Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

If we live in an anarcho-capitalist society, what prevents me from owning slaves?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6...nsignal7nf.jpg

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

Capitalism is great. Unbridled capitalism is a freakin disaster.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6...nsignal7nf.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]
POTY

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we live in an anarcho-capitalist society, what prevents me from owning slaves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure pvn would answer that if someone sold themself into slavery, its OK, but if they were forced into, it obviously violates their rights, since no one can enslave you.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/6...nsignal7nf.jpg

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one of the funniest ideas ever.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we live in an anarcho-capitalist society, what prevents me from owning slaves? [/quote

http://www.josephnero.com/1/images/o.Gun.jpg

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

Semantics question: What's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and just plain anarchy?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
POTY

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't give me too much credit. I ripped the idea off of the old [censored]-signal from OOT.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Semantics question: What's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and just plain anarchy?

[/ QUOTE ]

"anarchy" doesn't sound nearly as cool.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we live in an anarcho-capitalist society, what prevents me from owning slaves?

[/ QUOTE ]

What prevents you from doing it in the US?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure pvn would answer that if someone sold themself into slavery, its OK, but if they were forced into, it obviously violates their rights, since no one can enslave you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe you can *ever* irrevoccably relenquish your self-ownership.

Technically, you can't "own" slaves. You can forcibly take normative control of people, but you can never have a legitimate property interest in them.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

The law?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
The law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? The law says murder is illegal, but murders still happen. Bank robberies still happen. The law does not physically prevent anything.

Furthermore, anarcho-capitalism is *not* lawless. I asked earlier in this thread why thinks a state is required for law, but recieved no answer.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? The law says murder is illegal, but murders still happen. Bank robberies still happen. The law does not physically prevent anything.

Furthermore, anarcho-capitalism is *not* lawless. I asked earlier in this thread why thinks a state is required for law, but recieved no answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because a fundamental property of law is that it is universally applied. If I have my laws, and you have yours, who wins?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Semantics question: What's the difference between anarcho-capitalism and just plain anarchy?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are "rules" in AC.

Natural Law, in accordance with Locke's principles pretty much.

The non-aggression axiom

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we live in an anarcho-capitalist society, what prevents me from owning slaves?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure pvn would answer that if someone sold themself into slavery, its OK, but if they were forced into, it obviously violates their rights, since no one can enslave you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is correct sir.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? The law says murder is illegal, but murders still happen. Bank robberies still happen. The law does not physically prevent anything.

Furthermore, anarcho-capitalism is *not* lawless. I asked earlier in this thread why thinks a state is required for law, but recieved no answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

There would have to be some kind of police force to enforce this. There are no taxes, so your police force is privately funded. Presumably, your police force can enforce whatever laws it wants. The one that gets the most money will have the most power and have the most say.

Now, if the demand is sensible, there is no problem. I'll support a police force that protects me from getting mugged on the street, having my house or property vandalized, etc. But what if we're talking about a bunch of KKK kooks who want to see blacks, jews and homosexuals wiped out? There's a demand for it, and if they're willing to pay an organization for black/jew/queer-free streets, then serious problems could arise.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

Well they aren't allowed to do that!! Obviously they all know that.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
There would have to be some kind of police force to enforce this. There are no taxes, so your police force is privately funded. Presumably, your police force can enforce whatever laws it wants. The one that gets the most money will have the most power and have the most say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Economic forces discourage security firms from engaging in open conflict. Customers want discreet, effective, and efficient protection. Open conflict with other agencies is extremely expensive and inefficient, and therefore is bad for business.


[ QUOTE ]
There's a demand for it, and if they're willing to pay an organization for black/jew/queer-free streets, then serious problems could arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they own the street, they should be able to control who uses it, shouldn't they?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably, your police force can enforce whatever laws it wants. The one that gets the most money will have the most power and have the most say.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds a lot like the current situation. Police forces have limited budgets, and therefore have to make decisions about which laws to enforce.

When you hire private security, YOU get to make the decisions about how your money is directed.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

'Huh? The law says murder is illegal, but murders still happen. Bank robberies still happen. The law does not physically prevent anything'

Which is why I added the ?.

