How should we do news better in ancapistan? I don't ask this question to discredit our efforts but we should be the best at self-reflection. What is our plan to mitigate companies just paying to have the population support statism when statism would benefit them.
The answer I want is that people should be smart enough to not be told what to think, and perhaps that is a pre-condition to successful anarcho-capitalism.
But we also need some response to reality and our currently imperfect world.
Maybe there is a Hopp-like solution. He asked a similar question, what is there to prevent people from simply openly advocating, conspiring, and implementing communism in so much as it will benefit them within an ancap community. And his response is that if it is an ancap community maybe they shouldn't be there and maybe not everyone is welcome in every community on the basis of freedom of association and freedom of disassociation.
It may seem like a curtailment of freedom of speech but I think the idea is that your speech is the action it correlates with. A threat is an act of violence. Advocating communism is an act of communism. Conspiring with a mob to rob a house is robbery even if all you ever used were words.
So maybe this is the judgement of the positive mob. That an act of aggression is aggression and can be met with aggression. That advocacy of NAP violations are aggression. And paying for someone to speak for some NAP violations is an attempt to profit from aggression. And that in all cases the positive mob (you and me) have a duty to shun and have even the right to potentially re-aggress these actors.
Is your theoretical assuming the entire world is anarcho-capitalist, or just a small state? I think that will change the answer. A propaganda campaign from a Multinat funded by stolen tax dollars from people around the world to influence politics in our little Ancap haven is enemy action and should be treated accordingly.
In a more ideal ancap world, you would have big businessmen who pay for news that makes them look good, but their capital would be a little more limited. You likely wouldn't have the massive corporations that exist today with state support. You would expect other businessmen to pay for competing news. You would not have monopolies on broadcasting, or state deals to subsidize the cable companies that distribute news. You would not have the maelstrom of private + public institutions telling people to get the shot, by coercion.
Also in Ancapistan there is no such thing as freedom of speech. Only property rights. You're right about incitement to action.
And yes dictators often rose up out of power vacuums so I'd fully expect even in an anarchy certain wealthy people would amass as much power as possible around their own cult of personality to convince The People that they need to support a New Order that puts those wealthy people in charge. One of the serious issues anarcho-capitalists often gloss over is that most people are not kings, lords, plantation owners, or even homeowners. Most people are plebs, commoners, laborers working for someone else. Commoners will always exist and be easily manipulated into violent action by bad elites who have sway over their livelihoods.
How should we do news better in ancapistan? I don't ask this question to discredit our efforts but we should be the best at self-reflection. What is our plan to mitigate companies just paying to have the population support statism when statism would benefit them.
The answer I want is that people should be smart enough to not be told what to think, and perhaps that is a pre-condition to successful anarcho-capitalism.
But we also need some response to reality and our currently imperfect world.
Maybe there is a Hopp-like solution. He asked a similar question, what is there to prevent people from simply openly advocating, conspiring, and implementing communism in so much as it will benefit them within an ancap community. And his response is that if it is an ancap community maybe they shouldn't be there and maybe not everyone is welcome in every community on the basis of freedom of association and freedom of disassociation.
It may seem like a curtailment of freedom of speech but I think the idea is that your speech is the action it correlates with. A threat is an act of violence. Advocating communism is an act of communism. Conspiring with a mob to rob a house is robbery even if all you ever used were words.
So maybe this is the judgement of the positive mob. That an act of aggression is aggression and can be met with aggression. That advocacy of NAP violations are aggression. And paying for someone to speak for some NAP violations is an attempt to profit from aggression. And that in all cases the positive mob (you and me) have a duty to shun and have even the right to potentially re-aggress these actors.
Is your theoretical assuming the entire world is anarcho-capitalist, or just a small state? I think that will change the answer. A propaganda campaign from a Multinat funded by stolen tax dollars from people around the world to influence politics in our little Ancap haven is enemy action and should be treated accordingly.
In a more ideal ancap world, you would have big businessmen who pay for news that makes them look good, but their capital would be a little more limited. You likely wouldn't have the massive corporations that exist today with state support. You would expect other businessmen to pay for competing news. You would not have monopolies on broadcasting, or state deals to subsidize the cable companies that distribute news. You would not have the maelstrom of private + public institutions telling people to get the shot, by coercion.
Also in Ancapistan there is no such thing as freedom of speech. Only property rights. You're right about incitement to action.
And yes dictators often rose up out of power vacuums so I'd fully expect even in an anarchy certain wealthy people would amass as much power as possible around their own cult of personality to convince The People that they need to support a New Order that puts those wealthy people in charge. One of the serious issues anarcho-capitalists often gloss over is that most people are not kings, lords, plantation owners, or even homeowners. Most people are plebs, commoners, laborers working for someone else. Commoners will always exist and be easily manipulated into violent action by bad elites who have sway over their livelihoods.