Rebranding Anarcho-Capitalism as Silverpunk

Silverpunk girl Diahann.

The words 'anarcho' and 'capitalism' both have negative connotations among the general public. 'Anarchists' are assumed to be violent people who want to destroy property and tear down society. 'Capitalists' are assumed to be greedy, heartless, and controlling entities. 'Capitalism' is incorrectly used interchangeably with 'corporatocracy.'

An additional problem is that anarcho-capitalism is very boring to most people. The original philosophy is mostly expressed in daunting books by Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises. Presenting the ideas with cold logic instead of appealing to the senses isn't the way to go.

Yet the idea of rebelling against authority and preserving individual liberty is quite popular. It is arguably the underlying element of all speculative fiction genres, although it seems to be addressed most directly in the cyberpunk subgenre. It certainly is the heart of the punk subculture ideology in general. The problem is that punks are almost always 'left' economically, whether they identify with progressives, socialists, or communists.

I do not wish to go into detail explaining why this arrangement is logically absurd. I merely wish to note that economic leftists seem drawn to punk culture rather than the other way around. Free market adherents are not excluded from punk culture; they merely seem underrepresented. We could find many reasons, such as that leftists tend to be drawn more to the arts, or whatever, but that is not the issue today.

Anarcho-capitalist views need to be incorporated into an entertaining package in order to make them popular. This package includes music, fiction, fashion, and video. And I would call this package Silverpunk. I chose silver instead of gold for a few reasons. 'Silver' is more similar to 'cyber,' as in 'cyberpunk.' Gold also has negative connotations; it is 'barbarous' and 'the money of kings.' Silver, while being more associated with the 'common person' instead of those in an authority position, is still free market money as much as gold.

There is little difference between silverpunk and (for example) typical punk rock music or cyberpunk literature except that silverpunk must, at all times, oppose 'crime' as defined by anarcho-capitalists: an act or direct threat of aggressive violence (coercion) against another person's private property.

Go make some music. Diahann will like it.

Loading...

Technology and Liberty

WikiLeaks Central Essay Competition #1:

How can individuals and societies protect themselves against the encroachment and abuse of government power in the modern age?

Continued improvements in technology will eventually render the State obsolete.

A human is, by nature, a capitalist—a producer of capital. As Frank Chodorov wrote in The Rise and Fall of Society, humans seek to satisfy their infinite desires with the least possible net expenditure of labor. Technology continuously improves over time because humans are capable of understanding nature's laws and calculating ways in which producing something today can make life easier in the future. For example, by expending the energy to produce a spear, an early human found hunting and self-defense significantly easier thereafter.

The State is not a producer; it is "a bandit gang writ large," as Murray Rothbard put it. Politics is not a science; it is simply control over other people. In The State, Franz Oppenheimer explained the origin of the State. The origin of the State is the conquest of capital-producing people. The State comes into existence entirely for the purpose of economic exploitation. The conquerors become masters and the producers become their slaves.

In Guns, Germs, and Steel, Jared Diamond supports the idea that the State arises out of conquest. Diamond cites, in detail, the example of the Battle of Cajamarca between the Spanish Empire and the Inca Empire. 168 Spanish soldiers massacred an army of approximately 80,000 Incans. The Spaniards won because they had superior technologies such as guns, cannons, and steel.

In recent times, however, people around the world have become convinced of Abraham Lincoln's "propaganda" (as Albert Jay Nock calls it in Our Enemy, the State) that 'democracy' or 'republicanism' is government "of the people, by the
people, for the people." Having a democratic government is considered synonymous with 'liberty' solely because the people have the choice of who their master will be. Unfortunately, democracy necessarily entails that only the worst possible people can rise into these positions of power, as noted by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in "Why Bad Men Rule." The most electable politicians will be the ones who promise to rob society's biggest producers and take control of the most vital aspects of Society—education, agriculture, medicine, and so on.

Regardless of whether the State uses aggressive violence to physically conquer the people or hides behind the mask of "providing social services" in order to psychologically trick the people, the State is the enemy of humanity. Technology may have allowed the State to come into existence, but technology also will eventually render the State as an unnecessary relic that the people will no longer accept.

