NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that there are a smattering of AnCaps on this board, and I have a question for them. Although I am a minarchist, I have adopted a number of the ideas pertinent to them (sound gold money, rule of law through jurisprudence as opposed to legislation, handling of pollution through arbitration instead of regulation, etc.), I have been unable to find myself to embrace their stateless ideology.

The reason why is not so much that I don't think that anarcho-capitalism would not function, but rather that I think that a state would be the inevitable result of human action. According to anarcho-capitalism, there would be a variety of protective and arbitratration agencies all about. I would think that those agencies that follow the ideas of rights of life, liberty, and property, i.e. in natural law, would gain by not fighting each other but rather banding together to cooperate with one another to best serve their clients. It has been suggested that security agencies would pool together their resources to buy better defensive equipment, like tanks and jets, and the arbitration agencies would band together and have courts of appeals to settle disputes with one another. Since humans exist in physical dimension, it would be logical that these agencies would cover a certain geographic area to best be able to aid and cooperate with one another.

Now, when all the natural law security agencies have integrated so as to provide the best common defense, and the arbitration agencies have made successive layers of arbitration so as to achieve the best conflict resolution, wouldn't this ultimately be akin to a natural monopoly presiding over a specific territorial area- i.e., a state? It has all the components of a minarchist state- a police force, a court system, and a military. Is it really de facto different from an actual state?

That's pretty much it. Everyone is welcome to add in, regardless of ideology. :)

No, de facto, it is not entirely different from a state. The difference comes from how the actors within the symptoms interpret their roles.

No-one's role is written in stone, but instead it exists purely at the behest of the people.

I know that there are a smattering of AnCaps on this board, and I have a question for them. Although I am a minarchist, I have adopted a number of the ideas pertinent to them (sound gold money, rule of law through jurisprudence as opposed to legislation, handling of pollution through arbitration instead of regulation, etc.), I have been unable to find myself to embrace their stateless ideology.

The reason why is not so much that I don't think that anarcho-capitalism would not function, but rather that I think that a state would be the inevitable result of human action. According to anarcho-capitalism, there would be a variety of protective and arbitratration agencies all about. I would think that those agencies that follow the ideas of rights of life, liberty, and property, i.e. in natural law, would gain by not fighting each other but rather banding together to cooperate with one another to best serve their clients. It has been suggested that security agencies would pool together their resources to buy better defensive equipment, like tanks and jets, and the arbitration agencies would band together and have courts of appeals to settle disputes with one another. Since humans exist in physical dimension, it would be logical that these agencies would cover a certain geographic area to best be able to aid and cooperate with one another.

Now, when all the natural law security agencies have integrated so as to provide the best common defense, and the arbitration agencies have made successive layers of arbitration so as to achieve the best conflict resolution, wouldn't this ultimately be akin to a natural monopoly presiding over a specific territorial area- i.e., a state? It has all the components of a minarchist state- a police force, a court system, and a military. Is it really de facto different from an actual state?

That's pretty much it. Everyone is welcome to add in, regardless of ideology. :)
It would only be a state if one group would start forcing others to pay them, and/or forcing others to obey their rules about things that doesn't hurt anyone. It is of course possible that a defense agency would manage to get big enough to dominate all others and become a state. After all states did occur in stateless societies at the beginning of history. But then again, there is a chance that it wouldn't, and as long as no one had yet formed a state the market forces would be enough to maintain fair laws. And as long as they did that we wouldn't need a rebellion every few years to fend of new regulations. So, no, there is no guarantee that there would never be a state again, but the longer it takes before one arises the better.

I am a socialist, and I have no idea what Anarcho-Capitalism is.


Could someone explain please?

I am a socialist, and I have no idea what Anarcho-Capitalism is.


Could someone explain please?
Anarchocapitalism is right-wing anarchism. The anarchocapitalist idea of the law is that every person has the right to control their own property, and that no one ever has the right to initiate force against another person, and everything else in the law follows from those things.


In other words anarcho - every person is equal before the law, no one has the right to force anyone to follow their rules and no one can have legitimate authority over another person. Thus there can be no state.

Capitalist - Private property rights always make a society better off, and voluntary cooperation always is preferred over enforced central planning.


