Anarcho-Capitalists: YouTube challenge

[anonnymous]

@macsnafu

@anonnymous

One, I am not suggesting that we have big government taking care of the needs of people. I am for as free a market as the people will allow.My contention is that even if you had an entirely free market there would be people who are disadvantaged and those issues would need to be addressed and wether the people would be resolved to do so is doubtful given the examples of greed and corruption that we see today. There would be a need for regulation as well, for people left to their own devices will not always behave in a responsible or ethical manner. I think we can agree that if we did not have this massive government that we now have there most certainly would be a lot more money in circulation in the economy. Would that money be used in an ethical and responsible manner? The way I see human nature today I doubt seriously that that would be the case with all companies or all the people. My main point is that even though a free market theoretically can exist realistically would it be more benificial than the capitalist system that has gotten us were we are today

Look, it boils down to this: you either give some people control over others (goverment), or you don’t. The faults of humanity don’t change because you have government or not, but giving some people power over others creates greater incentives to be greedy and cruel and unethical, or even just apathetic. Does government welfare really help people better than private welfare?

In AC, there will undoubtedly still be greedy, cruel, unethical, and apathetic people, but there will be less incentive to be so, because society and the market can more effectively police such things than the public sector can, being more responsive and more adaptable to making the necessary changes.

And, without restrictions and regulations on starting new businesses and other job creation activities, people can be more productive, and have more wealth to help the truly unfortunate, and the poor have more opportunities to find their way out of poverty. It’s not even necessary that ALL people be charitable, only that there’s more charity and wealth to spread around than through government redistribution.

No, AC is no utopia, there’s no guarantee that some people won’t slip through the cracks or suffer from some problem or other. But government regulation cannot offer any such guarantee, either, and it is quite wrong to think that it can. In short, government makes promises that it cannot keep–AC makes no such promises, only more opportunities for people to solve problems, and the natural incentives for doing so.

I once again agree with most of what you say but there must be a way to ensure social justice for the truely disabled such as people who are missing limbs, birth deformaties, mental illnesses and people effected by industrial accidents and polution while they seek recourse in the courts or how ever the process would be.

[Jon_Irenicus]

Define this “social justice”.

-Jon

[anonnymous]

@JohnSchreimann

the first part of your post has nothing to do with what I was talking about and I most certainly would not state nor imply that someone is a “f*cking idiot”.

The second part also has nothing to do with what I was saying. I do believe you are speaking not of me but of someone else.

psst. Watch the youtube video in the first post.

You are right, my apologies.

[anonnymous]

@meambobbo

Dear V and others,

Please remember that the “free market” means “the condition in which all transfers of wealth are conducted by mutual consent of the owners involved”. Thus, the free market is a description of favorable economic conditions, not general society. A free market simply does not exist when you have either economic crime (as most commonly understood - theft, vandalism, fraud), or its government equivalents (taxation, inflation/regulation, benefits).

A free market is completely infeasible for a complete society. That’s why libertarians don’t advocate it. The non-aggression principle clearly authorizes the use of force to establish justice. Pacifists advocate free markets. They advocate punishing the unjust through social ostracization and such.

More commonly here, you’ll find libertarian capitalist anarchists, who believe that using force to establish justice is acceptable, and valuable. They believe that widely-accepted views of justice would be valuable. Thus, they believe professionals would be able to provide such services. But the price structure doesn’t change the law. And no professional or group thereof has the authority to break the law. Why don’t they have the authority? Because the people, in general, will not submit to them. They will refuse to buy their services. They will hire alternative services to protect them from the unlawful.

Why won’t the people submit to them? Because they are educated, and they value liberty. This is a pre-condition of anarcho-capitalism. The people have the understanding and the supporting moral code that a free market is the best possible condition for virtually everyone, and anarcho-capitalism is the best means to ensure it. The reason government is so prevelent is that just like gods of fire and water of old, when things become too large for people to see the underlying individual pieces, they tend to believe in magic, or other seemingly logical, simple illusions. Thus, our goal is to tear down the illusions.

