Anarcho-Capitalism

[Horus XCIII]

Well there's a thread going on right now about Libertarianism, but what about true Anarchy? When you say "anarchy" it conjures images of burnt-out cars, mass unemployment, gang warfare . . . in general people think that it would create a war-zone.

But this isn't really the case. Think, for one thing, about what the government is. It makes laws you don't agree with, steals your money and spends it on things you don't want, and interferes with the natural flow of capitalism.

A true, free economy would take care of itself. By definition, capitalism strives to a state where producers can make maximum profits while giving maximum satisfaction to their customers. A market, left to its own devices, will automatically strive towards excellence. But when you have a government putting restrictions on trade (i.e. preventing people from making trades they'd normally make, while forcing them into ones they don't want), taking away the "excess profits" (taxes), and causing massive inflation, this just won't work out.

A prime example of a laissez-faire economy can be found in the 19th century industrial age. Now, there was poverty and in general things were worse than they are now. But things were better than they were before industrialization. Without the government siphoning large amounts of money from the businesses, more money would be available to both pay higher wages and hire more workers. Wages would rise because of increased investment in the tools of production, leading to improved production among the workers, leading to more competition for workers (and more jobs as workers are more valuable), leading to higher wages.


Mass consumer action is an under-valued, very powerful force in a free market. If a company is paying its employees horrible wages, and you can afford to pay more for the product in exchange for a higher wage (free trade coffee is an excellent example of this today), then the solution is simple: boycott the company that is underpaying until it pays at the rate you, the customer, want it to.

Monopolies would exist, but a monopoly is the sign of a strong economy. It means one good or service is so perfectly satisfied by one producer that there is no need for competition. If a monopoly were to raise its prices too high, competition would move in.

Take the example of Alcoa (I read about this in "The Market for Liberty" by the Tannehills, btw): "From 1888 to 1940, Alcoa had a total monopoly on the manufacture of aluminum in the U.S.A. It maintained this monopoly by selling such an excellent product at such low prices that no other company could compete with it. During its monopoly period, Alcoa reduced aluminum prices from $8 to $0.20 a pound and pioneered hundreds of new uses for its product. The book, "Ten Thousand Commandments", describes the action the government took against this "ruthless monopoly" which had been guilty of maintaining its monopoly status by continual and successful efforts to satisfy its customers."

The advent of new technologies prevents the entire market from being controlled by a few companies. Take Alcoa; if a cheaper, better Aluminum substitute were discovered Alcoa's monopoly would be challenged. The progress of technology prevents any one company from holding a true monopoly over an industry for too long.

In summary, a truly free-market works to its best interests and to the interests of the consumer, without unnecessary government intervention.


“But the government provides necessary goods and services.” These goods and services “provided” by the government (and paid for with your stolen money and counterfeit fiat money) would be provided just as easily in a truly free society. If you owned a large parcel of land constituting a city, and charged rent to businesses on your land, you would want to provide land competing with other land-owners. This would mean you would want to reduce your crime as much as possible, hiring a private defense agency. If these anarcho-cops (more like security guards really) decide to enforce things not in tune with the property owner, he fires them. Again, in a pure capitalist market the police would strive towards excellence in satisfying their customers.


“The economy would descend into chaos with nobody to enforce deals or contracts” Again, this can be filled by a private enterprise. A business of “arbiters” would open up. If two people made a contract, they would, for a fee, hire the services of an arbiter to settle disputes. The arbiters, in a competing market and striving to satisfy their customers, would become as fair as was possible. This is far better than the current system of ignorant jurors and bureaucratic judges.


There are ways to enforce the contract. Insurance companies would want only to insure business transactions they believed would be unlikely to fail, and a database of dirty businessmen would likely be developed, much like credit history today.


Schools would become privatized too, obviously. This is far better than the mass-packaged generic crapola schools paid for by the government. One of the arguments would be that the poor could no longer afford an education. Without the government there to pay for them, though, the poor would be discouraged of having children they couldn't afford, and birth control would be freely advertised and available without prescription. Besides that, there still would be charities. There would likely even be volunteer schools. Relying, even in part, on charities might seem like a poor policy, but people donate to charities now and I don't see why they wouldn't in a free society. Charities can almost be viewed as a non-profit service; basically you are “paying” for feelings of self-satisfaction in helping another human being.