Or even shorter: Ancap law == Non-agression + Property rights

I know that there are a smattering of AnCaps on this board, and I have a question for them. Although I am a minarchist, I have adopted a number of the ideas pertinent to them (sound gold money, rule of law through jurisprudence as opposed to legislation, handling of pollution through arbitration instead of regulation, etc.), I have been unable to find myself to embrace their stateless ideology.

The reason why is not so much that I don't think that anarcho-capitalism would not function, but rather that I think that a state would be the inevitable result of human action. According to anarcho-capitalism, there would be a variety of protective and arbitratration agencies all about. I would think that those agencies that follow the ideas of rights of life, liberty, and property, i.e. in natural law, would gain by not fighting each other but rather banding together to cooperate with one another to best serve their clients. It has been suggested that security agencies would pool together their resources to buy better defensive equipment, like tanks and jets, and the arbitration agencies would band together and have courts of appeals to settle disputes with one another. Since humans exist in physical dimension, it would be logical that these agencies would cover a certain geographic area to best be able to aid and cooperate with one another.
That's a possibility, one among many. IOW: it's not the only way that it could happen.

Thus, it's not a state because there's no coercive territorial monopoly. There's no initiation of force on the part of the private agencies. No taxation. Nothing like that.

This had stumped me for a while in my musings on anarcho-capitalism. What would stop a real country from just marching in and taking an anarcho-capitalist realm? The answer, military security companies would recieve subscriptions. Basically they would have to 'sell' security to the public. So if the people weren't interested in funding a pointless war in Iraq, they wouldn't. But if people were interested in funding a defence network along the border of an agressive military state, they would. It would just be up to the security corporations to convince people that they did in fact want to.

This brings me back to thge root of it all. In anarcho-capitalism, private freemarkets take over the roles of the government *seperately*. It is just decentralising the power a little further. Whatever the government does now, would still happen in anarcho-capitalism. Just each function would be performed by competeing corporations. As such, you would not only be ensured of a greater efficiency in what they do, but also that what they do truly represents the interests of the market. If it didn't they would go bust. Simple as that. Now that is accountability.

Anarchy itself fails. What makes you think any other type of anarcho government would succeed? Without law and order you have chaos. With chaos comes death. When nations go into economic downfall, your nation will be taken over. Imperialism is still alive.

Anarchocapitalism is right-wing anarchism. The anarchocapitalist idea of the law is that every person has the right to control their own property, and that no one ever has the right to initiate force against another person, and everything else in the law follows from those things.


In other words anarcho - every person is equal before the law, no one has the right to force anyone to follow their rules and no one can have legitimate authority over another person. Thus there can be no state.

Capitalist - Private property rights always make a society better off, and voluntary cooperation always is preferred over enforced central planning.


Or even shorter: Ancap law == Non-agression + Property rights


The major problem with this system, however, is that it assumes that people will not encroach upon others personal property. Problem is, once you set up a system to regulate any type of law, you have basically started regulation. Also, people will want more and more protection as time passes, as it is only natural for people to protect their own well being, and will request that more be done. People will come forward saying they can give ample protection, as long as certain "liberties" are given up, and people often times are willing to give such liberties for increased protection. This would lead to government, which in turn is the bane of Anarco-Capitlism.

Thus, it can never exist in a stable form for very long. At least how I see it.

Anarchy itself fails. What makes you think any other type of anarcho government would succeed? Without law and order you have chaos. With chaos comes death. When nations go into economic downfall, your nation will be taken over. Imperialism is still alive.
Very poetic, but utter nonsense. You sound like yoda. Who says you don't have law and order? Anarchy is about the decentralisation of power, not the abolision of it. The law and order within a society would be removed from the central manifestation of a government, and invested entirely into free market industrial sectors. We are already halfway there.

Furthermore, you are playing with absolutes. There is always a mix of order and chaos. It is never one or the other. And since when does chaos equal death? Or rather when has chaos been more indicative of mass death in comparison to order? Every genocide I can think of was the product of the most authoritarian and ordered societies of their respective eras.

But it sounds goods.

The major problem with this system, however, is that it assumes that people will not encroach upon others personal property. Problem is, once you set up a system to regulate any type of law, you have basically started regulation. Also, people will want more and more protection as time passes, as it is only natural for people to protect their own well being, and will request that more be done. People will come forward saying they can give ample protection, as long as certain "liberties" are given up, and people often times are willing to give such liberties for increased protection. This would lead to government, which in turn is the bane of Anarco-Capitlism.

