Ars Regendi Simulation Forum

Full Version: anarcho-Capitalism
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

chad7405

Does anyone have any idea what actually happens when this is instituted? It seems like it would really eliminate the player from the game since there are no taxes and barely any government to speak of... It looks very interesting and I've been meaning to try it in a classic state for fun to observe a crazy ass Anarchy of the rich and the poor going at each other and the effects it has. But, before I do, I've never seen it implemented before and i was wondering if anyone knew anything about it. (I looked on the forums but the only post was in German (Ah!))Thanks.
I've no experience with the reform. Try to use google translate in those german threads related to the subject.
It increases your GDP and your capital quite much, but you will also suffer most of the sideeffects from cutting your Budget down.
It ist still possible to survive after this reform, but the overall effects are hardly positive.
Take a look at Monethia for further details.

Rising Phoenix

Game-wise, you still run a state and I assume through some means or another all the functions you perform as a regant are still performed after the reform (i.e.: Currency can be minted, interest rate changed, etc.) however your influence will certainly be diminished.

The excesive privatization will likely have some positive effects, however I have always considered the potential negative side effects too great to implement.

Basically if you are not playing de-facto an anarcho-capitalist state already (privatizing everything you can, choosing to keep legal affairs to a minimun, etc.) you will take a hit in various areas.
The biggest negative effect is on GINI, as far as I've seen. Gets very close to the right side border of 1. (Ala fiefdoms).

TriniSary6 Wrote:
Why do they not revolt?

Cause they're dumb; how else would such a reform have passed in the first place? Hehe

spitefire

Effects i have observed are
Capital and Acquisition taxes are wiped out in total
all spending types by the state are near totally abolished.
Bureaucracy is reduced to 0
Statism is reduced to 0
Unemployment is dropped to the games lowest level the game is set for.

Other effects such as the GINI rise and the drop in equality of opportunity are more a result of this games statist slant, that slant assumes that everyone but an elite few are incompetent and need a select few to tell them how to live well.

Most states can not handle this reform it engages a problem some of the smaller template states start with the game in general is not made for low spending and low taxation.

If you are able to look at my past games look at UCRA it also engaged this reform i wanted to see the effects.
Inequality has always been a phenomenon within the surplus producing society. That's why tribalism produced equality. Hunter-gatherer societies required its members to be peers in order to survive. Whilst agricultural societies - the families owning the vast lands lived off of them and kept ALL the surplus. If you want to see real historical anarcho-capitalism you can look at the european middle ages - where the noble lords ruled their regions as petty kingdoms. The king's vassals were autonomous, and they could wage private wars within the same country. They didn't pay taxes to the king, they just had to send levies and supplies whenever a war sprang up.
If you want to see the free bazaar or the free market during the middle ages, one has to look at the Islamic world. The religion outlawed usury. To them, the bazaar meant being able to profit off of one's own labor. For them risk implied profits. Where was the risk in giving out loans at interest? Obtaining profits with money by centralizing money was not honorable. The merchant-adventurer was a noble profession. The people of these parts didn't compete cutthroat style. They cooperated. Profit sharing was the order of the day, and one own's good name could be used as capital. The free market and capitalism is NOT the same thing. Whilst in medieval China, the government had to keep the market free from interest groups via government intervention. The buddhist temples loved interest (the infinite so-called milk debts). They became the wealthiest, threatened the country side with debt peonage, and caused depressions by melting all the coins gathered from usury and turning them into statues. The chinese government had to intervene, by canceling all debts in which interest had exceeded the principle - and they had to seize the gold statues and artifacts of the temples, in order to mint them back into money and put it in circulation.
Seems a paradox, but these two distinct methods of approach, led to the market place being free.
Capitalism means the rule of those who own capital. It implies inequality and the elite rule. If you don't want such things to be an issue, in reality, the government would have to give to each household enough property - in order to make a living out of it (sustenance). And trade their surplus for whatever else they desire.
I think most of you misunderstand what anarcho-capitalism is.
As someone who for last year or so is consistently getting results on political test that my ideology is anarcho-capitalism (my favourite is still the one result, where I got, that I was 0% capitalistic yet I was still "branded" as capitalist).
The main point about anarcho-capitalism is on the anarcho side. This means, that while there is no state to enforce rules, there also isn't any state to support big business. What most of people forget is, that big business is always supported by big government.