'Furthermore, anarcho-capitalism is *not* lawless. I asked earlier in this thread why thinks a state is required for law, but recieved no answer.'

For a law to have any meaning it must be enforcable, whether that be by a state or any other body is just semantics. Hoping everybody will obey some unwritten, inconsistant and most importantly, unenforced code is naive and foolish. Also thinking that all will calm down at some managable pace and numerous 'private security forces' will emerge to suit all pockets is fairy tale. Have you heard of the feudal system?

feudalism: A political and economic system of Europe from the 9th to about the 15th century, based on the holding of all land in fief or fee and the resulting relation of lord to vassal and characterized by homage, legal and military service of tenants, and forfeiture.

This is what will happen in the utopia you aspire.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is what will happen in the utopia you aspire.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I don't claim that anarcho-capitalism is utopian.

2) Why do you believe that feudalism is the inevitable outcome of AC? Give me *some* line of reasoning.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

What is so unenforcable or inconsistent? The beauty of AC is in its simplicity. Basically, everything is legal other than actions which do harm (stealing and killing pretty much) to others. People do not want harm done to them and will demand enforcement of these principles. Seeking profit opportunity, firms will be formed to uphold the 'law'. The ones which are the most fair and efficient will recieve the most business. Consequently, order is maintained.

Please elaborate on how and why feudalism will arise as a consequence of the absence of the state...

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is so unenforcable or inconsistent? The beauty of AC is in its simplicity. Basically, everything is legal other than actions which do harm (stealing and killing pretty much) to others. People do not want harm done to them and will demand enforcement of these principles. Seeking profit opportunity, firms will be formed to uphold the 'law'. The ones which are the most fair and efficient will recieve the most business. Consequently, order is maintained.

Please elaborate on how and why feudalism will arise as a consequence of the absence of the state...

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Mafia can own the NYPD, whats to say it can't easily influence these private security agencies? Wishful thinking?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is so unenforcable or inconsistent? The beauty of AC is in its simplicity. Basically, everything is legal other than actions which do harm (stealing and killing pretty much) to others. People do not want harm done to them and will demand enforcement of these principles. Seeking profit opportunity, firms will be formed to uphold the 'law'. The ones which are the most fair and efficient will recieve the most business. Consequently, order is maintained.

Please elaborate on how and why feudalism will arise as a consequence of the absence of the state...

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Mafia can own the NYPD, whats to say it can't easily influence these private security agencies? Wishful thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's why: the NYPD is a government monopoly on crime enforcement; therefore people cannot choose any other alternative. The state FORCES them to "choose" the NYPD to uphold the law. This makes it very easy for the mafia to "own" law enforcement, because there is only one option.

In AC, if people sensed corruption, they would simply stop using that particular firm and select an alternative. Similarly, the firm would not want to engage in corrupt practices because the consumers would stop demanding their service, thus making their business unprofitable.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a demand for it, and if they're willing to pay an organization for black/jew/queer-free streets, then serious problems could arise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they own the street, they should be able to control who uses it, shouldn't they?

[/ QUOTE ]

The operative word is "if," but that may not matter.

Let's say a black person purchases property in a certain area. A bunch of KKK members move in. They want this black person out, even though he rightfully owns the land. They pay someone a substantial sum to burn the black man's house down. What protects the black man's rights?

I'd also like to know how you propose to divide up currently existing public land. In anarcho-capitalism, all streets/parks/other public lands and easements would be purchased by private owners who paid top dollar to them. If I want to purchase a street and I have a lot of money for it, to whom do I pay the money? There is no state to sell it to. I envision this as leading to feudalism, but perhaps I'm missing something?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is so unenforcable or inconsistent? The beauty of AC is in its simplicity. Basically, everything is legal other than actions which do harm (stealing and killing pretty much) to others. People do not want harm done to them and will demand enforcement of these principles. Seeking profit opportunity, firms will be formed to uphold the 'law'. The ones which are the most fair and efficient will recieve the most business. Consequently, order is maintained.

Please elaborate on how and why feudalism will arise as a consequence of the absence of the state...

[/ QUOTE ]

If the Mafia can own the NYPD, whats to say it can't easily influence these private security agencies? Wishful thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's why: the NYPD is a government monopoly on crime enforcement; therefore people cannot choose any other alternative. The state FORCES them to "choose" the NYPD to uphold the law. This makes it very easy for the mafia to "own" law enforcement, because there is only one option.