Thus, it can never exist in a stable form for very long. At least how I see it.

Not really, in that there would also be people who would offer ample protection without the sacrifice of liberties. Which one would you choose? This is the beauty of the free market. If one security company demonstates a lack of respect for it's consumers rights, they will quickly be succeeded by a more attractive competitor. Why won't the corporations just enslave the people? Because consumers are 10 times more valuable than slaves.

The major problem with this system, however, is that it assumes that people will not encroach upon others personal property. Problem is, once you set up a system to regulate any type of law, you have basically started regulation. Also, people will want more and more protection as time passes, as it is only natural for people to protect their own well being, and will request that more be done. People will come forward saying they can give ample protection, as long as certain "liberties" are given up, and people often times are willing to give such liberties for increased protection. This would lead to government, which in turn is the bane of Anarco-Capitlism.

Thus, it can never exist in a stable form for very long. At least how I see it.
That's the problem with minarchism, that anarchocapitalism attempts to solve. In a state, when somebody yells for "protection" against some peaceful activity the government can use that as an excuse to take away somebody elses liberty, and if the first group are better campaigners that freedom is gone. In an anarchocapitalist society, if one court starts "protecting" their costumers in a way that violates other people's rights, then their victims can simply go to another court and sue the rogue "protectors" out of existence.

What if they don't have enough money to sue them?

What if they don't have enough money to sue them?
They get money when they win. So there are plenty of lawyers who will help them in exchange for a share in the damages that the rogues have to pay.

Anarchy itself fails. What makes you think any other type of anarcho government would succeed? Without law and order you have chaos.
Why would there be no law and order?

Anarchocapitalism is right-wing anarchism. The anarchocapitalist idea of the law is that every person has the right to control their own property, and that no one ever has the right to initiate force against another person, and everything else in the law follows from those things.


In other words anarcho - every person is equal before the law, no one has the right to force anyone to follow their rules and no one can have legitimate authority over another person. Thus there can be no state.

Capitalist - Private property rights always make a society better off, and voluntary cooperation always is preferred over enforced central planning.


Or even shorter: Ancap law == Non-agression + Property rights

But propery rights is authority. Anarcho-capitalism automatically contridicts itself.

Trilby63;11778339']But propery rights is authority. Anarcho-capitalism automatically contridicts itself.
Authority over property, yes. But not authority over persons other than yourself, so there is nothing contradictory in that. Robert LeFevre said that the only legitimate autority is that of an owner over his property. And if we are talking about legal autority, that may be enforced with violence, that is the anarchocapitalist position.

Trilby63;11778339']But propery rights is authority.
So?


Trilby63'] Anarcho-capitalism automatically contridicts itself.
Prove it.

So?



Prove it.

Anar is Old Frech for socially and 'cho' is Summerian for work and capitalism is an ancient Mandarin root for Dry Cleaners.
So, Socially Workable Drycleaners is a contradiction.

Anar is Old Frech for socially and 'cho' is Summerian for work and capitalism is an ancient Mandarin root for Dry Cleaners.
So, Socially Workable Drycleaners is a contradiction.

lies

I thought of a nice way of considering AC today.

Take your government. They operate much like a company. The provide goods and services and make a profit. They are supposed to exist for the benefit of their shareholders (citizens). They take money in return for these services. Now it makes economic sense to 'specialise' in a particular good or service in order to provide that good/service with the upmost efficiency and comparative advantage.

Thus it would be more economical for citizens to actually elect different governments for the different services one government usually provides. So you would have a military government, a social welfare government, an immigration government, and so on. Each government autonomous of one and another.

In a company the shareholders often appoint the CEO. The only major difference is that in democratic countries the shareholders make the business decisions and appoint all of the staff, whereas in a company trained professionals do that. While clearly the latter is preferable there is a reason for the ways of the former. Unfortunately governments hold a monopoly on the services they provide, as such they are often prone to inefficiency and corruption. In a freemarket corrupt or incompetent officials are quickly dumped lest the company lose their edge in a highly competitive market.

So in actuality, it would be better for the shareholders (citizens) to give up their democratic control of each of their governments, and instead install a freemarket of competition on the service they provide (and in doing such, dismantle the existing monopoly).

