Discussion of Anarcho-Capitalism.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Amended to add Intro to clear up some problems.

Let me just say one more thing before I retire for the night, because I think it may be a common misconception many are having, and are likely effecting the effectiveness I'm communicating.

***My proposal is simply for a society based around these principles, but not a society that would simply replace you're current state. To do so would just be the restructuring of a major power. All I want, is for a government, to either sell some of their territory to us and allow us our social experiment. Not be governed by their laws, but ones based on our principles. I have heard of guy attempting to buy a third world country, but with no success. His plan was to then sell all it's resources and distribute it equally amongst the residents.

I was approaching the argument incorrectly. Although, I argue it could work on a large scale, that is not what would be the ideal situation. Like anything it needs to be proven, as it stands it's only a theory. I just want land acquired legally, that other governments respect the sovereignty of, in order to have this social experiment. ***


This thread is being created at the request of another member. I will attempt to explain the principles of Anarcho-Capitalism and provide links for more information.

What does an Anarcho-Capitalist believe?

1. The non-aggression principle.
Most people, regardless of their political lean, live their lives by this principle already, even if they don't realize it. As children,  most of us are taught not to start fights, that "no means no," not to steal, and other basic principles that are necessary to a civil society.

We simply apply the same principle we think individuals should follow and apply it to organizations and government, as well. Taxation is not justified because it violates this fundamental principle most people believe every other individual should live by. I think I can safely say, all governments both past and present, have violated this simple principle. The way people rationalize taxation while condemning an individual who thieves baffles me.

2. Private Property Rights.
When I first started looking for alternative political theories, I looked a bit into traditional anarchism, but had major problems with the philosophy. I couldn't fully articulate it until I started reading up on Anarcho-Capitalism.

The reasoning is addmitadly weak and it is simply a right I accept on faith. It isn't ideal, but it is a difficult position to defend, sometimes impossible, since their is no proven inherent right of property. However, I accept this principle on faith due to my conclusion that a society without property rights would be worse than one with out. A belief in property rights is protection and justification of the first axiom of non-aggression.

The two essentially support each other, which is not exactly a strong argument, but it also can't be discredited. I view it similar to the debate about god; I don't think anyone can fully prove their premise on this issue. A support for the state requires a similar hurdle though in it's premise, when in regards to how the state derives it's power and authority.

3. View of government
Government and structure are an important aspect of any society and as an anarcho-capitalist I don't hate government in theory, but I do disagree with coercive governments that don't have the consent of the governed.

Within an anarcho-capitalist society, voluntary governments, socialist communes, even voluntary kingdoms would be allowed to function within the borders of an anarcho-capitalist society. My problem is not with government, but with the governing of individuals with out their consent. Along with the agression and force the state utilizes against individuals to enforce it's ideals.

4. Abortion
The view on abortion is split between the anarcho-capitalist community. I maintain that a woman's right of self ownership trumps the unborn child's rights. That a child developing in a woman's body, without her consent, is an indirect and violation of the non-aggression principle. The idea a woman own's her body, trumps the possibility of the unborn child having rights.

I'm personally unsure if an unborn child should be considered living, but that knowledge is unnecessary from the angle I view this issue.

Others argue the child is not aggressing upon the mother and abortion violates the principle of non-aggression.

5. Economics[/b]
Out of the two schools of economics we agree with the Austrian School. Below is a link to a brief overview of Austrian Economics. The Mises Institute, where the article is hosted, also hosts a lot of papers on anarcho-capitalism, free e-books on the philosophy, lectures, audio recordings, and other information.

http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp

6. Rationalization

I rationalize these beliefs by seeing the same problems most other people see. For example, our current system in the U.S. has a problem with both businesses and government abusing it's power, or simply acting like assholes.

