual consumer price increase of 2%” — the driving force behind negative interest rate and quantitative easing programs.
- More state spending is advocated to solve problems created by state spending.
- West-German tax-payers prop up insolvent PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, and Spain), unsustainable.
- German Chancellor Angela Merkel forces demographic and financial burdens on German people.
- No plan to restructure or reduce debt; proposed “Austerity”measures merely decreases in increased spending; faux Austerity Theatre.
- Europeans uncomfortable with the notion of immediate, short-term economic pain from True Austerity; convinced by Academics and Bureaucrats that increased spending will magically solve fiscal problems.
- Toxic Greek debt a threat to EU Area.
- Weaker economies leaving EU, returning to own currencies, creating free-trade zones à la HK, seen as only viable path to regain solvency.
- Minor spending decreases plus large tax increases enables irresponsible countries and bureaucrats at the expense of productive countries and tax-payers.
- Euro deemed a failure.
by adminadam in essays
Are Anarchism and Capitalism irreconcilable or can these two schools of thought be integrated?
Let’s first explore some definitions. The term ‘anarchism’ comes from the Greek an and archos, which roughly translates to “without rulers”.
Traditionally, Left Anarchism has promoted the idea of political action committees and workers’ councils as an alternative governance structure to State politics. Essentially, these PAC’s and councils are meant to exert political pressure as they see fit. This is both to maintain their political monopoly position — to prevent the reemergence of the “Nation State” (read: any competing governance model) in a given geographic area or indeed the whole world — and also to disrupt the inevitable accumulation of capital in any given enterprise or individual. In effect, the means of political control and domination in such a Left Anarchist society are the same as that of a capitalist nation state. Political power, undoubtedly, still exists; it has just been rebranded. Left Anarchists thus seek to appoint themselves as the new rulers of their society post-revolution.
It is interesting to note the responses received when asking a traditional (Left) Anarchist who it is that would lead these PAC’s and workers’ councils. I have often been disappointed at the naivety (and obstinance) of those with whom I’ve taken up the matter: “All of us would lead. There would be no rulers. We would make all decisions affecting our citizenry through consensus”.
I am personally unconvinced by these assurances and others, such as the assertion that all members of the society would receive everything they needed in order to live a happy and healthy life — and that all this would be accomplished through bi-weekly meetings conducted by the dedicated and incorruptible. Are we all truly so virtuous?
“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.” –David Brin
Of course humans are corruptible. And it stands to reason that — in complete denial of our own faults and arrogance — we might view ourselves as pure and righteous and worthy of such power. It is an insidious twist — a leap in logic as it were — to say that instead of just me (for, of course, I am not fit to rule) that we all rule (for, of course, we will make wise and just decisions together). What’s often left out of these discussions in my experience is the question of what happens to the people that don’t participate in the consensus process. Are their views weighed? Or is a small minority (a bureaucracy) making decisions — however presumptuously — for us all?
So we see Left Anarchism is Statism-rebranded, albeit with a necessarily destructive bent towards capital and those who wish to retain the fruits of their labor. With this it seems a wholly more thorough, more potent form of Statism with a penchant for violence and an inherently contradictory nature: If we are all rulers, and some choose not to exercise their place on the Grand Council, we will decide for them. That there can be no competing models, that the Grand Council decides everything, that capital also is inevitably siphoned off to feed this Council smacks of Authoritarianism and Tyranny to me. (Better almost to have a King, considering that: 1. Alone a King could implement logically- and internally-consistent policies, 2. Only a small portion of the populous’ wealth would go to feed him, and 3. he may even give back to his people on occasion.)
Left Anarchists do not truly seek to destroy the State, although they make such pronouncements regularly; they seek to, themselves, become it.
Could Capitalism and Anarchism conceivably compliment each other?
