Discussion of Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Anne D.]

ThinkAnarchy, I'm not clear on who or what constitutes the government in the type of society you're describing. What entity is 1) drawing up the rules and laws that the society operates under, 2) enforcing those rules and laws, and 3) interpreting them?

For instance, take the following scenario from early in the thread.

Excerpt from quote from ThinkAnarchy from page 1 of the discussion (bolding is mine):

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.

-What entity is holding the private court liable?

Competing third party courts would probably hear cases of another courts unfair ruling.

-What entity would discover that a convicted individual was innocent?

There would be private investigation's, either run thorough an extension of the protection agency, the court, or another entity.

-What entity would find that the court had violated "this basic principle"? And if it's just a principle and not codified in law, what bases is the private court using to make decisions in the first place?

All the courts would likely be able to do is award monetary gain, possibly to the extent of indentured servitude if the culprit is unable to pay.

There would be no criminal law as it is today. The courts would discover guilt or innocence, but would not be able to sentence individuals to death or incarceration as government courts can today. I wasn't thinking fully when I mentioned jails earlier. They could maybe fit in somehow, but I'm not positive how.

Individuals would likely be represented by one court, another individual by another. In the case of the disputing parties being protected by different courts, the dispute would likely be heard by a 3rd independent court while the other two provide their cases.

If a person continues to aggress upon others, they would likely be dropped from their court group and would no longer have protection. Vigilante justice would also be acceptable, so violent criminals would likely be forcefully exiled or murdered by the population.

-What entity would force the court to pay reparations?

Another court. Although it is possible some would make it contractually impossible to hold them liable. I'm confident the market and people would dislike that, and courts that could be held liable would take their place.

This does not sound at all workable.

The only scenarios a private court would work in would be in very basic civil matters where both parties agreed to submit to the judgment of a particular court and agreed that that court's judgment would be final.

In the society you describe, if someone, say, murders your relative, you would seem to have the recourse of a) killing them (since you stated vigilantism would be legal) or b) paying a private court to hear your civil suit against the person.
-What would compel the person you were suing to appear before this private court? In other words, would anyone you chose to sue (even on faked or trumped up grounds) be required to appear before the private court you were paying to hear the case just because you'd sued them?
Say that a person would be compelled to appear before any private court in which he'd had been sued.
-What if the person chose not to appear? Would a private police force be authorized to use force to take that person into custody and hold him until the trial? On what legal basis would the police force be allowed to do that?
-If you chose to go the vigilante route and killed the person, could that person's family then sue you?
-What if you, oops, killed the wrong person and the person you killed didn't have family to sue you for it? No harm, no foul?
-What if you didn't have the money to sue the person and weren't strong enough to exact vigilante justice? Too bad, so sad?

Re the following:

Competing third party courts would probably hear cases of another courts unfair ruling.

What you are describing is the equivalent of an appeals court. In the society you describe, for the decision of the first court to be appealable, the two parties would have to agree going in to the first trial that the decision of that first court would not necessarily be final and could be appealed. What if the two parties didn't agree? (If I'm being sued for wrongful death, there's no way I'd agree to the judgment's being final, and if I'm suing someone for wrongful death in a court I pay dues to, I have great incentive to want the judgment to be final.) Or what if they do agree? Can the two parties just take turns appealing forever and ever?

It sounds like this society would need a mammoth body of civil law, especially contract law. Otherwise, the private courts would have nothing to base their decisions on. You'd also have to have some body of law setting out what constituted a private police force, what constituted a private court, and what powers they would have.

-What entity would be responsible for drawing up that law in the first place, making changes to it, and maintaining it?

[ThinkAnarchy]

Interesting points, but I still don't see the context in a lot of the things you describe. No one argues that the government hasn't been responsible for some bad things. It's the "they do MORE bad things than good". That I'm getting stuck on. I just don't see it.  

It's, "they do MORE good things than bad" that I'm getting stuck on.  

The purpose of the government is supposed to be to keep us from harming each other, and has not only failed to prevent that, but actually hurts others on our behalf.

There is now a facebook group called Israel-Loves-Iran, because the people don't feel the hatred for the Iranians their government does.
http://www.facebook.com/israellovesiran

You than have this video that supposedly comes from an Iranian.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sCdHlGaALc0

Even if these are faked, it still illustrates how many of the average citizens don't hate each other. Just as I have no grudge against Israeli or Iranian citizens. I hate their governments, but don't want to see any of the citizens slaughtered in another useless fucking war.

I could list a dozen really amazing, awesome things that police have done. A cop once gave me a lift home when I was a kid because I blew out one of my bike tires. He didn't have to. He just did, because he's nice.

The Catholic church can list a lot of good deeds as well... Does that make up for the evil it's responsible for? I have had some decent run-ins with police as well, but that doesn't make up for the abundance of stories about police misconduct.

But it's anecdotal. It doesn't mean that all police officers stop and help little girls, just as one video of a doche-bag cop beating someone up doesn't mean that all cops are power-hungry assholes (or do you call everyone who works for the government a "pig"?)

When their purpose is to protect and serve, they should pick up girls who don't have rides. There was a story in my town of two girls who were raped outside a club. They tried getting into a cop car, extremely drugged up saying "he's going to rape us" and the cop told the guy to drive them home. They were raped and left for dead in the parking lot. Thankfully the cops who found them after the rape occurred decided to lend some fucking assistance. I know one of the girls, so I won't be posting that story.

