Anarcho-Capitalists: I'm Calling You Out

[Alex Libman]

How do you avoid having your anarcho-capitalist utopia invaded and annexed by centrally organized armies of the statists? Without an organized army, you would be prey to your neighbors.

First of all, it's not a "utopia", just a significantly better social and economic system. Flowers will still wilt, mosquitoes will still bite, steak will still have cholesterol, and baseball will still be boring. Etc.

And yes, government aggression is the reason why Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't exist today, but that's not a flaw within the philosophy itself. Pardon me for not being willing to lie, brainwash, steal, enslave, and kill tens of millions of people - which is what the world's governments do to gain the upper hand.

The transition to Anarcho-Capitalism will be very gradual, even under the best of circumstances, going through many decades of secession movements fragmenting existing nations, seasteading (and someday space-stations) to establish new nations, and intergovernmental competition leading to ever-greater minarchism, because the nations that embrace free market capitalism the most will benefit from migration of brains and capital the most, in addition to the other advantages inherent in free market capitalism.

Once wide-spread Anarcho-Capitalism (or something very close to it) is established, however, it is very resilient against aggression. In absence of the wide-spread "divine right of governments" delusion that the world suffers from today, starting a war of aggression would be very unprofitable, since there are about 7,000,000,000+ people on this planet, and most of them don't want to be enslaved. Any party that initiates large-scale aggression would be almost universally ostracized and isolated, with many people all over the world being willing to contribute to the self-defense funds of whoever it attacks first, lest it attacks them next.

Furthermore, people fighting to protect their life, liberty, and property tend to be far more motivated than hired mercenaries, which would cost the aggressor an arm and a leg. Would you go fight for some crackpot against innocent civilians, knowing that Geneva POW rules don't apply and you'll probably spend the rest of your life in a labor camp working to pay off restitution to your victims?

 

[rathi]

So you are assuming the entire world becomes anarcho-capitalist all at once? Even assuming that somehow comes to pass, how do you deal with non-governmental motives to start wars? Many many people have used religious and/or ethnic groupings in order to start wars , even when it made no economic sense.

 

[Panache]

I think you guys are misunderstanding the concept of anarchy.

I suppose a pure anarchist would refute the legitimacy of all law.

Being only a moderate anarchist myself, I will acknowledge the 186,000 mile per second speed limit, but pretty much everything else is just bullies with sticks telling people what to do.

Anarchy is the chaos within which the bullies with sticks vie for power. The bullies continually try to replace that natural chaos with their own hierarchical order. The anarchist opposes bullies with sticks trying to govern other people by using force or fraud to control them.

That is pretty much all there is to it. The argument seems to be that anarchy isn't stable because as soon as you get rid of one bully, another steps in to pick up his stick and start telling people what to do again.

The obvious counterargument is that as soon as he does, the anarchist starts opposing him too. Then another picks up his stick and replaces him, so he gets taken down as well. They keep setting up the pins and we keep knocking them down. The Roman Empire had a pretty good run, but we got them eventually.

Face it, we've been pwning since the dawn of creation.

Naturally the anarchist utopia in which everyone minds their own business and engages only in free willed mutual exchanges of value instead of picking up sticks and trying to govern each other through force or fraud is never going to happen. No good ideal is ever actually attainable. That is what makes them ideals.

 

[Cephus]

That isn't a part of serious AnCap theory. The natural and the ideal solution is to have free competition between currencies: those backed by precious metals and other commodities, as well as those backed by contractual obligations made by banks. Competition will make unscheduled inflation next to impossible, because as soon as one issuer of currency breaks its promise everyone will switch to other currencies.

That only works so long as there is precious metals or commodities backing the currency at all, which most currencies these days are unbacked and I don't think there are enough precious metals on the planet to back them all in any meaningful way. It also only works so long as there is universal agreement on the worth of those commodities and thus on the value of the currency itself. We went off the gold standard because it was untenable, all other such standards are equally untenable. What do you do when say, the South African currency, which they back with diamonds, tries to trade their currency with another nation that really doesn't value diamonds very highly? What happens when these scant natural resources get largely controlled by one group or another? In the end, it's the strength of a particular nation's economy, not the commodity backing, that makes the money worth something, but with no governments and no nations... there's no economies.