While few understand Capitalism to mean simply the freedom to earn and keep the product of your labor, many take it to mean a world in which corporations — regarded as citizens by the State, mind you — monopolize and exploit workers and the environment. Capitalism is understood to equate to the exploitation of workers in developing countries and the destruction of the environment by corporations. Let us not forget that these corporations are granted rights and given welfare by the State.
In all truth, this consequence or set of consequences, the impacts of corporations, are entirely dependent on the State, which:
- controls the issuance of credit and fiat currency,
- subsidizes wholly unprofitable industries, and
- bails out banks laden with toxic assets (further encouraging investment in such assets).
Remove the State, along with it the subsidies, corporate taxes, and start-up costs… and competition can begin to sort out the problems in the market. Failing banks will fail; private losses will remain private. An oil company that causes undue harm to the environment in this society will be boycotted and hence incentivized by consumers to do the right thing: make ammends, pay reparations, and straighten out its act — or else wither and die. Innovative companies will succeed, and continue to succeed until such time as they stop innovating or are overtaken by even more innovative firms. The Free Market Anarchist, the Anarcho-Capitalist, endeavors to bring about this exact state of affairs.
The Left Anarchist retort to this free market vision is often one which insinuates hypocrisy for proposing to supplant political rulers with the Captains of Industry, the Rich. Wouldn’t the capitalists become the new ruling class, absent any political structure?
This question deserves some exploration.
Capitalists as “Ruling Class”
If we return to elementary economics, we see that when a store owner tries to charge a customer too much for a loaf of bread the customer goes elsewhere. In voluntary market interactions such as these there is by definition no coercive element.
Consider the inverse of this situation, which is that a State or Workers’ Council runs the only store in town — or the only store in the whole country for that matter — and demands $10.00 for Wonder Bread. People are forced to buy it or try to get it through the black market, for which by no mere coincidence they may have their lives and livelihoods threatened by the very same State or Council. This is coercive, indeed. The Command Economy is clearly the more violent of the two systems.
Simply put, unless a State is propping up a corporation as a monopoly through legislation, bailouts, and subsidies, a corporation has no chance to coerce its potential customers. Even if for a period of time it charges high prices, eventually competitors will arise.
“The average lifespan of a company listed in the S&P 500 index of leading US companies has decreased by more than 50 years in the last century, from 67 years in the 1920s to just 15 years today.” (source: BBC: Can a company live forever?)
Let us reiterate: The average S&P 500 company of today will last just 15 years! Compare this to the life of Empires and Nation States, which is a much longer 250 years on average.
Even the average life of currencies — at 27 years — is nearly twice as long as that of a corporation:
According to a study of 775 fiat currencies by DollarDaze.org, there is no historical precedence for a fiat currency that has succeeded in holding its value. Twenty percent failed through hyperinflation, 21% were destroyed by war, 12% destroyed by independence, 24% were monetarily reformed, and 23% are still in circulation approaching one of the other outcomes. … The average life expectancy for a fiat currency is 27 years, with the shortest life span being one month. (source)
Compared with the perenniality of the State, corporations are ephemera. As fast as corporations wane at present, imagine a world in which none are bouyed up by the government. Were they then to fall into such disreputable behaviors as price gouging or senselessly inflicting environmental damage it would only hasten their demise. Fear not an enduring Corporatocracy; it cannot exist without the collusion and the many blessings of the State.
So to answer the Left Anarchist retort: No, there are no Rulers in Free Market Capitalism, only the shifting sands of the innovative and the stagnant — a sea of companies with natural variation over time, high and low tides.
But what of the Command Economy? Can’t it even out these natural variations?
Ignoring for a moment the folly of a group of politicos thinking they can outwit the market — the collective economic intelligence of all of humanity — how could we summarize the vision of the Authoritarian or the Left Anarchist and contrast it with that of the Anarcho-Capitalist?