The traditional argument is government is needed to keep businesses in line, while I argue that government facilitates businesses behaving badly. Although there are historical examples of government stepping into to curtail the abuses of a business, I maintain the result is overwhelmingly negative on the larger scale. Typically, the government does little to ensure consumers are treated fairly by business, among other failures and negative consequences of our current system. As seen with the ongoing foreclosure problem in the U.S., it's a problem that is a direct result of government mandate. The government thought  everyone should be able to afford a home and required banks to lower their loan requirements. As a result, many families were offered loans greater than what they could reasonably expect to afford. The economic downturn complicated matters further with lay-offs.

The banks were forced into such practices by the government, and later bailed out by the government so they wouldn't go bankrupt. When the government bails out businesses, it eliminates the risk of unsafe investments, loans, etc. The taxpayer simply get's stuck with the bill while the CEO can keep collecting a healthy paycheck. The bailout's of the auto-industry is another example of government facilitating the existence of ineffective businesses.

Business is risky, which is why successful ones naturally make their executives a lot of money. There should be no safety net protecting businesses and entrepreneurs from failing.

Many people support these bailouts because they see the obvious problems that would occur if a big business were to fail, resulting in larger unemployment. However, they fail to recognize the problems with artificially keeping a business alive. Mainly, that they can still survive without effectively adjusting their practices and business model, fail to improve their product, fail to ensure customer satisfaction with their product, and potentially prevent a smaller business from naturally gaining a larger portion of the market by creating a better product or exercising better business ethics.

7. The Broken Window Fallacy
Below, is a popular parable that illustrates a misconception many people have about economics.

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation: "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade — that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs — I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way which this accident has prevented.

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is seen.
If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs: this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labor, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Here is a link discussing the parable further.
http://mises.org/daily/5593

8. Unintended Consequences explained further.
We see unintended consequences with statutory law as well. This site does a good job posting links to news articles about police, legal, and other types of abuses that are facilitated by the government.
www.theagitator.com

9. Minimum Wage
Minimum wage is another example of how laws result in unattended consequences. Few people question there effectiveness and maintain they benefit the poor, while preventing companies from abusing their workers.

I argue they are actually detrimental to the lower-class and unskilled workers in particular. Just like with all markets, supply and demand plays it's part in the job market. By requiring companies to provide a minimum wage to their workers, you are effectively limiting the number of employee's a company can afford to employ. Although those who have jobs are sometimes making more than they otherwise would, fewer jobs are created as a result. It has also made it harder for unskilled workers to get entry-level positions in an area they have no experience. Most business owners have to weigh the cost of employing an individual along with the individuals productive value. An unskilled worker often doesn't have a high enough productive value to justify the company hiring him/her at the current mandated price of $7.50 in most of the states. I believe that is the federally mandated minimum wage, but in some states it's higher.

Without forcing a minimum wage, unskilled workers would have a better chance of negotiating with an employer to get the requisite skills and knowledge needed for that particular field. Likely resulting in higher wages in the future.

Another unintended consequence of minimum wage laws is that it inadvertently prevents potential employee's and employer's from making their own educated decisions. Sometimes you will have to work for less than you think you're worth, if you desperately need money to feed you're family. It isn't perfect, but it seems it should be up to the individual to determine what price they are willing to sell their labor at, depending on their need of work. The individual can decide if underselling their skills is more beneficial to them than holding out for a better job.

10. Conclusion
Essentially the philosophy is based around the first two principles which is the basis of my reasoning on all issues, because I like to be consistent. By doing so, it also helps me evaluate the claims and positions the philosophy leads to. I have been faced with several issues I could not immediately rectify, but after some research, I found an article, book, or paper, that makes a compelling argument for either how something would function in an Anarcho-capitalist society, or a reasoned justification for a certain conclusion based upon the first two axioms.

If a conclusion I draw based on that line of reasoning would lead to a more dangerous or more oppressive society, I would be forced to reevaluate the credibility of the entire philosophy, but I have never encountered a situation that would likely lead to a less just, safe, or efficient society.