The result is multiple competeing governments within a free market for the services they provide. Or if you like the sound of it better, multiple competeing companies within a free market for the services they provide. This is Anarcho-capitalism. Authority/Order still exists, it is just decentralised into competeing companies, for each service a government normally provides, within a freemarket. You would still have everything you have now, it would just be delivered by more efficient and honest means (honest in terms of dedication to your benefit and satisfaction).

That's the problem with minarchism, that anarchocapitalism attempts to solve. In a state, when somebody yells for "protection" against some peaceful activity the government can use that as an excuse to take away somebody elses liberty, and if the first group are better campaigners that freedom is gone. In an anarchocapitalist society, if one court starts "protecting" their costumers in a way that violates other people's rights, then their victims can simply go to another court and sue the rogue "protectors" out of existence.

[And how would you ensure the decision of the other court is followed by the first party? Surely if I've paid for a private police force I can use them to protect me from the laws supported by courts I disagree with?

On a more general note, when anarchocapitalists talk about a free market, what specific form do you see that as taking? Are you talking about the current corporate system minus government interference, a market economy or an informal economy? And would there be a large scale unified economy or would it be many smaller and possibly competing ones?

[And how would you ensure the decision of the other court is followed by the first party? Surely if I've paid for a private police force I can use them to protect me from the laws supported by courts I disagree with? Well this just goes off financial prudence. The victim would have his judicial corp press charges on the said offender. If the offender was a subscriber to a different judicial corp then they would notify that corp of the charges. The corp would then make arrangements for his defence. The judicial corps have no interest in fighting private wars against each other. It wouldn't be in their intial contract, and it would harm their reputation, which in a freemarket, is all you have. If the individual didn't subscribe to a court system, he would just be notified of his charges. If he didn't show up, he would be sentenced in absentia. As part of the victims subscription, the judicial corp would pay for the apprehension and punishment of the victim to some extent. If the offender resisted arrest to the point of murdering an official, he is then liable to the company for that law enforcement officers death, thus making it worthwhile taking greater lengths to apprehend him. If he is poor, it is unlikely he will be able to hire a mercenary force to avoid his apprehension. If he is rich he will be well worth the while of apprehending despite the mercenary force. It all works out.

On a more general note, when anarchocapitalists talk about a free market, what specific form do you see that as taking? Are you talking about the current corporate system minus government interference, a market economy or an informal economy? And would there be a large scale unified economy or would it be many smaller and possibly competing ones? The lines you have drawn seem to be a little indistinct. The market would be all of the above. An informal, natural capitalist economy, not unlike the current one with corporations, minus the government as we know it, comprised of smaller competing markets which constitute a large unified economy. Remember that the government still effectively does exist in function, it is just split into countless privately owned competing components for each of it's services.

If nobody posts on this topic soon I might accidentally fall asleep and bump my head on the monitor.

And how would you ensure the decision of the other court is followed by the first party? Surely if I've paid for a private police force I can use them to protect me from the laws supported by courts I disagree with?
When you are convicted the crime insurance company of your victim sends an invoice for the fines and damages you must pay to your insurer, who informs you of it. If you don't appeal the case your insureer pays up, your victim recieves his damages and your insurer collects the money from you. If you apeal you get a new trial in another court.

There is a lot of difference between a "police force" and a band of mercenaries. The police will help catch any criminal who attacks you, and will help collect damages if the criminal refuses to follow the normal rules. But they will not fight an enemy that you can't defeat in court. Military battles are very expencive (even low tech militias cost tens of thousands of dollars for a couple of hours) so no one will do that over petty criminals, and those whose business is justice will stay far away from any situation where they can end up fighting a war.
On a more general note, when anarchocapitalists talk about a free market, what specific form do you see that as taking? Are you talking about the current corporate system minus government interference, a market economy or an informal economy? And would there be a large scale unified economy or would it be many smaller and possibly competing ones?
"The free market" does not refer to any specific form. It refers to people making voluntary contracts, or otherwise cooperating peacfully. Most likely there'd be more variation in the forms of organisation that people would use if there wasn't a central power to tell them how it should be.

BTW what does "corporate system" mean? Obviously you couldn't register corporations if there wasn't a government to register them in But most of the stuff that corporations do for their owners, customers and employees could be done by the same people using voluntary contracts, and since the corporate form is so common now, I don't see why there wouldn't be at least a few similar organisations in a stateless society as well.