How is this shit tolerated because they do some good? And we as citizens are than forbidden to seek justice ourselves, when the protectors fail to protect us.

[DeterminedJuliet]

They're horrible stories, but I think it's part of the human experience, sadly. If there is power, SOME people will abuse it. Even with no real centralized government a power structure will emerge and there will be people within that power structure who abuse it.

Capitalism was shut-down in the USSR and Communism became the power-hierarchy that everyone subscribed to; high ranking communists got the perks that wealthy businessmen used to get. If you leave mainstream society and join a cult, the cult-leader has the power. If you're die-hard roman catholic, the pope has the power. If you're a hunter-gatherer in the amazon, your tribe leader has the power. If you join HAF, Whitney and Tank have the power. If it's a Zombie-apocalypse, whoever has the most guns and the best fortified fort has the power. I really think power hierarchies are inevitable, so people have to decide what they want to base that power structure upon.

Personally, I'd rather take my chances in a zombie-apocalypse world than a world where we willingly give all of our power to corporations.

[Too Few Lions]

I live in the UK, and the minimum wage is a fairly recent thing here, and it's been a very good thing, lifting thousands of working people out of poverty. Personally, I think if a chairman or director of a company can take home a six or seven figure salary he should be able to afford to pay his workers a living salary.

What about the small mom & pop stores that don't have the income to hire as many employee's now due to a required minimum wage. What about the poor people who still can't find a job and would be willing to work for less than minimum wage just to by food for their family? Why should these people be hurt because big business is finding people to work for less?

Over here, you don't ever hear of any small shops over here complaining that the minimum wage is putting them out of business. I don't think the minimum wage is that crippling to anyone, and I also don't think people can live particularly well on it. If someone's got to spend their whole week working I think they at least deserve a wage that allows them to have a bit of a life outside of work and be able to pay their rent and bills. If your business is that unprofitable that you can't afford to pay your staff £200 a week I think your business clearly isn't going to work long term.

Otherwise we just have wage-slaves who are just about able to scrape by on a wage but never save anything or have very much disposable income to enjoy themselves.

I really hate that term, "wage-slave." Slave are required to work with the threat of force and receive no compensation and have no freedom. Employee's are not forced to work for a particular place over another, and they are free to negotiate their costs.

You want to live in a society without a welfare system, therefore everyone other than the well-off will have to work, and if they're on a ridiculously low income they're never going to be able to save up any money to take time off or afford to pay for studying, learning or training. You might hate the word wage-slave, but that doesn't mean it's not an apt description. If someone is having to spend their lives doing a job they don't like or want to do and are getting paid a tiny amount of money that they can barely live off, never mind save anything, I'm happy to call that kind of life wage-slavery. It sounds awful, and there might be a lot of people in that situation.

I guess I'm a utilitarian, but I think society should try to benefit as many people as possible, not just the rich. Plus, in a capitalist system, the rich can make more money without actually lifting a finger than the poor can by working 80 hour weeks just by investing their money, or can buy up all the land so poorer people permanently have to rent of them in a semi-feudal society.

The capitalist system does more to benefit the poor than government could ever hope to do. Capitalism provides the jobs to allow them to bring themselves out of poverty. Hell, Apple releasing an Ipad every six months is indirectly helping the poor. I could not afford to buy an ipad when they first came out, but can now get an older generation, that is still fantastic, at a much more affordable used price. None of us are living under a Capitalist system though.

As for the rental thing, it would be no more a risk than it currently is. Rentals are great for people who can't afford to purchase property. Those who can afford to purchase property typically are unhappy living in a rental.

Seriously, an iPad? If I was properly poor and struggling to get by, I wouldn't give a toss about an overpriced laptop. I'd be more worried about food, accommodation, heating  etc. Personally, I think maybe we should be trying to build a society where everyone can own a home if they want to, rather than tell people, 'Sorry you're too poor, home ownership's only for rich folk...but you can pay them rent to temporarily live in one of their homes.'

You have a very different view of taxation than me. I view taxation as a way of providing the infrastructure that allows society to function and wealth to be created in the first place. Taxes are laid out in advance and everyone knows roughly what they're going to have to pay, the taxman doesn't rob you at knifepoint and walk you to a cash machine.

They use force in order to collect taxes. I see no difference between threatening violence of imprisonment by armed thugs as any different than being robbed at the threat of being stabbed. The only difference is the level of violence being threatened to make me comply.

You live in a society where that's the rules / laws, if you don't pay your taxes you're the one acting like a criminal, not the state. Maybe you should look to move to a country with zero / very low taxes, there are plenty of tax havens around the world.

Taxes are the current way of providing infrastructure, but that does not mean it is the only way, or the best way. It has proven a very ineffective way, given the poor condition of some of America's infrastructure. Taxes also do not create wealth, it simply redistributes it around. Capitalism does create wealth on the other hand and redistributes it in a voluntary way.

Or it doesn't redistribute wealth at all. It's funny that you think that the US has poor infrastructure given that I imagine that it's a lot closer to your capitalist utopia than most if not all countries in Europe. Germany and France have great infrastructure, but they also have high taxes to pay for that infrastructure

In our current system wealth is being stolen, but it wouldn't be in a truly free market. Property is protected by contract, but homesteading would likely be an acceptable means of gaining property as well.

