Discussion of Anarcho-Capitalism.

[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.

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.

That is essentially how I view the issue too. And I agree with all of that. I was merely saying that I understand where the other side is coming from, especially if you take god out of that argument. But yes, I'm pro-choice for all the reasons you listed.

[Stevil]

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.

Top jobs will go to those students whom go to prestigious schools, not those whom educated themselves on the internet.
America and England already have this issue, privatising all schools will make this a much bigger problem.

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.

A user pays system is implemented, so no longer do the wealthy subsidise the poor.
So from the perspective of the poor family:
The poor family can't afford health care, they can't afford fire service, or waste disposal, they are not receiving any financial support, no state housing, they live in a poor area, where no-one can afford these things, they can't afford police services, they can't afford education for their children, there is no government support to help them upskill and get a job, if they do have a job there is no minimum wage so they are working long hours for little pay, there are great pressures for the children to provide income for the family at a young age. Just to survive today the kids need to work rather than go to school.
For this family, how do the children get an education and compete against the wealthy family kids for a decent job? How do the poor kids break this cycle of poverty?

[Stevil]

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.

I see in my society today, monopolies and duopolies, ensuring they don't compete on price, they confuse the product, even though they are just selling telecommunication service (voice, sms or data), but they package it in inventive ways so that consumers cannot compare apples with apples and hence cannot demand lowest price.
It makes sense for shareholders to own monopolies rather than compete. Corporate takeovers and mergers happen all the time, so do unspoken agreements to not compete on price.
At least the current government does have regulation up its sleeve, as well as anti-competition laws.
Just look at how many times Microsoft has been slapped by anti competitive behaviours.


BTW, thanks again for taking this on. I know it seems that we are all criticising it, but it is such a leap from where we are today. Looking at it superficially leaves me feeling terrified as if I am about to jump off a very tall building. I need to double check my pack to ensure there is a parachute in there and make sure it has been packed properly with all the contingencies that would make me feel safe. I understand that you believe in it, and that you are a smart person so maybe my fear is unfounded, but I need to ask questions.
I think a country would be very scared to leap in and give this a go.

[Too Few Lions]

No taxes, no minimum wage, no public services, privatised healthcare, police, judiciary and education, I've gotta confess I'm with everyone else in not liking the idea of this. The system sounds like the only people who will benefit from it would be the rich, and that would only lead to more social division.

I really don't see how it can be argued that no minimum wage is better for unskilled workers, I think it's only better for rich employers who can employ 10 workers at $1 an hour instead of one worker at $10 an hour. I also disagree with the view that taxation is unjustified and just theft. Personally, I think taxation is justified because the taxes fund the social structure that allows people and corporations to trade and make the money in the first place.

I also worry that there's a slightly naive assumption that wealthy people and big corporations will play by the non-aggression rule if they have their own private police forces or even armies, or can buy the 'justice' they want in a private court. Or that they will be altruistic enough to care about society in general and not just about their profits and making more money. Much as I don't necessarily believe that my government always has the population's best interest at heart, my experience of big corporations is that they really don't give a toss, they're out to make money and little else. I think one of the major problems with the current system is the influence that wealthy people and big corporations are able to exert on governments, in an-cap it sounds like they'll have carte blanche to influence society and government.

Much as I think our current form of government is far from perfect, I see an-cap as being a far less perfect way of running a country. The current sytem has enabled us to live longer than anyone before, and live freer lives than most people throughout history (in the west at least).

Having said that, if some wealthy an-cappers want to buy a little island and set up a colony somewhere, good luck to them. But I can see why no country would want an an-cap community within its borders. People within that community would pay no tax and wouldn't contribute to any of the public service. But what if they weren't one of the wealthy and had children but decided they couldn't afford a decent privatised education or fell ill but couldn't afford the privatised healthcare, so decide they want to come back into our society, having not paid any taxes to contribute to those public services throughout their lives?

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

What societies have we had that have had a completely free economy? This lecture by Tom Woods does a good job regarding the industrial revolution around the 10:00 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bwEcH7HGSZY#!

