Topic: Criticisms? - page 13. (Read 11932 times)

Arbitration. Arbitration is win/win. War is win/lose, possibly even lose/lose. Why play zero (or negative) sum games, when positive sum ones are available? If you don't know what arbitration is, I can explain it, but the Wikipedia article is sufficiently accurate.


Maybe. With a better culture, and "eternal vigilance," we could keep a government small. For a while. A generation, maybe two, or even three. But sooner or later, the corrupt will get into power, or the power will corrupt a good man, and one of those "gains" will look attractive, and then we're off to the races again. I'd rather toss the ring into Mt. Doom, than give it to someone and trust in future generations watching the ringbearer carefully.

No, it really is a cultural issue. We can downsize the US government if people continue to become better educated about the problems with large government, and vote in better representatives.

By the way, government bureaucrats don't stand to gain anything personally by expanding the government, except pursuing their own social goals, social status, and profiteering through corruption. (And at a fundamental level, those things are not really "gains"--they just don't necessarily know that.) With a better culture that values small government in principle and that demands transparency in government, those things could be dealt with. So, this rebuts your point that "any monopoly will naturally seek to expand."

Yep. Or maybe you can use certain drugs within the territory that is controlled by your arbitration agency (i.e., gang), but what happens when the gang next door decides they don't want drug use near them and that they have enough force to take over your gang's territory and stop it?

This illustrates the general point that there will be continual disagreements between these agencies. (They will also disagree about even more serious matters, such as whether person X is guilty of murder.) And how will they resolve these disgreements? Well, they'll have to use force. It will be in your interest as an individual to join a gang that has a lot of power and a large and stable or growing territory... which will eventually become a government. Better to just put up with bad drug laws than go through all that! myrkul, this is my response to your last long post responding to me. If you would like to try to explain a safe way for disputes between agencies to be resolved, that would be iteresting.

Thats just wrong.  You will still live in a society where people are determined to prevent drug use.  Instead of police you will have vigilantes.  IF you want to legalise dope, you need to convince people; removing the state just means that instead of arrest and trial you get kidnapped and lynched.

I feel a little responsible for this line of conversation... I kinda started it all with that reference to the "corporations will rule the world" bit. That's an actual argument I got once, and while it's already been satisfactorily answered, that answer opened up this can of worms, so I'll start my answering here.

Well, the laws we have in place today are the result of a monopoly on justice. Most of those laws, without the monopoly on justice, wouldn't stand. Drug laws, for instance. not everyone agrees that pot is bad for you, so without the monopoly, a ban on marijuana wouldn't be universally enforced. If someone wanted to keep pot out of their private property, that's up to them to decide, and up to them to enforce. Everyone agrees that they would rather not be murdered. Even without a monopoly on justice, murder would still be universally a no-no. Same with other violent crimes. A free-market justice system would be composed of competing arbitration firms deciding cases, rather than a single monolithic "Court system". People would choose the arbitration agency that they trust the most, thus the most trustworthy agencies, with the best policies, would be the most profitable.

Determination of the laws would be primarily case law, with individual incidents providing precedent for later judgments to be based on.

Enforcement is something of a conundrum, because not everyone agrees on what should be done. The question comes down to whether or not retaliatory force is justifiable. If the agency in question considers it to be, then the criminal can expect to be forced to pay back the victim. If the agency in question does not consider retaliatory force to be justifiable, then the criminal can expect to be encouraged to pay back the victim by means of a reputation hit. The agency would likely advertise the criminal's name and face, crime, and lack of restitution. This will reduce the likelihood that others will willingly interact with the criminal, resulting in the criminal being effectively ostracized from polite society. This is a slower method, but is more "humane". Most likely, both means would be used, with retributive force reserved for the more violent and dangerous criminals, and the more humane method used for non-violent crimes, such as breach of contract and the like.


As I said above, this is sort of my fault. I don't believe companies would rule the world. Certainly the corporation, and most likely even the company, as we know it, would cease to exist in a stateless society, and they obviously would not have the monopoly on force required to "rule the world". Any entity who took it upon themselves to try and take over the populace would have a rough time of it, what with the competing defense agencies defending their clients from the would-be State, not to mention the individuals defending themselves. Besides, attack is expensive, in both men and money. Not a smart business move.


I'm inclined to say that it's not a cultural issue, but rather a flaw in the nature of the beast. Any monopoly will naturally seek to expand. A monopoly on violence is uniquely suited to expand in whatever direction it chooses.

