Sure you can. Anarchy is not a system of economics. Its just a political philosophy It can entirely coexist with a economic system that also would allow for billionaires to exist.
Market oriented mutualism and individualistic anarchism. Both support the existence of billionaires and are some of the more likely forms of anarchism to exist in a long term stable form.
So yeah… You may want to actually stop while your ahead. “Honey”.
Anarchocapitalism is an actual thing, though it’s about as anarchistic as nationalsocialism is socialist. It basically means “remove government, make everyone corporate slaves”.
And, tbh, I think it’s a valid criticism of anarchism, that any actual large-scale attempt at anarchism (so any attempt that also involves bad actors) will quite quickly lead to anarchocapitalism.
(Btw, that’s a big issue with pretty much every socioeconomical system: If you only have good actors in the population and everyone is totally behind the idea, pretty much any system can work well. But in real life a large part of the population are bad actors who only have their own benefit in mind. Thus, for any system to work well, it needs to be designed in a way that it still works with a large population of potentially powerful bad actors.
Just as an example: Imagine turbocapitalism, but everyone was altruistic, everyone would value competition over personal gain, everyone would value giving everyone the same fair chance instead of exploiting others. That kind of society could be pretty good. But since capitalism rewards bad actors who exploit others for their personal gain, and we do have lots of people happy to do whatever it takes to get these rewards, it doesn’t work.)
you can’t be an anarchist and a billionaire honey.
Sure you can. Anarchy is not a system of economics. Its just a political philosophy It can entirely coexist with a economic system that also would allow for billionaires to exist.
Market oriented mutualism and individualistic anarchism. Both support the existence of billionaires and are some of the more likely forms of anarchism to exist in a long term stable form.
So yeah… You may want to actually stop while your ahead. “Honey”.
You clearly lack understanding of anarchism. Economic heirarchy is still heirarchy honey.
This is what we get for not teaching kids critical thinking skills in school.
You can be an anarcho-capitalist though. Don’t think Gabe falls into this category though.
No, that’s literally just capitalism.
Anarchism and capitalism are antithetical to each other, capitalism is a system of capital ownership that creates economic heirarchy.
Heirarchy and anarchy are mutually exclusive polar opposites.
Didn’t get the joke, did you?
Anarchocapitalism is an actual thing, though it’s about as anarchistic as nationalsocialism is socialist. It basically means “remove government, make everyone corporate slaves”.
And, tbh, I think it’s a valid criticism of anarchism, that any actual large-scale attempt at anarchism (so any attempt that also involves bad actors) will quite quickly lead to anarchocapitalism.
(Btw, that’s a big issue with pretty much every socioeconomical system: If you only have good actors in the population and everyone is totally behind the idea, pretty much any system can work well. But in real life a large part of the population are bad actors who only have their own benefit in mind. Thus, for any system to work well, it needs to be designed in a way that it still works with a large population of potentially powerful bad actors.
Just as an example: Imagine turbocapitalism, but everyone was altruistic, everyone would value competition over personal gain, everyone would value giving everyone the same fair chance instead of exploiting others. That kind of society could be pretty good. But since capitalism rewards bad actors who exploit others for their personal gain, and we do have lots of people happy to do whatever it takes to get these rewards, it doesn’t work.)