If nobody posts on this topic soon I might accidentally fall asleep and bump my head on the monitor.
The difference between a state and an anarchocapitalist society is that the state has a monopoly on law, so that they more or less don't have to listen to their subjects, whereas the institutions in anarchocapitalism compete against similar but not identical institutions, and if they ignore their costumers they go out of business.

We tried limiting the government with constitutions. Just as you would expect, when the government saw that the people had basically given them all the guns and the authority to resolve all conflicts, they decided to solve all conflicts in ways that would increase the power of those deciding on the solutions. The result is that all governments keep expanding their powers and causing more and more problems and injustice. So now anarchocapitalists suggest that we should try something different. How do you propose to ensure that your preferred government stays put inside the bonds that you put up for it?

This is quite a good little piece. Agree with it or not, it makes you think...would private courts ultimately become their own little states afterall?

http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism3.html

This is quite a good little piece. Agree with it or not, it makes you think...would private courts ultimately become their own little states afterall?

http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism1.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html
http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism3.html
I have only read the first part this far, but that guy doesn't seem to understand what an ancap court is. Such a court is not some sacred/royal/democratic/whatever institution that can assume that its word is law and everyone will obey regardless of if it is just or not.

The claimant (or their protection agency) turns to the court to get a verdict and sentence that will be accepted by the defendant and their protectors. If all the claimant wanted was to have some thugs steal the defendant's property, then they would do that without involving any court. But then the defendant would have a claim for revenge (or preferably restitution) from the former "claimant". But the original claimant's defense agency can't afford to enter a war or vendetta with their counterpart working for the defendant. So they abandon the claimant at the first unjust claim. But if the defendant turns to a "court" that will award them "restitution" that amounts to robbing the defendant, then his defence agency will not accept the sentence, and the claimant is no better off than if he had never gone to the "court". So it is in the claimants interest to find a court that will give a verdict and sentence that is a reasonable semblance of what is generally seen as justice. So the "ramping" never even starts.

But if the defendant turns to a "court" that will award them "restitution" that amounts to robbing the defendant, then his defence agency will not accept the sentence...
Why would it ever?

Either it can't afford to start trouble with the other side's "defence" agency, then it can't do so no matter who is in the right. Or it can, and in that case it will do what is best for its client.

You're essentially assuming that if the 'court' does the right thing, everybody will play along. And if it doesn't, they won't. But why would it be like that?

But if you take the court to be something that both sides will accept, the issue described could become a problem. If you don't take it as something both sides will accept, there is no court, no jurispudence, and the whole idea is silly.

What would stop a real country from just marching in and taking an anarcho-capitalist realm? The answer, military security companies would recieve subscriptions. Basically they would have to 'sell' security to the public. So if the people weren't interested in funding a pointless war in Iraq, they wouldn't. But if people were interested in funding a defence network along the border of an agressive military state, they would. It would just be up to the security corporations to convince people that they did in fact want to.
.

If you fund money to protect everyone you have no guarentee everyone else will fund a "fair share" (thus you lose money and are not guarenteed security)

While not spending a penny on the military and having others paying to secure everyone is the ideal result. Thus what a rational person will be pushed to do in an AC society.

One responce I'd expect is that those who refuse to contribute to a military would not be protected, but than as a nation certain areas would be vulnarable (thus invaded first) and the collective body would be weaker.

And as much as I hate thinking collectively, the majority of individuals couldn't defend themselves against an entire country and in the unique example of defence EVERYONE benefits from coercive taxes to protect everyone.

Why would it ever?

Either it can't afford to start trouble with the other side's "defence" agency, then it can't do so no matter who is in the right. Or it can, and in that case it will do what is best for its client.

You're essentially assuming that if the 'court' does the right thing, everybody will play along. And if it doesn't, they won't. But why would it be like that?

But if you take the court to be something that both sides will accept, the issue described could become a problem. If you don't take it as something both sides will accept, there is no court, no jurispudence, and the whole idea is silly.
The protection agencies can't afford to fight each other, but they can also not afford a reputation for bugging out when their clients are in trouble. So when you have a conflict (which you do if courts become relevant) both agencies are looking for a way out that does not lead to their destruction, but also doesn't look like they break the contract to defend their clients. What a court with a reputation for just decisions provide is a way for the losing agency to let their client down and keep the approval of the rest of their costumers.

The protection agencies can't afford to fight each other, It seems to me that this is a bit presumptuous. A single well-placed bomb could easily take out a rival.