Then how are laws going to be determined and enforced? I'd like to hear about the nuts and bolts of what you're proposing.

Because if the companies are "ruling the world," as you say, then that means they have a monopoly on the use of force, which means they CAN take people's money by force. By the way, no, I don't buy into any of that leftist hogwash that conflates a free market with force which you were addressing in the rest of that paragraph. Presumably, in explaining how the nuts and bolts of the system will work, you will explain why you think that companies can "rule the world" and yet not be able to initiate force against people.

That is fundamentally a cultural problem. It doesn't have to be that way, if the culture improves. Having a stronger constitution can also help a lot, but that's just an implementation concern (i.e. not as fundamental).

The worst thing there is for business is when the government starts forcing them to pay taxes. Nobody is suggesting that there shouldn't be an objective system of laws, just that said laws shouldn't be created and enforced at the whim of a single, monopolistic entity.

How? In a free market, no company can force any individual to use them rather than their competitors, and the resulting competition will keep prices down. If your point is that people are forced to use some company for certain services, well, that's already the case now: people are "forced" to buy food or else starve, but nobody would seriously suggest that grocers are taking people's money by force or that they constitute a kind of government. People could also grow their own food if they are willing to put in the time and effort, and in an arnacho-captital system, the same would be true of all vital services. If enough people don't like what the existing companies are doing, they can (and eventually will) put their resources together and form their own company. Compare this situation with every form of government that has ever existed, where if you don't like the government's doing, you not only have to put up with it, you have to keep paying for it, and you'll have force used against you if you don't.

Because minimal governments don't tend to stay minimal for very long.

There are people who believe themselves to be morally superior to you, usually because of some religious thing.  Take away the protection of law, and you have large numbers of disorganised but basically pleasant folk facing a small number of armed, trained and ruthless militants.  They will get weapons and finance from foreign governments.  They have no fear of dying for their cause and will kill you if you get in the way.  Say hello to your new government.

For examples of this, if you take a look at Somalia, it worked fine until foreign powers started to arm local religious militias.  Right now Libya is a mainly pleasant anarchy.  Watch what happens as foreign powers start to take sides.

Now of course AnCap can "work" but will it be better than our democratic systems? Not unless human nature changes.

The best thing there is for business is when the use of force is placed under an objective system of laws, i.e., a [good] government. So, corporations (and honest people in general) would work to set up a government.

Well, if companies rule the world, they are the government (albeit a non-objective one), and they can take people's money by force.

Let me ask, why would you support anarcho-capitalism when you could support having a mininal government that enforces only the basic rule of law, so that there is a capitalist system? Is there something wrong with that solution to you?

The world will be ruled by companies, and companies are smart enough to know that war and crime is bad for business. Sure, governments know that too, but they don't care because they have a monopoly on the use of force. When there's no monopoly on force, it will be priced more reasonably, making unnecessary violence unprofitable. Hopefully.

Suppose all these armed gangs people keep referring to band together against their common enemy? Seriously though, if it becomes a problem, I'm sure the companies ruling the world will try to negotiate peace with the invaders, what with war being a threat to their business and all.

The word he's looking for is companies (that is, groups of individuals working together to make money; nothing more, nothing less). Companies will rule the world, which is a good thing because companies want money, not votes, and the only for them to get money is to provide what people are willing to pay for, as opposed to government's taking people's money by force and spending it on things the people don't necessarily want.

This. Any proponent of an AnCap society needs to address this problem as well as that of external threats first.



Roads can be toll roads, or technology will make them largely obsolete eventually (3-d printers, telecommuting, air travel)

External threats are one of the main problems. There is a reason that you see no AnCap societies when you look around today.

Corporations are a product of the government. You pay a government to be excused from certain laws. So maybe that isn't the word you were looking for.

When there is no government, armed gangs fight until one of them wins and becomes the government.

I'd like to do a little research.

I'm convinced AnCap can work, but obviously, not everyone is.

I'd like to hear your doubts, your concerns, and your criticisms. Why do you think it will fail?

Things like "Who will build the roads?" and "What happens if someone invades?" or "Corporations will control the world!" are what I want to see.

Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

I'll likely let the questions get up a good head of steam and then answer a bunch of them all at once. Of course, I welcome the other anarchists and libertarians on here to swing in and answer anything they have a mood to.

So. Why do you think we need a government?