3

One of my fellow programmers, a Hedonist, believed that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves (Voluntarism), that countries stand in the way of that because they force taxes on top of people (Anarchism).

He is partially Anarchic-Capitalist, but he believes that Capitalism does make helping people beneficial, but also makes harming people beneficial. He believes that people should be split into companies that are extremely niche (one makes iron that is one sized, and another another size), so that there is no competition. Also the companies are dependent on each other, and if one is harmed the entire chain of companies will die, so that they do not harm each other (gun makers kill computer makers, and that harms banks, which harms the iron makers because they need investment, which harms the farmers the gun makers buy stuff to eat).

What Is a political view that believes there should be no ruling country and people should be split into separate niche companies?

  • This sounds a lot like guilds, but I don’t know what the term for “guilds as government” is. – Bobson Oct 19 '18 at 11:39
  • 1
    @Bobson Please see the etymology section of fascism. Fasces were guild-like organizations. Fascism was government by those guilds. Of course, the person in question may not support how fascism actually developed beyond that, with a single authoritarian leader above the guilds. An alternative would be syndicalism, which predated fascism and was mostly replaced by it. – Brythan Oct 20 '18 at 0:32
2

For political views without ruling countries, you can usually just put the word "Global" in front of the political term. In this case, as James mentioned, there would need to be someone who defined which company did what, distributed funding between companies using a method that didn't look similar to taxation but had a comparable effect, and took action if [when] harm occurred.

Grouping by occupation rather than location is a different twist, but if substituting the word "commune" for "company" works without changing the nature of your colleague's political views, I think we would have an answer.

  • That would probably work... – Aphrodite Oct 19 '18 at 7:58
5

Just because someone can think of it doesn't mean it has a name. In this case the idea appears to be homespun, and not part of a named movement. You can take his name and add "-ism" to it!

It seems internally inconsistent: If there is no government, who does the splitting into companies? If it is to be done by your friend alone, that would make it a dictatorship.

  • Ah, I asked him that, he said he will... "I am the prophet, I will guide them through the darkness!" That's not what he said but pretty much it, he said it in a non-cultist way. – Aphrodite Oct 19 '18 at 7:28
  • Based on that comment, the term is "Dictatorship"! – James K Oct 19 '18 at 7:39
  • That's what I said, he said he was a prophet, not a dictator, but I'm not here to debate on his behalf, so yeah... – Aphrodite Oct 19 '18 at 7:45
  • If one person controls that, it's still a dictatorship, whether they say it or not, it still is. – CodingMage Oct 19 '18 at 23:01
2

If he believes that there needs to be someone who mandates the size and scope of companies then he is neither an anarchist nor a capitalist in any sense of the words. How does he reconcile "that people should be free to do anything because everyone knows good for themselves" and "people should be split into companies that are extremely niche...so that there is no competition"?

Taking your friends proposed leadership out of the situation here, and it sounds like you're looking for Syndicalism or Anarcho-Syndicalism. But really your friend just wants to be a communist dictator

-1

By the way, I shared your friends' point of view. The ideology is not very popular yet. So there is no fix names.

However, according to http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/why-i-think-the-state-itself-should-be-more-like-private-companies.739494/

Some possible names are

  • capitalistic feudalism.
  • capitalistic republic
  • joint stock republic
  • privatized competing states
  • capitalistic provinces capitalism 2.0
  • extending capitalism to states
  • states with owners and shares and valuation
  • capitalistic colonialism
  • corporate protectorate
  • States privatization
  • Joint Stock Republic

All names are not exactly the same though. Each captures a bit of an essence. For example, corporate feudalism stress the idea that the governor, which is a corporation, don't just rule but also "own" the "province".

Joint stock republic would be a privatized cities/provinces that have gone through IPO I guess.

Basic tenets:

Basically, the states are like corporations. The citizens are the share holders. The tax payers are the customers. The states can pretty much do many things (hence statism) but have to compete to get tax payers. (this will encourage some libertarian values, such as lower tax). Positive right libertarianism will like it I think.