Now, I might not really be a anarcho-capitalist, even though that's the result I'm getting. I consider myself more of a free market anarchist, but in some things that's pretty much same thing as an-cap.

This might feel, like I'm veering of course, but I'm trying to explain why would someone even support this ideas (given that most of the posts ITT are how horrible an-cap is).
I wasn't an-cap or even free market anarchist from the beginning, I doubt anyone is. I started as communist, then after realising that I'm to liberal for the hardest communism, especially the real socialism of the eastern block, I was first inspired by our Yugoslavian brand of socialism, called self-managing socialism, after I started to study political science I went from that to call myself left-libertarian, but never completely forget the ideas of self-management.
Only when I started my post-graduate studies did I really drift towards anarchism, which is close to self-managing socialism, as it supposes that the state will either away once self-management is achieved.

Ever since the economy crisis started in 2008 I was saying pretty much the same thing: that if neo-liberals in power would actually enact their demands of small government, we'd all be living better.
If you remember, there were bunch of businesses, that were "to big to fail" and the government had to bail them out. But if government would be as neo-liberals demand it, small then it wouldn't be able or shouldn't bail them out. Obviously this brings not just positive results, or even most of the results are negative. Yes the big business would fail, but that would also, or even mostly affect the poor workers who worked in those or who borrowed money or mortgage their house at those.
My solution to this problem is exactly self-management, and not the Yugoslavian kind, but more the type of self-management that is practised by the Zapatistas in Mexico, or by workers in Mondragon in Basque country. This means, that after those big business would fail and crash, and nobody would be there to revive them, because entire economy would also crash, the people would squat those empty production halls, they'd squat the houses that the banks took from them (my supposition is, that the crash so big would mean, that there wouldn't be no other bank to take away the mortgaged house).

And this is how I play my USA template state Lauretania, where I didn't prevent banks from making bad investments, and didn't save them, when those crashed, and did enact the right of squatting.

As I said before, this isn't just some ideal situation, there are real life examples. From Zapatistas, to Mondragon to various networks of worker cooperatives in South American that own entire chain of production.

And for me this is what anarcho-capitalism, or rather free market anarchism is about.
The one problem that I do see in an-cap is, probably the biggest, that is, that it supposes capitalism as the only mode of production, and that is both oppressive and as it was shown time and time again, capitalism can't work properly without state. So that's why I call myself free market anarchist, because I understand free market as a market on which you are free to organise modes of production as ever you want.

And those few states that I find that enacted anarcho-capitalism in ars regendi are not really an-cap, and even less free market anarchist.
The biggest problem obviously is that description after the enacted reform showed, that there is still a state, even if it is limited to most basic functions of it.
So again, I recommend you to check my state if you want a better view on what it might look like. I should also point out, that my state isn't completely based on my ideology, but more on my understanding of an-cap mixed with ideas of pre-revolutionary America and its founding fathers.

Rising Phoenix

pp789 Wrote:
I think most of you misunderstand what anarcho-capitalism is.
As someone who for last year or so is consistently getting results on political test that my ideology is anarcho-capitalism (my favourite is still the one result, where I got, that I was 0% capitalistic yet I was still "branded" as capitalist).
The main point about anarcho-capitalism is on the anarcho side. This means, that while there is no state to enforce rules, there also isn't any state to support big business. What most of people forget is, that big business is always supported by big government.

You do realize more than half of us were talking about the reform in the game, right? Helsworth was the one who brought up the whole Real Economics™ card on the table.

pp789 Wrote:
Ever since the economy crisis started in 2008 I was saying pretty much the same thing: that if neo-liberals in power would actually enact their demands of small government, we'd all be living better.

Neoliberalism was tried in Chile under Pinochet and, more recently, under Menem in my own country. The results were disastrous.

Pages: 1 2 3
Reference URL's