I have seen just the opposite from the historical record regarding the effects of free-markets. Capitalism is why the first world is where it's at today in comfort level, wealth, affordable goods, etc.

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?

Child labor is a natural and reoccurring issue during industrial revolutions. You see saw it in Britain, U.S., and you currently see it in many currently developing nations. Once enough capital is built up in these developing areas and more jobs are created, the need for children to work in factories becomes much less.

In an an-cap society, children would be allowed to work if they choose to, or if their family was poor and couldn't afford food. No body would force a child to work, but if it's necessary it the child and families life, I don't see why I should prevent it.

Not to mention, child labor laws today prevent many children who want to work from getting jobs. Why are young children who want to make money not allowed to work, it isn't as if the jobs they would get in the developed world would be factory jobs. They would simply be babysitters, dog walkers, entrepreneurs, web development, auto work, among other things. The work ethic they would develop and skills they learned would likely be better than most schools could do, public or private.

I understand the reasoning for supporting child labor laws during industrial revolutions in one degree. You see the children working in poor conditions and don't think that's expectable. That is fair enough, but you than have to consider what the alternative would be if they weren't in those factories; Likely hunger pains, maybe death. You than have to think about the 1st world today and if these laws are even necessary now. If children were allowed to work, they would not end up in factories, but typically safe and air-conditioned jobs.

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.

I'm not saying their haven't been a few good and caring leaders throughout history, but Canada and most liberal countries are no better. Many have more social freedoms but less economic freedoms. Even the commendable one's didn't do a good job for long.

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."

There is currently a monopoly on police protection. Some state run police departments do a good and fair job in their jurisdictions. Others due a terrible job, with high levels of crime, slow response times, police brutality, planting evidence, to name a few. If you happen to live in an area with a corrupt or incompetent police force, you have no recoures other than appealing to the government to fix the problems.

If these same problems happened when we had competing security forces, people would be able simply hire another company. Businesses centers would have a need to hire security forces and would be required to protect the people in a certain area. It is bad for business if people keep getting murdered on the block's near you're business. There are many clear indications that private police protection would clearly extend to those who don't pay. It also wouldn't be in the businesses best interest to hire a firm that beats up it's customers or people in the area, as that to would be bad for business.

With private residences, the same applies. What parent would want to hire a protection agency that isn't going to the safety of the community. It benefits the parent directly, knowing the entire neighborhood is safe, so her child can ride her bike around without accidentally ending up in a bad area.

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.  

These systems were also not as advanced as they are today. We have the capital, resources, and knowledge to provide these services properly through the free market. People in cities would likely indirectly benefit from many of these things by their neighbors purchasing them. Simply because these services were not accessible in the past does not mean they can not be successfully instituted today.

Schooling could be a very cheap and private to do this technology called the internet. Plus formal education is less important for many today. The information is readily accessible for those of us in the first world. It is no longer a problem of not having enough school houses, etc. and it wouldn't be again. Societies of the past were also not education based to the large amounts of poverty. People don't care to be educated when their starving. They would much prefer to work and survive.

This is why these problems that occurred pre-industrial revolution are not totally valid when discussing an an-cap society from a post-industrial revolution society.

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.

People were not illiterate because of free market principles. They were illiterate because they were poor and had to work long hours to provide for their families. School was a luxury than. Due to advances because of free market principles, not government, people have more time for education by having to work less. 

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.

Medical care is not a right in my eyes. That is not to say that people would be left to die however. With the amount of capital citizens have today, it is more likely that individuals and companies will set up charitable clinics for the impoverished. We already see increased philanthropy in most developed countries than their was pre-development. I simply don't see why it is believed this charity would not simply redistribute itself to areas the government no longer supported.

Free market principals, private innovation, and capitalism is what allowed us to get to this point however; not government. Government was only able to provide these services because of capitalism. Capitalism is capable of dealing with these issues now, but wasn't pre-industrial revolution.

It would likely have eventually though, once enough capital was accumulated.

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

Good point, I simply figure most people are well versed in the counter-arguments to this. They are always similar to the points you all have been making. That is the reason I don't feel counter-point's are needed.

