Are ancaps right about everything?

[NuclearAbsolutist]

Landlords choose to take on Section 8 tenants, they are not forced to do so.

Not in any of the purple areas on the map. And I find the privilege being allowed a small one in light of what has been the law of the land since the 60s, as detailed on the governments own site.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair...t_overview

What Is Prohibited?

In the Sale and Rental of Housing:

• It is illegal discrimination to take any of the following actions because of race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), disability, familial status, or national origin:
  
•     Refuse to rent or sell housing
  
•     Refuse to negotiate for housing
  
•     Otherwise make housing unavailable
  
•     Set different terms, conditions or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling
  
•     Provide a person different housing services or facilities
  
•     Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale or rental
  
•     Make, print or publish any notice, statement or advertisement with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation or discrimination
  
•     Impose different sales prices or rental charges for the sale or rental of a dwelling
  
•     Use different qualification criteria or applications, or sale or rental standards or procedures, such as income standards, application requirements, application fees, credit analyses, sale or rental approval procedures or other requirements
  
•     Evict a tenant or a tenant’s guest
  
•     Harass a person
  
•     Fail or delay performance of maintenance or repairs
  
•     Limit privileges, services or facilities of a dwelling
  
•     Discourage the purchase or rental of a dwelling
  
•     Assign a person to a particular building or neighborhood or section of a building or neighborhood
  
•     For profit, persuade, or try to persuade, homeowners to sell their homes by suggesting that people of a particular protected characteristic are about to move into the neighborhood (blockbusting)
  
•     Refuse to provide or discriminate in the terms or conditions of homeowners insurance because of the race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and sexual orientation), disability, familial status, or national origin of the owner and/or occupants of a dwelling
  
•     Deny access to or membership in any multiple listing service or real estate brokers’ organization
  

And rather rapidly as I covered in another thread discrimination came to mean standards at all that were not racial quotas. To the point where if you look now in housing you cannot even expect realtors to give out if the neighborhood is a den or not. https://www.bobvila.com/articles/real-es...rime-data/ Likely both out of fear of the wide permit of civil rights law and the ideological school built by it. Freedom of association was killed decades ago despite the heroic efforts to fight for it, it is quite mistaken to believe it operates at all. Integration as a concept let alone as implemented required government machines gutting free citizens not barons with purse strings doing everyone dirty, on the whole.

[august]

I was just remarking that landlords can currently choose who they lease to and this doesn't seem to be having observable positive side effects. Landlords choose to take on Section 8 tenants, they are not forced to do so.

It is not this simple. Look into how LIHTC works, which is much hotter today than Section 8 and vouchers. The developers are obligated to comply with restrictions on how much rent they can charge. They turn around and sell the tax credits that the state gives them to investors so that they have lower financing costs on these shithole properties, and the investors that bought the tax credits not only get equity in the project, but can also apply the credits to offset tax liability while recognising losses from it for something like 15 years (no one involved actually expects that these developments will generate anything other than losses). Where does the money come from for the government to be able to hand out these tax credits in the first place? People who pay their taxes? Which demographics contribute more than they take?

"America is a sheep shearing operation."

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Landlords choose to take on Section 8 tenants, they are not forced to do so.

Not in any of the purple areas on the map. And I find the privilege being allowed a small one in light of what has been the law of the land since the 60s, as detailed on the governments own site.

And rather rapidly as I covered in another thread discrimination came to mean standards at all that were not racial quotas. To the point where if you look now in housing you cannot even expect realtors to give out if the neighborhood is a den or not. https://www.bobvila.com/articles/real-es...rime-data/ Likely both out of fear of the wide permit of civil rights law and the ideological school built by it. Freedom of association was killed decades ago despite the heroic efforts to fight for it, it is quite mistaken to believe it operates at all. Integration as a concept let alone as implemented required government machines gutting free citizens not barons with purse strings doing everyone dirty, on the whole.

All this means in practice is that you can't tell the prospective tenant that's the reason you're refusing to lease to them. You can say it's because of a criminal record, eviction record, not enough deposit, etc. and they have no way to contest your decision. Here's what /r/landlord has to say. This law shouldn't exist, but I don't think it's very effective at limiting freedom of association.

