I think absolute power can corrupt absolutely. I’m not about to flip-flop and start believing in the supply-side economic school of thought- the school of thought that allows for the state to break up monopolies. I’m just talking about power in general. I think it would be foolish to think that only the state could wield power. I think that absolute power corrupts absolutely and whether or not it’s the state a libertarian or an-cap society also has the potential to be corrupt with absolute power being given in the hands of a few. That being said we need safeguards to prevent such a thing from happening. I mean like real working safeguards. What safe-guards would you give an anarcho-capitalist or libertarian society to prevent it from falling into an oligarch? This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot.
Well, for one thing, instituting these “safeguards” would mean that the nation would cease to be Anarcho-Capitalistic or truly libertarian
I don’t think that it would keep the anarcho-capitalist society or libertarian society from becoming truly anarchistic/libertarian. I’m just saying that the potential for misplaced power within the courts or within the private army could potentially arise. There would have to be plans so that the nation could still function despite those potential problems that would arise.
-
An anarchno-capitalist area is not a nation.
-
Corruption in the armies and courts would be unprofitable; people within the organization will eliminate it, or risk losing market share.
-
It would be unpopular, and exceedingly difficult if not impossible to stage a takeover. Think Vietnamese defending against americans with lots of high tech gadgetry.
Don’t you mean, what safeguards would the market provide?
I think the key - and one of the big reasons we don’t have a libertarian society now - is that for it to work there must be a certain degree of popular recognition of the danger of a monopoly on force developing. This recognition would drive the market demand for agencies whose role would include preventing such a scenario from unfolding.
Moreover, should such an organization get too big and powerful as to be deemed anywhere near a possible threat to the stability of the society, it would both lose business and face legitimate (in this context meaning simply “supported by market demand”) opposition - possible violent - from other organizations with control over coercive means.
I think you’re wrong, the key is the people and whether or not they tolerate it/want it. Otherwise our current government or any government for that matter, government being the legacy of the most effective and organized thieves of one time, would exist.
What you’re missing is that the government is here because, rightly or wrongly, a great number of people want it to be here. The issue is whether or not that’s unavoidable and a matter of human nature or if people can be taught and eventually reject the state en masse. My feeling is there is at least for a now a possibly innate need in people to see some kind of final, central authority of sorts. And, that aside, as we all know there are people who get a net benefit from the government despite what happens to total utility or everyone else’s individual state of satisfaction, Profit is irrelevant because criminal behavior isn’t predicated on profit but a complete disregard for others and their rights.