I have never found a political theory that is completely free of weaknesses. However, after extensive research into Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Traditional Anarchism, Randianism, Democracy, and a few others. Anarcho-capitalism, I find this is the strongest theory I have looked at, and due to the simplicity of it's primary axioms, facilitates a world-view free of contradiction and selective reasoning. I like discussing the topic, because it helps search for areas that could lead to a contradiction in principle or an unjustified belief as a premise.

There is obviously more to the theory, but the information in this post is, I think, does a decent job at providing an overview of the core principles. As well as an attempt to explain the line of reasoning behind some of my minority views.

[Stevil]

1. The non-aggression principle.
Most people, regardless of their political lean, live their lives by this principle already, even if they don't realize it. As children,  most of us are taught not to start fights, that "no means no," not to steal, and other basic principles that are necessary to a civil society.

Thanks for posting that, I hope you don't mind that I have some questions, I will start with 1.
The non aggression principle is in direct conflict to the theory of natural law. Natural law recognises that if certain unwritten rules are broken then it is in human nature that people will act out with force. e.g. If a person is being raped then the raped person and other bystanders will be compelled to use force against the rapist. This natural law is greater than legal law, e.g. if the government makes it legal to keep slaves then the slaves and bystanders will be compelled to use force against the government.
So I feel the non aggression principle does not recognise that it is the threat of force that largely dictates our own behaviours, keeps us in line, so to speak. The threat of force I feel is a desired tool to keep society safe, to keep me safe.

I think we get taught by our parents not to steal, not to fight, because it improves our own chances of survival because if we do these things (steal, fight) we know that society will retaliate with use of force against us. Without "use of force" civil society is just an ideal, who has the luxury of caring about ideals above the betterment of the self? e.g. if the self is better off stealing bread to eat than to live up to an ideal, it is likely the stealing of bread will win.

We simply apply the same principle we think individuals should follow and apply it to organizations and government, as well. Taxation is not justified because it violates this fundamental principle most people believe every other individual should live by. I think I can safely say, all governments both past and present, have violated this simple principle. The way people rationalize taxation while condemning an individual who thieves baffles me.

Without taxation how do we support the following:
Roads
Hospitals
Education
Police
Courts
Prisons
Town planning
Waste disposal
Diplomatic relations
International trade
Poor and starving

[ThinkAnarchy]

1. The non-aggression principle.
Most people, regardless of their political lean, live their lives by this principle already, even if they don't realize it. As children,  most of us are taught not to start fights, that "no means no," not to steal, and other basic principles that are necessary to a civil society.

Thanks for posting that, I hope you don't mind that I have some questions, I will start with 1.
The non aggression principle is in direct conflict to the theory of natural law. Natural law recognises that if certain unwritten rules are broken then it is in human nature that people will act out with force. e.g. If a person is being raped then the raped person and other bystanders will be compelled to use force against the rapist. This natural law is greater than legal law, e.g. if the government makes it legal to keep slaves then the slaves and bystanders will be compelled to use force against the government.
So I feel the non aggression principle does not recognise that it is the threat of force that largely dictates our own behaviours, keeps us in line, so to speak. The threat of force I feel is a desired tool to keep society safe, to keep me safe.

Sorry, I should have gone into more detail. Non-aggression as we view it, is not the same as passivism. I agree the threat of force is a very powerful tool and would still be utilized in an An-Cap society. It simply say's, you can't "initiate" violence against someone or their property. If another individual does initiate violence against you or another, it is acceptable and encouraged to respond with violence.

It would also give the victim the choice of how they would like to punish the individual who aggressed upon them. If the victim happens to be a pacifist, they may prefer financial compensation, instead of a retaliating with violence. The threat of violence being answered with violence would still be there though.

Private courts would be left to determine if the accused is guilty of the initiation of violence and what the judgement and/or punishment should be. However, because they are private, they should also be held liable for mistakes in their rulings, which would help ensure just rulings. If it is discovered they convicted an innocent individual, they should than be found to have violated this basic principle themselves, and pay reparations or some other punishment for their act of unwarranted aggression. 