So, to answer the original thing about arson - arson is not a free market activity, and it cannot be dealt with via a free market. This requires force to establish justice. If the fire market approach didn’t work in NY, perhaps this had to do with the failure of a public agency being able to investigate and enact justice in the case of arson. And as pointed out, a business model of “bill you as needed” introduces the arson hazard, especially in an act that destroys so much evidence.

In the case that insurance defaults, liability does not vanish. Otherwise, this would be fraud. If the liable will not pay the insurance contract, they should have property forcefully taken and put at auction. Agencies would do this at no cost to the victim, only as a cost forcefully imposed upon the liable. The victim could do it himself, and no one would attempt to stop him. If the liable hired guns to protect his property, he would face a battle, risking his life, and racking up greater financial penalties. He would also face massive boycott and social ostracization, if for some strange reason no force wished to try to overcome his defense of injustice. Over time, he can’t win, however. With no way to make money and expenses incurred in defending his stuff (which would be more costly than lawful protective services, as these goons would also face legal, career, and larger health risks), he would eventually go broke. In almost all scenarios, the liable are best served by submitting toward justice.

And justice is provided by the wise professionals who compete to deliver the most clear and powerful definitions of justice, as applied to particular cases. Arbitrators are successful in being consistent with themselves and society. The best ones hear the most far-reaching and large-scale of cases; their judgments both educating the uninformed and agreeing with the impartial and informed. A main function of this isn’t simply to define justice, but to inform the public. Only with the public’s consent, in consistency with their view of law, can an agency use force in an economically beneficial way. This consent is shown in profit ratios.

In the case where someone gets caught for some massive amount of fraud that they can’t possibly pay, they should become a slave until the debt is repaid. Society largely avoids this problem simply because they insure against such risks or don’t take them. People are equally free to try to prevent crime before it starts. Credit checks, professional reputation, reasonable expectations are all similar to burglar alarms and firearms.

Now, for people who can’t afford professional services. They can rely upon charity, either from other individuals or directly from the agencies (which could be good PR - why does McDonald’s offer charity). They can rely on themselves to provide their own protection and serve justice when they have been wronged. They can hire someone → although they might not find the same quality professional service, some form may still exist, such as a neighborhood tough guy. If they find themselves victimized, they may find some entrepreneurial agency willing to host a trial to establish and then to serve justice, simply adding their fees onto the perpetrator. There are a myriad of options under ancap that didn’t exist under a monopoly government. Simply because the poor have the right to be protected doesn’t mean they are. Many think ancap is cruel because it says that some people couldn’t afford this service to back up their human rights. Rather, it is simply realist. Simply because your rights are claimed to be protected doesn’t mean they are. If a private party offered to protect you and didn’t, it’d be fraud. When the government does it, its budgetary constraints. They then prevent you from “taking the law into your own hands”. Well, someone has to!

As far as taking people out back and shooting them rather than giving them a trial, it would probably be in their best interest to give them a trial. Are the people more inclined to vote for a government that gives a trial or not? The same would apply with one’s hard-earned money. Even in extreme cases, people demand certainty in cases of capital punishment or other extreme sentences. The less any organization that uses or decrees violence relies upon independent evaluation, the less credible they become.

Would this result in a more violent society? No. It just doesn’t BS about the consequences of your actions. Thus, there is little moral hazard to developing violent institutions. We would like to think such a system would get rid of thousands of uses of violence in the name of laws that violate the free market. It would get rid of imperial or geo-political warfare. And if it were more efficiently done, it would result in less violent crime. If more crime had to face full justice, you’d have less extreme crime, and it’d put more risk in crime. And the more prosperous people are, the less likely they are to resort to violence.

That was very well said also and thanks for the post. As you may have all gathered by now, I am new to this concept and am trying to gather enough information to make an informed decision. I wish to thank all of you for your input.

[anonnymous]

@banned

1. How would anarchists build roads?

By laying asphalt using various vehicular machines. How does anyone build roads?

It seems to me he doesn’t understand central planning is more costly and severely more inefficient.