The two things over which the State demands absolute control are violence and money. The State creates an army in order to protect itself from other States, and it creates a police force in order to protect itself from its own people. The State then convinces the people that the purpose of this monopoly on violence is to keep the people safe. Likewise, the State creates its own currency—or counterfeit money—in order to enrich itself while convincing the people that the currency is safer and more efficient than free-market money, such as gold and silver.

In order to render the State obsolete, technologies must advance to the point that the people no longer accept the State's monopolies on violence on money. Fortunately, the human desire for an easier life through technology inevitably overcomes the State's desire to regulate and control. The most important technological advancements have been the revolutions in the personal computer and Internet.

The Internet is essentially a virtual, laissez-faire Society. The Internet has transformed the concept of liberty more than anything or anyone else in humanity's history. People realize that the voluntary 'phyles' of the Internet work wonderfully despite the absence of rulers with centralized power. Cybercrimes and cyberwarfare certainly exist, but these problems cannot be solved by 'Internet police' nor 'Internet militaries.' Such institutions are just as ineffective in the real world as they are in the digital world. In the digital world, individuals understand that they need to protect themselves with strong passwords and crytography. This idea will continue to spread into the physical world. People will increasingly seek effective, voluntary, technological solutions to crime as opposed to unwillingly giving power to increasingly unpopular and corrupt groups of bullies. The State can exist only as long as the people support it.

Digital currencies have already arisen to challenge the dominance of the State's currency. The anonymity and ease of services such as e-gold and Bitcoin have clear advantages over the State's banks that are subject to draconian regulations that exist solely for tax-collection purposes. The State aggressively prosecutes so-called "money laundering" or "counterfeiting" mechanisms. (Anne M. Tompkins went as far as calling the Liberty dollar "a unique form of domestic terrorism.") But the natural laws of the world cannot be overcome, even with coercion. It is not possible to change human behavior through legislation. Technologies that make global monetary exchange quicker and more convenient will win out. Again, the State will eventually be seen as little more than a dinosaur and a nuisance that lies in Society's way.

Loading...

The Truman Show and the Failure of Socialism

I have seen The Truman Show at least ten times since its initial release in 1998. Even as a 15-year-old boy who knew nothing of politics nor economics, the film—particularly its ending—has never failed to elicit from me tears of joy. A human being cannot help but celebrate Truman's irrepressible desire to escape from his island prison into the freedom of the real world.

Yet, I find it astonishing that neither Wikipedia nor a quick search of Google yield a comparison of The Truman Show to a socialist state, when the film appears to be such an overt criticism of the socialist construct. Even the honorable libertarian Jacob G. Hornberger chooses to discuss the "false reality" aspect of film, rather than the socialism itself.

Surely the show's creator and director—Christof—should be compared not to Christ but to a socialist central planner. Christof's dream is no different than any individual socialist's dream: to become an omniscient, omnipotent entity who can benevolently ensure the happiness of his society. Christof provides Truman with a good job, a loving wife, a true friend, and a secure community.

But Christof must contradict himself by holding Truman in this prison. To attempt to thwart Truman's efforts to leave is to prevent Truman's attempt to improve his own happiness. Truman would be happier if he escaped and found the girl whom he truly loves, Sylvia.

Likewise, the socialist central planner must use coercion to force members of society to act in an involuntary manner. Such an action—applied to non-politicians—is universally recognized by human nature to be a crime. Why do socialists believe that calling oneself 'government' excuses these monstrous crimes? Surely the use of force against another individual, rather than ensuring happiness, is the best way to ensure unhappiness, resentment, anger, and psychological anguish.

The Truman Show demonstrates the inevitable triumph of the individual's anarchist spirit over the controlling, self-interested socialist. All humans, at all times, must be allowed to act in a voluntary manner up to the point at which they violate another's right to act in a voluntary manner. Surely Christof, who attempted to relegate Truman to a lifetime of imprisoned slavery, should be considered not an inspirational visionary but one of the most diabolical villains ever imagined.

This review was referenced by Alexander S. Peakin his review of The Truman Show as a libertarian film.

Loading...