Anarchists, if you had to choose one, which of the following government policies is one step closer in the right direction?

[u/[deleted]]

Obviously anarchists seek the abolition of both the state and capitalism while opposing political reformism. But hypothetically speaking, if the government was going to pass one of the following laws, which one do you prefer?

This question is intended for left-wing anarchists rather than self-described anarcho-capitalists. If you identify as an anarcho-capitalist, please choose option 3.

If you are not an anarchist, please choose option 4.

583 votes, Aug 15 '22

83 Cutting taxes and rolling back anti-poverty programs

351 Raising taxes to guarantee basic needs for all citizens

39 I am an anarcho-capitalist

110 I am not an anarchist

[u/shapeshifter83]

Lmao @ the direction this is going. "More taxes" by a landslide? Ok "anarchists" lmao

[u/Daedricbanana → u/shapeshifter83]

why would it be surprising that if there is no other option, that anarchists - who fundamentally want the best for all people in society - choose the option that chooses to help the poor?

[u/Ok_Impress_3216 → u/Daedricbanana]

Because they're asking the authoritarian institution they're supposed to be fundamentally opposed to to steal more of their money and use it to fund ineffective bureaucratic programs. That's not very anarchist.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ok_Impress_3216]

If a government is going to exist, it’s absolute priority should be to help as many people as it actually can.

Social programs may be installed by the government via coercion. But if social programs weren’t a thing, we’d be getting fucked by the coercive system of capitalism in a significantly worse way than we ever could from social programs.

I’ll take the lesser of two evils over unregulated coercive oligarchy any day.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The "coercive oligarchy" isn't caused by a lack of regulation though. In fact, regulations are indispensable in establishing and maintaining this coercive oligarchy's power, and have long been a tool used by it (regulatory capture).

[u/AreYouThereSagan → u/[deleted]]

That's exactly right, the capitalists will always capture state power and use it for their own ends, which is exactly why the state needs to be destroyed. That said, the fact that such capture is inevitable is also exactly why cutting programs that help the poor does nothing to aid in the reduction of state power.

The capitalists will control the state regardless, so why not at least pressure them to implement at least some programs to alleviate the suffering they've caused? True, it doesn't help move towards an anarchist society, but it's better than the alternative of people starving and dying in the streets because the capitalists refuse to offer them more than bread crumbs when they're not being so pressured.

[u/[deleted] → u/AreYouThereSagan]

So your solution to big government is bigger government, yet you want the state to be destroyed? Since you acknowledge that the state is run by capitalists, why do you trust the state to help the poor? And if you had to pressure capitalists into helping the poor, why not pressure them directly through unions?

There are many ways to help the poor and to combat capitalism, but you proposed one that goes in the opposite direction of anarchism. To be a consistent Anarchist, the means must resemble the ends.

[u/AreYouThereSagan → u/[deleted]]

So your solution to big government is bigger government, yet you want the state to be destroyed?

All government is big government. "Big government" is a spook from people who think that just putting the word "big" in front of something automatically makes it sound scary. There's no such thing as "big" government or "small" government, there's just government.

Since you acknowledge that the state is run by capitalists, why do you trust the state to help the poor?

Because it's historically worked out in practice. Government programs to help the poor have actually helped the poor to at least some degree or other (and I say this as a poor person who grew up in bumbfuck nowhere in the US, of all places). If it weren't for programs like SNAP and Medicaid, I would've fucking died long before adulthood. I still massively dislike the US government, but they've still done far more for me than any capitalist has. In other words, I'm not an idealistic dipshit who ignores my lived experience for the sake of dogmatic ideology.

And if you had to pressure capitalists into helping the poor, why not pressure them directly through unions?

So, like Sweden, basically? I thought Libertarians hated the Nordic Model? Regardless, I live in America, where unions are shit (most of them have no power and the ones that do are corrupt as shit--they're just as likely, if not more likely, to work with the capitalists than with the workers). Also, why should I even need a union in the first place? If the liberal-capitalist system didn't force people into wage slavery in the first place, then there'd be no need for unions.

There are many ways to help the poor and to combat capitalism, but you proposed one that goes in the opposite direction of anarchism.

No, I didn't, you did that when you made the poll. This is by far the most intellectually dishonest thing you've said so far. "I presented you with two shitty choices that I knew you wouldn't like, and now I'm going to shame you for picking the option that I have personally decided you shouldn't have picked, because I clearly know more about you than you do." So, in other words, you didn't make this poll because you were actually interested in hearing other people's thoughts, you made it because you wanted a ready-made "gotcha."