It seems to me that this is a bit presumptuous. A single well-placed bomb could easily take out a rival.
Not if the rival is built to defend itself.

*raises ignorant hand*

Isn't anacho-capitalism the purest form of anarchy? Every man for himself.

*raises ignorant hand*

Isn't anacho-capitalism the purest form of anarchy? Every man for himself.
The second purest. You are right that anarchocapitalism places negative individual rights above all else, so no one has a "right" to depend on others for anythingand certainly not to rule anyone but yourself. But there is one form of lefty anarchism that also does this. And the difference between the two is that anarchocapitalists believe that property rights are natural and that most people like to live the way they do in many respects (division of labor, some cities exist, ...) while the purest lefty anarchists say that even such things should not exist.

When you are convicted the crime insurance company of your victim sends an invoice for the fines and damages you must pay to your insurer, who informs you of it. If you don't appeal the case your insureer pays up, your victim recieves his damages and your insurer collects the money from you. If you apeal you get a new trial in another court.

What if you refuse to take any notice of the court at all?

There is a lot of difference between a "police force" and a band of mercenaries. The police will help catch any criminal who attacks you, and will help collect damages if the criminal refuses to follow the normal rules. But they will not fight an enemy that you can't defeat in court. Military battles are very expencive (even low tech militias cost tens of thousands of dollars for a couple of hours) so no one will do that over petty criminals, and those whose business is justice will stay far away from any situation where they can end up fighting a war.

Fullscale military wars are. Pistols and knifes, not so much. So I appreciate that this wouldn't work against an opponent who could afford paramilitary forces. But what about just hiring a simple band of thugs? That certainly exists now in terms of street gangs etc. So what specifically would stop that happening under an anarchocapitalist society?

The free market" does not refer to any specific form. It refers to people making voluntary contracts, or otherwise cooperating peacfully. Most likely there'd be more variation in the forms of organisation that people would use if there wasn't a central power to tell them how it should be.

BTW what does "corporate system" mean? Obviously you couldn't register corporations if there wasn't a government to register them in But most of the stuff that corporations do for their owners, customers and employees could be done by the same people using voluntary contracts, and since the corporate form is so common now, I don't see why there wouldn't be at least a few similar organisations in a stateless society as well.Ab, sorry, that's my point for not clarifying what I meant. My bad.

By the "corporate system", I mean the system where corporations are considered seperate entitys from the individuals who they're made up of. I'm talking about things like limited liability and the ability for coporations to sue critics, as the corporation.

For example, under the court system you propose, if a corporation was guilty of the death of a friend of mine, possibly through unsafe working conditons, who would be liable? Would I be able to sue the directors, the corporation itself or every single shareholder individually?

they are stone

*raises ignorant hand*

Isn't anacho-capitalism the purest form of anarchy? Every man for himself.
no ,it is up to you. ;)

I'd like to chip in that, noticing people speaking about the reputations of companies and of individuals as being important in AnCap society, there is a more solid effect that this has- a credit rating. If someone has been accused of committing crimes and does not show up and resists any lawful efforts for reparation, his credit rating would plummet (no one in their right mind would want to deal with him if he acts this way). Similarly, corporations and companies that misbehave will have their credit rating damaged as well, since no one wants to deal with an irresponsible firm any more than they want to deal with an irresponsible individual.

But even though I agree with this tenet of anarcho-capitalism, I am still not entirely sure if it is sustainably separate from a state. I still contend that, because there is a great deal of utility in cooperation, that the end result of this cooperation will result in a state-like organism. It would be a monopoly over a territorial area (since we all exist in space, and that's the most logical thing to do), and, even though it is a natural monopoly created from economy of scale, it is still a monopoly nonetheless, like the state. Since I believe that capitalism would solve any problems that would pop up in a free market, I think that the security/judicial companies would find a way around people free-riding by living in the territorial monopoly and not paying up. It would probably have something to do with the credit rating, since someone who doesn't pay for security and justice insurance would likely be a criminal who would not benefit from law and order, and would probably be looked upon suspiciously. Also, I imagine realty firms would be encouraged by security firms to have their purchasers sign up new home owners for security in exchange for lower rates etc. This, in the end, would seem quite a bit similar to the taxation of a state.