First off he says the government can say land is theirs and it magically becomes theirs (not really) or at least is under their control, which makes building roads cheaper. Yeah, I don’t know what society he’s living in, but the government isn’t made up of magical creatures. It doesn’t posess some magical essence, but it does posess guns, which cost money. And It does pay the salary of those who dictate that the road is under their control, It pays them hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope he’s not supposing things would cost more in a society not ruled by the government because there’s no one there to assert magical ownership of things without exchanging wealth.

Second off, he counters the notion that euntrapeneurs seek to profit off demand (everyone loves roads so therefore businesses will seek to generate/create them) by saying “you’re a f*cking idiot”. He has an interesting way of displaying intellectual superiority.

2. How would anarchists enforce laws?

Laws? How could he confuse a singular policy of non aggression with a statist, plural prohibition on action? I think the only response is to mimic his overused cliche statement that composed the majority of his argument.

Does he think people can’t protect themselves from aggression? Does he think they are therefore justified in seizing their neighbors property to create a system that will supposedly protect them? And this STATE will protect him and his neighbor beyond what they could have voluntarily done? For a man with little “hope in human nature”, he’s certainly endowing the concept with his faith and trust.

I apoligize for my earlier post. I just finished watching that video and I must say it was disrespectful, and somewhat inflamitory,

[meambobbo]

@Jon Irenicus

Define this “social justice”.

-Jon

I find social or economic justice is mostly a misused term. It really implies economic freedom, or more aptly put freedom from economics. All it really means is forced charity. The thing is, forced charity is not just.

We are all for economic/social justice. We are just unsure why most people feel justice and equality are the same thing. As Bastiat said, justice has a natural ending point, where remittance payments equal damages; while philantrophy has no limit. Thus, forced charity can go on and on until the plundered turn to violence to protect what is rightfully theirs.

America has very generous people, often donating to causes in larger sums than our government, who has already forced them to do so. Free people are philantrophic, especially when they are prosperous.

And a free market allows the most opportunity for social mobility. This means free markets do not reward arbitrary privileges that are disconnected from the production of wealth. This seems just to me.

[meambobbo]

@Anonymous Coward

@meambobbo

A free market is completely infeasible for a complete society. That’s why libertarians don’t advocate it. The non-aggression principle clearly authorizes the use of force to establish justice. Pacifists advocate free markets. They advocate punishing the unjust through social ostracization and such.

So what you’re saying here is that protections from fraud, coercion and theft would make a market inherently unfree because force would be needed to enforce these ‘laws’?

How exactly does that follow?

Hiring protections would still be part of a free market, but if an actual crime was commited, then the market is already no longer free. You can try to immediately re-establish a free market, by forgiving the crime, or using non-violent means to attempt to enact justice, such as threatening social ostracization if the criminal refuses to repay the victim. Or you can allow a little more violent transfer of wealth, by stealing from or forcing the criminal to repay the victim.

One could argue about which method would better protect a free market. Arbitrarily allowing some forms of violence, even in the name of justice, basically says justice is more important than a free market, which can lead people to believe that a free market might not always be so great, even outside of justice. Also, it can let economic crime occur in the name of justice.

On the other hand, not effectively punishing the original crime creates a moral hazard where criminals are more encouraged to engage in crime, eliminating a free market.

Basically, we must remember that a free market isn’t simply the precense of a political or legal system that attempts to protect a free market. It is something greater - it is the condition where all members of society exclusively use voluntary consent to create, use, or exchange wealth. Even in a system designed to protect this condition, it may not be present. And even acts of justice can violate it.

…Obviously, it can be tricky whether we should advocate a free market, or a system that best guarantees a free market.

As a counter-point to my own argument here, we could argue that using violence to reclaim stolen property is not a violation of the free market because the theif has only established posession, not property rights of some wealth. (In this view, the theif violates the “use” of property, not “transfer,” without consent.) Thus, there is technically no transfer of wealth in violently restoring proper ownership. I think this is what you were arguing.

We could also argue any legal fees, in addition to the original damage, passed on to criminals were claims to wealth that the criminal forfeited by commiting his crime. For example, this would include cost of investigation, arbitration, interest, etc.