Prescription drugs would be totally available, and there wouldn't be anything to stop anyone from setting up a medical clinic. But there would still be colleges and degrees, and likely a certification organization would appear. This would be beneficial both to the consumer and to the insurance agencies, as they could refuse to insure their customers unless they only saw certified doctors.


True freedom is the ideal government for human-kind as it allows us to function to our nature, free of restrictions and the slavery of forced bureaucracy.


“Why tear down the government only to replace it with a complex capitalist network?”


The difference is that the government is a coercive monopoly. That is, it is a monopoly not in that its services are so good as to out-run the competition, but that it maintains its monopoly only through force. It is, essentially, a corporation of the worst kind and so corrupt as to control many facets of its "customer's" lives.

The difference between a government and corporations/citizen groups are twofold. First, you choose to buy goods and services from a corporation or to join a citizen group. Second, a corporation, which serves one demand or set of demands, will never reach the breadth of our current government, and will never be able to initiate force, thievery, or fraud against its customers without being driven out of business.

Governments are artificial and arbitrary institutions. They have no source of "feed-back" as to "customer-satisfaction", besides election results which occur every few years. Compare this to a free business which can measure its customer-satisfaction immediately based on its profits. Even the most well-meaning politician will not be able to do what is best for the public due to this.

Democracy is, itself, misguided. I would say it is far better than the totalitarianism it succeeded, but it is still not a solution in that it depends on control by the bureaucrats to prevent control by a dictator. The people do not vote on decisions, for the most part. They vote on people to represent them, these people being funded by big business and constantly being lobbied by special interest groups. Even if the majority of the populace want one thing, there is still that percentage of people who do not want it, and in that way democracy is an enslavement of men holding a minority opinion.

This is all, of course, just talk. To be honest, I am not sure that the love of power will ever yield to the love of freedom, at least not in the foreseeable future. Some anarchists, and especially the less practical and more idealist of them, believe that violent revolution is the only way to overthrow the state. They fail to see that, in history, such a revolution will only result in chaos, and the confused public would turn to the next Hitler to lead them. Perhaps the only real way for anarchy to be brought about would be mass civil disobediance; and the only way to come anywhere near bringing that about is to convince as many people toward a belief in true freedom as possible.

At the very least, I could see this country becoming Libertarian, at least limiting government even if not eliminating it.

Perhaps "anarchy is something to strive for, even if it is never reached".

[mrpanda]

Originally Posted by Horus XCIII

A business of “arbiters” would open up. If two people made a contract, they would, for a fee, hire the services of an arbiter to settle disputes. The arbiters, in a competing market and striving to satisfy their customers, would become as fair as was possible.

This is a joke this system would be open to bribes more than any current one and just fall in the favour of arbiters richer client and lead to wide spread civil unrest.

[Horus XCIII]

Originally Posted by mrpanda

This is a joke this system would be open to bribes more than any current one and just fall in the favour of arbiters richer client and lead to wide spread civil unrest.

If one company became known as accepting bribes (and the media, with no government to report on, would find out), you would simpy refuse to patronize it. Choosing an arbitration company requres an agreement between both parties.

[mrpanda]

The main problem with whole ideology you have described is that there will be no rest from the constant taking of power from one person to another.
The way that you have suggested living would result in tribes, as there is no government to bind them, enforce any laws or protect them. Free trade would not exist the person with the largest group of follows or better weapons would simply take from those who can’t defend themselves. In doing this groups become larger and larger until they can take on even larger groups for everything they have. This would after many years of civil war lead to a kind of dictatorship with the group who has defeated everyone else taking absolute power.
You say that a person who owns a large portion of land would hire a security force to work for them and enforce the laws of their land and if there is a problem with this (corruption in the security force) the owner could simply fire them. This is impossible you cannot fire a group like that they have more physical power than you do (guns and numbers) if you try to fire them they will resist and a takeover will ensue. With no larger force (a state run military) to protect this from happening, power now shifts in the favour of another group.
This sort of thing leads to military minded states that will prey on weaker states.
The media you speak of would not be able to speak freely. It would not even exist because of the way the world would be dived into such small closed communities each with their own laws own armed forces and own ideals stated by the person who owned the land.
A free and unbiased arbiter would not be able to exist. This sort of organisation would need protection (it would have a lot of money/goods from trading).
If the protection came from within the organisation itself the inherent greed of mankind would bias the decision in which ever benefited the organisation more.
If the protection came from outside then the organisation it would not make decisions that would upset its protectors.
Any large-scale method of industry, communication, education, power distribution, waste management or travel would not be possible. All of these things would require protection on a large scale from groups who want it for themselves, meaning that control would be impossible and never stay with one group and amenities would just dissolve.
The medical care you mention would not be possible in the way you describe. Medical care is expensive and requires large industry to function at the level it is now. With the world dissolved into tribes of people this would not be possible. Medical care would only be available to those in groups that have it and no those outside of the group unless they are willing to join.
The idea that people would be free in this society is a farce. People would be faced with the options of;
1 Join a group and agree with their ideals to get the groups benefits (protection medical care) or face exile and have to go it alone.
2 Start there own group and in doing so force others into option 1.
With both of these options no free choice is given to every individual. Those who are members of the group have to agree to it. Those in power have to make decisions to stay in power based on the views of their subjects.
And to stop this just turning into a flaming war of political ideas if you want to continue this pm or email me.

