Both of these scenarios are far more likely in the present order.
It is far more likely the state will come up with some silly law to hang you if you lend a hand than private courts.
And it is far more likely a buerocrat with no stake in his “agency” will abuse his position in the way decribed than a private owner of a company who would be limiting his potential workforce and therefore be spending more of his money on wages if he did so. Esspecialy since a buerocrat can be a much more important person, because his “agency” is a monopoly. Such harrassment by a “boss” can be easily avoided by simply quitting the job, but what if the harrasement is being done by a local police chief?
Situation 3
A woman has been performing well at her job as an accountant for several years. She is a single mom raising two children and cannot afford to be without employment. One day however she is deemed surplus to requirements and fired.
There are no other jobs to be had in the whole world except for an opening for a prostitute in a local brothel. The woman can perform sexual favors for pay there to feed her two children, in which case it would seem she has no recourse since she did it voluntarily. On the other hand she can not take that job, and again this seems to be permitted under anarcho-capitalism since employment is voluntary and one does not need to take a job, in which case she and her two children will starve to death. Again, she has no recourse and is left to fend for herself.
Is Anarcho-Capitalism evil?
*Just to illustrate I do find your examples a litte stretched.
Ultima isn’t exactly that wrong that because something has an emotional issue we shouldn’t examine it. However I don’t believe it would offer anything… In fact it is the same old Homo Homini Lupus tired rhetoric that statists use SO MUCH… Most of us are good people (from the bourgeious merchant to the proletariat worker) and do the right thing. In fact antisocial acts exist due to
unsatisfied needs
moral/psychological illness
anti-status-quo feelings
The antisocial act (1) you describe are a rather unlikely scenario, since no rational businessman would go in such a trouble unless he raped the woman. But he wouldn’t be that idiot to leave the body outside his building.
(2) A rather likely scenario in the present reality, but no rational businessman would do such a thing to a good employee… In fact such things happen to women who are ASKING for it (believe me I know a thing or two about that). Sexual Harassment has been so exaggerated by asexual feminists, who in fact consider a warm “good morning” sexual harassment, if you judge by the look on their face… I am “insensitive” enough that they WANT to believe that somebody would want them (wishful thinking)
Otherwise those two situations are the stuff an low-in the-hierarchy acolyte of statism would use against Libertarianism…
But BELIEVE me My friend Ultima society doesn’t need you and me to philosophise about everything to work correctly. It takes it’s own way with us being just a very small part of the equilibrium. Society existed before you and me and would work a lot better if only a caste of power-lustful criminals (known as the state) would leave it be…
I just love the dishonesty here. You’re completely ignoring my critique. In fact, all of your OPs so far have been nothing but emotive pleas. Then you ignore that fact and try to act as if your emotive pleas have any import. Smacks of trolling.
Yes, and? I’m waiting for you to come up with something that isn’t based on an emotive plea. Do you have anything?
Do you have anything other than emotive pleas–yes or no?
What we ALL forgot to remind Ultima is that an anarcho-capitalist society is the epitome of choice (from security to even the form of governent they wish). These situations (which are hardly an issue even in the statist world). It is an ultra-flexible system that everybody gets what he wants (if it’s possible).
I have Ultima to teach you what an uncle of mine calls the Saturn’s Lesson. “Her” Job is not her job… As others have pointed out is just a relationship between the employer and her, when one wants to finish it it’s over. Do you find it insensitive? I’m sorry, but it’s the truth. We’re not bourgeious capitalists or statists so you can trust us a bit more than Hillary Clinton! If in an anarcho-capitalist society she loses her job in that way and doesn’t want to face the problems of hierachy she can join a worker cooperative in order to feel more safety. However NOBODY has given her the right to use external power to bring “justice”. That’s rough, you might say! It is. But it is fair… Despite what the statists say liberty is the mother not the daughter of order or equality. And you and I COULD have more choices in every domain of our social life. However left-right-wingers keep on addressing this kind of arguments in order to appeal to emotions not logic. Even if those situations were ACTUALLY problems, defending the state (the national Jacobin/police state that exists since the French Revolution) who murdered, robbed and enslaved people more than any other political institution in the face of earth, because it’s going to fool a woman that security is freedom, it’s like defending a serial killer because he likes puppies.