It doesn't become a "government" unless there's aggression involved - that's the defining feature of what a "government" is and isn't!

Of course it is, you're just making crap up, but even granting your assertion for the sake of argument, do you think for one second that there won't be aggression between different groups? Are you really so clueless regarding human nature?

Look, the level of cognitive dissonance you are exhibiting right now is astonishing... You need to step back, get some fresh air or something, massage your head or whatever it takes, re-read my post history (where I've already addressed most of the issues people keep bringing up), think real hard, and come up with a challenge to Anarcho-Capitalism that's at least coherent...

No, the level of absurdity you're exhibiting is astounding. You're asserting that people are going to magically become peaceful, be happy being non-connected individuals, come up with a universal acceptance of precious metal values and live happyily ever after in NeverNeverLand.

That and $5 will get you coffee at Starbucks.

 

[Alex Libman]

So you are assuming the entire world becomes anarcho-capitalist all at once?

No, in fact I'm certain that it won't, with some AnCap experiments in seasteading being just one decade away, and there's a good chance they'll be "Waco'ed" out of the water, but someone else will try again, etc, until public opinion builds up against government aggression, as it eventually has against the Vietnam War. Secession movements are already brewing all over Russia, China, India, Brazil, etc - they just aren't on anyone's radar yet. Once there are many competing minarchist governments with a universal "right to free exit", many Anarcho-Capitalist ideas will apply already. There will always be governments, just as there will always be the Catholic Church, but they will only serve the faithful.

Even assuming that somehow comes to pass, how do you deal with non-governmental motives to start wars? Many many people have used religious and/or ethnic groupings in order to start wars , even when it made no economic sense.

This may be hard to believe due to "the Islamic exception", but there's an ongoing overall decline in religious violence world-wide. Anarcho-Capitalism would remove many of the largest grievances that lead to radicalization (the government of Israel, U.S. military bases in Arabia, forced secular public schooling in many European countries, Russian / Chinese / Indian dominance of their Muslim minorities, etc) and Islam too would resume its past trend toward modernization. When cultures don't feel threatened, they start thinking less about religion and more about career opportunities for their children.

I think you guys are misunderstanding the concept of anarchy. [...]

Once again, this thread is not about anarchy in general, it's about (Rothbardian) Anarcho-Capitalism, a theoretical long-term extension of minarchist ideas like Ayn Rand's Objectivism to the point where even legal authority and law enforcement is decentralized.

 

[Alex Libman]

That only works so long as there is precious metals or commodities backing the currency at all [...]

I guess you missed the part where I've said "as well as those backed by contractual obligations made by banks". I personally agree that precious metals are inferior, the main reason being that they experience natural inflation as new ore is found and extracted, and the rates at which this will happen are unpredictable in the long term due to perpetually advancing technologies (i.e. asteroid mining). But it's not up to me (or anyone) to dictate which course the free market will take - if most people decide they prefer gold then the leading currencies will be backed by gold, while I and a minority of others would still be free to use bank currencies backed by contract law.

Of course it is, you're just making crap up, but even granting your assertion for the sake of argument, do you think for one second that there won't be aggression between different groups? Are you really so clueless regarding human nature? [...]

You believe that the government has amazing power to control human aggression which cannot be matched by competing protection agencies in the free marketplace. That is an irrational belief.

Governments themselves initiate the vast majority of aggression in the world today (as opposed to petty criminals), and emerging surveillance and other technologies will continue to make petty crime ever-more difficult and unprofitable. Government law enforcement methods are corrupt and nowhere close to cost-effective, because they don't have to compete with anyone. Government prisons are particularly dysfunctional, because they don't focus on getting restitution to the victim, and instead give the convict a free course in criminality at tax-victim expense!

