Daily Anarchist Forum

Questions And Challenges => Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism => Topic started by: bsg1206 on October 25, 2012, 04:44:31 PM



Title: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: bsg1206 on October 25, 2012, 04:44:31 PM
One of the supposed reasons for the existence of a state is to defend and promote its subjects way of life. A strong, common culture is essential for a healthy, cohesive society. Western states today are plagued by political correctness and encourage mass immigration from non-compatible cultures which is having a detrimental effect on crime rates, the economy, and the local way of life. How might a free society deal with this problem?


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: Seth King on October 25, 2012, 04:49:14 PM
A strong, common culture is essential for a healthy, cohesive society.

If by culture you mean lifestyle choices, like sexuality, religion, language, dress code, etc. then I wholeheartedly disagree. Those things can all be very pluralistic and still have a healthy cohesive society.

If by culture you mean tolerance and respect for justly acquired property, then yes, it is essential to have commonality. If there is no tolerance or respect for justly acquired property then there can be no cohesion.



Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: bsg1206 on October 25, 2012, 05:21:01 PM
I can say unequivocally that I would not want to live anywhere that had Arabic on all the signs and storefronts or that had a bunch of mosques or that goofy onion architecture everywhere. I also can't pretend to think it is normal to see someone walking around Wal-Mart in a burka or a man dress and a turban. I'm singling out Arab culture because it is so much different than Western culture, but the point is that culture goes much further beyond property rights. It is no coincidence that the US at its pinnacle in the early 1960's was 90% white and about the same percentage some form of practicing Christian. I absolutely think a common culture is worth preserving.


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: Seth King on October 25, 2012, 05:58:25 PM
I can say unequivocally that I would not want to live anywhere that had Arabic on all the signs and storefronts or that had a bunch of mosques or that goofy onion architecture everywhere. I also can't pretend to think it is normal to see someone walking around Wal-Mart in a burka or a man dress and a turban. I'm singling out Arab culture because it is so much different than Western culture, but the point is that culture goes much further beyond property rights. It is no coincidence that the US at its pinnacle in the early 1960's was 90% white and about the same percentage some form of practicing Christian. I absolutely think a common culture is worth preserving.

What you're really just talking about is preference. I don't like to go into Wal Mart and see 300 lbs white people with their ass crack sticking out. There are ways to deal with this in a free society, though.

Dress codes, gentleman clubs, race clubs, hell, you name it, it could all exist in a free society.


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: bsg1206 on October 25, 2012, 06:07:47 PM

What you're really just talking about is preference. I don't like to go into Wal Mart and see 300 lbs white people with their ass crack sticking out. There are ways to deal with this in a free society, though.

Dress codes, gentleman clubs, race clubs, hell, you name it, it could all exist in a free society.

lol. Truth.

And that's easy enough. I suppose all those things are true too.


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: SinCityVoluntaryist on October 25, 2012, 10:29:42 PM
I'm not understanding your question. Culture isn't defined by government. Nationalism, or the principles that define loyalty to a country, is. However, nationalism and culture are two different things. The foods that we eat, religions that we subscribe to, movies that we watch, books that we read, and languages that we speak are elements that define culture, and all of those things can be provided by the free market of ideas. Government doesn't tell you what food you should or shouldn't eat. You, with your own mind, decide for yourself.


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: JustSayNoToStatism on October 25, 2012, 10:46:39 PM
One of the supposed reasons for the existence of a state is to defend and promote its subjects way of life.
Even for argument's sake, that isn't a premise I'm willing to grant.


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: macsnafu on October 26, 2012, 11:42:02 AM
I'm with SCV--culture isn't defined by government.  Culture is something that is very spontaneous, and is simply made up of the interests and preferences of the people who make up society.  There's never been a need for an "official" language in the U.S., for example, as everyone knows that Americans speak English.

Culture can, of course, be influenced by a variety of things.  Everyone used to gather around the television and watch the limited offerings from the three major networks.  That provided a near nation-wide commonality.  Now, we also have cable, satellite, the internet, and dvd's, so that commonality might be gone, but so what?  What does it matter if a person in Portland, Oregon watched the same shows as someone in St. Louis?  How likely are they to even be talking to each other, unless they happen to be on the same internet forums, like this one. 

