\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nso, like, in Ancap Utopia what happens to people who don\u2019t have money?
#you might say they\u2019re given money by private citizens#but actually plenty of people are not in fact given money by private citizens#charitable donations (a figure which includes gifts of money to eg harvard) are quite low actually#and some former tax money would be redirected to private replacements for government services#plus many charitable donations are already tax-deductible#and many people\u2014many *rich* people\u2014complain that their taxes are far too high#these objections also basically apply to eg community funds#also the thing where humans aren\u2019t rational actors#anyway. i\u2019m talking about people who actually don\u2019t have money
\nthey would dance for the amusement of the wealthy, obviously
\nthey would be free to live from the unclaimed commons, if the existence of such people persisted alongside town-dwellers in supply chain industries there would develop institutions by which they could offer themselves up for labor
these institutions would develop such that nature-dwellers would resort to them in times of famine or harsh conditions or scarcity and then return in times of plenty
town-dwellers would push to use their concentrated institutions to indebt extract more from nature-dwellers instead of being their bottleneck-clearing savior in time of need and getting the most marginal labor in return
this would tend towards Classical slavery. countervailing traditions like jubilee or bankruptcy might develop in mitigation
the ability to control famine or conditions or needs or access to viable commons or the terms of comparison of quality of life between city- and nature- will tend towards the domination of the free by the city-dweller society (as distinct from any given city-dweller)
can you say that in smaller words please
also, (in the first place i don\u2019t understand how you\u2019re making all the poor people not be in cities and i for one am extremely supportive of a quite decent level of violence to avoid this. not living in cities is extremely bad) a) what unclaimed commons b) assuming these commons exist how are people supposed to know how to survive from them and once they know how are they supposed to actually do the work c) that sounds pretty bad actually
like, don’t read the whole town/nature things as too literal in a 2017 sense but the joke is that hierarchical, property-based societies such as ancaps naturalize aren’t the natural state in the absence of repression or ideal because of their voluntariness, but rather a uniquely stable state BCUZ they can extract such a surplus and dedicate it towards stabilization
and that these systems might freely allow exit but only into others or into an unorganized surplus that can be reduced to effective slavery while fully registering as voluntarism
(any other form understood as NAP violations/Oriental despotism/wevs)
and this is known because it is the progression societies often follow and how aristocracies come to understand themselves as redoubts of freedom
"}