We live in a society, we're all part of that society and we all contribute to that society. If some people benefit more from that society I don't think it's unreasonable for them to also contribute more. You think government steals from the wealthy, I think the wealthy steal from society if they don't contribute. I guess it's just a different way of looking at things.

Of course business men are motivated by profit, that is not a bad thing though. Without profit there would be no motivation to innovate and create. Governments create nothing.
Do you really believe most governments are doing a good job with education and healthcare? We don't need the government to provide these functions. Investors can fund expensive research, many of which could ask for funding from the population. If there is something the people want researched or developed, they can fund the project voluntarily if they see a need. I would likely donate money to scientific institutions for space exploration and medical research as others would.

We live longer than anyone else before in human history, we're generally freer than the majority of other people ever to have lived, we're better educated and we can say and do pretty much as we please (within reason), and we don't normally have to worry about being robbed, murdered, raped etc etc, I don't think western governments are doing everything wrong. It's not their job to 'innovate and create', it's their job to create a stable society that allows people to innovate and create, and trade and manufacture, and live hopefully happy lives. And I think they're clearly doing that to some degree, personally there's nowhere else in the world I'd rather live. I'd rank univeral healthcare, education or literacy to be far greater creations and achievements than the i-pad. Plus government funding has done some amazing stuff, the world wide web is largely a result of government funded research. Plus look at all the amazing things they're currently doing at CERN, and probably lots of other places too.
I wouldn't argue with you that governments waste a lot of money, or that things couldn't be done better, but I'm not convinced that a tax free society is the answer. The only people I ever hear moaning about taxes is the rich, but they still earn far more than the rest of us even after they've paid their contributions to society. Without taxes, who's going to pay for the care and treatment of the poor when they're ill or injured in your system? and who's going to support the long term mentally or physically ill? or the old? (assuming they're not wealthy).

How many of these problems that you think an an-cap society might suffer from has the government fixed? Does everyone get a good education? Have they prevented violent crime? Have they prevented a small portion of people from accumulating a large portion of wealth? Have they always kept their people safe from foreign invasion? Do they have a perfect or even just legal system? Have they not not killed other's in you're name and with you're money?

I agree that the current system is less than perfect, but I don't believe you're ever going to be able to educate everyone well or stop some people from committing violence or crime. As for stopping a small amount of people accumulating a large proportion of wealth, how is not taxing the wealthy going to solve that problem?

They are based on how the society would function as a whole. There would likely be less poverty, more opportunity, more freedom, and greater wealth. Obviously a society that functions better for everyone benefits me, I don't support this philosophy because I think I would benefit at the expense of others though.

I honestly don't believe that, I just see more poverty generally, and more wealth only for the rich. But that's just my opinion, and I'll happily admit I might well be wrong. I'm glad you want a system that benefits the majority though and not just yourself. Now all we need is to buy you that small island somewhere or otherwise create a complicated computer programme to model an an-cap society and see how it pans out. I hope you get to live in the society you want one day, maybe a colony on land reclaimed by the sea created by an an-cap billionaire?

[ThinkAnarchy]

They're horrible stories, but I think it's part of the human experience, sadly. If there is power, SOME people will abuse it. Even with no real centralized government a power structure will emerge and there will be people within that power structure who abuse it.

I agree there will always be a power struggle, but if people recognized the pattern and were liberty minded, I'm certain it could be prevented from the inside. Foreign invasion would be another thing. The reason I don't like the idea of government is because people do keep fighting for control. It could very well be an unavoidable cycle, but I hope not.

Regardless, I'm lucky to live in a country with free speech. I would not even be allowed to have this conversation in some countries.

[DeterminedJuliet]

Regardless, I'm lucky to live in a country with free speech. I would not even be allowed to have this conversation in some countries.

That is very true and I am glad that you are able to share your ideas, even if I don't agree with all of them.  

[Non Sum]

  On your presentation, an unqualified thumbs up, TA! Thank you.

As a libertarian, I agree with a lot of it, but the "anarcho" element leaves too much trust to individual responsibility for my taste.  Minimal government: yes. But no organized government at ALL?  Nope.  Leaves a vacuum, with random human nature (often falling to the LCD (lowest common denominator)) inevitably filling it.

Even rational cooperative behavior is not to be assumed, any more than rationality itself.

EG: I live on a rural dead-end road.  Early on, we neighbors were left with its maintenance.  Those at its beginning didn't see why they should chip in for the upkeep of the road's entirety.  Others thought their minimal usage should rate a smaller contribution than those with heavier usage.  Some were willing to help, but just "not this month" (read as 'never').  How much money/work is the proper amount, was never agreed upon.  Etc., etc.  The road remained a mess for years until the county stepped in, but neighborly resentments never fully ceased.

 

[ThinkAnarchy]

 On your presentation, an unqualified thumbs up, TA! Thank you.

As a libertarian, I agree with a lot of it, but the "anarcho" element leaves too much trust to individual responsibility for my taste.  Minimal government: yes. But no organized government at ALL?  Nope.  Leaves a vacuum, with random human nature (often falling to the LCD (lowest common denominator)) inevitably filling it.

I started out like that as well, but than I started thinking about how America was founded. It was founded on small government principles, and look at it's current state over 200 years later. I like the idea of small government, but can't see it every staying small. The same pattern very well may repeat itself from anarchy, but it would hopefully take longer than a starting point of limited government.  