But I will try and find a video debate between a respected Austrian economist and Kenseian economist, because I realize a lot of people might not see the differences in thinking.

In the mean time here are two music videos created by an Austrian professer and his student, that gives an accurate overview of what the two schools believe, and the difference in perspective from both economic theories. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc&feature=relmfu

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.

There is a key difference between the two. I am quoting different sources, they are all simply hosted in the same library. But you are correct. I will look for some actual debates between academics so people can get a better perspective. I also don't expect creationists to try and disprove their own theory. When they come here it's our job to provide them with the counter sources if we choose to engage in debate. The burden of proof may fall to them, but that doesn't excuse us from using sources.

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?

The difference is anarchy would be a voluntary form of governance. I do not agree with implementing anarcho-capitalism in that way on a large scale. I fail to see why likeminded individuals can not be left alone to develop their society in the way they choose. The importance of private property rights is vital to the society we want to build, and would also facilitate the creation of it. It would not be instituted systematically and would evolve organically, but I can predict how it would develop because the community would be made up of like minded people.

The way things work now is that we are forced to live under government even if we find the idea repellent. I'm not promoting forcing people to live without the order they want. But I also don't appreciate being forced to live under the oder you want. There is no place to really try anarchy because government claims control over every piece of inhabitable land.

I don't call for systematically setting up an anarchist territory, it would occur naturally. In order for it to work we would need individuals who wanted to live in that society, which wouldn't be hard to do. The ideal would be a government allow one of us to purchase land and grant us sovereignty. Those who believed in the principles and wanted to live in our kind of society would move in. The same applies for other forms of anarchy, or any political system an individual think's is ideal.

With private property rights, voluntary governments would form naturally. I disagree with being forced to live under government, just as you would be resentful if you were forced to live under anarchy. You would have plenty of options for government if you chose, I have none for anarchy.

It would form naturally, if a government simply granted sovereignty to it's subjects. Some people would choose to created new governments, others may choose anarchy on their property.


Anarchy does not necessarily mean a complete absence of rules or structure. Certain rules are needed for society, in that certain things can never be viewed as acceptable for a society to function well. In order for anarchy to work, it would have to self-segregate itself from individuals who had different views. Please don't interpret this to mean that people wouldn't, or shouldn't co-exist.

It isn't that I think anarcho-capitalism is the only system that is capable of showing great success. Societies function best when people share similar views of how the society should work. Granted there are tragic examples to that statement when the shared view is hateful, but that is typically led by government.

I only call for us setting up that kind of society in the an-cap way, because that is the one I would want to live in. Others would be free to set up their governance or lack of governance as they see fit. You're government simply shouldn't demand it own's me or my land.

I'm trying to think how best to explain this...

1. I first believe in an over-arching structure of anarchy, which essentially boils down to no over-arching structure.
2. Within that non-existent overarching structure there are no laws, not even those against murder and rape.
3. Most people would not choose to live in this type of system, including me. It would likely be chaotic and dangerous.
4. Therefor there need to be certain rules, but what those rules should be will depend on which individual or group you ask.
5. So, most people within a large anarchist society would want some semblance of government.

Now, in the past, when people banded together for survival and the common good, we lacked the knowledge and technology we currently have. We turned to selected groups to control order. This natural early structuring of society has simply led to perpetual death, destruction, famine, at the hand's of the political ruling class.

I don't think humanity was incorrect in trying to order society, nor do I think a different outcome could of occurred. I think our current path was an inevitable trajectory, just as I think religion was. For the same reason people turned to religion, people turned to government; out of fear and ignorance.

Anarchy could never work if people simply got scared again and turned to a select few to rule.

So let me say again, people wanting structure and order was a good thing, it simply got out of hand very quickly.

The main reason we can't have total anarchy is because most people don't want it. They still retain the idea the state is needed. If more people start turning to this philosophy, or simply accepting parts of it, it would make anarchy on a smaller scale possible. The idea that people want government and structure is not a problem. We will alway have people who completely disagree with our ideals.

