|
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry.
Edit: People have asked me to edit the OP to add more stuff, but I would end up plagiarizing Man Economy and the State lol. It may be too late to edit now, too, since thread appears to be dying (thank god tbh.), but anyways. Relevant links:
Responses to Ten. Objections by Roderick T. Long - succinct and rather short answers to common questions. Man, Economy, and State (with Power and Market) by Murray N. Rothbard. Most solid intro to ancap thought, but its a long book so gl hf. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - Murray N. Rothbard Much shorter and with answers to how some services that the government does today can be delivered in the market. The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard - for moral and law questions. (note that this is just a proposal of morals and laws, ancap isn't restrained to any particular moral code as long as it has a decent theory of private property. this is just one that is agreeable and consistent)
Other texts: http://mises.org/misesuniv.asp
Empirical evidence and revisionism. Uh... I don't particularly like empiricism, but if you're rather perturbed by historical events that supposedly prove the "state is necessary" idea, and can't get past that mental block, then okay... here's a little something... The Not So Wild, Wild West - Terry Anderson Genesis of the Civil War The Industrial Revolution - Robert LeFevre (Audio, part 1, has 4 parts: 2,3,4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities The Changing Face of “Coercion”: From Standard Oil to Intel A Free-Market Guide to Healthcare Origins of the Welfare State in America - Rothbard America's Great Depression - By Murray Rothbard Unemployment: The 1930s and Today - Robert P. Murphy (Video) The Great Depression - Robert P. Murphy(Audio) Keynesian Predictions vs. American History - Thomas E. Woods Jr. (Video) Good paper on Somalia - Must read for the statist empiricist who likes to pick on it.
I also recommend any PIG (politically incorrect guide) book by Robert P. Murphy but out of respect I won't post links to either pdfs or stores.
|
The dawn is set
Arise ye thread of never ending pixels, let your posts exceed new heights and may ye blossom in eternity
|
Anarcho-capitalism merely replaces the state with private entities (ie corporations). If anarcho-capitalism is truly a variant of anarchism (I would say it isn't) then it should agree with the statement that the state is an inherently bad system.
The arguments made in the OP are referring to classical anarchism being a product of humanism, the classic argument claiming that humans are inherently good and that the state is the source of the majority of the corruption of humanity.
|
Interesting. Just tagging this thread and I will return, as I'm sure we can get a good discussion going.
|
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry. This is correct, but it's also the argument as to WHY a government works over the individual. The government is the rule of the many, while the anarchic rule is the rule of the individual - with the rule of the many, the "human nature" of the individual is repressed for the good of the collective, working as a failsafe against "human nature" screwing tings over. This is why "human nature", as you stated, does apply, and is also why the arachno-capitalistic model would not work.
Edit: Yes, arachno - I'm obviously talking about the capitalism run by spiders, not the anarcho-capitalistic model. :p
|
Concerns over law.
On August 29 2010 07:26 OhJesusWOW wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 06:58 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 06:50 OhJesusWOW wrote:On August 29 2010 06:48 Yurebis wrote: 1-Son is not entitled to food and housing, he can run away, voluntary
Unless he is older than 18, then yes, he is. You may believe he is, and the state may enforce such policy. But I believe he isn't, and in anarcho-capitalism, it would be coercion to force someone to feed someone else no matter the age or connection, and a very unpopular policy to enforce. It is however not a problem for the state to enforce any form of coercion since it's coercively funded anyways. In anarcho-capitalism, the food and shelter would already be his.
Law doesn't exist simply because the state says it is so. Law is naturally demanded by the market, to formalize relations, contracts, and terms of use. Everywhere in anarcho-capitalism is private property, and people would only make their land publicly available for everyone to come and step on if they agree to certain rules. No different than today, except that such responsibility of conciliating rules falls greatly on the monopolistic state.
That isn't good. It's actually not good at all. The laws that the state impose on all land actually limit the types of relations people want to have. Law can be seen as a good, a commodity, scarce and limited to a finite amount of resources - lawyers, judges, law makers, paper for the law codes, courts, websites that can host those codes.
The preferred codes would be decided by those who are the most popular, laws that don't make sense and people won't follow or wouldn't enforce themselves simply won't be written. A law like "you shall jump on one foot three times every morning" isn't going to be written because no one would pay for it to be written. At the same time, an unjust law like "everyone living in province x must pay John the Statist one thousand dollars a year" won't be popular by about as much, because it makes no sense.