One way to set that up is the following. Say California wants to be privatized. Californian citizens are free from income tax. But the state itself pay protection money to USA for military protection. Now, it's up to californian to decide how they tax the population. All californian residency is converted at shares. People coming to California and newborn babies do not automatically get shares. Shares must be bought or inherited or granted.

So shares are like citizenship. Except that if someone have 40 children, the citizen/shareholders will think, what? Our shares worth $100k per piece. Now someone just have 40 children and we have to give free shares for that diluting our ownership? No way.

Now the shareholders can embrace status quo and keep giving free shares to all born on certain places. If shares cannot be bought and sold too, it will be exactly like normal democracy. However, it's something that CEO and board of directors can decide rather than something sacrosanct set in stone.

Basically there are several people that share the same point of view. I will summarize them

http://www.libertariansforum.com/cgi-bin/freedom/YaBB.pl?num=1549518924/12#12 Like you this guy is also looking for a name

Another is someone in lesswrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin

The idea that states should be run like businesses do not come from libertarians only.

VOC and EIC is also run like businesses. It has a clear goal. Both are not libertarian. VOC conquer the whole Indonesia and EIC conquer the whole India.

So even if a country is not libertarian, running it like a profit seeking entity have some benefits. Corporations have very clear measurable goals. We can check the ROI. http://getrichbangbabes.com/benefit-of-further-privatization-of-governments/ The benefits are:

  1. Less poverty. You don't give extra shares for some guy producing 40 children. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11508271/40-children-by-20-mothers-the-feckless-father-who-insists-God-says-go-forth-and-multiply.html In normal democracy, an idiot producing 40 children will have 40 new voters running your life voting for more idiocy, tax, and welfare. 1 Religious terrorists producing 40 jihadist will not have to blow themselves up again. They just breed and vote for anti blasphemy laws. In fact, many terrorism in US happens because somebody breed those terrorists.
  2. You don't have to fear immigrants so much if your state max profit. Only useful immigrants will be admitted. Think about it. Say you have a house, and you accept 10 starving children. Under "democracy" those 10 children will simply vote you out of your own house. Now states have owners. You can accept workers, deal with them fairly, and they will never rule your state unless you agree to it or buy more shares.
  3. Profit seeking corporations can easily bump their GDP by breeding their most productive tax payers. Imagine a world where Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos produces 40 children. At the same tax rate we can give money to welfare parasites easily. Not that we should. I prefer lowering tax rate. But each welfare parasite can have more if they produce less children and Bill Gates produce more.
  4. More diverse choice. Your friends would love those. If cities are privatized arguing whether drug should be legal or not will be as pointless as arguing whether Burger King is as good as Pizza Hut. He like LSD? DMT? Weed? Just go to cities where all those legal. Fear that his sons would try LSD? Go to where it's illegal. What about dangerous drugs like fentanyl or crocodile? Well, a profit seeking state will correctly judge whether those drugs bring more tax than problems. In democracy, histeria governed. US have prohibition of alcohol that took years to repeal. Is legalization good or bad? For who? Now each can go where they like.
  5. You know where your country is run well or not. This is why VOC and EIC can control large chunk of life. Normal countries always fight over what's "good". In Indonesia, I've heard there is a story about country that fight. Basically the purist muslim fight the moderate one. Result? They both got swallowed by the dutch. Not happening if a country is privatized.
  6. The rest of the country can experiment to see which one is best. Say someone try libertarianism and georgism. Well, that combo may work well. The rest of the country can follow.
  7. Easier to move around. Under "normal" democracy, shareholders and customers are combined into citizens. Often they should have different interests. What's good for one citizen is bad for another. Look at legalization of drugs or anti blasphemy laws. Under corporate governments, any share holders that disagree can sell shares and any customers that don't like the product can go to other shop.

The idea is not just a theory. It's been tried very successfully. EIC and VOC governed India and Indonesia respectively. Also they are not necessarily more cruel than kingdoms they replaced. However, I do not like VOC and EIC. I prefer smaller states that are privatized and still kow tow to big normal states for protection like normal corporations.

  • I thought I am the only one that answer the question correctly. Hello. The guy asks for a name. May be I should call it capitalistic republic? – user4951 Mar 13 at 16:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.