Even rational cooperative behavior is not to be assumed, any more than rationality itself.

EG: I live on a rural dead-end road.  Early on, we neighbors were left with its maintenance.  Those at its beginning didn't see why they should chip in for the upkeep of the road's entirety.  Others thought their minimal usage should rate a smaller contribution than those with heavier usage.  Some were willing to help, but just "not this month" (read as 'never').  How much money/work is the proper amount, was never agreed upon.  Etc., etc.  The road remained a mess for years until the county stepped in, but neighborly resentments never fully ceased.

I agree, and I know problems like that currently happen. It could be prevented in the future by mentioning the shared road and expected contributions in the contract when the property is purchased. This obviously would only work effectively with new developments though. Most of the neighbors may be willing to sign a contract regarding the road, but the free loaders, unless it was tied to their purchase of the property, wouldn't sign it. But than again, they still weren't paying.

It would be very hard to make it work retroactively, but with a clause in the property agreement relating to the road, future problems could be avoided.

I believe I have two unanswered posts still, and want to reply to that TED video in more detail. Those posts will be more time consuming though so I probably won't reply until after the weekend.

[Firebird]

One of the main problems I have with your argument is that you make a lot of generalizations about government and its perceived failings.
Your claims about the government "creating nothing", for example, aren't really true. Here's a list of things the government has created

- the Internet (a military project originally)
- Space exploration (NASA is a government agency), which you claim people will fund out of the goodness of their hearts. Not a chance, considering how expensive it is
- All sorts of long-term research which is not initially profitable, but which pays an enormous social benefit in the end. Clean energy research, for example, or genetically modified crops which resist diseases.
- Universal health care for the population, in most Western nations

You also claim that not only has the government failed to eliminate crime, but they're really making it worse. I can say with certainty that is not true in the US. Take New York City, for example. The crime rate has nosedived since the early 90's thanks to the NYPD adopting techniques such as computerized tracking of crimes and more cops patrolling directly on the streets. That is the government right there. My particular town was a rundown community up until 15 years ago, and is now so safe that I often walk around at night, thanks again to the police.

One of the reasons businesses succeed and thrive in the Western world is because of government funding of infrastructure such as effective roads, railroads, electricity, internet, police and fire protection, etc, which gives them the ability make and transport their goods safely. Elizabeth Warren, who is running for Senate in Massachusetts, had a great speech about this, starting at the 1:00 mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htX2usfqMEs
Government is not perfect by any means. However, your solution of throwing it all away is extreme. You say that your experiment has never been tried, as opposed to bigger government, but there are countries with little organized government, and none of them have thrived. Look at Pakistan, which has little organized government and where citizens have to rely on private security guards to keep them safe in their gated communities. Pakistan is an infinitely more dangerous country than most of the Western world, due in large part to the lack of effective government. Not to mention the horrendous human rights abuses there.
You have an extreme faith in the ability of the free-market to fix everything. Who's going to tackle the inevitable corruption that always pops up in said free markets? What if an organized crime racket corners the private security guards which replace police in your system, and force the population to pay them extreme amounts of money or else? Who's going to stop them with no government? Another marauding band of citizens who'll duke it out in the streets with them? Without regulation, there's no reasons businesses wouldn't do unethical or downright illegal things to earn profit. Or, at least, illegal as it stands, since you wouldn't even outlaw murder.
While getting a ticket for going 3 mph over the speed limit is an annoyance, it is not an infringement on your liberty. It's to protect the kids who are in that school zone. That's more important than your "right" to go a little faster, as far as I'm concerned, and an important value to hold onto in most societies.

[Anne D.]

Great post, Firebird.

[Amicale]

Regardless, I'm lucky to live in a country with free speech. I would not even be allowed to have this conversation in some countries.

That is very true and I am glad that you are able to share your ideas, even if I don't agree with all of them.  

I've read this thread, and just wanted to say that while I don't really have any arguments to make/contribute, I've appreciated reading everyone's comments and ideas.

I will just say this, though: regardless of what one feels about their government, I totally agree that if you're posting on this website, at least you're living under a government that allows free speech. I had the privilege (and I mean that sincerely) of knowing men who lived under a government that censored their words, their ability to research ideas, etc. They were good men, very polite, very friendly, but they knew that anything they said or did or researched could be held against them, so they were very careful to praise their government and the king of their country. I am extraordinarily thankful that, even though I get ticked off at my politicians/government time and time again, I do not live in the society they live in and must raise their kids in.

[ThinkAnarchy]

This does not sound at all workable.

The only scenarios a private court would work in would be in very basic civil matters where both parties agreed to submit to the judgment of a particular court and agreed that that court's judgment would be final.

Yes, those would be easy because two parties that agree to do business together could simply agree to use "X" Dispute Resolution Service in the event of a dispute.

In the society you describe, if someone, say, murders your relative, you would seem to have the recourse of a) killing them (since you stated vigilantism would be legal) or b) paying a private court to hear your civil suit against the person.
-What would compel the person you were suing to appear before this private court? In other words, would anyone you chose to sue (even on faked or trumped up grounds) be required to appear before the private court you were paying to hear the case just because you'd sued them?