I fully appreciate that there are wider effects at play here and these policies are destructive (although I don't think that part of the Fair Housing Act is nearly as harmful as the other example you gave of websites omitting crime data), but the worst effects are not considered within the libertarian calculus. The biggest problem with housing subsidies is not that they restrict freedom of association or that collecting tax is necessary to pay for them, it's that they incentivize the growth of a dysgenic underclass of undesirables.

I was just remarking that landlords can currently choose who they lease to and this doesn't seem to be having observable positive side effects. Landlords choose to take on Section 8 tenants, they are not forced to do so.

It is not this simple. Look into how LIHTC works, which is much hotter today than Section 8 and vouchers. The developers are obligated to comply with restrictions on how much rent they can charge. They turn around and sell the tax credits that the state gives them to investors so that they have lower financing costs on these shithole properties, and the investors that bought the tax credits not only get equity in the project, but can also apply the credits to offset tax liability while recognising losses from it for something like 15 years (no one involved actually expects that these developments will generate anything other than losses). Where does the money come from for the government to be able to hand out these tax credits in the first place? People who pay their taxes? Which demographics contribute more than they take?

"America is a sheep shearing operation."

Similarly, this is an awful policy, but not because it violates individual liberties. It might be a decent policy if we were allocating these new homes to White families instead of to the very poorest blacks.

[Guest]

Many structures will work if the right people have power of enforcement and judgement. As to what will work in the long-term, I think it is largely the same. Will succession be properly executed?

I don't think it is especially worthwhile to see these things as "pure." Although I understand that OP comes at it from the correct angle regarding the type of life said idea might be inherent to. I don't think it is necessarily inherent, as I think the end conclusion can be the first principle rather than dressing it up as a "system" or morality.

[august]

The biggest problem with housing subsidies is not that they restrict freedom of association or that collecting tax is necessary to pay for them, it's that they incentivize the growth of a dysgenic underclass of undesirables.

Probably true, hail Charles Murray. But is the proliferation of welfare abusers not a byproduct of the former, which are first necessary?

• [Restricting freedom of association] and [collecting taxes from taxpayers] is required to [fund housing subsidies; welfare state], which is required to [incentivise growth of a dysgenic underclass]
  
• A + B --> C --> D
  

Similarly, this is an awful policy, but not because it violates individual liberties. It might be a decent policy if we were allocating these new homes to White families instead of to the very poorest blacks.

What if someone were to argue that it prevents people from being "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? 

Even if the government is authorised to collect taxes, it is only permitted to do so in order to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" ... it's already been established here that the tax collected is not in the general welfare the country. The word "welfare" is doing a lot of work.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

[...]

Probably true, hail Charles Murray. But is the proliferation of welfare abusers not a byproduct of the former, which are first necessary?

• [Restricting freedom of association] and [collecting taxes from taxpayers] is required to [fund housing subsidies; welfare state], which is required to [incentivise growth of a dysgenic underclass]
  
• A + B --> C --> D
  

Subsidizing housing requires taxation, but ceasing to subsidize housing doesn't require ceasing taxation. Collecting taxes and restricting some freedoms is important for enforcing laws, funding utilities, protecting the border etc., and it's not that hard to do these things in sensible ways that don't create a libtarded hellscape.

[...]

What if someone were to argue that it prevents people from being "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? 

Even if the government is authorised to collect taxes, it is only permitted to do so in order to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" ... it's already been established here that the tax collected is not in the general welfare the country. The word "welfare" is doing a lot of work.

I think that's a nice argument that has rhetorical value, but it doesn't need the libertarian framing (though it might help to convince someone). We don't need to view taxation as a violation of personal freedoms to arrive at the common sense conclusion that tax money shouldn't be wasted.

Communists think they are acting in the best interests of collective welfare too, what matters more are the practicalities of what welfare is imagined to be and how it is achieved. Libertarianism, characterized by its prioritization of individual liberty, struggles to solve collective action problems unless we derive it back to its roots and reconfigure a core aspect (like "freedom" or "welfare") into something that is no longer recognizable as libertarian.

