Discussion of Anarcho-Capitalism.

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

Again, I cover anarchist law and police in my wall of text. History disagrees with your assessment that government will protect individuals from exploitation. Slavery has been sanctioned by many governments throughout history. We have a historical record of governments continuously creating inequalities. Hell the government still currently threats certain non-violent citizen unequally, as evidenced by homosexuals not being allowed to marry, or in more oppressive governments, being sentenced to death.

[Stevil]

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

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

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."

I think monopolies would be great concern of anarcho-capitalism.

[DeterminedJuliet]

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."

The government having a monopoly on force is kind of my point. If anyone should have a monopoly, it should be the government and not private enterprise.

I saw the point about competition as "a permanent economic process", but I didn't really find it convincing. It simply makes a statement with a few quotes, but I didn't see an argument. I'm not an economic expert by any means, but I still don't see why one mega-corporation who controls pretty much everything should care about keeping the consumers happy (as long as they don't have a choice to go elsewhere).

I also did a literature search on the website, but the most relevant result seemed similarly general and was written by a guy who had a doctorate in musical arts and composition? I find it a little suspicious that they'd set up the search in a scholarly convention, but they seem to be listing articles based on random opinions from random people.

Some information that comes from somewhere besides that one particular Institute, by current economists might be helpful.

Other than that, I do agree with you on the bank-bailout thing. I would have been happy to see every bank that was involved go under when all of that happened.

[ThinkAnarchy]

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

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

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."

I think monopolies would be great concern of anarcho-capitalism.
[/quote]
On what what grounds to you base you're concern? The article I linked to makes a good case, from my prospective. I'm simply curious if it's purely a gut reaction or not. I had concerns about monopolies as well until I began digging deeper into them.

[Yodas_Apprentice]

Again, I cover anarchist law and police in my wall of text. History disagrees with your assessment that government will protect individuals from exploitation. Slavery has been sanctioned by many governments throughout history. We have a historical record of governments continuously creating inequalities. Hell the government still currently threats certain non-violent citizen unequally, as evidenced by homosexuals not being allowed to marry, or in more oppressive governments, being sentenced to death.

And history also disagrees with your assumption that unregulated economic and education systems provide a better standard of living and equality of opportunity across the board.  The creation of the safety net we currently have didn't occur in a vacuum - at the start of the industrial revolution you had children working in industries where they were liable to get maimed or die.  This was a huge impetus behind England instituting compulsory education in 1870.  The development of labour regulations to protect workers has been a gradual process since the beginning of the industrial revolution.  Are you saying that we should still have children working in factories?  In such an extremely de-regulated, laissez-faire system as you're suggesting it seems a likely prospect.  What is the incentive for a struggling and starving family to put their kids in school when they could be out earning their keep?  Where is the incentive in this system for anything other than economic capital?

You also seem to be conflating the American government with other, more progressive national governments (such as in Canada where gay people do have the right to marry... at least for now, tho that's a different issue).  The problem with Government occurs when ideology becomes the guiding star and inflects policy. Good Governments rely on sound research to make evidence-based policy.

As for how you describe privatized Police forces, to me that sounds like a protection racket rather than a service mandated to enforce the law equally.  In the current system there are certainly jurisdictions, but I think privatized Police services would be outright exclusionary (where's the incentive for private Police to respond to a situation involving people who aren't paying for their service?  They should be ethically compelled to, but  may not because of insurance issues related to putting themselves in undue danger).  I outright reject your claim that "[their] presence would inadvertently benefit those who don't pay as well."

[DeterminedJuliet]

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

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Oh, Godwin's law, you never fail. 

[ThinkAnarchy]

The government having a monopoly on force is kind of my point. If anyone should have a monopoly, it should be the government and not private enterprise.

I disagree for reason in the above post, mainly that when the government has a monopoly on force, it typically will lead to oppression.

I saw the point about competition as "a permanent economic process", but I didn't really find it convincing. It simply makes a statement with a few quotes, but I didn't see an argument. I'm not an economic expert by any means, but I still don't see why one mega-corporation who controls pretty much everything should care about keeping the consumers happy (as long as they don't have a choice to go elsewhere).