The court the victim brought the case too, would likely serve the accused much as they do today. If the accused failed to appear, the court would most likely be able to issue a Default Judgement, after hearing the side of the dispute that appeared. I'm also a supporter of loser pay's, in order to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. I imagine the private courts would do the same. We already see what happens when those who file frivolous law suits are not required to pay the other persons costs, it simply leads to more B.S. suits.

Say that a person would be compelled to appear before any private court in which he'd had been sued.
-What if the person chose not to appear? Would a private police force be authorized to use force to take that person into custody and hold him until the trial? On what legal basis would the police force be allowed to do that?

I wouldn't say so, since it would be unjustified to kidnap a still innocent person. Others might disagree with me however. If the person were "forced" to appear in court and was guilty, their would be no foul. If the individual was innocent, however, he would seem to have a claim against the agency that grabbed him.

They would most likely serve the accused, and if he refused to appear, he simply would not be their to argue his case. If he felt he wasn't going to get a fair trial at the court the individual chose, they might have to agree on one, or possibly agree to let a mediator pick the neutral court. Or perhaps, if they have hired a protection agency, the two agencies would agree on a location.

-If you chose to go the vigilante route and killed the person, could that person's family then sue you?

I would imagine it would depend why you killed that person. If you thought he raped you're daughter, but it is later discovered he did not, than the killer should be liable for killing an innocent person. If the rape did occur, I can't imagine anyone would really care the rapist is now dead.

-What if you, oops, killed the wrong person and the person you killed didn't have family to sue you for it? No harm, no foul?

Those without family already have trouble seeking justice. If they already subscribed to a protection service, that service would most likely seek justice on behalf of the victim. Why would people in my society want to live next to someone who murders innocent people?

-What if you didn't have the money to sue the person and weren't strong enough to exact vigilante justice? Too bad, so sad?

If you won the case, you likely wouldn't have to pay anything as the one bringing it. If you lost, you would likely receive a bill for your's and the defendants fees.

Re the following:

Competing third party courts would probably hear cases of another courts unfair ruling.

What you are describing is the equivalent of an appeals court. In the society you describe, for the decision of the first court to be appealable, the two parties would have to agree going in to the first trial that the decision of that first court would not necessarily be final and could be appealed. [/quote]

It would depend on what the contract was in regards to the court who first ruled. If the contract states they are the final decision maker on this issue, than an appeal would be useless. People may not like that however, so it may be put in the contract how to go about appealing the decision.

What if the two parties didn't agree? (If I'm being sued for wrongful death, there's no way I'd agree to the judgment's being final, and if I'm suing someone for wrongful death in a court I pay dues to, I have great incentive to want the judgment to be final.) Or what if they do agree? Can the two parties just take turns appealing forever and ever?

It would depend on what people want. For serious issues, like murder, I think most people would want the ability to have the decision reviewed by a second court. If that court found the previous court erred, it would than likely have to go to a third, for the final decision. If money was an issue, both parties would likely agree to abide by the decision of the first court with no option of appeal.

There is no way to say how they would fully function, because we currently only have private dispute resolution for minor issues. There are many options as to how they would function, but I can't say 100% they would function one way or the other.

It sounds like this society would need a mammoth body of civil law, especially contract law. Otherwise, the private courts would have nothing to base their decisions on. You'd also have to have some body of law setting out what constituted a private police force, what constituted a private court, and what powers they would have.

You don't need a big body of law when it comes to contracts. If both individuals signed the contract, they must abide by what the contract says. If they break the contract, they are in violation. Quite simple.

Their basis would simply be that of initiation. If I steal you're car because you refuse to pay me $25,000 you owe me, the court would likely uphold my theft as being just. You were the one who initiated the problem by refusing to pay me what you owe.

The only problem that would arise, and I'm unsure how it would be handled, is when can an individual sign a contract? A six year old child should not be required to abide by a contract he signed, but I'm not sure how age of majority would be determined.

-What entity would be responsible for drawing up that law in the first place, making changes to it, and maintaining it?

The courts would simply make their decisions based on the evidence and the societies views much like common law today. The body of law would be built up naturally with how the courts ruled. Since they are beholden to the people for clients, their would be much more control over the court system.

No time to proof read, so I apologize if their are typos or incomplete thoughts.

[ThinkAnarchy]

Over here, you don't ever hear of any small shops over here complaining that the minimum wage is putting them out of business. I don't think the minimum wage is that crippling to anyone, and I also don't think people can live particularly well on it. If someone's got to spend their whole week working I think they at least deserve a wage that allows them to have a bit of a life outside of work and be able to pay their rent and bills. If your business is that unprofitable that you can't afford to pay your staff £200 a week I think your business clearly isn't going to work long term.

You missed the point I was making. It isn't that it put's them out of business, but businesses hire fewer people. They can only allot so much to payroll. When the government requires them to pay more to their employee's, it results in them hiring fewer employees. This means there are fewer jobs to go around.  I'm not going to start spending more than I can afford on payroll because the government say's I now have to pay my employee's more. I will simply fire a few, or not hire new ones, so as not to pay to continue to keep may labor cost low enough to make a profit.

Otherwise we just have wage-slaves who are just about able to scrape by on a wage but never save anything or have very much disposable income to enjoy themselves.

I really hate that term, "wage-slave." Slave are required to work with the threat of force and receive no compensation and have no freedom. Employee's are not forced to work for a particular place over another, and they are free to negotiate their costs.