 

[Wessexman]

Exactly what it says - Anarcho-Capitalism has nothing to do with anarchy. It is a philosophy based on free market capitalism that takes minarchism to its logical conclusion: full decentralization of all governance. It has absolutely nothing to do with the anarchist movement that rejects globalization / technology / property rights.

It isn't really about decentralisation, I'm a decentralist to the core and decentralism is not atomistic individualism, particularly a form that allows massive corporations still to exist.

Also what is the point in calling it anarchist then? Not only do you annoy the social anarchists but you tie it in with the usually ill-received notion of anarchism.

You do know that those underlined words are links that can be can be clicked with your mouse, right?

Yeah, but I'd rather you give at least an overview here.

 

[Goshin]

Personal anecdotal evidence warning. :mrgreen:

I've had experience with small-ish groups (20-100 people) voluntarily associating in order to achieve some mutually-desired goal.

One such group established no fixed leadership or hierarchy, but instead relied on consensus and voluntary cooperation, and accomplished very little. It ceased to function within a couple of years.

Another group established leadership and some degree of hierarchy, standards and requirements. That group accomplished far more and continued for several years longer, but ultimately fragmented due to: disputes among second-tier leaders, disagreement on methods and details, and in general the non-coercive nature of the group. Specifically, the most the group could do to a recalcitrant member was to exclude him, and the group was reluctant to do so in all but the most extreme cases. As a result, discipline was lacking and accomplishments were not what they could have been.

(Bear with me, I'm going somewhere with this.)

To a large degree, free-market economic associations are voluntary associations based on mutual benefit. Part of the "discipline" within such a group is the risk of being excluded; the effectiveness of that discipline depends on the perception of the participants in how much is lost by being excluded.

For example, with the job market as it is right now, the idea of being fired is scary.

Some years ago, when companies were desperate for employees and unemployment was at an all-time low, you could shrug it off and say "I'll have another job that pays more by next week, so @#$%# you Boss!"

In good economic times, employment is (on a pragmatic level) more voluntary; in poor economic times, more coercive due to limited choice.

While I consider voluntary associations to be more personally desireable, the fact is that relatively coercive organizations are often run more efficiently, and have greater incentive for members to obey the hierarchy and not depart the organization.

There is a reason why the Mafia (a non-governmental economic organization) is more coercive than voluntary: it makes more money that way.

So what is the reason why the presumed associations that would naturally spring-up in the context of Anarchy should be chiefly voluntary and benign, rather than being more like the Mafia and using coercion and violence? Who will out-compete the other?

In a battle between Army A, whose leaders are elected and whose privates obey their sergeants only if they feel like it; and Army B which is hierarchial, compulsive and coercive with a tight command structure, who is going to win? Army B is, because they have the thing Army A lacks: real discipline.

I'll stop there, though I could go on at length on other weaknesses of anarchic concepts. I think minarchism is probably the closest thing to anarchy that could pragmatically exist; without at least some minimal amount of coercive organization, human nature is likely to turn to ill all too quickly.

 

[Agent_Grey]

[/quote]They can't come onto your property without your permission, unless of course they have evidence that you've initiated aggression against one of their clients, which they better be damn sure about because if they turn out to be wrong then they've initiated aggression against you, and thus owe you restitution. When was the last time police paid anyone restitution for screwing something up?[/quote]

Who enforces that they pay restitution exactly? And what if I happen to be poorer than their client and can only afford an inferior security agency? At best, mine will have the sense to flee, and at worst they'll stay for a firefight and people will die and I'll still have my property violated. Do I have to go and BEG some richer person that he be willing to buy me a better security contract?

Oh, and while I agree cops don't pay the restitution that they SHOULD...

Parties to settle out of court over detained vessel | Vanguard

So I guess the last time I heard of it was ONE WHOLE DAY AGO!

Furthermore, private security is subject to competition. You deice what security services you hire. If you don't like the security services hired by a neighborhood association, don't move there. If you don't like the security guard at your bank, you can tell the banker that that's the reason you're canceling your account, and if enough customers do that the bank will probably switch to a different security company. Etc. This creates natural selection that leads not only to better security cost-effectiveness, but to better customer service as well.

