I'd argue that that's only the case if you call it social Darwinism. If you say "People who are poor are poor because they are lazy" you get half the country agreeing with you, it seems. And that is social Darwinism... just not the kind that is explicitly racist (it's racist in that it refuses to recognize that the legacy of discrimination affects racial minorities).
It's true that it's generally the elite who talk about anarcho-capitalism, so the trend is for people who only see the good side to advocate it, but to some degree, wasn't that same trend present in social Darwinism? "I only see how well I'm doing, I think I've earned it, people earn their place in society?"
Technically, that's not essential for anarcho-capitalism, and I've seen anarcho-capitalists (okay, anarcho-capitalist) who accepted that the whole social Darwinism thing is wrong--something to their credit, I suppose.
Yeah. Then you have the anarcho-capitalists saying that psychology and sociology are bunk, and presumably that praexology is anything but worthless crap.
Exactly! And most anarcho-capitalists I've seen seem to think that so long as you were not coerced by a gun to your head to be part of a contract, then everything is fine and dandy.
I mean, I've heard anarcho-capitalists defend slavery so long as one sells themselves into slavery (never mind the potential for fraud, of course or coercion, of course, since their belief in absolute rights of that sort demand that the possibility be legal no matter how prone to abuse it is). So clearly they don't have a problem with someone being forced to maintain a contract that they desperately, desperately do not want to maintain.
As far as the Coase issue, that's an interesting piece. There's also one other thing that people citing Coase miss out on, and that's that if I'm polluting, it's in my rational interest to make sure that no one knows about it. And in the absence of a government authorized to use force to conduct surprise inspections, it's going to be harder to find out who is polluting.
no subject
It's true that it's generally the elite who talk about anarcho-capitalism, so the trend is for people who only see the good side to advocate it, but to some degree, wasn't that same trend present in social Darwinism? "I only see how well I'm doing, I think I've earned it, people earn their place in society?"
Technically, that's not essential for anarcho-capitalism, and I've seen anarcho-capitalists (okay, anarcho-capitalist) who accepted that the whole social Darwinism thing is wrong--something to their credit, I suppose.
Yeah. Then you have the anarcho-capitalists saying that psychology and sociology are bunk, and presumably that praexology is anything but worthless crap.
Exactly! And most anarcho-capitalists I've seen seem to think that so long as you were not coerced by a gun to your head to be part of a contract, then everything is fine and dandy.
I mean, I've heard anarcho-capitalists defend slavery so long as one sells themselves into slavery (never mind the potential for fraud, of course or coercion, of course, since their belief in absolute rights of that sort demand that the possibility be legal no matter how prone to abuse it is). So clearly they don't have a problem with someone being forced to maintain a contract that they desperately, desperately do not want to maintain.
As far as the Coase issue, that's an interesting piece. There's also one other thing that people citing Coase miss out on, and that's that if I'm polluting, it's in my rational interest to make sure that no one knows about it. And in the absence of a government authorized to use force to conduct surprise inspections, it's going to be harder to find out who is polluting.