[Selim]

I would be pleased to hear some of the posters in this thread give their thoughts on this: https://humaniterations.net/2007/04/01/c...apitalism/

It is an article hosted/mirrored by an extremely purist antifa PNW anarchist defending ancap thinkers and challenging the concept of any coherent distinction between anarcho-capitalism and left-wing anarchism. It lets you think about the incredible variety in outlook and disposition among those who are ostensibly united on the foundation of Austrianism, statelessness and Lockean homestead principle property norms. Some may remember that TRS originally got their start as libertarians who mocked the type of guy who would author something like this.

[Guest]

@Selim your comment reminds me of a "dark mutualism" NRx acceleration blog.

[Selim]

@Selim your comment reminds me of a "dark mutualism" NRx acceleration blog.

This guy? https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/lrx/

I remember seeing this years ago when I was first reading some of Moldbug's essays.

[obscurefish]

I used to be an Anarcho-Capitalist but I abandoned it because I couldn't find any fellow ancaps who were willing to even consider violent revolution. The Non-Aggression Principle is a blight on Right-libertarianism. I don't know how you can say that you really believe in individual freedom if you don't think that any means necessary to destroy the State are justified. Without the acceptance of terrorism in principle, individual freedom is just a religious or spiritual concept and not a political one.

In Ayn Rand's novels there's an undercurrent of violence that always stops short of direct terrorism. Howard Roark blows up housing for the poor but without killing anyone inside. In Atlas Shrugged, corrupt socialists die as a result of the incompetence their own system engenders. However, I think that her reasoning for why the superior man shouldn't just kill and enslave the masses is quite weak and a form of intellectual compromise with communism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is justified insofar as it promotes the flourishing of the superior man and the culture he produces. When we live in a situation where the NAP is continually being violated, why should any libertarians be bound by it in our struggle for a better world? It may well be that the promised land will only be realized after a period of temporary dictatorship that eradicates collectivism from the Earth.

[anthony]

I used to be an Anarcho-Capitalist but I abandoned it because I couldn't find any fellow ancaps who were willing to even consider violent revolution. The Non-Aggression Principle is a blight on Right-libertarianism. I don't know how you can say that you really believe in individual freedom if you don't think that any means necessary to destroy the State are justified. Without the acceptance of terrorism in principle, individual freedom is just a religious or spiritual concept and not a political one.

In Ayn Rand's novels there's an undercurrent of violence that always stops short of direct terrorism. Howard Roark blows up housing for the poor but without killing anyone inside. In Atlas Shrugged, corrupt socialists die as a result of the incompetence their own system engenders. However, I think that her reasoning for why the superior man shouldn't just kill and enslave the masses is quite weak and a form of intellectual compromise with communism.

Anarcho-Capitalism is justified insofar as it promotes the flourishing of the superior man and the culture he produces. When we live in a situation where the NAP is continually being violated, why should any libertarians be bound by it in our struggle for a better world? It may well be that the promised land will only be realized after a period of temporary dictatorship that eradicates collectivism from the Earth.

Ayn Rand always struck me as a highly conscientious and naturally good-natured person. Ancapism strikes me as a more intense libertarianism. Superior people working up the nerve to ask sternly if they can opt out of being used as a common resource by the dark masses.

[Selim]

I used to be an Anarcho-Capitalist but I abandoned it because I couldn't find any fellow ancaps who were willing to even consider violent revolution.

I think a lot of "non-bloodthirsty" ancaps/libertarians secretly hope for a collapse/civil war for these reasons. They just want everything toppled but don't want their hands to get dirty. I'm just surprised we don't see more secessionist rhetoric from that camp.

We do see a lot of secessionist rhetoric from that camp. It is implicit in the attempt to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian paradise. See also seasteading, the Republic of Minerva, fixation on Liberland and "Bitcoin cities", etc.. I think there was some attempt at a libertarian voluntary community in the Southwestern United States quite recently, but I can't find anything about it right now.

[Selim]

We do see a lot of secessionist rhetoric from that camp. It is implicit in the attempt to turn New Hampshire into a libertarian paradise. See also seasteading, the Republic of Minerva, fixation on Liberland and "Bitcoin cities", etc.. I think there was some attempt at a libertarian voluntary community in the Southwestern United States quite recently, but I can't find anything about it right now.

I should have clarified, I meant in online culture.

Fair enough, you're not wrong there.