But violence should be answered with violence. Those who acted violently against the rapist would be justified in responding with violence to stop the violation or punish the violation.

I think we get taught by our parents not to steal, not to fight, because it improves our own chances of survival because if we do these things (steal, fight) we know that society will retaliate with use of force against us. Without "use of force" civil society is just an ideal, who has the luxury of caring about ideals above the betterment of the self? e.g. if the self is better off stealing bread to eat than to live up to an ideal, it is likely the stealing of bread will win.

I don't view the stealing of bread as equal to the theft of a tv. However, the possibility of violence would still be a threat for stealing bread. A court would likely view the beating of a bread thief to feed his family as an unproportional reaction to the theft however. I'm unsure how it would fully evolve, but the law would more closely resemble common law.

I agree that a threat of force is needed, I simply don't think government should hold that power.

We simply apply the same principle we think individuals should follow and apply it to organizations and government, as well. Taxation is not justified because it violates this fundamental principle most people believe every other individual should live by. I think I can safely say, all governments both past and present, have violated this simple principle. The way people rationalize taxation while condemning an individual who thieves baffles me.

Without taxation how do we support the following:
Roads

They would be privatized and would most likely be paid for by local businesses who need their customers the ability to use certain roads. Residential roads could be owned by all members of the community, by the development company, or a third party company. The residents of established roads would have homesteaded the right to use those roads.
Dr. Walter Block has a fairly decent book called, The Privatization of Roads and Highways. https://mises.org/store/Product2.aspx?ProductId=581   that theorizes many way's private roads could be effectively and fairly run.

Hospitals

Completely privatized, but there would still be the option of charity. There would also be alternative options for medical care. There would be no regulatory body to prevent less qualified people from practicing. The big hospitals and established medical facilities would still hire highly trained individuals, but the cost of treatment would naturally be higher. If you couldn't afford the best treatment however, you would be able to be treated by a less qualified individual if you decide to do so.

The current state of medical insurance also makes prices unjustifiably high. Hospitals and doctors tend not to worry how much it costs, because insurance companies will pay them what they ask. If the individual were to not have insurance, the provider would likely be willing to negotiate the charges with the patient.

Hospitals would not be required to treat people for free, but I imagine certain doctors would volunteer at free charitable clinics. I hope they would, but I can't justify force being used to make them treat poor people who can't pay.

Education

Privatized and unregulated. This means that Catholic institutions would be free to teach pseudo-science as fact, and teach inaccuracies regarding other things, but it should be the individuals choice what they or their children are taught. It certainly isn't ideal, but the current system is no better in this regard.

On the positive side, it would allow competition between different curriculums and teaching methods and the free-market would be left to determine the most effective methods. Schools that continuously provide poor results, would likely go out of business, due to customers leaving.

Due to it's unregulated nature, there would be the potential of smaller schools opening up at less cost. A stay-at-home mom who decides to home-school her kids, would be allowed to offer her services to other families, most likely at a lower cost than the bigger more established schools. It would allow more choice in the education sector and allow innovation and theoretical learning methods to be tested.

It's also possible some businesses may open up free, charitable schools. It could be worth the cost of running one to better prepare the workforce for carrying out particular jobs.

Police

Private and partially regulated. Private police forces and fire departments would likely be hired by businesses to ensure the safety of their merchandise and customers. Owners of private roads would have private enforcers of their driving regulations on the roads they own.

Within neighborhoods, the protection agency would likely be paid for through the home owner's association (when applicable), or a majority of the residents in an immediate area. It would not be required I private force help a non-paying customer, but it's unlikely it would occur often. If person "A" were paying for protection agency "Z" to protect his life and property, he would likely feel less safe, and grow unhappy with their service if agency "Z" allowed a violent crime to be committed against his neighbor.

The presence would inadvertently benefit those who don't pay as well.