Thanks for the responses everyone. I believe I understand the situation better now and how it could be dealt with in an an-cap society, as well as the underlying issues surrounding it.
To those who complained that my situations were unfounded or that I was making an emotive plea: I’ll say it again, just because a situation is touchy or emotional does not make it *not (*oops) worthy of discussion. To the guy who accused me of trolling: give me a break. If I was interested in being a troll it would be far, far easier than these posts. If that’s how you’re going to treat everyone who wants to learn more about liberty you are going to turn off a lot of people.
To everyone else who contributed fruitfully to the discussion and helped me to understand it better… thanks!
You turn off a lot of discussion by using the same tired, worn-out, emotive plea garbage. Please do not attempt to play the victim; you knew precisely what you were doing. You knew you were tossing out naught but a sob story. The problem for you is that sort of behavior does not go over well here. If you wish to have a genuine discussion in the future, I suggest you no longer try the sob stories.
Seconded. You are ultimately bound to annoy quite the few people who are tired of arguing against the same argumenta ad misericordia each and every day when you attach emotional strings to a thought excerise - its plain tiring.
You are mistaken if you think I had an ulterior motive or that I perceive myself as having been victimized, as you seem to be stating when you say “you knew precisely what you were doing”. My intention was to bring forth items of discussion that I have been thinking about, and nothing else. I’ll apologize if I was unable to make myself clear enough to get the point across to you, but don’t invent stories about my motives or agenda to try to fit me into your pigeonhole.
I will not refrain from posting similar topics in the future, but I will see if I can word them differently so you are not so quick to jump to conclusions.
How would you seperate the emotions out, exactly? It’s like arguments for abortion… there is not really any “right side” of the debate, and many people can logically argue different opinions, and undoubtedly the topic is an emotional one for many people. Unlike what Knight_of_BAAWA is accusing me of, I wasn’t trying to toss out garbage but to me it was a honest question and a honest debate. But like you said the emotional aspect will tend to annoy some people, so I will try to frame my questions in a different way so that I can ask the same thing with less “emotional strings” attached to the question.
No one said that the situations are not worthy of discussion, people just pointed out that you’re obviously using an appeal to emotion in your posts. Why is it a single mother with 2 children? Why will those children starve if she loses her job? Because you are obviously trying to present a situation which evokes emotion in many people, in order to get them to violate their principles. The children are immaterial the the scenario, and are only there to try to pull on the heart strings of those you pose this hypothetical to. Why couldn’t the situation be of a single woman with no children who has a large trust fund to fall back on? The actual content of the hypothetical is still there: a woman being pressured into sex by her superior, but there’s no sob story there, which wouldn’t be as effective at challenging libertarian principles.
The reason several people jumped all over you for this is because it is a very common tactic that is employed by statists to try to legitimize the government: “BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!” It has no place in a philosophical discussion as it is a well known logical fallacy, so it would behoove you to not use it again when having a philosophical discussion, especially with those who are so well acquainted with these underhanded debating techniques.
Ignoring the effect of emotion is just like the ‘mainstream’ economics does.
Sometimes it just works. However an essential keystone of Mises’s thesis is the Subjective Theory of Value.
As we know, the ‘emotional’ factor is far vital than ‘rational’ ones, in all markets,
just like we seem never to hear any history is driven by anyone’s rational scheme.
For example, envy plays an important role in the measurement of one’s easiness or uneasiness.
People evalute it by not only comparing with their own previous conditions, but also the surrounding people’s.
Thus there’s always the demand of ‘keep no others better than me’, even one may pay very high price such as wars, revolutions, coups and any kind of totalitarianism.
Often, the libertarians believe that their opponents can be eliminated by ‘correct’ advertisement, education, public opinion…etc. It’s just same as what their opponents believe.
However A good politician/agitator/speculator always knows how vital the emotional is.