|
| Thread: Anarcho-capitalism | |
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted July 27, 2014 07:53 PM |
|
|
Anarcho-capitalism
We've had a lot of discussions about anarcho-capitalism on this forum, so I figured out it'd be convenient to gather it all in one thread.
What is anarcho-capitalism?
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by punishment from political monopolies of violence.
Anarcho-capitalists distinguish themselves from libertarian minarchists, who would advocate a small state limited to the function of individual protection, and from anti-capitalist anarchists and socialists who advocate forced cooperative ownership and worker management of resources.
Thoughts
1. Is an anarcho-capitalist society even possible?
2. How would the poor fare without legislated welfare benefits?
3. Can legal disputes be resolved when people subscribe to organizations that interpret the law differently?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 08:20 PM |
|
|
xerox said:
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets.
Nothing new, we already have these.
xerox said:
In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.
Law? What law? Anarchy with law?
And on whose authority does law enforcement happen?
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 09:24 PM |
|
|
I think all those fancy political words are meant to subtly brainwash our diploma holding thinkers. We qualify a government body with a fancy word, and thus categorize it ; then we think what isn't part of our fancy word definition isn't happening. Truth is, people in power do mostly what they want, with some limitations ( mostly related to keep that said power ) while both our uneducated and educated folk are mostly clueless about it.
But that's just my opinion. Can be wrong. *shrug*
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 10:36 PM |
|
|
kayna, you are not wrong at all. x2 on everything you said. thanks for beating me to the punch. 
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 10:39 PM |
|
|
Tort and contract laws have very little reliability when there isn't an overlying state that has enforcement agencies and courts to back them. If anarcho-capitalism was beneficial to society, then we would have evolved into them from the very beginning. Instead we involved into tribal systems with elders, and later, larger states with monarchs, which were a public good because they provided the necessary overriding authority to serve as a backstop when disputes arose. Although inherited monarchs have gradually expired and gave way to a more aristocratic model (that is: highly experienced prime ministers, presidents, and staff) the general mold is the same: you need a backstop. When an overriding rule of law is vacant, stability very quickly follows.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 10:44 PM |
|
|
Instead of law, an individual could be bound by contract, for example a contract would prohibit the murder of fellow employees and citizens (et cetera, it would define what their definition of murder is and all that), being in breach would make the offender liable to disciplinary action, like a fine, exile or indentured servitude et cetera. I always hated the idea that no matter where you go or where you are in the civilized world you are always bound by laws from birth that you have never accepted, let alone agreed to. (hell most people are unaware and mostly guess what the law is) I've studied English law, it's complex and many segments are hard to understand and/or poorly established. (rife with contradictions and strange dabbling in morals) As most citizens don't know the law, I'm guessing that they go through life hoping they don't accidentally trip. Hell some of my friends when I finished secondary school went into cash in hand types of payed work, (avoiding income tax) that is a crime and they would never have guessed it, nor had the slightest intention (mens rea) to break the law. Not knowing the law is no excuse in English law, doesn't even mitigate the crime. (precedent case is some sailor returning from a few weeks fishing, and while he was absent a law against some form of buggery was passed, and when he returned he committed said offense) and I think that's wrong.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
mvassilev 
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 27, 2014 11:08 PM |
|
|
I think anarcho-capitalism is likely to result in regional monopolies on force, because larger security forces can defeat smaller ones. Then the security companies would extort their former customers, and would essentially become warlords.blizzardboy said:
Tort and contract laws have very little reliability when there isn't an overlying state that has enforcement agencies and courts to back them.
In general, I agree, but I've read that there have been cases of laws being enforced without the State, such as medieval merchant law. Also, law enforcement in medieval Iceland was quite decentralized.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 12:52 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 01:09, 28 Jul 2014.
|
kayna said:
I think all those fancy political words are meant to subtly brainwash our diploma holding thinkers. We qualify a government body with a fancy word, and thus categorize it ; then we think what isn't part of our fancy word definition isn't happening. Truth is, people in power do mostly what they want, with some limitations ( mostly related to keep that said power ) while both our uneducated and educated folk are mostly clueless about it.
But that's just my opinion. Can be wrong. *shrug*
Time for my favorite Balzac quote again: "Laws are spider webs through which the big flies pass and the little ones get caught."
But yours is an overstatement, yes, people in power get away with a lot of things, but unlike what you think folks (with diplomas or not) are pretty much aware of it. Corruption and greed will always be a fact of this life, unless we go through some real, groundbreaking evolution of mind. Yet the question here is, which system will prevent it the most? Which system will balance things at least to some level, that it's not a complete jungle? So it's all a matter of comparison.
A dialogue from the TV show, Fargo. We have a psychopath hitman who's buying some tools from an underground street pedlar:
- Would you also like a zombie apocalypse kit, man?
- What is that?
- You know, a backpack with torches, guns, ropes and stuff. So, you'll survive if zombies come and it's a dog-eat-dog world.
- It's already a dog-eat-dog world, dude. I don't see how a few zombies would change anything.
But the thing is, it's not a zombie apocalypse level of dog-eat-dog world, is it? So the question would be, would anarcho-capitalism result in more or less corruption. I think it's beyond doubt that it would result in more. I will carry my posts explaining why from the other threads if I dont feel too lazy about it, sometime.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 01:52 AM |
|
|
mvassilev said:
I think anarcho-capitalism is likely to result in regional monopolies on force, because larger security forces can defeat smaller ones. Then the security companies would extort their former customers, and would essentially become warlords.
Agreed.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 02:45 AM |
|
|
Here's a question, let's say we DO live in a anarcho-capitalist world and somehow all that private sector selling you protection thing works, although there is no jurisdiction that people have a consensus on, applying the non-aggression principle also works. It wont but for the sake of argument, let's assume it did. How about forgery? That is, to duplicate whatever currency the free market of anarcho-capitalist society uses, on an arbitrary amount. Forgery does not directly violate the non-agression principle (a principle is not exactly a law by the way) does it, I hurt no one if I make my own money.
How will you deal with that?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 03:36 AM |
|
|
Forgery is fraud, since you're claiming that the cash you're trading is something that it isn't. And fraud violates the non-aggression principle.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 03:50 AM |
|
|
To say that fraud (a specific kind of untruthfulness) is aggression happens to be an interpretation. We have a right to lie, don't we? It is not directly aggression. And that's how laws develop in the first place, by interpreting principles.
That's why I said to Xerox:
Quote:
A defense agency is not a legislation mechanism and even if those things happen (while we ride our unicorns and drink from the chocolate fountain), de facto, you will still have something very similar to a state, only, you wont have separation of powers to balance corruption of power. Congrats, you managed to step backwards historically because your self-obsessed philosophy finds the idea of a state distasteful.
Laws evolve out of necessity and you need some form of government to execute them.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted July 28, 2014 12:13 PM |
|
|
Artu is right. Lying probably wouldn't be a problem, if only it didn't upset the currency, which would cause damage to everyone else, so the individual would probably be liable for something along those lines. There's a set amount of money in contrast to the value of the nation, the printing of money does not increase value, thus the money's "worth" goes down, the degree to which may be a mitigating or an aggravating factor, (so if I print like $100, I didn't really cause a noticeable damage to everyone's money thus I'd get a lower sanction) but the perpetrator is still in breach.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
| |
|
|