As I tried to explain before though, within an overarching system of anarchy, different groups and ideals would be allowed to thrive or fall. It would be a natural way of restructuring society.

I do not propose forcing my ideals upon others, though I would like to change some views of a few. I do not call for the systematic structuring of anarcho-capitalism upon individuals who do not want it. The reason we would structure it that way is because that is the particular view of anarchy we see most logical.

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

Top jobs will go to those students whom go to prestigious schools, not those whom educated themselves on the internet.
America and England already have this issue, privatising all schools will make this a much bigger problem.

Many of those prestigious schools, in the U.S. are private, I'm not sure about England. Jobs will go to the most qualified, all schools and forms of education will never be equal.

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.

A user pays system is implemented, so no longer do the wealthy subsidise the poor.
So from the perspective of the poor family:
The poor family can't afford health care, they can't afford fire service, or waste disposal, they are not receiving any financial support, no state housing, they live in a poor area, where no-one can afford these things, they can't afford police services, they can't afford education for their children, there is no government support to help them upskill and get a job, if they do have a job there is no minimum wage so they are working long hours for little pay, there are great pressures for the children to provide income for the family at a young age. Just to survive today the kids need to work rather than go to school.
For this family, how do the children get an education and compete against the wealthy family kids for a decent job? How do the poor kids break this cycle of poverty?

First all we disagree on several things. I don't believe education is a right. The only rights I believe we have is to not have aggression initiated against us. If a child were had to work to eat, it's better than starvation. The current welfare system is not solving the problem of poverty, if anything it's just making the poor more dependent on government and aid.

We are never going to completely solve poverty, even by stealing money from the rich. Those who can't provide for themselves can ask for charity, but not steal from the productive. Or they can work longer hours or develop a skill to bring themselves out of poverty. Many individuals have gone from poor to making a comfortable living because they are willing to work.

They break the cycle of poverty by working and developing good work ethic. You don't need a great education to make decent money, but you do have to be willing to work hard.

[ThinkAnarchy]

No taxes, no minimum wage, no public services, privatised healthcare, police, judiciary and education, I've gotta confess I'm with everyone else in not liking the idea of this. The system sounds like the only people who will benefit from it would be the rich, and that would only lead to more social division.

And it would if it weren't voluntary. The people who would move to an an-cap society would have similar principles.

I really don't see how it can be argued that no minimum wage is better for unskilled workers, I think it's only better for rich employers who can employ 10 workers at $1 an hour instead of one worker at $10 an hour. I also disagree with the view that taxation is unjustified and just theft. Personally, I think taxation is justified because the taxes fund the social structure that allows people and corporations to trade and make the money in the first place.

Fewer employer's higher unskilled workers because of the wage they would have to pay them. If you know nothing about the job, why should I pay you $10 so you can learn? Now as an employee, if I want to learn a new skill or change fields, why can't I negotiate my pay with the employer. He not hire me at $10, but perhaps I offer $5 an hour in order to prove myself. Hell I would even do it for free for a week to prove to him why he needs me.

If I steal a $100 from you, but $100 worth of things you don't need and give that back to you, is that justified? Why should my money be stolen and applied to many things I don't want, or would rather pay a private company to do?

I also worry that there's a slightly naive assumption that wealthy people and big corporations will play by the non-aggression rule if they have their own private police forces or even armies, or can buy the 'justice' they want in a private court. Or that they will be altruistic enough to care about society in general and not just about their profits and making more money. Much as I don't necessarily believe that my government always has the population's best interest at heart, my experience of big corporations is that they really don't give a toss, they're out to make money and little else. I think one of the major problems with the current system is the influence that wealthy people and big corporations are able to exert on governments, in an-cap it sounds like they'll have carte blanche to influence society and government.

You always have the potential for these things in any system. When a corporation used their power or army to prosecute others, the other people would be better able to defend themselves. There would be other military groups, with equal weaponry, for hire by those being attacked. As it stands now, when a government controls "all" the military might in an area, the people are helpless if the government turns their forces against them.

With my system it would be far less likely that one group would be able to oppress another without an equal and leveled retaliation from the oppressed group. 