So culture changes over time, and people find different ways of expressing and sharing their culture. 




Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: BobRobertson on October 26, 2012, 12:09:40 PM
Voluntary culture happens all the time.

For example, I have a membership in the Society for Creative Anachronism. There's one whole hell of a lot of cohesive, cooperative culture in that bunch, it does act as an entire "culture" for several tens of thousands of people.

Removing the institution of coercion doesn't change anything that people are already doing voluntarily, and most of what everyone does is already voluntary.


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: Syock on October 26, 2012, 10:30:20 PM
Government doesn't tell you what food you should or shouldn't eat.  

Yeah they do.  They do it through import limits, farm subsidies, teaching the food pyramid in government schools, the 'sin tax' that they are starting to apply to things like soda, and the crazy max restaurant cup size laws they are pushing.  


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: MAM on October 30, 2012, 01:30:40 PM
I believe my response to this is simply NO.

Culture is not the result of government, government is the result of culture.

Culture is mimetic, it is learned just like language and mathematics, it is software nothing more. Again religion is taught it is a program that is installed without people being consciously aware of it. The program can be deleted and over written but it is difficult to do so.

There is a reason that many children follow the religion and politics of their parents because it is what they are taught and programmed to do. It takes will to override what one is taught as a child.


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: haxor on November 08, 2012, 09:46:30 PM
By having its economic system as free as posible. This raises standards of living. Also by the free pople of thi country follow a true constitution and back this.
Lets use an example:
Chick fila:  the owner said he supported traditional marriage. Theres nothing wrong with what he himself believes. It is his buisness and he has a right to speak freely. As a free sociaty the people can chosse to eat there or not eat there. In a true capitalistic society this may help or hurt him because of buisness. If the majority of people do not agree they will not eat there and he loses buisness and goes bankrupt and closes. If not, props to him for standing by what he believes. However as a true free people we must accept this, that people are free. The current left side of politics can not accept this. They think its reulsive what he said. In reality, its his choice and right.


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: Syock on November 08, 2012, 09:53:38 PM
By having its economic system as free as posible. This raises standards of living. Also by the free pople of thi country follow a true constitution and back this.
Lets use an example:
Chick fila:  the owner said he supported traditional marriage. Theres nothing wrong with what he himself believes. It is his buisness and he has a right to speak freely. As a free sociaty the people can chosse to eat there or not eat there. In a true capitalistic society this may help or hurt him because of buisness. If the majority of people do not agree they will not eat there and he loses buisness and goes bankrupt and closes. If not, props to him for standing by what he believes. However as a true free people we must accept this, that people are free. The current left side of politics can not accept this. They think its reulsive what he said. In reality, its his choice and right.

Interesting example you give.  The result was actually positive for his company.  There was a similar event with Whole Foods.  In both examples, the organization got a boost in sales.

The reason for this is because in the market before they took a stance, 99% of the people simply never bothered to go there in the first place, knowing nothing of the owners.  Once something was said, even if only 5% of the population agrees with their stance, that is more of the market than they previously had.  They may lose 95% of the old customers they had, but 5% of the larger overall population is a huge boon for the company. 


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: haxor on November 08, 2012, 11:57:07 PM
Yes from a buisness perspective he took a chance and it worked in his favor. Wonder if the government would of bailed him out if it went the other way? People speak of free speech, especially those with the liberal thought yet what they really mean is "to speak freely if you agree with us and if you dont we slander you".

I apologize to all for typos. my fingers try to keep up with my brain....  :)


Title: Re: Culture vs. AnCap'ism
Post by: MAM on November 09, 2012, 12:00:09 AM
Yes from a buisness perspective he took a chance and it worked in his favor. Wonder if the government would of bailed him out if it went the other way? People speak of free speech, especially those with the liberal thought yet what they really mean is "to speak freely if you agree with us and if you dont we slander you".

I apologize to all for typos. my fingers try to keep up with my brain....  :)

I don't think anyone minds the typos so long as we can parse the meaning.

You know you can always proof read!  :P