![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A theory about ancaps
Aug. 11th, 2021 12:44 amThey say they don’t want the state, so you ask if they want some X that’s currently provided by the state. Under repeated questioning, they say they want X, Y, and Z, but not A, B, and C. You say this is splitting hairs, because having any of those things means you have a “state.”
But they need to have at least one word for the thing they don’t want. My theory is that “state” is the closest word they’ve found. They understand what ancaps use “state” to mean, so they talk to other ancaps about their plans for what to do without a “state.” Then when you start talking about how the “state” actually includes all these other things, they’re confused and annoyed, because your definition isn’t any more real or immutable than the definition they were using before you barged in.
But they need to have at least one word for the thing they don’t want. My theory is that “state” is the closest word they’ve found. They understand what ancaps use “state” to mean, so they talk to other ancaps about their plans for what to do without a “state.” Then when you start talking about how the “state” actually includes all these other things, they’re confused and annoyed, because your definition isn’t any more real or immutable than the definition they were using before you barged in.