It's economically beneficial to focus on quality and customer satisfaction. Even if the three big companies in an industry banded together to artificially keep prices high, it would clear the path for a smaller company to even the playing field by charging lower prices and providing better service. The only risk I see monopolies having a chance of surviving for an extended period of time is when they are sanctioned by the government, or happen in an emerging industry. Due to the high cost of new technology, it could be argued the cost of entering the field to compete would be to high for many smaller companies.

I also did a literature search on the website, but the most relevant result seemed similarly general and was written by a guy who had a doctorate in musical arts and composition? I find it a little suspicious that they'd set up the search in a scholarly convention, but they seem to be listing articles based on random opinions from random people.

The qualifications of the authors are listed, you are free to decide if their level of qualifications make them a credible source on an issue. I see nothing wrong with building a library and letting readers determine the qualifications of the authors. Literature is also not of high importance to the education the site focuses on.

Some information that comes from somewhere besides that one particular Institute, by current economists might be helpful.

If you are curious about the opposing economic view, look into Kenyan economics. That is the competing economic theory and the one that is overwhelmingly taught in schools.

There are a ton of arguments out their that make counter arguments to Anarcho-Capitalism, many from competing scholars. Feel free to look for opposing views, but the Mises institute is the best source if someone is curious about the philosophy from the perspective of the An-cap. It's purpose is to teach Austrian Economics and An-Cap to those who wish to learn more about it. You can also look elsewhere for arguments proposing other forms of governments. If you're curious, do some research. I don't mean that to be rude, but I'm spending my time defending my minority opinion, I shouldn't be expected to argue against myself as well.

There are many articles from present economists as well. The article I linked is published by a modern economist.

Other than that, I do agree with you on the bank-bailout thing. I would have been happy to see every bank that was involved go under when all of that happened.

Yeah, someone agrees with me on something.  

[ThinkAnarchy]

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

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Oh, Godwin's law, you never fail. 

Excuse me, but when we are discussing the oppressive nature of government, an example of an oppressive government is a perfectly justified example.

[DeterminedJuliet]

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

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Oh, Godwin's law, you never fail. 

Excuse me, but when we are discussing the oppressive nature of government, an example of an oppressive government is a perfectly justified example.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. 

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

[Ali]

ThinkAnarchy, am I crazy, or wasn't there a time in the not so distant human history when things like fire departments, medical care, and education were not provided by the government to those who could not afford to purchase them?  I don't recall hearing that most people were better off before these things went public, or that charity was enough to cover the gaps in those days.  

I'm picturing the days when most people were illiterate and the average life expectancy was like 35, and not particularly wanting to go back to those days.

I realize that when it comes to life expectancy, you could argue that we did not have the medical technology that we have today, but I would argue that medical technology is fairly useless if you can't afford to access it.

[ThinkAnarchy]

@Yoddas and anyone else who responds tonight. I'm done with this for the day, but will pick it back up tomorrow and respond to as many as I can get through in one day.

[ThinkAnarchy]

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

I'm not currently troubled by the police or military, I am not worried about future trouble from them

You may not be troubled by it now, but it doesn't change the fact that government's monopoly of force has the potential to lead to atrocities like those committed by the Nazi's.

Oh, Godwin's law, you never fail. 

Excuse me, but when we are discussing the oppressive nature of government, an example of an oppressive government is a perfectly justified example.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. 

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses.

No worries, I'm getting tired and as a result a little snappy, hence my taking a break for the day.

[DeterminedJuliet]

No worries.

And the only reason I mention the sources is because you are proposing a position that appears to be a minority view here. People are skeptical, and will probably keep pushing you to defend your points, so a variety of sources from people educated in economics, from more than one institute, will only help, is all.

It's like when creationists come here, quote things from one source, and then say "oh, look it up" if we take issue with their position. I have an open mind, but that sort of thing doesn't make it seem very credible.  

I have another question, though (when you are able to read it tomorrow). Why do you think it's important to have any government at all? Why not total anarchy? The value of capitalism seems sort of assumed in this worldview, why not descontruct everything and then see how society forms? You might value non-aggression, but what's the rationale behind instituting it systematically if you find other systematic obligations so abhorrent?

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

But, I'm officially done for the night and will pick back up tomorrow. 

[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?

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.

As long as the fetus depends on its physical connection to the mother to survive, its right to live is really a privilege, one which I think the mother should be able to revoke at any time. The right to live kicks in when one is able to survive without a hose in one's belly conneting one's parasitic ass to someone else.