anarchocapitlist stability
 

Isnt the natural state that existed before government anarchocapitalist (as PVN describes it)? Didn't this state collapse when the strongest individual and his cronies declared themselves the state? Why would an anarchocapitalist state be any different? After long enough a period of time passed, wouldn't a situation arise in which a particular capitalist was strong enough to declare himself the state? Without the bulwark of some sort of legalistic and multipolar state, what prevents the descent from anarchocapitalism to a much more stable despotic (or considering the current proliferation of nuclear weapons some sort of feudal) arrangment?

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

The natural state before governments didn't allow capitalism. It has only become possible in the last few hundred years. It was communalism then feudalism then capitalism then the mixed economies we see today. Who knows what technology will lead us to next.

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

Capitalism is merely the free exchange of goods and services, this certainly could have occured in the natural state. Regardless it strikes me that both situations are susceptible to the whims of any individual strong enough to declare himself the state

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

In common usage it is much more than that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

Anarcho capitalism assumes that private property will be respected and physical violence not used. In its purist form it offers absolutely no rational as to how this will happen.

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt the natural state that existed before government anarchocapitalist (as PVN describes it)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially. Many will try to muddy the water and pile all sorts of extra meanings (mostly with negative connotations) on the word "capitalism".

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't this state collapse when the strongest individual and his cronies declared themselves the state? Why would an anarchocapitalist state be any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

Some differences between now and then:

* There is a more mature understanding of rights.

* There is more respect for order.

* There is more belief that problems can be resolved non-violently.

Specifically, your question is a form of the "warlord" question.

Consider that if we achieve an anarcho-capitalist system on a large scale in the US, it will very likely be through non-violent "revolution," and that will only happen when there is extremely widespread support for the ideals of true freedom.

Warlords are organized criminals. In a state-dominated system, organized criminals generate cashflow (power) by filling needs that the government stops the market from filling (e.g. drugs, prostitution, gambling). In a stateless system, these can be provided by the market. There's no need for organized crime to provide them.

Who will trade with a thug when there are legitimate vendors? Remember, we're talking about a population that believes in freedom and order.

Once the self-appointed warlord has alienated his customers, how will he maintain his power? Even if he has effectively limitless cash reserves, he can't do much with that cash if nobody will trade with him.

[ QUOTE ]
Without the bulwark of some sort of legalistic and multipolar state, what prevents the descent from anarchocapitalism to a much more stable despotic (or considering the current proliferation of nuclear weapons some sort of feudal) arrangment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the bulwark of the state itself constitute a despotic arrangement?

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anarcho capitalism assumes that private property will be respected and physical violence not used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not quite. Physical violence is not used unless necessary. Initiation of violence is not tolerated. It's not a "lets all be friends and hope nobody kicks me in the head" system.

[ QUOTE ]
In its purist form it offers absolutely no rational as to how this will happen.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is FUD.

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

"lets all be friends and hope nobody kicks me in the head" system."

What if the other guy has a bigger foot?

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

"Remember, we're talking about a population that believes in freedom and order."

That's a huge assumption. You have a lot more faith in the human race then me. I'm convinced my nieghbor would kill me for shiny pebbles if he thought he'd get away with it.

"Warlords are organized criminals. In a state-dominated system, organized criminals generate cashflow (power) by filling needs that the government stops the market from filling (e.g. drugs, prostitution, gambling). In a stateless system, these can be provided by the market. There's no need for organized crime to provide them. "

Who needs drugs, prostituion, or gambling. With no police, why not simply rob people outright?

"Once the self-appointed warlord has alienated his customers, how will he maintain his power?"

What customers? You don't need customers when you have victims.

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

[ QUOTE ]
"lets all be friends and hope nobody kicks me in the head" system."

What if the other guy has a bigger foot?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's NOT a "lets all be friends and hope nobody kicks me in the head" system.

Does he have a bigger foot than everyone else in the population put together?

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Remember, we're talking about a population that believes in freedom and order."

That's a huge assumption. You have a lot more faith in the human race then me. I'm convinced my nieghbor would kill me for shiny pebbles if he thought he'd get away with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he think he could get away with it?

[ QUOTE ]
"Warlords are organized criminals. In a state-dominated system, organized criminals generate cashflow (power) by filling needs that the government stops the market from filling (e.g. drugs, prostitution, gambling). In a stateless system, these can be provided by the market. There's no need for organized crime to provide them. "

Who needs drugs, prostituion, or gambling. With no police, why not simply rob people outright?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said there would be no police?