A lot of the bad corporations are currently being protected by government, many of them are kept alive by government.

Much as I think our current form of government is far from perfect, I see an-cap as being a far less perfect way of running a country. The current sytem has enabled us to live longer than anyone before, and live freer lives than most people throughout history (in the west at least).

It wouldn't be a system for the entire country. It would be a voluntary system on a relatively small scale, especially right now.

Having said that, if some wealthy an-cappers want to buy a little island and set up a colony somewhere, good luck to them. But I can see why no country would want an an-cap community within its borders. People within that community would pay no tax and wouldn't contribute to any of the public service. But what if they weren't one of the wealthy and had children but decided they couldn't afford a decent privatised education or fell ill but couldn't afford the privatised healthcare, so decide they want to come back into our society, having not paid any taxes to contribute to those public services throughout their lives?

I see no reason why our not paying taxes should matter? We would not be using their roads anymore than Canada uses America's roads.

They would be free to even limit us from crossing over the border if they choose, I would disagree with it, but couldn't stop it. We would not be using the public services of the neighboring country, so we wouldn't need to pay taxes.

As to the last part, if you're not living in you're home country, not working in you're home country, and not using the services of you're home country, you shouldn't have to pay taxes. The U.S. is the only country that taxes it's citizens when they are residing and paying taxes in another country.

If an individual decided to move back to the U.K. or U.S. they could begin paying taxes when they re-enter the country. This is how most countries deal with world travelling residents already.

[Stevil]

Many of those prestigious schools, in the U.S. are private, I'm not sure about England. Jobs will go to the most qualified, all schools and forms of education will never be equal.

In NZ all of our universities are the same. We don't have prestigious ones. A degree is a degree.
Expensive prestigious schools only work towards dividing the wealthy from the poor. Of course the wealthy want to keep an upperhand, they want their offspring to be advantaged. Equal opportunity is a threat to the wealthy.

First all we disagree on several things. I don't believe education is a right. The only rights I believe we have is to not have aggression initiated against us.

I believe if we don't take care of the poor, don't ensure they will survive and don't give them reasonable opportunity to significantly improve their lives then eventually we will find a revolt within our society. May people will die, the tables will be turned. Society will have failed.

Free and decent education is a way to level the playing field, to provide opportunity.
Educated people contribute to society, they are less likely to be a burdon and less likely to have huge amounts of children that they can't support. They are more likely to behave sociably rather than being simply concerned about survival.

A successful society cannot forsake the poor.

[ThinkAnarchy]

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.

I see in my society today, monopolies and duopolies, ensuring they don't compete on price, they confuse the product, even though they are just selling telecommunication service (voice, sms or data), but they package it in inventive ways so that consumers cannot compare apples with apples and hence cannot demand lowest price.

People are not perfect and neither is business. There will be abuses, but they will be more easily fixed by the free market, instead of government. That is a common practice but not one I view as illegal. Of course the business selling the product want's people to buy the most expensive thing they have, and some do attempt to hide things. However, the government has not successfully rectified this problem either. I do however see way's the free market, if it were actually free, could rectify some of these problems.

Just as we have sites like this now.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-T3-vs-Canon_EOS_Rebel_T2i

The site fills a problem in that it is difficult to accurately compare the features of different camera's. A manufacturer isn't going to compare things that make their product look inferior, so a third part is now profiting to fulfill that need.

It makes sense for shareholders to own monopolies rather than compete. Corporate takeovers and mergers happen all the time, so do unspoken agreements to not compete on price.
At least the current government does have regulation up its sleeve, as well as anti-competition laws.
Just look at how many times Microsoft has been slapped by anti competitive behaviours.

Those things have happened and have the potential to happen. Mergers and cooperation in keeping prices artificially high does not continue to work however. When a market get's monopolized like that, it allows other businesses not currently in that market an easier way to enter into it and drastically undercut those prices. It also runs the risk of completely destroying that potential market and those businesses. Prices fluctuate depending on supply and demand, and the over-reaction by government to this problem has not fixed it and has made things worse in other areas.

