I would argue that the thing amplifying the libertarian voice is money. I kind of view libertarianism as an offshoot of Randian "philosophy"--basically, the ideology that anybody who can't do well without some sort of assistance is unworthy. Libertarian ideology is basically Randian "philosophy," in my view, with the addition of the belief that nothing will go wrong. It's the kind of self-satisfied pontificating that bears absolutely no connection to reality... which is not surprising. I've heard libertarians and anarcho-capitalists complain that the scientific method is a "statist" methodology. They prefer "praexology" or whatever it's called, which is of course bullshit and basically an attempt to say that humans act the way you think they should.
In any event, I got sidetracked. My point is that the anarcho-capitalist view wouldn't exist without Randian "philosophy." As far as why the Randian view became popular, I would characterize it as a reactionary ideology, born in opposition to the Soviet Union, which gained power for the same reason social Darwinism did: It reinforced existence power structures. Anarcho-capitalism is a spinoff that purports to solve problems with existing power structures, but would in reality only reinforce them.
Which is why I honestly think that for a lot of the biggest supporters of anarcho-capitalism, the scenario you describe is not a bug. It is a feature. Anarcho-capitalism favors groups and/or individuals with large resources that can be applied to force people to buy their products, and anarcho-capitalism brushes off forces such as the inability to not buy something that is necessary for survival as insignificant.
Worse, anarcho-capitalism is paradoxical: If contracts are binding, period... well, what do you call it when the government sells you land with the understanding that, so long as you and your progeny use the land, you will obey certain laws?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2013-09-29 02:11 am (UTC)In any event, I got sidetracked. My point is that the anarcho-capitalist view wouldn't exist without Randian "philosophy." As far as why the Randian view became popular, I would characterize it as a reactionary ideology, born in opposition to the Soviet Union, which gained power for the same reason social Darwinism did: It reinforced existence power structures. Anarcho-capitalism is a spinoff that purports to solve problems with existing power structures, but would in reality only reinforce them.
Which is why I honestly think that for a lot of the biggest supporters of anarcho-capitalism, the scenario you describe is not a bug. It is a feature. Anarcho-capitalism favors groups and/or individuals with large resources that can be applied to force people to buy their products, and anarcho-capitalism brushes off forces such as the inability to not buy something that is necessary for survival as insignificant.
Worse, anarcho-capitalism is paradoxical: If contracts are binding, period... well, what do you call it when the government sells you land with the understanding that, so long as you and your progeny use the land, you will obey certain laws?