[~Hippie3]

well stated
and in truth we humans have already lived in such a world
that's how we got here, the very process you just described
is a description of human history itself.

[StroFun]

Why not just enact legislation further limiting terms to say 2 years for all government officials and take a look at regulations for special interest groups.

[Horus XCIII]

Originally Posted by mrpanda

The main problem with whole ideology you have described is that there will be no rest from the constant taking of power from one person to another.
The way that you have suggested living would result in tribes, as there is no government to bind them, enforce any laws or protect them. Free trade would not exist the person with the largest group of follows or better weapons would simply take from those who can’t defend themselves. In doing this groups become larger and larger until they can take on even larger groups for everything they have. This would after many years of civil war lead to a kind of dictatorship with the group who has defeated everyone else taking absolute power.
You say that a person who owns a large portion of land would hire a security force to work for them and enforce the laws of their land and if there is a problem with this (corruption in the security force) the owner could simply fire them. This is impossible you cannot fire a group like that they have more physical power than you do (guns and numbers) if you try to fire them they will resist and a takeover will ensue. With no larger force (a state run military) to protect this from happening, power now shifts in the favour of another group.
This sort of thing leads to military minded states that will prey on weaker states.
The media you speak of would not be able to speak freely. It would not even exist because of the way the world would be dived into such small closed communities each with their own laws own armed forces and own ideals stated by the person who owned the land.
A free and unbiased arbiter would not be able to exist. This sort of organisation would need protection (it would have a lot of money/goods from trading).
If the protection came from within the organisation itself the inherent greed of mankind would bias the decision in which ever benefited the organisation more.
If the protection came from outside then the organisation it would not make decisions that would upset its protectors.
Any large-scale method of industry, communication, education, power distribution, waste management or travel would not be possible. All of these things would require protection on a large scale from groups who want it for themselves, meaning that control would be impossible and never stay with one group and amenities would just dissolve.
The medical care you mention would not be possible in the way you describe. Medical care is expensive and requires large industry to function at the level it is now. With the world dissolved into tribes of people this would not be possible. Medical care would only be available to those in groups that have it and no those outside of the group unless they are willing to join.
The idea that people would be free in this society is a farce. People would be faced with the options of;
1 Join a group and agree with their ideals to get the groups benefits (protection medical care) or face exile and have to go it alone.
2 Start there own group and in doing so force others into option 1.
With both of these options no free choice is given to every individual. Those who are members of the group have to agree to it. Those in power have to make decisions to stay in power based on the views of their subjects.
And to stop this just turning into a flaming war of political ideas if you want to continue this pm or email me.

I don't see why people would have to divide into tribes. The whole point of ancap is that you are your own leader; tribes would not be beneficial as they'd basically be another corrupt corporation offering "protection" services much like the Mafia. There would be nothing to stop you from having your own guns, and I don't think that the private defense agencies would corrupt and refuse to be fired; we have security guards today that serve much the same purpose. They rely on their employer for pay; don't bite the hand that feeds you. Even the military is just a PDA on a massive scale. What's stopping them from revolting? I don't see how a state-run army is any more beneficial than a small security force.

Insurance companies would now offer insurance against aggression, and it would be in their best interest to keep their customers safe. I wouldn't be surprised if Insurance companies started their own PDAs.