You want to live in a society without a welfare system, therefore everyone other than the well-off will have to work, and if they're on a ridiculously low income they're never going to be able to save up any money to take time off or afford to pay for studying, learning or training. You might hate the word wage-slave, but that doesn't mean it's not an apt description. If someone is having to spend their lives doing a job they don't like or want to do and are getting paid a tiny amount of money that they can barely live off, never mind save anything, I'm happy to call that kind of life wage-slavery. It sounds awful, and there might be a lot of people in that situation.

Yeah, I'm calling for a society where people work. Working a shitty job is better than starvation. Nor should people get paid to not work, simply because they feel the jobs they can get are beneath them. I understand that some people legitimately can't find work, but I do not agree with forcing others to help them.

I guess I'm a utilitarian, but I think society should try to benefit as many people as possible, not just the rich. Plus, in a capitalist system, the rich can make more money without actually lifting a finger than the poor can by working 80 hour weeks just by investing their money, or can buy up all the land so poorer people permanently have to rent of them in a semi-feudal society.

The capitalist system does more to benefit the poor than government could ever hope to do. Capitalism provides the jobs to allow them to bring themselves out of poverty. Hell, Apple releasing an Ipad every six months is indirectly helping the poor. I could not afford to buy an ipad when they first came out, but can now get an older generation, that is still fantastic, at a much more affordable used price. None of us are living under a Capitalist system though.

As for the rental thing, it would be no more a risk than it currently is. Rentals are great for people who can't afford to purchase property. Those who can afford to purchase property typically are unhappy living in a rental.

Seriously, an iPad? If I was properly poor and struggling to get by, I wouldn't give a toss about an overpriced laptop. I'd be more worried about food, accommodation, heating  etc. Personally, I think maybe we should be trying to build a society where everyone can own a home if they want to, rather than tell people, 'Sorry you're too poor, home ownership's only for rich folk...but you can pay them rent to temporarily live in one of their homes.

A single individual with no kids can survive on a lot less than an entire family. Simply because people are impoverished does not mean they can't buy toys if their primary needs are taken care of. It's obviously smarter to save that excess money, but that is up to the individual to decide.

You have a very different view of taxation than me. I view taxation as a way of providing the infrastructure that allows society to function and wealth to be created in the first place. Taxes are laid out in advance and everyone knows roughly what they're going to have to pay, the taxman doesn't rob you at knifepoint and walk you to a cash machine.

They use force in order to collect taxes. I see no difference between threatening violence of imprisonment by armed thugs as any different than being robbed at the threat of being stabbed. The only difference is the level of violence being threatened to make me comply.

You live in a society where that's the rules / laws, if you don't pay your taxes you're the one acting like a criminal, not the state. Maybe you should look to move to a country with zero / very low taxes, there are plenty of tax havens around the world.

It is only the law because the people in power, who get rich off taxation, say it's so. If it were law to kill homosexuals, would that be evidence that killing homosexuals is not murder?  Simply because the state makes something law, in no way makes it any less wrong.

I have also been looking into other countries, but I would still have to become a citizen of that country before getting my U.S. citizenship revoked. The U.S. government taxes it's citizens even when they are living and working abroad.

Taxes are the current way of providing infrastructure, but that does not mean it is the only way, or the best way. It has proven a very ineffective way, given the poor condition of some of America's infrastructure. Taxes also do not create wealth, it simply redistributes it around. Capitalism does create wealth on the other hand and redistributes it in a voluntary way.

Or it doesn't redistribute wealth at all. It's funny that you think that the US has poor infrastructure given that I imagine that it's a lot closer to your capitalist utopia than most if not all countries in Europe. Germany and France have great infrastructure, but they also have high taxes to pay for that infrastructure

Yes they do, but only because taxes are the means for providing infrastructure. Many cities suffer from traffic jams do to poor engineering, old bridges, pot holes, etc. Not to mention there are some very dangerous roads, with no reason to fix them. The government is not held liable when someone dies on the roadways due to poor design or infrastructure. It is nothing like the society I propose, seeing as the roads are run by the state, and financed through taxation. In my system, unsafe roadways, would likely result in their owners being held liable for any deaths or injuries.

In our current system wealth is being stolen, but it wouldn't be in a truly free market. Property is protected by contract, but homesteading would likely be an acceptable means of gaining property as well.

We live in a society, we're all part of that society and we all contribute to that society. If some people benefit more from that society I don't think it's unreasonable for them to also contribute more. You think government steals from the wealthy, I think the wealthy steal from society if they don't contribute. I guess it's just a different way of looking at things.

Why is theft justified if someone is wealthy. I will say some of the wealthy do currently steal from society, but that is facilitated by the governments you support. The rich in government help the rich in business and vice versa.

Of course business men are motivated by profit, that is not a bad thing though. Without profit there would be no motivation to innovate and create. Governments create nothing.
Do you really believe most governments are doing a good job with education and healthcare? We don't need the government to provide these functions. Investors can fund expensive research, many of which could ask for funding from the population. If there is something the people want researched or developed, they can fund the project voluntarily if they see a need. I would likely donate money to scientific institutions for space exploration and medical research as others would.

We live longer than anyone else before in human history, we're generally freer than the majority of other people ever to have lived, we're better educated and we can say and do pretty much as we please (within reason), and we don't normally have to worry about being robbed, murdered, raped etc etc, I don't think western governments are doing everything wrong. It's not their job to 'innovate and create', it's their job to create a stable society that allows people to innovate and create, and trade and manufacture, and live hopefully happy lives.