Enforcement is a whole nother matter, but if you can at least concede that law isn't dependent on a state, it's a start.
|
the problem with anarcho capitalism is that companies tend to conglomerate and merge naturally because of economies of scale. As a result, huge companies will be able to overwhelm small companies, resulting in the disruption of the competitive balance that would normally arise among companies of similar size and strength that provides the stability of anarcho capitalism. Thus it will inevitably lead to the rise of a few corporate organizations in this type of free fall. Also, lack of central money supply, and XYZ.
Also, lol, pseudoecon thread.
|
Do you see Eve online as a anarcho-capitalistic functioning environment? (if yes, do you take inspiration from it?)
As a citizen of a country, I have rights granted to me by the democracy that I take part in which is enforced through law interpreted by yada yada yada. With anarchy, I have no guaranteed rights. Are companies supposed to provide shelter for individuals? Would this not resemble feudalism? Do you expect people to be okay with not having a safety net or do you think most everyone would join their local army supported safety club? (I hope I got my terminology right)
|
On August 29 2010 07:43 Nevuk wrote: Anarcho-capitalism merely replaces the state with private entities (ie corporations). If anarcho-capitalism is truly a variant of anarchism (I would say it isn't) then it should agree with the statement that the state is an inherently bad system.
The arguments made in the OP are referring to classical anarchism being a product of humanism, the classic argument claiming that humans are inherently good and that the state is the source of the majority of the corruption of humanity. Not all of it, the state is a product of man after all. But it is a big chunk of it, and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better, for increased capital accumulation and a wealthier future. Like getting rid of a tick.
|
On August 29 2010 07:50 Caller wrote: the problem with anarcho capitalism is that companies tend to conglomerate and merge naturally because of economies of scale. As a result, huge companies will be able to overwhelm small companies, resulting in the disruption of the competitive balance that would normally arise among companies of similar size and strength that provides the stability of anarcho capitalism. Thus it will inevitably lead to the rise of a few corporate organizations in this type of free fall. Also, lack of central money supply, and XYZ.
Also, lol, pseudoecon thread. 1- Why is this a bad thing, if it means greater efficiency and lower cost per-product 2- Why don't diseconomies of scale apply as well? 3- At worst, you mean, defense organizations turn into a state back again, so ain't that bad IMO. Then people get rid of it again? But then, knowing that people would not want a state, perhaps they wouldn't pay people to make one again, and would take smarter providences to make sure that doesn't happen.
On August 29 2010 07:51 Badjas wrote: Do you see Eve online as a anarcho-capitalistic functioning environment? (if yes, do you take inspiration from it?)
As a citizen of a country, I have rights granted to me by the democracy that I take part in which is enforced through law interpreted by yada yada yada. With anarchy, I have no guaranteed rights. Are companies supposed to provide shelter for individuals? Would this not resemble feudalism? Do you expect people to be okay with not having a safety net or do you think most everyone would join their local army supported safety club? (I hope I got my terminology right) I have not played eve online. Feudal lords haven't acquired their land in any way shape or form that legitimizes their use. Winning a war and claiming vasts amounts of land to be yours wouldn't be considered a more valid claim as claiming the moon would. Positive rights wouldn't exist either of course. Negative rights do, if there is demand for them, and I do believe there would be. So, non-aggression-principle withholds, private property necessarily withholds (or it wouldn't be anarcho-capitalism, there's anarcho-communism and other kinds though.)
|
On August 29 2010 07:52 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 07:43 Nevuk wrote: Anarcho-capitalism merely replaces the state with private entities (ie corporations). If anarcho-capitalism is truly a variant of anarchism (I would say it isn't) then it should agree with the statement that the state is an inherently bad system.
The arguments made in the OP are referring to classical anarchism being a product of humanism, the classic argument claiming that humans are inherently good and that the state is the source of the majority of the corruption of humanity. Not all of it, the state is a product of man after all. But it is a big chunk of it, and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better, for increased capital accumulation and a wealthier future. Like getting rid of a tick.
Making an analogy does not automatically make the analogy correct, and neither does it serve as an argument for your point.