The second purest. You are right that anarchocapitalism places negative individual rights above all else, so no one has a "right" to depend on others for anythingand certainly not to rule anyone but yourself. But there is one form of lefty anarchism that also does this. And the difference between the two is that anarchocapitalists believe that property rights are natural and that most people like to live the way they do in many respects (division of labor, some cities exist, ...) while the purest lefty anarchists say that even such things should not exist.
Actually, left-anarchism is self-contradictory.

What if you refuse to take any notice of the court at all?
Then the judge will listen to your accuser. If he sees a reason to doubt that you are guilty you won't be bothered, but if he finds you guilty you will get an ultimatum to either pay what your accuser wants or contact the court to get a real trial.

Fullscale military wars are. Pistols and knifes, not so much. So I appreciate that this wouldn't work against an opponent who could afford paramilitary forces. But what about just hiring a simple band of thugs? That certainly exists now in terms of street gangs etc. So what specifically would stop that happening under an anarchocapitalist society?
But when pistols and knives meet machine guns and vehicles the outcome is pretty much given. If you hire a band of thugs and I hire a serious protection agency, then I don't need to worry about fighting you. And if my protection agency seldom has to fight it can have more advanced fighters without being that much more expencive.

By the "corporate system", I mean the system where corporations are considered seperate entitys from the individuals who they're made up of. I'm talking about things like limited liability and the ability for coporations to sue critics, as the corporation.
Ok. Then it would be weakened, but personally I don't think that it would go away entirely.

A corporation, or any other entity, would not be able to sue you unless you either harmed a real person (human being, not corporation) or had a contract with the sueing entity where you promised to not do what you are sued for. So if you don't make contracts with corporations, then they can't sue you.

It would still be possible to make contracts with corporations though, so you might end up working for a corporation, or buying stuff from them. In that case they might ask you to sign a paper that protects the owners from individual liabilities from any problems you have in that contractual relation. And if you sign such a paper, then it is valid. So there might be a kind of limited liability, but only through private contracts.

For example, under the court system you propose, if a corporation was guilty of the death of a friend of mine, possibly through unsafe working conditons, who would be liable? Would I be able to sue the directors, the corporation itself or every single shareholder individually?
In that case you can sue whoever forced him to work under dangerous conditions. So it would probably be some directors, unless you had evidence that the owners had personally caused it.

Actually, left-anarchism is self-contradictory.
Not necessarily (it depends on what left anarchism). Of course socialism as Mises described it doesn't work with anarchism(it doesn't work ever).

But nothing prevents you from suggesting a different set of property rights than liberals and still not wanting a state. Nor is there any contradiction in some people choosing to share their property with each other in an anarchic society, which is basically what left anarchists suggest. So where do you see the contradiction?

Not if the rival is built to defend itself.Perhaps you could bribe one of the employees of the rival to do it, or at least to give you a map of where the defenses are?

Not necessarily (it depends on what left anarchism).
No, all "leftist" styles require a government.


But nothing prevents you from suggesting a different set of property rights than liberals and still not wanting a state.
They don't believe in property rights, which makes one wonder how it is they justify morality and being secure in their own person. Oh sure, they try to pawn off "use", but that's just property rights in a new name. They love to steal the concept. Dishonest scum, they are.


Nor is there any contradiction in some people choosing to share their property with each other in an anarchic society, which is basically what left anarchists suggest. So where do you see the contradiction?
That they deny property rights and that it requires a government.

They don't believe in property rights, which makes one wonder how it is they justify morality and being secure in their own person. Oh sure, they try to pawn off "use", but that's just property rights in a new name. They love to steal the concept. Dishonest scum, they are.

That they deny property rights and that it requires a government.

Left anarchist don't deny the concept of governance, they deny the concept of hierarchal governance. Left-anarchist believe that any form of social arrangement based on hierarchy is illegitimate. Hence their oppossition to both the state and private property.

It is possible to have completely voluntary, non-hierarchal democratic governance based on direct democracy. It has worked in several cases (most notable, the Spanish Revolution in 1936, which was ultimately destroyed by military force). You consider "use" and private property rights to be the same thing. But "use" is based on public, communal "ownership" (for lack of a better term) of property. Something that is owned by everyone is owned by no one.

I am curious how you consider property rights to be the basis of morality. What is the logical thought train that reaches that conclusion? I'm not being judgmental, I'm just wondering where you are coming from.