Yet robberies, murders, and rapes take place every day, despite the government having so little to do. Furthermore, many government laws result in more violence. Take the drug laws for example. If their only charge is to protect the people, how is justified they put the people at risk by driving certain business underground. Also, so much for happy lives. I'm sure the Middle Easterners are thrilled with our Western governments killing their people. I suppose they only should care about the lives under their charge.

And I think they're clearly doing that to some degree, personally there's nowhere else in the world I'd rather live.

We don't need them to fight violent crime. They have never eliminated it and never will. Government is useless. We would have as much success, if not more, handeling these problems without government.

I'd rank univeral healthcare, education or literacy to be far greater creations and achievements than the i-pad.

I completely disagree with universal healthcare. The education is the U.S. is quite poor, though I'm not to sure about other nations. Education on a larger scale was only made possible due to certain technological advances. However, simply because the government currently provides education does not mean people would not be able to be educated without the government.

Plus government funding has done some amazing stuff, the world wide web is largely a result of government funded research. Plus look at all the amazing things they're currently doing at CERN, and probably lots of other places too.

We are back to theft. Governments don't make money, they can only steal it. I would not be viewed as good if I stole your money and invested it in internet development. I fail to see why an exception is made when governments do it.

I wouldn't argue with you that governments waste a lot of money, or that things couldn't be done better, but I'm not convinced that a tax free society is the answer. The only people I ever hear moaning about taxes is the rich, but they still earn far more than the rest of us even after they've paid their contributions to society. Without taxes, who's going to pay for the care and treatment of the poor when they're ill or injured in your system? and who's going to support the long term mentally or physically ill? or the old? (assuming they're not wealthy).

They would have to rely on charity. Without taxes, people would have more of the wealth they earned to do with as they saw fit. There would also be much cheaper options for medical care due to the elimination of all the regulations.

How many of these problems that you think an an-cap society might suffer from has the government fixed? Does everyone get a good education? Have they prevented violent crime? Have they prevented a small portion of people from accumulating a large portion of wealth? Have they always kept their people safe from foreign invasion? Do they have a perfect or even just legal system? Have they not not killed other's in you're name and with you're money?

I agree that the current system is less than perfect, but I don't believe you're ever going to be able to educate everyone well or stop some people from committing violence or crime. As for stopping a small amount of people accumulating a large proportion of wealth, how is not taxing the wealthy going to solve that problem?

They are able to accumulate the amount of wealth they currently have because the government protects them. The owners of Corporations are not held liable for the actions of their companies. The businesses wealth may be on the line, but not the individuals behind the business. In my society, their would be nothing protecting the owner of a business from being held liable for the actions his business takes. If I was an owner of an oil company, my personal wealth would be at risk in case of a spill, not separated from my business.

They are based on how the society would function as a whole. There would likely be less poverty, more opportunity, more freedom, and greater wealth. Obviously a society that functions better for everyone benefits me, I don't support this philosophy because I think I would benefit at the expense of others though.

I honestly don't believe that, I just see more poverty generally, and more wealth only for the rich. But that's just my opinion, and I'll happily admit I might well be wrong. I'm glad you want a system that benefits the majority though and not just yourself. Now all we need is to buy you that small island somewhere or otherwise create a complicated computer programme to model an an-cap society and see how it pans out. I hope you get to live in the society you want one day, maybe a colony on land reclaimed by the sea created by an an-cap billionaire?

It would be nice, but I don't see it happening in my lifetime. I have been having fun with this conversation but am starting to grow bored with it. So if it takes me a while to respond, that is why. I tried looking for some debates to post, but most are between an-caps and an-comms. Two anarchists debating doesn't really fit into this conversation.  

[ThinkAnarchy]

I would just like to add to the above:

Some good act's do not negate evil acts. I would imagine I could look at the worst individuals or states throughout history and point to a few good things they did. That in no way makes their existence any less evil.

[Anne D.]

Thanks for the response, TA. I think there are aspects of our society and legal system that you are taking for granted as being present in your anarcho-capitalist society that would not be present unless you specifically provided for them in law. Also, there are some things you are presenting as almost understood or givens when, in fact, they won't be unless you specifically provide for them in law.

Quote
It sounds like this society would need a mammoth body of civil law, especially contract law. Otherwise, the private courts would have nothing to base their decisions on. You'd also have to have some body of law setting out what constituted a private police force, what constituted a private court, and what powers they would have.
You don't need a big body of law when it comes to contracts. If both individuals signed the contract, they must abide by what the contract says. If they break the contract, they are in violation. Quite simple.

Their basis would simply be that of initiation. If I steal you're car because you refuse to pay me $25,000 you owe me, the court would likely uphold my theft as being just. You were the one who initiated the problem by refusing to pay me what you owe.

The only problem that would arise, and I'm unsure how it would be handled, is when can an individual sign a contract? A six year old child should not be required to abide by a contract he signed, but I'm not sure how age of majority would be determined.

