I, like many others, have come across some very stupid arguments against anarcho-capitalism. For example “without the government, the environment would be destroyed!”. My favorite is “But who would build the roads?”. What’s yours?
I as a political science major would be out of a job lol (sorry couldn’t resist)
I guess one of my favorites is “Who’s going to help the poor?”
Anything Ayn Rand said.
As a rule, the best answer to “Who would run the schools, the hospitals, and build the roads” is “Teachers, doctors and construction workers”.
Works for me when I get asked that question. Which happens a lot. Almost verbatim, too.
No final arbiter of disputes
What is wrong with that?
The “final arbiter” is the state. In conflicts involving the state, it is judge in its own case. The whole point of a final arbiter is to have some sort of impartial “clamp” to disputes.
Morever, it is so easy to conceive of voluntary final arbiters… even wild-west justice was I pick someone I trust, you pick someone you trust, and then they pick a judge for us and that’s it. This reveals that for there to be final arbitration depends mostly on people’s perceived legitimacy of the judge, and that it is not a unique property of statism.
love this one. never heard before.
I got this one once and found it kind of funny.
“Private security won’t take the same kind of pride in their work that public officers do.” As if workers in the private sector have no pride in the jobs they do.
Warlords/Evil profit-minded military organizations will SLAUGHTER US ALL!!!
In the interest of truth and objectivity, don’t you want to look for the best arguments?
Whoever said that has never met a bouncer from a high-end gentlemen’s club or night club.
I find it funny when people argue with hypotheticals pretty much thinking that all of a sudden under AnCap, anyone that is as rich as Bill Gates is also as evil as Hitler.
An anarcho-capitalist critic’s argument may seem bad to an anarcho-capitalist, but good to the critic who has never heard a good counterargument.
I once got into an argument with a statist that complained about roads, sidewalks, public parks, etc. I gave him a funny look and commented that I was criticizing an institution that, during the last 100 years, was responsible for more destructive warfare and murder than all other centuries combined, while he was worried about losing good sidewalks. He shut up after that. Sometimes people need to be shown they have no perspective.
To paraphrase Bill Irving (Or was it BIl Kristol?), “It is only because conservatives have the courage to stand up and face the enemy that libertarians are able to worry about such petty concerns.”
If we weren’t murdering the rest of the world, they’d be murdering us! The only nation that can be happy and prosperous is the dominating conquerer.
I find it funny when people argue with hypothetical pretty much thinking that all of a sudden under AnCap, anyone that is as rich as Bill Gates is also as evil as Hitler.
the above made me remember that in a free society it is likely there would not be someone as rich as Gates- because the barriers of entry would be demolished and he would have had to build something a lot better than windows to earn billions
Yes, whenever Bill Gates get mentionned, it’s time to point out IP law and how MSFT lawyers abuse it to bully small competitors.
No wars to spend money on to boost the economy.
You have to have a government because people are evil. Hear this all the time.