I would again point you towards the many existing examples of companies that are both succesful AND unethical. Competition may help to bring prices down (assuming there isn't industry collusion, but that's another thread) but it does very little to ensure that quality merchandise dominate a field or that ethical practices hold any sway at all.

But if the government police screws you - you're screwed. It's like that line toward the end of Braveheart, it matters not that you never pledged loyalty to him, he's still your king.

We aren't a monarchy. If a government official is proven to have done something inexcusable, he goes down in flames. Look at Blago or Trafficant.

And as I cited above, Police DO get in trouble. While I agree we need to do better, I see no evidence in anything you've posted yet to tell me that private security is somehow inherently more likely to be ethical. In fact, some people would pay MORE for an unethical force.

As usual, your assumption that only rational beings profit or prosper is extremely misplaced.

Anarcho-Capitalists are not anarchists! Chickpeas are not chicken!

Interesting. So wanting no government to exist, and wanting no government to exist while hoping that the free-market makes everything fall into place are somehow different?

 

[Panache]

So what is the reason why the presumed associations that would naturally spring-up in the context of Anarchy should be chiefly voluntary and benign, rather than being more like the Mafia and using coercion and violence? Who will out-compete the other?

If the Mafia is governing people's actions through force, then it is acting as a government, and will similarly be opposed by anarchists.

You are essentially asking why it is presumed that in the lack of government, new governments won't spring up. I have never heard anyone presume that. It would be a stupid presumption, since we can observe new governments springing up in the context of anarchy.

In a battle between Army A, whose leaders are elected and whose privates obey their sergeants only if they feel like it; and Army B which is hierarchial, compulsive and coercive with a tight command structure, who is going to win? Army B is, because they have the thing Army A lacks: real discipline.

Ok, so if discipline always prevails over anarchy, why aren't we all subjects of the mighty Roman Empire? Anarchy eventually prevailed, as it always does eventually. It is inevitable. Y'all set 'em up, and we knock 'em down.

 

[Alex Libman]

[...] I think minarchism is probably the closest thing to anarchy that could pragmatically exist; without at least some minimal amount of coercive organization, human nature is likely to turn to ill all too quickly.

Minarchism + many competing governments + right to free exit == Anarcho-Capitalism

Who enforces that [private defense agencies that make mistakes] pay restitution exactly?

The market in self-defense aid is naturally very anti-monopolistic, since anyone can carry a gun, and anyone can get hired as a security guard based on his own individual reputation. If any defense agency grows too large (which would be like 5% of the world's total military power, far less than the current governmental power monopolies), it would be universally recognized as a threat to world peace, and anyone using their services would be ostracized. This means any single market entity can be easily overpowered by the sum of all others (or even just a handful of others), which would be in their interest to do if it does not play by the rules.

And what if I happen to be poorer than their client and can only afford an inferior security agency? [...]

Poor and lower-middle-class people, if they pool their resources together, actually make up the majority of the world's GDP. The rich will not stay rich for long if they are ostracized by everyone else.

Furthermore, stable peace doesn't require that the balance of power be equal, only that there are no power vacuums (i.e. low-hanging fruit for aggressors). The Mujahideen / Taliban didn't need to match Soviet Union's military budget in order to drive it off, and in a free society committing so much capital to so foolish a cause as invading Afghanistan would be downright impossible. Aggression goes away when it stops being cost-effective.

Parties to settle out of court over detained vessel | Vanguard

Those cases are rare exceptions, and they actually serve the state for propaganda purposes - "see, folks, you can sue the government and win".

I would again point you towards the many existing examples of companies that are both succesful AND unethical. [...]

This is mostly because the political circus distracts people from the activity where their vote truly matters - consumer activism. And there's also a lot of hypocrisy out there: everyone claims to hate "sweatshops" (which are actually a good thing), but very few people are willing to pay higher prices voluntarily.