You're going to need more than contract law. "Just" making vigilantism legal will require a set of laws to set out things like the following:
--what acts would allow for vigilantism. Huge, thorny legal issues there, e.g., questions like what constitutes rape/murder, is payback still okay if it's a payback violent act for an act that was itself payback. "Rape" is only "rape" in the U.S. legal system because there's a statutory definition of "rape." You've stated there wouldn't really be such a thing as criminal law in your society, but in order to sue for things like wrongful death or allow for vigilantism, you're going to need to define terms like "manslaughter," "murder," and "rape" somewhere. Without it being set out that "manslaughter" = [specific legal definition], there is nothing for a "court" to base a decision on.
--who has standing to commit an act of vigilantism (immediate family members only?, extended family?, anyone?)
--how long do you have to take your revenge (if you wait several years is that still legal, does it depend on the violent act you're avenging)

If you think these types of things will just be "understood," I think you're being extremely unrealistic.

Quote
-What entity would be responsible for drawing up that law in the first place, making changes to it, and maintaining it?

The courts would simply make their decisions based on the evidence and the societies views much like common law today. The body of law would be built up naturally with how the courts ruled. Since they are beholden to the people for clients, their would be much more control over the court system.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our legal system. While there is some small room for subjectivity in interpretation of laws, our courts' decisions are not based on "society's views." They are based on specific laws passed at the local, state, and federal level. In the U.S., interpretation of specific laws is not just built up haphazardly, an understanding of how a law is to be interpreted is hammered out as a legal case works its way up the system of courts, sometimes up to the Supreme Court. This works because we have a set hierarchy of courts. A higher court's ruling and understanding of a law prevails over a lower court's ruling. In the society you've described, there will be no set hierarchy of courts (as having a set hierarchy of courts would require a government). Instead, you'll have a jumbled group of private "courts," none having more authority than the other. As I stated in my previous post, the only way for one of those private "courts" to be able to have any authority over another would be if the two parties with a case before the initial "court," agreed that if one of the parties disagreed w/ court A's decision, it could be "appealed" to court B. And just because John and Susan chose to have Nick's court be their initial court and Al's court be their "appeal" court, that would not prevent Pete and Brenda from having Al's court be their initial court and Nick's court be their "appeal" court. There would be no natural hierarchy of courts in the society you have described. Law would not "build up naturally," as you could have two different courts give completely contradictory rulings, and because there is no hierarchy of courts, neither decision would "stand" over the other.

Quote
In the society you describe, if someone, say, murders your relative, you would seem to have the recourse of a) killing them (since you stated vigilantism would be legal) or b) paying a private court to hear your civil suit against the person.
-What would compel the person you were suing to appear before this private court? In other words, would anyone you chose to sue (even on faked or trumped up grounds) be required to appear before the private court you were paying to hear the case just because you'd sued them?
The court the victim brought the case too, would likely serve the accused much as they do today. If the accused failed to appear, the court would most likely be able to issue a Default Judgement, after hearing the side of the dispute that appeared. I'm also a supporter of loser pay's, in order to help prevent frivolous lawsuits. I imagine the private courts would do the same. We already see what happens when those who file frivolous law suits are not required to pay the other persons costs, it simply leads to more B.S. suits.

Things like this—allowing for "courts" to issue default judgments in cases where the accused does not show up—is a huge power to turn over to private courts. This is exactly the kind of power you would need to provide for and limit with law. Otherwise, nothing would prevent someone from constantly suing and being awarded default judgments. Again, if you think that somehow "common sense" would just naturally prevail and that private courts would not take advantage of their powers, I think that is unrealistic.

Quote
Say that a person would be compelled to appear before any private court in which he'd had been sued.
-What if the person chose not to appear? Would a private police force be authorized to use force to take that person into custody and hold him until the trial? On what legal basis would the police force be allowed to do that?
I wouldn't say so, since it would be unjustified to kidnap a still innocent person. Others might disagree with me however. If the person were "forced" to appear in court and was guilty, their would be no foul. If the individual was innocent, however, he would seem to have a claim against the agency that grabbed him.

They would most likely serve the accused, and if he refused to appear, he simply would not be their to argue his case. If he felt he wasn't going to get a fair trial at the court the individual chose, they might have to agree on one, or possibly agree to let a mediator pick the neutral court. Or perhaps, if they have hired a protection agency, the two agencies would agree on a location.

If you plan to have a society in which private "courts" would be allowed to use force to compel an appearance, then that's a huge amount of power to turn over to a private company. If you plan to have a society in which private "courts" would not be allowed to use force to compel an appearance, then you're going to have to spell that out with a law. Once again, if you think that what's allowable is somehow just going to be understood, I would say that's highly improbable.

Quote
-If you chose to go the vigilante route and killed the person, could that person's family then sue you?
I would imagine it would depend why you killed that person. If you thought he raped you're daughter, but it is later discovered he did not, than the killer should be liable for killing an innocent person. If the rape did occur, I can't imagine anyone would really care the rapist is now dead. 

If you want it to depend on "why" one person killed the other, then that's another thing that would need to be spelled out in law. If you want a person to be "liable" for vigilante killings that later turn out to be unjustified, then that's yet another thing that would need to be spelled out in law. To repeat, it's unrealistic to think that this would somehow just be "understood."

As others have stated, the society you describe sounds like one in which only those with money would have access to justice and safety. I don't see any protections for the poor or anything that would check the ability of well-financed private companies from running roughshod over the poor and powerless. Our justice system is imperfect, but it offers at least minimal protections and basic rights that are spelled out in law. A poor defendant is guaranteed some form of legal counsel and a means to appeal a judgment if there are grounds. I don't see even those basic protections in the society you've described.