I also don't see why large amneties or travel wouldn't be possible. This wouldn't be a war-zone. It would simply be a lot of businesses freely trading. Yes, your security guards would have guns . . . but there's nothing stopping you from owning them either. Land-owners can protect their people but enforcement of any other laws would be coercion, and could be responded to with retaliation. I don't think the people would blindly join tribes, I think they'd like their freedom more than to join such an agreement which is not to their benefit.

I decided not to do this in PM, since I'd rather open up a public discussion. But excellent post

[mrpanda]

Very true hip, well spotted.

[mrpanda]

“There would be nothing to stop you from having your own guns”
You have your own gun, the guy across the street has one and so does his friend, they both want your car and you are out gunned. Get the idea? People will form tribes to protect themselves there is safety in numbers.
“we have security guards today that serve much the same purpose. They rely on their employer for pay; don't bite the hand that feeds you”
The police or army will stop the security guard from doing this, the fact that they are there deters people from this course of action, in a society that does not have these enforcement groups people will challenge for power.
“Even the military is just a PDA on a massive scale. What's stopping them from revolting?”
Nothing besides the fact they are happy with the way the country is being run on whole.
In Thailand 19th of September this year a peaceful military coup took place.
If the army of a country decides to take over there is very little that can be done besides protection from other countries this sort of thing requires complex governmental systems.
“Insurance companies would now offer insurance against aggression, and it would be in their best interest to keep their customers safe. I wouldn't be surprised if Insurance companies started their own PDAs.”
This in its own essence is a tribe it offer protection in return for payment and is out to expand itself.
“I also don't see why large amneties or travel wouldn't be possible.”
These are usually large structures that require massive amounts of raw material maintenance and time to be invested in them. If there is constantly the threat of being over taken or it lost due to conflict with someone, existing ones will not be maintained and new ones wont be built.
“your security guards would have guns . . . but there's nothing stopping you from owning them either”
They will be greater in number than you and have better combat training than you could ever have.
“I don't think the people would blindly join tribes, I think they'd like their freedom more than to join such an agreement which is not to their benefit.”
People will not blindly join a tribe true.
They will choose the one they most agree with, like the country a person chooses to live in.
If a person is given the option of having protection or having to face the world alone they will choose protection as a self-preserving act. This choice in most people will come before choosing their freedom.
Please remember that not everyone will live in a society the same way you would. There are people in the world who just want more and will stop at nothing to get it.

[Horus XCIII]

I must say mrpanda, you are beginning to push me towards Minarchism. The problem with Minarchism that I can see is that it is still government, you still pay taxes, and Minarchists disagree as to how small the government should shrink.

[Horus XCIII]

At the same time, I think the best way to acchieve minarchism is through anarcho-capitalism. One PDA would, like you said, emerge on top; but I'm still not convinced this would be due to violence. A PDA is solely for defence, they wouldn't have moral or philosophical viewpoints besides where they'd define coercion and how they'd react. Eventually one PDA would achieve monopoly status, based on popularity; everyone pays for it like taxes, and really that PDA becomes a minimalist state.

[mrpanda]

Having a government is not a bad thing it is how the government is run that is a bad thing. Unfortunately this problem is very hard to resolve.
Having a government gives a person a feeling of security and this gives a person a sense of freedom more so than if they live in fear of an un-governed society. Paying taxes provides a level of peace of mind that your money goes towards protecting your interests. Governments also provide protection for the weak and unable that live under it.
“A PDA is solely for defence, they wouldn't have moral or philosophical viewpoints besides where they'd define coercion and how they'd react.”
The best form of defence has always been attack this is visible in all of human history and it is how most political ideals spread. In a “Anarcho-cap” society kill or be kill would be the only option open to most. It is true most people do not want to kill but they will kill if their safety or possessions or family is threatened.

[Sidestreet]

Deleted by poster

[mycot]

I,ve yet to properly read this thread but i recon, keep the anarchy, ditch the capitalism and the gov of course.
Happy new year free spirits.

I like some of the ideas of Anarcho-Capitalism, heck I get emails from Austrian economists daily ( from mises.org), however I don't think it would be feasible unless every single "citizen" was an Anarcho-Capitalist as well. I'd rate my economic views as half-way between Chicago and Austrian schools of thought. Some government regulation is good, excessive regulation isn't.

A lot of my fellow FSP'ers are An-cap's though, you ever looked into the Free State Project?