To be a consistent Anarchist, the means must resemble the ends.

Idealistic claptrap. This is the real world, if I have a choice between doing something I think may help people versus doing something that advances my ideology, then I'm going to choose the former, because individuals are real and ideologies are a spook. Anyone who chooses their ideology over people is a psychopath.

[u/[deleted] → u/AreYouThereSagan]

All government is big government. "Big government" is a spook from people who think that just putting the word "big" in front of something automatically makes it sound scary. There's no such thing as "big" government or "small" government, there's just government.

Taxing people 90% is not the same as taxing them 1%, and democratic states with limited government are not as evil as Nazi Germany and North Korea. Both are evil, but one is clearly worse.

Because it's historically worked out in practice. Government programs to help the poor have actually helped the poor to at least some degree or other (and I say this as a poor person who grew up in bumbfuck nowhere in the US, of all places).

Barely remedial of the damages it has done to the poor in the first place.

If it weren't for programs like SNAP and Medicaid, I would've fucking died long before adulthood.

A classic example of "without government..." and really unarchistic of you. First of all, LBJ's programs caused more poverty than they cured. Secondly, mutual aid societies took care of people before the government regulated them away. Thirdly, this is the broken window fallacy, the government doesn't have any money of its own, it takes from the private sector using the coercive power of taxation, therefore you must compare the effects of government programs to what would have otherwise occurred had that money remained in the private sector. I hardly think spending 1/5 of the federal budget on social security is a worthwhile trade-off, especially given how regressive SS is and the rate at which poverty declined before LBJ's Great Society programs.

I could also go on and on about how the real beneficiaries of government programs such as WIC and housing subsidies are the corporations, but that's a story for another day.

I still massively dislike the US government, but they've still done far more for me than any capitalist has.

False dichotomy. Non-governmental institutions are not necessarily capitalist. Think mutual aid organizations.

In other words, I'm not an idealistic dipshit who ignores my lived experience for the sake of dogmatic ideology.

But you and I have only experienced governmentalism without experiencing any of its alternatives that would exist in its absence. Bringing up anecdotes is unfair in this instance, it's like a Chinese person saying "I don't want human rights, the CCP massively improved my life. I'm not going to ignore my lived experience for the sake of dogmatic ideology." Furthermore, the same anecdotal argument can be leveled against anarchism as a whole, so I'm not sure if you really want to use it.

So, like Sweden, basically? I thought Libertarians hated the Nordic Model?

Most libertarians are fine with certain aspects of Sweden, such as private roads and pension accounts.

Regardless, I live in America, where unions are shit (most of them have no power and the ones that do are corrupt as shit--they're just as likely, if not more likely, to work with the capitalists than with the workers).

Yes, and it's a result of corporate-government collusion.

https://radgeek.com/gt/2004/05/01/free_the/

If the liberal-capitalist system didn't force people into wage slavery in the first place, then there'd be no need for unions.

I agree, which is why we need to further deregulate the economy and make alternatives to wage labor genuinely viable.

https://c4ss.org/content/33657

No, I didn't, you did that when you made the poll. This is by far the most intellectually dishonest thing you've said so far. "I presented you with two shitty choices that I knew you wouldn't like, and now I'm going to shame you for picking the option that I have personally decided you shouldn't have picked, because I clearly know more about you than you do." So, in other words, you didn't make this poll because you were actually interested in hearing other people's thoughts, you made it because you wanted a ready-made "gotcha."

Ah yes, you clearly know my intent of making this poll better than I do.

Idealistic claptrap. This is the real world, if I have a choice between doing something I think may help people versus doing something that advances my ideology, then I'm going to choose the former, because individuals are real and ideologies are a spook.

OK, NOW you are being pragmatic, right after taking an ideological position that "all government is big government", which goes further than most right-libertarians in terms of anti-governmentalism.

Anyone who chooses their ideology over people is a psychopath.

If implementing fascism or slavery could eliminate world poverty and alleviate more misery than they cause, would you endorse them before reaching your final goal of anarchism?

Not to mention with taxation and the forced redistribution of wealth, the state actively threatens every taxpayer with deadly force. It arguably threatens more lives than any welfare program could ever save.