Let us consider the intersections of political power and economic freedom. We have Authoritarianism on the one hand, which is complete political control, not unlike what is espoused in Left Anarchists circles. The typical government is monopolistic. It has one set of laws and one primary means of enforcing those laws. To suggest that alternative, parallel legal systems or means of enforcement could co-exist is tantamount to treason. The authoritarian condemns and incarcerates the dissident, quashes divergent thinking through indoctrination and “re-education”. And while anarchists of all stripes rail against this, sadly only a select few mean to completely dismantle the State and break the spell of Statism that has been cast over the people, like wool over their eyes.
The State, the Commune, the Council are all authoritarian in essence, or at the very least tend towards authoritarianism and tyranny, growing ever bigger with the passage of time. It is due to this that I lump Statism and Left Anarchism under the same category of Authoritarianism. I’ll leave it to you to perform the mental substitution for either of these schools of thought in light of my visual below.
Capitalism, on the other hand, can be considered a politically-neutral state of affairs in which the accumulation of wealth is entirely unrestricted. These two, I will argue, opposing systems often comprise the political reality of the day in concert. The U.S. is one such hybrid model, for instance.
|Political Power and Economic Freedom||AUTHORITARIANISM||CAPITALISM|
|AUTHORITARIANISM||Authoritarian Ruling Class
Entrenched State Monopolies
All Profits Go to Government
|Hybrid Ruling Class
Some State-Backed Monopolies
Some Private Profits
|CAPITALISM||Hybrid Ruling Class
Some State-Backed Monopolies
Some Private Profits
|No Ruling Class
No Entrenched Monopolies
Free Market Economy
Maximum Private Profits
We can summarize the above as follows:
- If we have a State we have a Ruling Class.
- Similarly, if we have a Council or some kind of PAC we have a Ruling Class.
- If we have Corporations and a State we may have a hybrid Ruling Class, but certainly a Ruling Class exists.
- If we have only Corporations we do not have a Ruling Class. What we have instead is a constant turnover in the means of production and consistent innovation stemming from unencumbered markets.
But how do we make decisions without the guidance of a State or Council?
If all interactions are voluntary, and all transactions are entered into freely by consenting participants, then no need for political authority exists. It is thus up to each individual to determine what he needs and what he desires. The idea of having “No Rulers” is less prescriptive and more descriptive of reality in this imagined Free World in that case. It achieves the end-game of Anarchism without the need for constant, bloody revolution, without the need for bi-weekly meetings in which conniving bureaucrats on one side, and hot-headed idealists on the other, try to convince themselves that they are still all, in fact, on the same side of the table.
All Statist ideologies posit the need for a final arbiter of truth, a single individual or set of individuals which is not only capable but also virtuous enough to make decisions for the whole of society — often without the input of any of the members of said society — on matters as diverse as finance and environmental stewardship, logistics and defense, welfare and money printing, science and morality, immigration and agricultural production, ad infinitum. We live currently in a world in which people predominantly see through the lens of Statism, one that unquestioningly asserts that such expert and morally-superior Arbiters of Truth exist. Tell me, please: Where are all these Anomalous and Divine Beings? And why on Earth would they choose to enter into Politics of all areas?
So aren’t Anarchism and Capitalism complimentary in fact?
Indeed, it appears so, that the absence of rulers (Anarchism) and the absence of barriers to trade and free association (Capitalism) go hand in hand. Anarcho-Capitalism is a marraige of ultimate personal freedom with that of maximum economic freedom. It seems the more internally-consistent and morally-justified of the political models:
At the very least Free Market Capitalism, or Anarcho-Capitalism, starts with the assumption of Freedom for All. Maximize freedom for everyone and dismantle Political Power. On the opposing end we see Communism and Socialism — the same camp in which Left Anarchism ultimately finds itself — and these are in close proximity to Facism and Nazism. All four of these -ism’s presuppose and necessitate the expansion of government power, whether the reigns of Government change hands or not. It seems prudent — insofar as you have a choice — to choose to implement or support a system which grants you the utmost freedoms, so that even if they are eventually curtailed, at the very least you will have experienced Freedom in its purest form during your life time. What a marvelous thing that would be!