Fire departments would have similar reasons for putting out fires to homes that don't pay them. If I pay for fire protection, the company I pay, better put out the fire on a neighboring property because my property is in risk of being burned too. Those who can't afford to pay, or choose not too, would indirectly benefit from these services.

Prisons

There would be less need for prisons because the only crimes would be those that initiate violence against an individual or their property.

They would be privatized as well, and would likely contract with the different courts. The free market would be allowed to experiment with them as well in order to determine if punishment or rehabilitation is the best choice. Lose of freedom, hard labor, or restitution is a legitimate reaction to violence. The standard of evidence should be "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" though, as it is in our current criminal system.

As I touched on earlier. Courts would be accountable for bad and unjust rulings, unlike they are today. It would most certainly do a better job then the state run system that has little to no accountability.

Town planning

There would be no town planning has we think of it today. It could be facilitated in some situations through voluntary contract though. If you purchase property that is contractually governed by a homeowners association, they would be free to set building restrictions, etc, if the contract grants them that right.

In other areas, people would be free to develop their land as they see fit, unless their alterations negatively aggress upon another's just property. It is hard to predict how courts would likely rule in situations where person "A" builds something on his property, but as a result, blocks the sun from falling on person "B's" land killing his garden. Since B's garden existed before the tall building, the court would likely make A pay B for damages due to his aggression on B's garden.

Waste disposal

Privatized and paid for by an H.O.A., individual home owners, individual business owners, and other private entities.

If I owned property, and my neighbor refused to properly despose of his trash, I would want the company I pay for the service to haul his trash as well. It could be I would be required to pay more, or the company would simply due it in exchange for my business and loyalty.

Diplomatic relations

There would be non on the anarcho-capitalist society. It would be a society of individuals and their would be no forum for diplomatic relations. Milita and mercenaries would have to be relied upon in the event of foreign invasion.

International trade

Trade would be open from our end. Individuals and Companies would be free to trade with whatever nation or individual they choose. That is not a guarantee other countries would openly and fairly trade with the an-cap society though.

Poor and starving

Charity and indirect benefits from other paid services. This society also would hold the possibility of communism effectively working. For those to poor or uneducated to maintain a comfortable standard of living, a good option might be to move to a small communist town, do you're share of farming, or another task, and receive an equal share of food or profit. It would be a voluntary agreement between the individuals and seems like an effective free-choice solution to poverty.

The land could be purchased and donated by a philanthropist, or unused land could be homesteaded by the group, claiming ownership of the land through their labor.

[Ali]

I'm sorry ThinkAnarchy, but everything you outlined in the post above sounds just awful.  The idea of privatized roads, fire departments, and police forces as well as people going to less qualified health professionals (snake oil salesmen, much?) if they can't afford actual medical care, and schools that teach any manner of nonsense, me potentially paying for my neighbor's waste disposal (or the company just eating it in an attempt to please me) et cetera, none of these sound in the least bit appealing.  Which is why you're unlikely to see an anarcho-capitalist society any time soon.  I think most of us want some measure of organization and feel that some services (such as fire departments, police forces, and education) should be open to all regardless of their ability to pay.  *shudder*  I have no desire to own a road!

[ThinkAnarchy]

I'm sorry ThinkAnarchy, but everything you outlined in the post above sounds just awful.  The idea of privatized roads, fire departments, and police forces as well as people going to less qualified health professionals (snake oil salesmen, much?) if they can't afford actual medical care, and schools that teach any manner of nonsense, me potentially paying for my neighbor's waste disposal (or the company just eating it in an attempt to please me) et cetera, none of these sound in the least bit appealing.  Which is why you're unlikely to see an anarcho-capitalist society any time soon.  I think most of us want some measure of organization and feel that some services (such as fire departments, police forces, and education) should be open to all regardless of their ability to pay.  *shudder*  I have no desire to own a road!

