Reading about unabomber manifesto, I started thinking that socialism is bad and that the best system is AnCap.
Not a serious concept and anyone who thinks otherwise is very mistaken.
Can you elaborate further?
Capitalism is almost by definition a tool to create hierarchies. You can’t have an anarchy where the entire economic system generates unbalances of power as a core feature.
It will default to despotic states, corporations, or gangs where the one who has the most gold makes the rules.
So, what is the optimal system in your opinion?
Economic system? Anything that has policies to prevent inequalities and massive concentrations of wealth. With the right frame of mind, capitalist, mixed market, or communistic systems can work. Even anarcho-capitalism, if it’s willing to stray from 100% purist theories of the system and allow some structure that prevent the haves from monopolizing economic power at the expense of the have-nots.
A highly regulated capitalist system with high graduated taxes to support a resilient social safety net. This is usually called “Democratic Socialism” or “Nordic Socialism” - by the time you’re paying really punishing taxes you earn enough money for it not to matter in terms of your happiness.
Free markets can’t exist without enforcement of rules against violence and fraud. Without such enforcement, race-to-the-bottom effects mean that employment devolves into slavery and all markets in goods become dominated by “lemons” (fraudulent goods).
An actual free market in labor requires limits on what a powerful employer can demand from workers. An actual free market in goods requires protection of customers from fraud, and arguably also from monopolies. Both of these require something like a state, an entity empowered to intrude into other people’s business in order to enforce rules.
Even starting with anarcho-capitalist principles, consistency ends up endorsing a minimal state: see Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. (However, Nozick’s path is not the only path by which a state-like entity could arise; rather than from ‘protection agencies’, we could imagine it arising from labor unions or cooperatives instead.)
In gist, “freedom isn’t free” — if you want to have a free market in labor or goods, you have to have enforcement against those who would deprive others of freedom through force or fraud.
Kaczynski was not an anarcho-capitalist, in any event, but an anarcho-primitivist — whose beliefs led him personally to commit murder, and who endorsed the mass murder of almost all humans. It’s worth noting that Kaczynski was also arguably manufactured by psychological abuse; he was a gifted mathematician until he became the victim of an MK-ULTRA program.
So, what is the optimal system in your opinion?
It’s not clear there is one! One of the nice things about liberal-democracy is that different people can create different forms of social and economic organization to meet their needs and interests. A family business, a worker-owned cooperative, and a publicly traded corporation can coexist in the same economy (and even on the same street). People can start monasteries or communes in the woods if they want to; or move to the big city to seek their fortunes.
But again, freedom isn’t free: there has to be enforcement of individual rights and fair trade to ensure that the most powerful & successful don’t get to run over everyone else with force and fraud. Right now I suspect this looks like some form of liberal social democracy; probably with more worker protections than the US has right now, but probably with less bureaucracy than the EU has right now.
To me if a certain method of organizing fails to give people power over their own needs without infringing on the needs of others than it should be avoided. Privatization of -everything-, which is core to ancap theory, is itself an aggression. The enclosure movement in the UK is a good example. The ‘best’ way for people to organize would incentivize people to be good towards each other and good stewards of the planet. It would not allow one person to gain power over anyone else’s right to exist. You should be highly skeptical of a movement whose theorists support slavery, free market organ sales, etc. which are antithetical to freedom of the individual (at least one person in the relationship is getting the shitty end of the deal).
You couldn’t come up with an argument against a man with serious mental health issues who terrorized people?
The guy who scored 167 at IQ test when he was a kid?
Sadly logic does not follow emotion.
If you want to argue back, then you need reason to be on your side.
Scoring high on an IQ test as a child means you’re advanced compared to other children. It doesn’t mean you’re going to be a genius as an adult. It also doesn’t mean you can’t have stupid beliefs that don’t work.
Kaczynski’s madness was manufactured through calculated psychological abuse in the Harvard laboratory of one Henry Murray. Look it up, dude.
High IQ doesn’t mean someone is always correct. He was also a test subject in MKULTRA which fucked up his brain big time.
Also, don’t accuse someone else of being illogical when you are using one of the most basic logical fallacies (appeal to authority, ie. “Ted was smart therefore he was correct”)
I am answering his Ad hominem, as he did not dispute the problems raised within the manifesto.
Ah, one fallacy begets another. Very logical debating! Carry on then.
I don’t even think a perfect blend would be possible to begin with. I know Chile tried this mindset because Pinochet got Rothbard’s former students to try to fix something up, but now they’re paying the price.