In AC, if people sensed corruption, they would simply stop using that particular firm and select an alternative. Similarly, the firm would not want to engage in corrupt practices because the consumers would stop demanding their service, thus making their business unprofitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the customers benefit from that firm, I see no reason why they wouldn't join in. Or suppose a firm upholds a law that people shouldn't be allowed to gamble, and starts imposing fines on people who don't. A lot of people will support this firm, especially since they might be cheaper.

Of course, this all comes from fantasy land, AC's would be better off if they just stuck with pure anarchy, as it at least makes f'in sense and is consistent with itself.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

1) I don't claim that anarcho-capitalism is utopian

You want a world without taxes, where the market is king and ultimately decides all. Semantics.

2) Why do you believe that feudalism is the inevitable outcome of AC? Give me *some* line of reasoning

The survival of the fittest, to the victors go the spoils, the rich get richer. Feudalism collapsed because of the greed of the haves not because they suddenly cared for the have-nots. They couldn't stop trying to crush each other and ultimately only weakened themselves.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the customers benefit from that firm, I see no reason why they wouldn't join in. Or suppose a firm upholds a law that people shouldn't be allowed to gamble, and starts imposing fines on people who don't. A lot of people will support this firm, especially since they might be cheaper.

Of course, this all comes from fantasy land, AC's would be better off if they just stuck with pure anarchy, as it at least makes f'in sense and is consistent with itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

In AC there ARE laws. Again, I cite the non-aggression axiom. . It is unlawful for someone to impose their will on another without consent.

The fines you state in your example would be considered theft under AC, and proper action by other firms would be taken against said firm.

Additionally, it is unlikely that such a firm would survive in AC because it would be less efficient than firms which simply uphold the non-aggression principle (again, any revenue from fines is illegal).

I realize that AC rests on the basis that people understand and accept natural law. A few centuries ago, kings derived their legitimacy from divine right. Why, in the future, is it not possible for people to realize the forceful nature of the state and accept natural law?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the customers benefit from that firm, I see no reason why they wouldn't join in. Or suppose a firm upholds a law that people shouldn't be allowed to gamble, and starts imposing fines on people who don't. A lot of people will support this firm, especially since they might be cheaper.

Of course, this all comes from fantasy land, AC's would be better off if they just stuck with pure anarchy, as it at least makes f'in sense and is consistent with itself.


[/ QUOTE ]

In AC there ARE laws. Again, I cite the non-aggression axiom. . It is unlawful for someone to impose their will on another without consent.

The fines you state in your example would be considered theft under AC, and proper action by other firms would be taken against said firm.

Additionally, it is unlikely that such a firm would survive in AC because it would be less efficient than firms which simply uphold the non-aggression principle (again, any revenue from fines is illegal).

I realize that AC rests on the basis that people understand and accept natural law. A few centuries ago, kings derived their legitimacy from divine right. Why, in the future, is it not possible for people to realize the forceful nature of the state and accept natural law?

[/ QUOTE ]

A law is a piece of paper or an idea. It has no power. Only when it is enforced does it have an ounce of power. Now you are saying that in this free-for-all, people will either "obey the law on their own", or other groups, that must initiate force to enforce it, will also stop at these bounds. Less efficient? Come on, be realistic, if that's the case, no one would ever commit a crime. Of course it's more efficient to take someone elses property than earn it fair and square.

So you end up with
1) 1 group that is real powerful and demanding protection money and no one can stop them
2) A massive civil-war-ish type conflict where various groups try to fight control to keep avenging these mistreatments.

To expect living in the state of nature to produce order is patently rediculous.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
1) I don't claim that anarcho-capitalism is utopian

You want a world without taxes, where the market is king and ultimately decides all. Semantics.