We aren't a monarchy. If a government official is proven to have done something inexcusable, he goes down in flames. Look at Blago or Trafficant. [...]

Pawns get sacrificed. The evil system remains.

Interesting. So wanting no government to exist, and wanting no government to exist while hoping that the free-market makes everything fall into place are somehow different?

Of course, completely different. Plain mindless anarchy completely ignores human nature and basic economics, and leaves a power vacuum that inevitably gets filled by a tyrant.

Anarcho-Capitalism is free market capitalism, similar to what already exists in the most economically free nations, but with regional power monopolies you call "governments" becoming open to competition.

 

[Agent_Grey]

If the Mafia is governing people's actions through force, then it is acting as a government, and will similarly be opposed by anarchists.

You are essentially asking why it is presumed that in the lack of government, new governments won't spring up. I have never heard anyone presume that. It would be a stupid presumption, since we can observe new governments springing up in the context of anarchy.



Ok, so if discipline always prevails over anarchy, why aren't we all subjects of the mighty Roman Empire? Anarchy eventually prevailed, as it always does eventually. It is inevitable. Y'all set 'em up, and we knock 'em down.

There is an ebb and tide to the rise of states. That Anarchy is what exists between is nothing new, but it is neither sustainable, viable, or desireable.

 

[Panache]

There is an ebb and tide to the rise of states. That Anarchy is what exists between is nothing new, but it is neither sustainable, viable, or desireable.

I disagree. Government isn't sustainable, isn't any more viable than anarchy, and isn't desirable.

Anarchy is at least desirable, although the ideal of anarchy will never be fully realized, just as the ideal of authority will never be realized.

Anarchy exists when one is not controlled by the use of force. If no one were ever controlled by the use of force, perfect anarchy would exist.

If a single government controlled everyone in the world through the use of force, developing a single linear hierarchy, then perfect order would exist.

Neither of these will ever happen. There will always be some sort of balance between the two. But if it were possible for one to exist, the ideal of anarchy is the more desirable.

 

[Agent_Grey]

The market in self-defense aid is naturally very anti-monopolistic, since anyone can carry a gun, and anyone can get hired as a security guard based on his own individual reputation. If any defense agency grows too large (which would be like 5% of the world's total military power, far less than the current governmental power monopolies), it would be universally recognized as a threat to world peace, and anyone using their services would be ostracized. This means any single market entity can be easily overpowered by the sum of all others (or even just a handful of others), which would be in their interest to do if it does not play by the rules.

Ironically, to overcome such a force, people would have to band together, into what likely become some sort of...I don't know...Government.

Poor and lower-middle-class people, if they pool their resources together, actually make up the majority of the world's GDP. The rich will not stay rich for long if they are ostracized by everyone else.

Oh reaaaaally? I guess if you count the tiny share of middle-class people who make up this statistic:

The Wealth Distribution
In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).

So while TECHNICALLY the middle class makes up some of the 20% component thta holds real wealth, as you can see, the majority of people do NOT hold a majority of the resources. Thus in representing a scenerio in which you postulate about GDP being balanced in all hands evenly enough to provide actual resistance to a superior economic force, I must counter that the above shows you are sorely mistaken.

Furthermore, stable peace doesn't require that the balance of power be equal, only that there are no power vacuums (i.e. low-hanging fruit for aggressors). The Mujahideen / Taliban didn't need to match Soviet Union's military budget in order to drive it off, and in a free society committing so much capital to so foolish a cause as invading Afghanistan would be downright impossible. Aggression goes away when it stops being cost-effective.

Yes, but what about when it *is* profitable?

Those cases are rare exceptions, and they actually serve the state for propaganda purposes - "see, folks, you can sue the government and win".

Don't be absurd. They set precedent that alters the way the whole system works. Look at Miranda.

Beyond that, it's the worst kind of conspiratal thinking to suggest anyone is in enough control of our whole system to control both the people who make mistakes, the courts, the individuals wronged. Government may have power, but it frankly does not have the competance to maintain so tight an operation in the long term.