Now, whenever prices go up, people scream foul, despite the prices going up due to limited supply. When the prices rise other sectors of the economy see the increased prices and start producing more of the product, or resources for the product, equalizing the formula. Once inventory is built back up, you can see if to much is being produced by businesses lowering prices to get rid of excess inventory. By meddling with these inherent features, the free market is not allowed to function as it naturally would.

BTW, thanks again for taking this on. I know it seems that we are all criticising it, but it is such a leap from where we are today. Looking at it superficially leaves me feeling terrified as if I am about to jump off a very tall building. I need to double check my pack to ensure there is a parachute in there and make sure it has been packed properly with all the contingencies that would make me feel safe. I understand that you believe in it, and that you are a smart person so maybe my fear is unfounded, but I need to ask questions.
I think a country would be very scared to leap in and give this a go.

I enjoy the questions, and I enjoy discussing this with people. I understand the initial reaction, especially since I had the same question's and initial issues with it.

I will look for some good and fair debates between academic an-caps, left-anarchists, and different forms of statists. As well as debates between the two schools of economics so people can see both sides of the argument from the academics perspectives.

The only reason I sometimes get angry or annoyed when discussing this, is due to the underlying tone, which I'm may be unjustly interpreting. I like the discussion, and the world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything. I also understand the serious issues people are having. However, I sometimes feel as if I'm being told, you have to live under my idea of society, because I disagree with you're.

I would have no problem with that if my philosophy was likely to force people to live under it. But it doesn't. If we had one anarchist territory, separate from the other governments, it would not effect anyone but those of us living under it. Those who didn't like it would be free to move to any of the other forms of government currently in existence. Or the new ones that were created with in the larger anarchistic territory. I would have no problem with my neighbors claiming their legal land communist, just don't cross over onto our an-cap land and cause trouble.

There are many alternate philosophies though, and I would want all to have a chance to flourish without intervention by government. I don't agree with government subjugating people who would choose to not live under their laws. Governments don't grant sovereignty though, they simply control.

[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.  

These systems were also not as advanced as they are today. We have the capital, resources, and knowledge to provide these services properly through the free market. People in cities would likely indirectly benefit from many of these things by their neighbors purchasing them. Simply because these services were not accessible in the past does not mean they can not be successfully instituted today.

Schooling could be a very cheap and private to do this technology called the internet. Plus formal education is less important for many today. The information is readily accessible for those of us in the first world. It is no longer a problem of not having enough school houses, etc. and it wouldn't be again. Societies of the past were also not education based to the large amounts of poverty. People don't care to be educated when their starving. They would much prefer to work and survive.

This is why these problems that occurred pre-industrial revolution are not totally valid when discussing an an-cap society from a post-industrial revolution society.

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.

People were not illiterate because of free market principles. They were illiterate because they were poor and had to work long hours to provide for their families. School was a luxury than. Due to advances because of free market principles, not government, people have more time for education by having to work less.  

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.

Medical care is not a right in my eyes. That is not to say that people would be left to die however. With the amount of capital citizens have today, it is more likely that individuals and companies will set up charitable clinics for the impoverished. We already see increased philanthropy in most developed countries than their was pre-development. I simply don't see why it is believed this charity would not simply redistribute itself to areas the government no longer supported.

Free market principals, private innovation, and capitalism is what allowed us to get to this point however; not government. Government was only able to provide these services because of capitalism. Capitalism is capable of dealing with these issues now, but wasn't pre-industrial revolution.

It would likely have eventually though, once enough capital was accumulated.

Especially in regards to education - were you not just arguing that in your society children would be allowed to work if they wanted to or needed to to provide for their families?  I would think that for the poor, at aleast, you would likely see a large rise in illiteracy again.  If you are barely scraping by, and you have the choice to either pay for your child to be educated, or to send your child to work, which are you more likely to feel like you have to do?  

And sorry, but the idea that people "would likely set up charities" to help the poor get medical care just really isn't enough of an inducement for me to believe that the poor wouldn't also see a drop in health care and thus a drop in life expectancy.  Maybe you're just more optimistic than I am when it comes to your view of human nature.  I picture the rich happily buying another jet or whatever and stepping over the poor people dying in the streets.