Your entitled to that opinion.   I don't see how people voluntarily paying for services they value is worse than being forced to pay for services and wars you may not want. There would still be organization, and there would still be government, the government that existed within the framework of an an-cap society would differ in that it would be voluntary and it's power supported through contract with it's subjects.

Anyone who is interested, is free to search out the plethora of material on the topic, that is written by individuals more intelligent than myself. Most of which can be found at the Mises site.

[Stevil]

I'm sorry ThinkAnarchy, but everything you outlined in the post above sounds just awful.  The idea of privatized roads, fire departments, and police forces as well as people going to less qualified health professionals (snake oil salesmen, much?) if they can't afford actual medical care, and schools that teach any manner of nonsense, me potentially paying for my neighbor's waste disposal (or the company just eating it in an attempt to please me) et cetera, none of these sound in the least bit appealing.  Which is why you're unlikely to see an anarcho-capitalist society any time soon.  I think most of us want some measure of organization and feel that some services (such as fire departments, police forces, and education) should be open to all regardless of their ability to pay.  *shudder*  I have no desire to own a road!

It sounds like pretty scary stuff. ThinkAnarchy, did it scare you when you first heard of this philosophy?

Assuming that your neighbor is paying for waste disposal, policing, roads and fire dept can be quite dangerous.
The rich areas will be well looked after at least.

I cringe with the assumption that a hospital with no legal obligation, will provide service for free to the poor.

And privatised schools will be a tool to ensure the rich kids have a head start. How will a poor kid get opportunity?

Herding poor people into poverty communes and expecting them to choose to pitch in also seems scary, I doubt poor would like this option, how do they get the chance to pull themselves out of poverty?

If my ownership of roads makes me accountable for road deaths then I would choose not to own roads.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Nope, I'm not a fan either.

For one, labour laws go out the window. No minimum wage? Zero rights in the workforce? I don't know about you, but I like having stat holidays and the security of knowing that my boss can't fire me for no reason without notice. This sets up a system where an employer can literally demand anything (60 hour work weeks with no overtime? 16 hour shifts?) and your only recourse is to quit. No thanks.

Edit: Also, using the "free market" to determine education is terrifying to me. It might guarantee the most popular curriculum gets taught, but not necessarily the best ( nor does it guarantee anything that's based on oh, I dunno, reality?). If you live in a part of the world where creationism is popular, sorry, your kid is going to be educated as a creationist!  

In short I really don't believe popular = universally the best for a lot of things in society.

[Stevil]

This sets up a system where an employer can literally demand anything (60 hour work weeks with no overtime? 16 hour shifts?) and your only recourse is to quit. No thanks.

Not to mention that your boss could demand the lovely ladies wear low cut tops and short miniskirts.

It does seem open for abuse and also in favour of the already rich,
Businesses end up paying for roads, which makes it even harder to start up a business, which means less employment opportunities.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Businesses end up paying for roads, which makes it even harder to start up a business, which means less employment opportunities.

Yep, until there are a couple of huge monopolies that control the market on pretty much everything, can do whatever they like, and no one can stop them. If a company knows that I HAVE to buy their product from them, why should they care about keeping me happy? Part of healthy capitalism is competition. I don't know if I missed something, but I didn't see any stipulations for guaranteeing competition in there.

Especially in industries where huge-start up capital is required to make a go of things; monopolies would definitely pop up and take over those areas.  

[Yodas_Apprentice]

Yeah, I have to say that this kind of system actually scares the crap out of me.  I think that it places too much faith in the idea that, if left to their own devices, people and organizations will uphold the non-aggression principle.  Call me a cynic, but that's not how the world works.  If left to their own devices, people will generally act self-interestedly, which is why there needs to be oversight and law enforcement.  Do I unquestioning trust my Government?  Of course not, but at the end of the day I think that any Government worth its weight will ensure that reasonable safeguards are in place to prevent the unfair exploitation of the individual or groups of people.  Societies need the kind of macro-scale regulation that only a common Government mandated to protect the people's interests can provide.  The laissez-faire nature of this kind of system will not only perpetuate social and power inequalities, but will make them worse.