Of course, property rights can’t simply be subject to the will of arbitrators. Otherwise, you establish legal plunder, another violation of the free market. Thus, you have competing arbitrators, competing laws, and competing agencies to accord to both.

I think absolute justice is pretty much impossible. If we are to have a free market, victims will have to let go of some property rights that were infringed upon. For example, how can we reclaim the trillions taxed from us?

[dreamingoffreedominm]

@anonnymous

Yes most answers have been thoroughly answered and yes most of my concerns are with social justice. Thank you for your post! It was easy to read and very informative. I will visit the site you recommended. I wish we could all live without government but how we could do that and then practcally implament such a transition remains to be seen.

If you go to that site I think you will very please. Just make sure that you read the “how to use this site section” because one of the most valuable features is the questions and answer segements at the end. Most of the questions are the typical road blocks you come to when reasoning with others.

The site maintains that if enough people realize the benefits of a free market (defined as the absence of government) then people will gradually “walk away” from government. At first there may be resistance but over time the people that have the knowledge about freedom will give up on government (sort of like what happened when people walked away from the Communist government in West Berlin or Russia).

The site explains it much better than I do. I hope you enjoy it!

[meambobbo]

The site maintains that if enough people realize the benefits of a free market (defined as the absence of government) then people will gradually “walk away” from government.

These kinds of statements are amazing to me. In the absence of government there can also be the absence of justice, with forceful transfers or use of other people’s property. We shouldn’t define a free market as the absence of government, but the absence of violence.

We can’t just get rid of the government. We need a graceful means to replace government with legitimate competitive business that provide the same services, ensuring greater justice as we go from A to B. That’s really the only way it can work.

Dreaming, this wasn’t directed as a blow to you. I just want to remind everyone that we dislike the government not because its THE government, but because it engages in crime, which any person can freely choose to do. Also, we believe that policing government is best done through market competition.

[Jon_Irenicus]

I think the second approach is more promising. Violations of property rights are violations of the free market. The role of justice is to set things straight where possible, and to penalize such behaviour. This must be included under the scope of the free market, and not be presented as some competing alternative. After all, most libertarians argue for the market on grounds of justice - as well as grounds of efficiency.

-Jon

[dreamingoffreedominm]

@meambobbo

The site maintains that if enough people realize the benefits of a free market (defined as the absence of government) then people will gradually “walk away” from government.

These kinds of statements are amazing to me. In the absence of government there can also be the absence of justice, with forceful transfers or use of other people’s property. We shouldn’t define a free market as the absence of government, but the absence of violence.

We can’t just get rid of the government. We need a graceful means to replace government with legitimate competitive business that provide the same services, ensuring greater justice as we go from A to B. That’s really the only way it can work.

Dreaming, this wasn’t directed as a blow to you. I just want to remind everyone that we dislike the government not because its THE government, but because it engages in crime, which any person can freely choose to do. Also, we believe that policing government is best done through market competition.

No offense taken. I want to understand as much as I can and was simply summarizing one of the site’s theme. Believe me, I want to be able to argue and reason for a free society as well as everyone else and appreciate your input/correction.

As to your second paragraph, that is basically what the site talks about - and which I failed to correctly articulate. That you can’t just wake up one day and forget about, or completely dissolve, government. But over time - as the institution of government is exposed for the violence and evil that is causes - people will realize that we can benefit from a free society and the services that it offers (like justice).

Lastly, thank you for that reminder in your last paragraph. It is definitely something that I will take away from this post.

**** I like to always look for humor in things and find it sort of funny how people really need to be super specific in their post or else someone will call them out. I am fairly new to libertarianism (one year ago I honestly did not think that there was an alternative to government!) and I am enjoying every minute of it. This forum is such a great place for intellectual debate. ****

[banned]

@meambobbo

In the absence of government there can also be the absence of justice, with forceful transfers or use of other people’s property. We shouldn’t define a free market as the absence of government, but the absence of violence

Which must logically coincide.