This is mostly because the political circus distracts people from the activity where their vote truly matters - consumer activism.

Again, consumer activism is a joke. Bad companies do not fail merely due to bad behavior, because even when some people try to punish them for their abuses, it is rarely enough to disincentivize them from pursuing their horrid behaviors.

You also seem to be suggesting that because people vote in elections, they DON'T get out to shop. I don't think that's what you meant, so please feel free to clarify.

And there's also a lot of hypocrisy out there: everyone claims to hate "sweatshops" (which are actually a good thing), but very few people are willing to pay higher prices voluntarily.

Yes. It's extremely hypocritical. It's exactly what I'm afraid would rule us if we dispensed with all government. Centralized institutions create a chance that we can keep bad behavior we're incentivized towards in check. Without that centralization, we're relying on the awful atittudes that we sometimes show as the exclusive decision-maker. In your society, slave-labor would easilly become the norm.

Pawns get sacrificed. The evil system remains.

But if the system isn't actually shielding anyone from due justice, how is it evil? You compared us to a monarchy, I'm demonstrating, clearly I think, how we're different.

Of course, completely different. Plain mindless anarchy completely ignores human nature and basic economics, and leaves a power vacuum that inevitably gets filled by a tyrant.

In what way is it more mindless? It has equal access to the free market, does it not? How does the free market assume a larger role in your society when nobody directs it to? If it flows naturally into place, the natural conclusion is that it would do the same in any anarchic state.

Anarcho-Capitalism is free market capitalism, similar to what already exists in the most economically free nations, but with regional power monopolies you call "governments" becoming open to competition.

People have government because they choose it. It doesn't exist like some underlying evil, cowering in hiding, waiting to strike and subjugate unknowing masses. Much as corporations are just people, so are governments. THe difference is that EVERYONE (in a democracy) composes the government, wheras a corporation is a smaller clique, less subject to the whims of the people around them.

 

[Alex Libman]

Ironically, to overcome such a force, people would have to band together, into what likely become some sort of...I don't know...Government.

If it's voluntary, then it's not "government". It would be an explicitly-financed alliance formed between several self-defense interests, not something that can force your children to go to its brainwashing centers

[...] The Wealth Distribution [...]

That's still more than enough capital for the poor to defend themselves, and the rich people don't exist in an economic vacuum - they would lose a HUGE fraction of their wealth immediately if they started to initiate aggression against some of their stockholders, employees, and customers. You can't put a price on life and liberty!

Yes, but what about when it *is* profitable? [...]

The worst thing that can happen to an Anarcho-Capitalist society is it devolving into what we have right now - government.

Again, consumer activism is a joke. Bad companies do not fail merely due to bad behavior, because even when some people try to punish them for their abuses, it is rarely enough to disincentivize them from pursuing their horrid behaviors.

No, voting is a joke. Consumer activism is as good as it gets when it comes to influencing something outside your own property. In a highly competitive environment with razor-thin profit margins, having just 10% of society boycott you could be a deathblow.

Furthermore, boycotts are contagious, because it's getting ever-easier to keep track of where everything came from. Imagine not being able to get a date because every girl's smartphone beeps to alert her that the shoes you're wearing came from a company that bought rubber from a company that sold rubber to a company that initiated aggression against someone somewhere some time ago... Suddenly you find it in your best interest to join that boycott, whether you originally wanted to or not!

You also seem to be suggesting that because people vote in elections, they DON'T get out to shop. I don't think that's what you meant, so please feel free to clarify.

It's not that reading up on political issues, talking about politics, donating to candidates, etc takes up too much time, it's that it steeps people into a false sense of security - "the government ought to think about everything for us". :roll:

Yes. It's extremely hypocritical. It's exactly what I'm afraid would rule us if we dispensed with all government. Centralized institutions create a chance that we can keep bad behavior we're incentivized towards in check. Without that centralization, we're relying on the awful atittudes that we sometimes show as the exclusive decision-maker. In your society, slave-labor would easilly become the norm.