[Asmodean]

I don't have the capacity of going into details at this point, but do you not think abortion should really be a non-issue? Should not a person have the right to do whatever they want with their body as long as such activity does not harm or endanger another individual's life, health or property?

[ThinkAnarchy]

It sounds like pretty scary stuff. ThinkAnarchy, did it scare you when you first heard of this philosophy?

My initial reaction was identical to Ali's when I first started looking at the philosophy. When I started reading about it, I had already studied Libertarianism and min-archaism, and loosely classified myself as such. My problem with those theories was that I saw no reason why it would produce results different from America's trajectory. The U.S. was founded on many principles Libertarians hold as important, but those principles were lost as the government naturally grew and gained power. I saw no reason why a society based on Libertarianism, with a government that is seen as a controlling body, would not eventually end up with the similar results as most countries throughout history. It would likely die to a war, tyranny, or any number of other factors.

The idea of privatizing everything was also a scary idea for me initially. Although I realized nearly all governments evolve to oppress at least some portion of their society, and that the private sector does a better job at almost everything they compete with the government on, I still impulsively assumed a free-market society would evolve to be oppressed by business instead of the state. I initially thought it would simply the the replacing of an oppressive state, with another another form of tyrant. It wasn't until I realized the potential for more direct governance, that I began to stop seeing the state as a necessary evil.

And began to see natural safeguards that would help protect a small group of people from taking control by force.

I knew I was drawn to the philosophy of liberty, but couldn't see a world that would function without government. Once I started to realize that I had misconceptions about anarchist societies I was able to start considering the philosophy from a more open minded perspective.

Assuming that your neighbor is paying for waste disposal, policing, roads and fire dept can be quite dangerous.
The rich areas will be well looked after at least.

The rich already get better service when the state provides the services. Many cities have problems with police taking to long to respond, or not responding at all to calls from impoverished areas. But the poor would naturally benefit from the wealthy.

In order to support a coercive solution to solve poverty, crime, or any other serious issue that faces humanity, I would have to justify the initiation of force against some individuals to benefit others'. If I made such an exception I would have no grounds for arguing against the initiation of force for other reasons. The way I saw it, I could I could not support theft by the government while being against theft by the individual, while maintaining a level of fairness and consistency in my reasoning. I saw no way to oppose rape and murder committed by individuals while accepting similar aggressions by groups of individuals that call themselves a government. Although poverty is a serious issue, I can't justify those kinds of actions.

I started to see how I was being logically inconsistent, and perhaps dishonest, in my reasoning by making exceptions to principles I naturally held.

I cringe with the assumption that a hospital with no legal obligation, will provide service for free to the poor.

Hospitals may not, but some doctor's would. Ron Paul did not turn poor people away who needed medical treatment, and there are other individuals like him. There are also doctors who already donate their time to help individuals who can't afford medical care. The free market does not ignore charity, and I see no reason why philanthropy would cease to exist without the government.

Doctors without Borders seems to be a good example of charitable medical assistance without the need to be forced by the state.

Again though, I could not justify forcing doctors or companies to treat people. If I were to accept that as acceptable, I would have no logical reason to oppose forcing people to do other things against their will, for the benefit of another. I began to think of it from  extreme situations, and realized I could not provide a consistent argument against slavery, if I accepted the initiation of force for the greater good. The rapist benefits by raping, the slaver benefits by enslaving, but the level of the benefits of enslavement are never a justified argument for slavery, from the way I see the issues.

If I accepted the use of force given that some will benefit, how could I honestly counter a clearly flawed argument, like "slavery get's shit done?" Both practices would infringe on the sovereignty of the individual, while benefiting another class, race, or group. The fact they are different kinds of slavery, is not an adequate defense for some lessor forms of slavery, at least not from my view. 

And privatized schools will be a tool to ensure the rich kids have a head start. How will a poor kid get opportunity?