The wealthiest countries are those with a large portion expenditures on maintaining the government, state and bureaucracy. This is a fact.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/ece/dispap/2003_2.html read this when you have the chance.
|
On August 29 2010 07:49 Yurebis wrote:Concerns over law. Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 07:26 OhJesusWOW wrote:On August 29 2010 06:58 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 06:50 OhJesusWOW wrote:On August 29 2010 06:48 Yurebis wrote: 1-Son is not entitled to food and housing, he can run away, voluntary
Unless he is older than 18, then yes, he is. You may believe he is, and the state may enforce such policy. But I believe he isn't, and in anarcho-capitalism, it would be coercion to force someone to feed someone else no matter the age or connection, and a very unpopular policy to enforce. It is however not a problem for the state to enforce any form of coercion since it's coercively funded anyways. In anarcho-capitalism, the food and shelter would already be his. Law doesn't exist simply because the state says it is so. Law is naturally demanded by the market, to formalize relations, contracts, and terms of use. Everywhere in anarcho-capitalism is private property, and people would only make their land publicly available for everyone to come and step on if they agree to certain rules. No different than today, except that such responsibility of conciliating rules falls greatly on the monopolistic state. That isn't good. It's actually not good at all. The laws that the state impose on all land actually limit the types of relations people want to have. Law can be seen as a good, a commodity, scarce and limited to a finite amount of resources - lawyers, judges, law makers, paper for the law codes, courts, websites that can host those codes. The preferred codes would be decided by those who are the most popular, laws that don't make sense and people won't follow or wouldn't enforce themselves simply won't be written. A law like "you shall jump on one foot three times every morning" isn't going to be written because no one would pay for it to be written. At the same time, an unjust law like "everyone living in province x must pay John the Statist one thousand dollars a year" won't be popular by about as much, because it makes no sense. Enforcement is a whole nother matter, but if you can at least concede that law isn't dependent on a state, it's a start.
I sincerely wish I had the political jargon at my disposal to formalize a response, but layman's will have to do. You're saying that unpopular laws wouldn't come into effect because people who wouldn't approve simply wouldn't enforce/pay for them. What would realistically happen is that the key division of high/low class would come into effect from capitalism. Some individuals would be richer and more powerful than others through the nature of the system, and what you end up with is competing groups banding together to enforce their laws. This is pretty much identical to the current state of the world.
The structure would be synonymous with a state, or a dictatorship, or however the group decides to run it's system. Laws, as it were, would come about in the same fashion that they currently do.
|
On August 29 2010 07:58 Sadistx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 07:52 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 07:43 Nevuk wrote: Anarcho-capitalism merely replaces the state with private entities (ie corporations). If anarcho-capitalism is truly a variant of anarchism (I would say it isn't) then it should agree with the statement that the state is an inherently bad system.
The arguments made in the OP are referring to classical anarchism being a product of humanism, the classic argument claiming that humans are inherently good and that the state is the source of the majority of the corruption of humanity. Not all of it, the state is a product of man after all. But it is a big chunk of it, and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better, for increased capital accumulation and a wealthier future. Like getting rid of a tick. Making an analogy does not automatically make the analogy correct, and neither does it serve as an argument for your point. I know it doesn't, I'm just trying to be agreeable, and an analogy sometimes best conveys a thought.
On August 29 2010 07:58 Sadistx wrote: The wealthiest countries are those with a large portion expenditures on maintaining the government, state and bureaucracy. This is a fact. It may be a fact that they are. But does it mean that it's due to?
K
|
Work? No, not unless you force everyone to agree to your set of rules, like only negative liberties exist and coercion is worse than any other evil.
|
I am an anarchist, however I dont digg anarcho capitalism ONE BIT. Reason? With money comes power, with power comes opression, with opression comes fascism.
|
There are things about anarcho-capitalism that are flawed in comparison to a democracy. Without any taxation or regulation, there is nobody to stop people like police officers or fire fighters from charging for their services, especially not at any constant rate. You think we have corrupt cops now? Imagine if your local police department was run by the KKK - there isn't any government to enforce any affirmative action. What then? My knowledge of anarcho-capitalism is limited, and I'm moments away from drifting off, but from what I know about it its intentions are good but its model is flawed in many respects. I believe the Old American West was a close representation of what you can expect in an anarcho-capitalism; I believe it also retains the moniker, 'The Wild West', and for good reason, I would assume.
|
Anarcho-capitalism certainly can "work." It can work, just like Communism, Feudalism, and Fascism worked. As long as the people are willing to abide by the rules (or the lack thereof in this case), then anything can theoretically "work."
But personally, I'd rather stay under our current system.
|
TLDR it won't work because there is no way of ensuring that those who violently resist violent coercion will not attempt to perform violent coercion. (resistance is not always easier than coercion). So limited states are better than anarchy because anarchy leads to unlimited states.
For anarcho capitalism to work then everyone capable of successfully defending themselves has to be willing to not oppress others.
Won't work.