Sweatshops are not slave labor, they are job opportunities for people who choose to work there because that's the best option available to them. Of course you're free to pay more for "fair trade" products if you so choose (though in reality that extra money only rewards the privileged and punishes the most qualified). The reason why such consumer activism movements don't take off very far is because they'd only attract the economically illiterate, and those people want the government to fix everything anyway. Ostracizing an aggressive company is very different - would you buy socks from Kim Jong-il?

But if the system isn't actually shielding anyone from due justice, how is it evil? You compared us to a monarchy, I'm demonstrating, clearly I think, how we're different.

Yeah, sure, millions of harmless pot smokers are going to get full restitution for all the time they've spent in prison, as well as the inflated prices they've paid, their pain and suffering, and so on... And the tax victims will get every single penny back, with interest, as well as compensation for the time they've spent filling out the forms, and an emotional hardship fee as well... any day now... :roll:

Justice and government are utterly incompatible with each-other, because the latter is a violent power monopoly that can only exist as a consequence of injustice!

In what way is it more mindless? [...]

Socialist "anarchy" violates natural rights, most notably the right to property, and most likely parents' rights and other rights as well. That makes stable civilized society impossible.

People have government because they choose it. It doesn't exist like some underlying evil, cowering in hiding, waiting to strike and subjugate unknowing masses. Much as corporations are just people, so are governments. THe difference is that EVERYONE (in a democracy) composes the government, wheras a corporation is a smaller clique, less subject to the whims of the people around them.

Individuals are not free to choose not to have government.

Governments are seen as special supernatural entities, no different than God(s) in any other religion, that give people acting on their behalf the "divine right" to initiate aggression. As this religious delusion fades away, so will the governments.

 

[Alex Libman]

Any more questions? :2wave:

 

[Regicollis]

Individuals are not free to choose not to have government.

Yes they are. Many parts of the world are virtually without any government; Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo... If you want to live the libertarian dream you can just go there.

 

[Alex Libman]

Yes they are. Many parts of the world are virtually without any government; Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo... If you want to live the libertarian dream you can just go there.

Somalia is a failed communist / theocratic state that has a huge government, fragmented though it may be. Countries that come closest to the free market are places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Estonia, and U.S. states like New Hampshire.

Look, everything you say seems to be a new demonstration of your ignorance, and has already been answered countless times on this forum, and covered in great depth elsewhere. Why don't you at least try to research who and what you're talking about beforehand?

 

[Terror Australis]

Any more questions? :2wave:

:2wave:

I have some questions...Is it true "governements" have killed 200 000 000 million people in human history and the only difference between the mafia and the state is that the mafia kills people in private?

Is it also true that the state imprisons people when there is no victim?

Is it true that no one has ever died from smoking marijuana,except when the state breaks down the door and shoots them,their kids or their dogs?

Is it true that things could possibly be better under a voluntary civil society?:doh

 

[Terror Australis]

Yes they are. Many parts of the world are virtually without any government; Somalia, Afghanistan, Congo... If you want to live the libertarian dream you can just go there.

What a load of bollocks.

Somalia is used as a strawman argument quite often whenever an anarchist society is brought up in a topic.

There is no property rights system or contract law in Somalia and no record keeping of such laws.The first world countries have a history of property rights and respecting contracts but because the state is starting to remove those rights the first world is descending into tyrrany.

As soon as you remove property rights such as ownership of your own body and what you can put into it and dont allow private contract agreements I would argue that your society will ultimately fail.This is what is currently happening in the US....A voluntary civil society with arbitration courts and true free market principles looks nothing like the current system which statists claim is "capitalism".


meh....

 

[Agnapostate]

Not that there don't exist very sound reasons for rejecting "anarcho"-capitalism, but even the likes of fairly mediocre "an"-cap economists like Walter Block and Hans-Hermann Hoppe could eviscerate some of these more common objections that are regurgitated time and time again. As I've seen the prevalence of mentioning Somalia again in the "libertarian" thread, I think some of you need better material.

 

[Alex Libman]

You're blaming us for the stupidity of our critics? :doh