>>72142
>what turns people who were at one point lover's of freedom to authoritarians?
freedom isnt free
fascism as a means is not the same as fascism as an ends
certain political structures, structures of movements specifically, are more profilerative, more competetive than others. you need a minimum amount of those to not be squashed. its certainly true ancap is more efficient. however many actors with power are not rational, yet do have the power. (note this is because people who give them their power have very serious vulnerabilities and nihilistic sociopaths just have too easy a time). so while you will pay a price structuring your movement or government in a more competetive way compared to full ancap, thats preferable because you dont die.
even if mature ancap is competetive enough, that does not mean it can survive the period of attaining maturity. this where you get romantics and idealists on one side and realists on the other: absolute free trade NAOW vs lets not ignore politics considerations like trading with commies or losing your power in the democratic government to commies (wich is worse to all virtue ethicists that cant tell between aggression and grave aggression) because all your powerbase lost their jobs to vietnam.
finally, most of the current ancap literature makes no distinction among humans.
I dont see many ancaps complaining about the way horses are beeing trained (they use whips and such). divorce yourself from the egalitarian idea that humans are all equal and all deserve the exact same amount of property rights. some, probably many, humans are too far from rationality for such a thing. vid related. the idea that some people should own more property (measured in money) than others because they are more skilled at investing is already popular.
there seem to be some conflicts with the nap. I would say, keep in mind that in all the ancap literature nobody has worked out a proper description of how different levels of rationality affect rights. some say there should be no such distinction. I would point out that we do distinguish animals and humans. animals and plants act purposeful to some degree. these considerations are simply not thoroughly covered in the literature so far. thus, expect there to be new insights soonish.
rothbard on human vs animal rights in ethics of liberty
>They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice. [..]
>In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.
Thus, while natural rights, as we have been emphasizing, are absolute, there is one sense in which they are relative: they are relative to the species man. A rights-ethic for mankind is precisely that: for all men, regardless of race, creed, color or sex, but for the species man alone. [..]
notice he conceives all of humanity as one. wich is obviously not true.