If an anarcho-capitalist society arose, then voluntary groups would arise within it providing defense. Because defense is Very difficult with noncontinuous territory, the most successful groups would become those that had some ownership rights of the territory they protected.
Essentially they would become mini-states... you could leave, but you would actually have to move.
The next stages would be (in no particular order)
the mini-states requring certain agreements from those living there (voluntary, they own the land... you can still move)
Mini-states exercising coercion to prevent individuals from violating those agreements (you can still just leave, but not if you owe us $10,000... in that case we will get it from you... you might even have signed an agreement giving us the right to come and chase you down... because that was the only good security contract)
Mini-states attempting the same strategies with other mini-states.
The above lead to the 'mini-states' acting almost exactly like states.
The disadvantage of any form of anarchism is that violent coercion is not possible to abolish. There will always be those that use violence and attempting to abolish states will merely lead to their reestablishment (as states are replaced by corporations and criminal organizations that start acting like states).
While violence can't be eliminated, however, a well established state can limit it. If the state is designed in such a way that the institution tends to use violence for preventing violent coercion as opposed to violently coercing, then it is superior to anarchism, where states will arise through 'natural evolution' meaning states that are successful at war (violently coercing the members of other states) will be the most prominent.
|
Because too many people in this generation see the state is legitimate. Maybe in another 200 years or so people will get the picture.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On August 29 2010 08:01 JinjoBust wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 07:49 Yurebis wrote:Concerns over law. On August 29 2010 07:26 OhJesusWOW wrote:On August 29 2010 06:58 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 06:50 OhJesusWOW wrote:On August 29 2010 06:48 Yurebis wrote: 1-Son is not entitled to food and housing, he can run away, voluntary
Unless he is older than 18, then yes, he is. You may believe he is, and the state may enforce such policy. But I believe he isn't, and in anarcho-capitalism, it would be coercion to force someone to feed someone else no matter the age or connection, and a very unpopular policy to enforce. It is however not a problem for the state to enforce any form of coercion since it's coercively funded anyways. In anarcho-capitalism, the food and shelter would already be his. Law doesn't exist simply because the state says it is so. Law is naturally demanded by the market, to formalize relations, contracts, and terms of use. Everywhere in anarcho-capitalism is private property, and people would only make their land publicly available for everyone to come and step on if they agree to certain rules. No different than today, except that such responsibility of conciliating rules falls greatly on the monopolistic state. That isn't good. It's actually not good at all. The laws that the state impose on all land actually limit the types of relations people want to have. Law can be seen as a good, a commodity, scarce and limited to a finite amount of resources - lawyers, judges, law makers, paper for the law codes, courts, websites that can host those codes. The preferred codes would be decided by those who are the most popular, laws that don't make sense and people won't follow or wouldn't enforce themselves simply won't be written. A law like "you shall jump on one foot three times every morning" isn't going to be written because no one would pay for it to be written. At the same time, an unjust law like "everyone living in province x must pay John the Statist one thousand dollars a year" won't be popular by about as much, because it makes no sense. Enforcement is a whole nother matter, but if you can at least concede that law isn't dependent on a state, it's a start. You're saying that unpopular laws wouldn't come into effect because people who wouldn't approve simply wouldn't enforce/pay for them. What would realistically happen is that the key division of high/low class would come into effect from capitalism. Some individuals would be richer and more powerful than others through the nature of the system, and what you end up with is competing groups banding together to enforce their laws. This is pretty much identical to the current state of the world. The structure would be synonymous with a state, or a dictatorship, or however the group decides to run it's system. Laws, as it were, would come about in the same fashion that they currently do. 1- Money can only buy so much when a judge's ruling is worth much less. Court rulings in anarcho-cap are just opinions. Judges are paid to give their very educated law opinions on who should restitute who, for how much, and if some or any retribution would be proper. If a judge constantly makes unjust rulings, obviously people are going to go for him less, and any rich guy that tries to convince people that his judge is right is obviously in the wrong. Paying off the cops to enforce or not enforce a popular ruling (opinion) would make them just as inviable in the long run as the judge. What matters most is basically public opinion 2- Public opinion, yes, that's what it comes down to. And which public opinion is most easily manipulated, that decentralized and independent one, of a thousand courts and judges, or that dependend and monoppolized one? It's far easier to pay off judges in the state, because people have to accept their rulings as the law of the land indeed. It is far more efficient for the rich guy to pay off a few supreme judges than hundreds of judges all over the place.
That's just a little something.
|
|
|
|