I don't think this is a great risk given the continuing advances with internet. The charitable nature of charitable individuals would help pick up the slack where government was no longer providing these functions. There are also already free learning resources online for those who choose to learn more on certain issues.

It would be more difficult for poorer individuals to get an education, but not impossible. Online learning would also be more affordable than brick and mortar school houses as it currently is.

Herding poor people into poverty communes and expecting them to choose to pitch in also seems scary, I doubt poor would like this option, how do they get the chance to pull themselves out of poverty?

Not herding, I obviously don't support some individuals forcing the poor to move into ghetto's. That however, does not mean poor individuals should not be free to try an alternative like communism if they view it as a more effective way to provide for their family.

I'm not a fan of communism, and don't particularly like the philosophy, but that political system, when absent of force, is a valid option for those who would prefer it.

If my ownership of roads makes me accountable for road deaths then I would choose not to own roads.

Which is why there would have to be natural profit incentive to encourage road ownership, which there would be. The accountability is a positive effect from my view. With roads owned by the government, the driver responsible for the accident is the only liable party. With private owners, there would be incentive to make roads safer, to avoid law suits.

Admittedly, that might prove to be a problem with individuals in a neighborhood owning a road equally. Perhaps those would be homesteaded and no individual would be viewed to own the roads. Repairs and maintenance would have to be negotiated among the neighbors and liability would fall solely to the one who caused harm. Or an HOA may charge a fee for maintenance and upkeep of the roads

Due to the theoretical nature of the philosophy, we can only speculate as to how things would naturally be restructured. The more I looked into it though, I began to see there was little evidence to suggest it would lead to a society that is worse than what we have. With the information I have, I see greater potential in an an-cap society than risk.

[ThinkAnarchy]

I don't have the capacity of going into details at this point, but do you not think abortion should really be a non-issue? Should not a person have the right to do whatever they want with their body as long as such activity does not harm or endanger another individual's life, health or property?

I only meant the question of an unborn child being living is unimportant information in regards to abortion. I argue abortion may harm another's life depending on an individuals view, but that from my reasoning, a woman's right to her body trumps an unborn child's right to life.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Nope, I'm not a fan either.

For one, labour laws go out the window. No minimum wage? Zero rights in the workforce? I don't know about you, but I like having stat holidays and the security of knowing that my boss can't fire me for no reason without notice. This sets up a system where an employer can literally demand anything (60 hour work weeks with no overtime? 16 hour shifts?) and your only recourse is to quit. No thanks.

Edit: Also, using the "free market" to determine education is terrifying to me. It might guarantee the most popular curriculum gets taught, but not necessarily the best ( nor does it guarantee anything that's based on oh, I dunno, reality?). If you live in a part of the world where creationism is popular, sorry, your kid is going to be educated as a creationist!  

In short I really don't believe popular = universally the best for a lot of things in society.

It would simply allow natural competition for jobs. It is up to the individual to determine what is acceptable in a work environment and at what cost.

Our current system does not always guarantee those things either in regards to education.

I covered minimum wage already in my initial post though.

I'm not arguing it's a Utopian system, simply that it would be a better system.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Yep, until there are a couple of huge monopolies that control the market on pretty much everything, can do whatever they like, and no one can stop them. If a company knows that I HAVE to buy their product from them, why should they care about keeping me happy? Part of healthy capitalism is competition. I don't know if I missed something, but I didn't see any stipulations for guaranteeing competition in there.

Government already has a monopoly on many things. Do you support their monopoly of force? Meaning a monopoly of police, military, etc.

Especially in industries where huge-start up capital is required to make a go of things; monopolies would definitely pop up and take over those areas.  

If you want to read more about monopolise from my perspective, you can follow this link and look through some of the results. I haven't looked through all the results, but their should be both critiques and defenses in regard to the monopoly objection.

This one goes into government supporting monopolise in some industries.

http://mises.org/daily/5266

More search results can be found here:

http://mises.org/ by searching "monopoly."