Left anarchist don't deny the concept of governance, they deny the concept of hierarchal governance.
Yeah, and?


Left-anarchist believe that any form of social arrangement based on hierarchy is illegitimate. Hence their oppossition to both the state and private property.
I can see the former, but not the latter. The latter in no way is based on a heirarchy.


It is possible to have completely voluntary, non-hierarchal democratic governance based on direct democracy.
Then you run into the problem of the tyranny of the majority.


It has worked in several cases (most notable, the Spanish Revolution in 1936, which was ultimately destroyed by military force). You consider "use" and private property rights to be the same thing.
They are.


But "use" is based on public, communal "ownership" (for lack of a better term) of property. Something that is owned by everyone is owned by no one.
Then something can be taken by someone and there's no recourse available.


I am curious how you consider property rights to be the basis of morality.
Ever heard of contractarianism ala Jan Narveson, and argumentation ethics of Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

I can see the former, but not the latter. The latter in no way is based on a heirarchy.

Then you run into the problem of the tyranny of the majority.

Then something can be taken by someone and there's no recourse available.

Ever heard of contractarianism ala Jan Narveson, and argumentation ethics of Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

1. How is private property not based on hierarchy. I have job, and in my job, I have a boss. He is superior to me in position, regardless of whether I agreed to the arrangement or not.

2. Which is why left-anarchists believe in the right of secession, and the decentralization of power. If the majority stops considering the rights of the minority, you may leave, and go someplace else.

3. But the majority does have a right to ensure that resources are available to all. One cannot just take something for themselves under left-anarchism if it is detrimental to other individuals.

4. I've heard of contractarianism indirectly, but not argumentation ethics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't contractarianism based on the principle that the only just relationships are contractual relationships based on mutual consent? If so, how does one account for coercion in contractarianism?

1. How is private property not based on hierarchy.
How is it? Your body is your private property. There's no heirarchy involved. Your computer is your private property--no heirarchy involved.


I have job, and in my job, I have a boss. He is superior to me in position, regardless of whether I agreed to the arrangement or not.
If you're working for him, you've agreed to it.


2. Which is why left-anarchists believe in the right of secession, and the decentralization of power. If the majority stops considering the rights of the minority, you may leave, and go someplace else.
To just have it happen again, since there are no property rights.


3. But the majority does have a right to ensure that resources are available to all.
What precisely do you mean by that?


4. I've heard of contractarianism indirectly, but not argumentation ethics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't contractarianism based on the principle that the only just relationships are contractual relationships based on mutual consent? If so, how does one account for coercion in contractarianism?
Why isn't it accounted for?

Argumentation ethics:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html
http://www.mises.org/etexts/hoppe5.pdf

I'd like to chip in that, noticing people speaking about the reputations of companies and of individuals as being important in AnCap society, there is a more solid effect that this has- a credit rating. If someone has been accused of committing crimes and does not show up and resists any lawful efforts for reparation, his credit rating would plummet (no one in their right mind would want to deal with him if he acts this way). Similarly, corporations and companies that misbehave will have their credit rating damaged as well, since no one wants to deal with an irresponsible firm any more than they want to deal with an irresponsible individual.

But even though I agree with this tenet of anarcho-capitalism, I am still not entirely sure if it is sustainably separate from a state. I still contend that, because there is a great deal of utility in cooperation, that the end result of this cooperation will result in a state-like organism. It would be a monopoly over a territorial area (since we all exist in space, and that's the most logical thing to do), and, even though it is a natural monopoly created from economy of scale, it is still a monopoly nonetheless, like the state. Since I believe that capitalism would solve any problems that would pop up in a free market, I think that the security/judicial companies would find a way around people free-riding by living in the territorial monopoly and not paying up. It would probably have something to do with the credit rating, since someone who doesn't pay for security and justice insurance would likely be a criminal who would not benefit from law and order, and would probably be looked upon suspiciously. Also, I imagine realty firms would be encouraged by security firms to have their purchasers sign up new home owners for security in exchange for lower rates etc. This, in the end, would seem quite a bit similar to the taxation of a state.

I love you! *Kisses* :fluffle: That is what I have been looking for!

I love you! *Kisses* :fluffle: That is what I have been looking for!

Well, thank you! But which part were you looking for- the stuff about reputations being more tangible, the elimination of the free rider, or the idea that the anarcho-capitalist firms would form into a de facto state?