2) Why do you believe that feudalism is the inevitable outcome of AC? Give me *some* line of reasoning

The survival of the fittest, to the victors go the spoils, the rich get richer. Feudalism collapsed because of the greed of the haves not because they suddenly cared for the have-nots. They couldn't stop trying to crush each other and ultimately only weakened themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor example. Your knowledge of economics is obviously limited. You are not taking into account the development of infrastructure the fact that free-market economics is positive-sum. In America for example, the overall standard of living is very high not because of the intervention of the state, but because of the lack of intervention by the state relative to other nations (America is one of the freer states economically). Of course, this is largely due to the development of infrastructure and a vast service industry.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1) I don't claim that anarcho-capitalism is utopian

You want a world without taxes, where the market is king and ultimately decides all. Semantics.

2) Why do you believe that feudalism is the inevitable outcome of AC? Give me *some* line of reasoning

The survival of the fittest, to the victors go the spoils, the rich get richer. Feudalism collapsed because of the greed of the haves not because they suddenly cared for the have-nots. They couldn't stop trying to crush each other and ultimately only weakened themselves.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor example. Your knowledge of economics is obviously limited. You are not taking into account the development of infrastructure the fact that free-market economics is positive-sum. In America for example, the overall standard of living is very high not because of the intervention of the state, but because of the lack of intervention by the state relative to other nations (America is one of the freer states economically). Of course, this is largely due to the development of infrastructure and a vast service industry.

[/ QUOTE ]

My knowledge of economics is limited? *laughs*.

I didn't state a single thing about transportation or intervention creating good things in this country.

2 things have allowed the US to excel.

1) High degree of freedom and privitization
2) Consistent rule of law

To think that there can be a form of anarchy with the rule of law is quite rediculous.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

Where does environmental protection come into play in AnCap?

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
To expect living in the state of nature to produce order is patently rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

This state of order exists in nature among every living thing on Earth besides humans.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To expect living in the state of nature to produce order is patently rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

This state of order exists in nature among every living thing on Earth besides humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

But would you trade places with animals? When was the last time you didn't eat for days because you couldn't kill anything or got attacked by something that wanted to eat you while you were just trying to get a drink of water?

And you broke your arm? Well, looks like you're going to die then.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
But would you trade places with animals? When was the last time you didn't eat for days because you couldn't kill anything or got attacked by something that wanted to eat you while you were just trying to get a drink of water?
And you broke your arm? Well, looks like you're going to die then.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one said anything about removing human intelligence and resourcefulness.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
A law is a piece of paper or an idea. It has no power. Only when it is enforced does it have an ounce of power. Now you are saying that in this free-for-all, people will either "obey the law on their own", or other groups, that must initiate force to enforce it, will also stop at these bounds. Less efficient? Come on, be realistic, if that's the case, no one would ever commit a crime. Of course it's more efficient to take someone elses property than earn it fair and square.

So you end up with
1) 1 group that is real powerful and demanding protection money and no one can stop them
2) A massive civil-war-ish type conflict where various groups try to fight control to keep avenging these mistreatments.

To expect living in the state of nature to produce order is patently rediculous.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, for AC to exist I realize that there needs to be a paradigm shift. The only thing that needs to occur for AC to be successful is the basic principle that enough people do not believe in the use of force as to make such actions unprofitable. Resources are power in AC, people will not engage in contracts with or direct resources to those who violate the non-aggression axiom, therefore violators will have no power and order will persist. It is quite simple.

Again, just because the vast majority of people accept the use of force now (primarily, in my opinion, out of ignorance) does not mean that this can't change in the future.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To expect living in the state of nature to produce order is patently rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

This state of order exists in nature among every living thing on Earth besides humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think animals steal from each other? Or "rape" the weaker females?

Read Leviathan, it's quite obvious you are ignorant of the State of Nature argument. That's REAL Natural Law.

Re: Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism
 

[ QUOTE ]
My knowledge of economics is limited? *laughs*.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to superleeds' rationalization for the transformation of AC into feudalism. I am sure your knowledge of economics is quite expansive.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't state a single thing about transportation or intervention creating good things in this country.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I wasn't responding to your post. Notice the quote above...

[ QUOTE ]
2 things have allowed the US to excel.

1) High degree of freedom and privitization
2) Consistent rule of law


[/ QUOTE ]

1) Agreed.
2) Agreed. This isn't to say that it is only possible under a statist system however.

[ QUOTE ]
To think that there can be a form of anarchy with the rule of law is quite rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

As of now it seems that way. Popular attitudes change though... read my other post.