ETA:  I don't actually have a problem with a bunch of (presumably well off) anrchists going to live off in their own little anarchist haven if that is what they wanted.  I think that the poor would live horrible lives and die early deaths in your system, but as long as you could all voluntarily live there and leave there when you wanted, I don't see a huge problem with you and your like minded frends giving it a try.  I just wouoldn't want to live there myself, or want people to be trapped in that system.

[Stevil]

Now, whenever prices go up, people scream foul, despite the prices going up due to limited supply. When the prices rise other sectors of the economy see the increased prices and start producing more of the product, or resources for the product, equalizing the formula.

Some businesses like telecommunication have huge start-up costs. Billing systems, Cell sites spread across a country, network components, etc.

Sometimes when competition comes in, they do it on borrowed money, expecting profits to pay off the debts.
Then the incumbents drop their prices, they sell at a loss for an extended period until the new competition goes bankrupt, then they hike their prices again.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Many of those prestigious schools, in the U.S. are private, I'm not sure about England. Jobs will go to the most qualified, all schools and forms of education will never be equal.

In NZ all of our universities are the same. We don't have prestigious ones. A degree is a degree.
Expensive prestigious schools only work towards dividing the wealthy from the poor. Of course the wealthy want to keep an upperhand, they want their offspring to be advantaged. Equal opportunity is a threat to the wealthy.

I would argue that system is not equal opportunity but forced equality. The rich should not be prevented from getting a better education if they can afford it. Lowering the bar so everyone is equal does not seem like a very good solution. I'm not saying NZ has a population of idiots, but it seems you prefer there be a level stagnated medium when it comes to education, instead of allowing it to get great in some areas and poor in others.

Both of our views have problems in them, it just depends how we look at it.

First all we disagree on several things. I don't believe education is a right. The only rights I believe we have is to not have aggression initiated against us.

I believe if we don't take care of the poor, don't ensure they will survive and don't give them reasonable opportunity to significantly improve their lives then eventually we will find a revolt within our society. May people will die, the tables will be turned. Society will have failed.

My argument is simply that it is better for the poor to not have the safety net. I don't think they should be unfairly prevented from gaining wealth, but I also don't think wealth should simply be given to them. Welfare has not fixed the problem of poverty. Revolts like that do happen, but most have been revolts against the ruiling class who was actively keeping the peasants in poverty.

The poor should have the same freedoms others have, not more, or less. They should be able to work hard and find jobs just like me. I'm not saying poverty occurs because people are lazy, but many of the poor are becoming lazy due to not having to work.

Free and decent education is a way to level the playing field, to provide opportunity.
Educated people contribute to society, they are less likely to be a burdon and less likely to have huge amounts of children that they can't support. They are more likely to behave sociably rather than being simply concerned about survival.

A successful society cannot forsake the poor.

Uneducated people are also needed for society. Once you receive a good education, you typically don't want to work at a fast food restaurant, or refinery. Uneducated people are a great necessity to society and the economy as a whole. I'm not arguing for actively preventing individuals from choosing education, but I think it would be a detriment if to many people were educated. Our economy is not fit to handle a world of fully educated people. We would have a society over educated people as is currently happening in the U.S. People are graduating from college and not able to find the jobs college was supposed to qualify them for. There aren't any openings. Now we have people in debt, and unable to find work, or only work they are overqualified for.

If technology continues to advance and the labor market get's replaced by robotics, than I could see more educated people not causing problems.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Some businesses like telecommunication have huge start-up costs. Billing systems, Cell sites spread across a country, network components, etc.

Sometimes when competition comes in, they do it on borrowed money, expecting profits to pay off the debts.
Then the incumbents drop their prices, they sell at a loss for an extended period until the new competition goes bankrupt, then they hike their prices again.

I can't think off the top of my head how telecommunications companies would work exactly in my society. I know I looked into it before, but can't remember what the best ideas were.

I will look into it later or maybe tomorrow and get back to you.