[ QUOTE ]
"Once the self-appointed warlord has alienated his customers, how will he maintain his power?"

What customers? You don't need customers when you have victims.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think people are going to let themselves be victimized without organizing resistance?

Do you think people who respect freedom and order will tolerate a bully? They'll just throw their hands up and say "oh my, since there's no government to protect me, I'll just have to hope there are no mean people in the world"? I don't. There are mean people. They should be dealt with.

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

Why do they care?

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

A warlord could make his initial wealth in an entirely legitimate way. And over a long period of time it is very likely that a particular capitalist would be so sucessful that he would indeed have a "bigger foot than everyone else". However, even this isn't nessecary, all that is required is that he is powerful enough that it can be in other powerful entities interests not to oppose him if he were to attempt to entrench himself by assuming the powers of the state. Furthermore, each individual smaller capitalist could not possible oppose such a revolution without knowing that the rest of society would do so too, if the revolutionizing capitalist/despot can create the impression of inevitability, than resistance is doomed.

IMO the key to making members of a society follow the rules is not a "respect for rules/order" but rather a wide dispersion of power amongst individuals with different intersts. As soon as one individual becomes powerful enough to ignore the law, the law is meaningless. A multipolar representative government like the one found in western democracies effectively accomplishes this. In an anarchocapitalist state, I see no long run guarentee and don't even find it likely that power would not become too concentrated to maintain the rule of law.

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

"Why would he think he could get away with it?"

He has a bigger gun.

"Who said there would be no police?"

You did. If you going to say private security forces then they won't have mandates to protect anyone who can't pay for their services.

"Why do you think people are going to let themselves be victimized without organizing resistance?"

Like rebellious serfs in the middle ages organized a resistence, then got killed.

"Do you think people who respect freedom and order will tolerate a bully?"

Let's give you a lot of slack. I'll assume that there are enoguh generous people out there willing to pay for the security of the poor simply because they think it's the right thing to do.

How would these people organize. They will need to pool thier resources. To make sure thier army is the biggest one, and thus able to protect everyone, we'll assume there are many many people involved. They will need rules to govern when the force can be used, and rules governing how the rules are made. They will also have to make rules are applied universally and fairly to all members to ensure the members themselves don't violate the agreements. Without these controls in place they will be unable to organize thier power effectively in order to curb the aggressions of individual members or groups.

So what do we have here. A government.

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's give you a lot of slack. I'll assume that there are enoguh generous people out there willing to pay for the security of the poor simply because they think it's the right thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a much more serious problem than the one you elaborate on. In fact, I think I'll start a thread...

Re: anarchocapitlist stability
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Who said there would be no police?"

You did. If you going to say private security forces then they won't have mandates to protect anyone who can't pay for their services.

[/ QUOTE ]

Private security *IS* "police".

I'll address your concerns about poor people in another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
"Why do you think people are going to let themselves be victimized without organizing resistance?"

Like rebellious serfs in the middle ages organized a resistence, then got killed.

"Do you think people who respect freedom and order will tolerate a bully?"

Let's give you a lot of slack. I'll assume that there are enoguh generous people out there willing to pay for the security of the poor simply because they think it's the right thing to do.

How would these people organize. They will need to pool thier resources. To make sure thier army is the biggest one, and thus able to protect everyone, we'll assume there are many many people involved. They will need rules to govern when the force can be used, and rules governing how the rules are made. They will also have to make rules are applied universally and fairly to all members to ensure the members themselves don't violate the agreements. Without these controls in place they will be unable to organize thier power effectively in order to curb the aggressions of individual members or groups.

So what do we have here. A government.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a bunch of people buying protection services. The people from whom they buy the service can determine how to make their own rules (these processes would be considered in the purchasing decision). People would purchase whatever level of security that they felt they needed. Some would purchase nothing. Regardless, we can be confident that the results will be more efficient (and more moral) than state-run service.

Now let's talk about the uber-warlord-boogeyman. You seem to reject the notion that anyone will be able to oppose him.

Let's start with the extreme case, and allow that this single man has amassed enough power to conquer the entire world. So what? A-C can't 100% prevent conquest. But neither can any other form of government. The soviets could have wiped out the US had they wanted to.

Continuing in this case, which is easier for the boogeyman to conquer and to maintain power over after the conquest? A centralized state, or a dispersed population with no controlling authorities? Think about worldwide guerilla warfare. Is this really going to be a profitable endeavor for the boogeyman?