If Crony Capitalism is Bad, Then What is Crony Anarchism?

[![CrCwJEGUkAAgoIw.jpg:large.jpg]()](https://postimg.org/image/cbk7h86tb/)

*Taylor Swift Serving As A Juror*

Human beings aren't very good at uniting strategy and philosophy. So, they tend to form groups of people that validate each others' ideas, and reject outside information.

"Republicans" are historically very guilty of this logical fallacy. No matter how many people blame Mexicans for America's problems, that blame still won't legitimately map to patterns in reality. Neither will the few "exceptions that prove the rule" distribute blame on an entire demographic of randomly-selected people.

The people who comprise the state are quite a different demographic. They are not randomly-selected, they are self-selecting for "people who are willing to enforce unjust laws."

But not everyone in the state fits this criteria. It's not as close a fit as "anarchists" would have us all believe.

So, many anarchists resort to the same sort of "ad hominems" and "hasty generalizations" that they criticize in others.

Still worse, they accept people into their networks (and promote them) who propagate those fallacies, using acceptance of those fallacies as an acceptance heuristic.

This is a problem, because it neutralizes the anarchist movement's capacity for self-criticism, and self-correction via feedback. It's also a problem because if anarchists don't neutralize themselves, the FBI or other such organizations will insert people into their networks and encourage those networks to be strategically incompetent.

Rejecting all "statists" because they favor the existence of a government is a strategically weak move. First of all, a government exists. Second of all, Historically-well-proven means of reducing government power (through civil disobedience) exist. Third of all, those means are made possible by well-intentioned minarchists and anarchists who favor voluntary interaction only (voluntaryists; libertarians).

Any group of people can summarily reject outsiders on the basis of certain criteria. But this inevitably impoverishes their networks, making them less adaptable.

Of course, evil itself can and should be fought, but it is better to cast a light on it, with specific criticisms (unless it is force itself, in which case, winning a physical battle may be necessary).

Elections =/= force. Elections = the threat of force (coercion is "force or the threat of force"). The threat of force is still "better" (less bad) than force itself. The threat of force can be exposed and the threat neutralized before it manifests itself. Civil disobedience and throwing disproportionate resources at the courts and social networks accomplishes this (examples: Rosa Parks and the Alabama Bus Boycott; Jury Nullification of Marijuana Offenses, both Specifically in Montana and Nationwide).

I am a radical voluntaryist minarchist, and I favor using every tool available to reduce/hinder/undermine the power of the state. This is an unpopular view here. I believe this network has uncritically accepted Konkin's admonishment to eschew elections.

I understand why. Existing elections typically go poorly (have a bad outcome), and are often actually rigged against libertarians.

However, these are problems that can be defeated with an optimal (optimax) strategy.

The inherent problems with US elections  cannot be defeated, however, if "we"(anarchists, minarchists, voluntaryists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, "radicals for capitalism," objectivists, "partyarchs," "true democrats," or "true republicans" ) never entertain the thought that we should argue honestly with opposing viewpoints.

Similarly, if one must be an "anarchist" in order to get up-voted by an "anarchist whale," then anyone who challenges reigning orthodoxy will simply get down-voted into oblivion (or fail to get up-voted) and likely leave this network.

Whales don't make social networks ocean-size. Plankton do.

Unless the conditions are right for plankton, they will disappear. And later, the whales will swim off, having polluted these waters with "high level" whale shit that left little room for the "low-level" nutrients that cause plankton to thrive.

Maybe we don't want elephants and donkeys in our ocean, but plankton willing to swim in a voluntaryist sea would be a welcome thing.

I don't think we get to voluntaryism if we condemn politicians who have switched to libertarianism as "statists." I don't think we get to anarchism, if we condemn or mock people who have taken the first step toward "anarchy." This just stops these social network nodes in their tracks, ...and it is the network that determines whether there will be liberty or slavery.

Right now, the government administers jury trials, corrupted ones. ...But the skin of what is corrupted is the heart of western civilization.