Originally Posted by mycot

I,ve yet to properly read this thread but i recon, keep the anarchy, ditch the capitalism and the gov of course.
Happy new year free spirits.

anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are not neccessarily incompatible with each other, you know. As long as you aren't coercing anyone, they could work together quite nicely.

Originally Posted by mrpanda

In a “Anarcho-cap” society kill or be kill would be the only option open to most. It is true most people do not want to kill but they will kill if their safety or possessions or family is threatened.

To play the Anarchist's advocate, in an anarcho-capitalist society privatized security and mutual self-defense groups would arise to fulfill the need for security. In fact, there are privatized military forces in existence today.

[TVCasualty]

If you owned a large parcel of land

That quote is from the original post. How does one "own" land in this context? I "own" my land, which means there is a survey and record of my financial interest in the land filed at the courthouse. I can point to this paperwork as proof that someone else occupying my land is trespassing, so the Sheriff comes and removes them instead of me (keeping others off one's property is the essence of ownership).

I once had the uncomfortable thought about society that "It only works the way it is" (caveat: for now). That is, our status quo came from centuries of competing interests and agendas butting heads. When two sides reach a stalemate, a border is drawn. This is how most national boundaries are determined. It's also how many moral and economic boundaries are formed, and why all efforts to create change meet opposition.

In the context of AnCap the size of "your" land would be constantly shifting as opposing interests penetrated or were repelled from "your" borders. That fact alone precludes nearly all economic development except warfare (which is a distinctly negative type of economic development).

Originally Posted by TVCasualty

In the context of AnCap the size of "your" land would be constantly shifting as opposing interests penetrated or were repelled from "your" borders. That fact alone precludes nearly all economic development except warfare (which is a distinctly negative type of economic development).

AnCap's do not believe in the initiation of force, so in a society where everyone were AnCap's that would not be an issue. You would know what is your land the same way you know what is your weed sack. I would love to live in a society of AnCap's - the problem is when non-AnCap's come into the picture. Theoretically, if an AnCap society existed and it was threatened by a non-AnCap invader, I would imagine the AnCaps would turn into minarchists (my ideal society)

Historical AnCap societies never faced that problem. No one ever tried to invade them. They crumbled, ironically, after converting to Christianity...

[TVCasualty]

Ok, I think I'm starting to get the picture.

We can live in an anarcho-capitalist society in the same way that chimpanzees can synthesize LSD. In other words, by evolving as a species to the requisite level of consciousness.

I recommend to everyone that they read Prisoner's Dilemma by William Poundstone, which is an introduction to Game Theory. GT was the basis for our cold war foreign policy, and was developed by some of the same people who developed The Bomb. One aspect of it concerns the mathematics of cooperation, and advises the best strategies for ensuring cooperation (and proves they are the best mathematically). It really changed the way I look at a lot of things, and I incorporate it's findings into my life on a daily basis. Searching the net also provides a lot of info about it of course.

Personally, I think this is the best thing going politically-

GUNS AND DOPE PARTY POSITION PAPER #23

Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after
another. After the 6th candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said,
"Son, you know eating all that candy isn't good for you. It will give you
acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat."

"Little Tony replied, "My grandfather lived to be 107 years old."

The man asked, "Did your grandfather eat 6 candy bars at a time?"

Little Tony answered, "No, he minded his own fucking business."

http://www.maybelogic.com/gunsanddopeparty/

[Sidestreet]

Originally Posted by Transition Force

Historical AnCap societies never faced that problem. No one ever tried to invade them. They crumbled, ironically, after converting to Christianity...

What AnCap societies have there been in history?

Originally Posted by TVCasualty

Ok, I think I'm starting to get the picture.

We can live in an anarcho-capitalist society in the same way that chimpanzees can synthesize LSD. In other words, by evolving as a species to the requisite level of consciousness.

For the most part, you're right. There are parts of anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-socialism) that, if implemented, would be beneficial to society. But as a whole, it can only last so long.

What AnCap societies have there been in history?

There have been only two IIRC, but i don't remember them off hand. I'll look it up.

According to what I found Icleand functioned as an Anarcho-Capitalist society between the years of 930 and 1262. See:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/long1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/klassen/klassen14.html

My email archives state that Ireland functioned in the same manner for a millenia, but I do not have any concrete information about it.