Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[superleeds]

'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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[The Don]

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...

Where does environmental protection come into play in AnCap?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Where does environmental protection come into play in AnCap?

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where does environmental protection come into play in AnCap?

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is an extremely inadequate response. How do property rights prevent air pollution?

Let me present a specific example to you. To simplify things, lets say that we are on an island with 100 people who each own an equal 1% share of the island. Person A is operating a chemical plant that gives him a profit of $1,000. However, the pollution generated by his plant cause lung problems that in the long run costs each resident of the island $20 in medical costs. Thus, the net result of the power plant is negative ($1,000 - (20*$100) = -$1,000). The most economically efficient result would be for all of the residents of the island to pay the operator of the plant $10 for a total of $1,000 to stop operating the plant. But without some kind of government, this payment would never happen because the problems of transaction costs and free riders.

So in this case, please tell me how AC environmental protection would work.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where does environmental protection come into play in AnCap?

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is an extremely inadequate response. How do property rights prevent air pollution?

Let me present a specific example to you. To simplify things, lets say that we are on an island with 100 people who each own an equal 1% share of the island. Person A is operating a chemical plant that gives him a profit of $1,000. However, the pollution generated by his plant cause lung problems that in the long run costs each resident of the island $20 in medical costs. Thus, the net result of the power plant is negative ($1,000 - (20*$100) = -$1,000). The most economically efficient result would be for all of the residents of the island to pay the operator of the plant $10 for a total of $1,000 to stop operating the plant. But without some kind of government, this payment would never happen because the problems of transaction costs and free riders.

So in this case, please tell me how AC environmental protection would work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't rocket science. The people stop buying his product and he goes out of business. If people do not benefit from something, they don't voluntarily purchase it. I don't see the need for them to pay the man $10 to stop operating.

[slickpoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where does environmental protection come into play in AnCap?

[/ QUOTE ]

Property rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is an extremely inadequate response. How do property rights prevent air pollution?

Let me present a specific example to you. To simplify things, lets say that we are on an island with 100 people who each own an equal 1% share of the island. Person A is operating a chemical plant that gives him a profit of $1,000. However, the pollution generated by his plant cause lung problems that in the long run costs each resident of the island $20 in medical costs. Thus, the net result of the power plant is negative ($1,000 - (20*$100) = -$1,000). The most economically efficient result would be for all of the residents of the island to pay the operator of the plant $10 for a total of $1,000 to stop operating the plant. But without some kind of government, this payment would never happen because the problems of transaction costs and free riders.

So in this case, please tell me how AC environmental protection would work.

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't rocket science. The people stop buying his product and he goes out of business. If people do not benefit from something, they don't voluntarily purchase it. I don't see the need for people to pay the man $10 to stop operating.

[/ QUOTE ]

For that to work, everyone would have to agree to not buy his product. How would that happen? What incentive would any individual have for not buying his products? And what if instead of operating a chemical plant, the owner of the land is simply usimg it for his own personal enjoyment in a way that detrimentally affects others?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
That is an extremely inadequate response. How do property rights prevent air pollution?

[/ QUOTE ]

If someone aggresses against you, you sue them and extract damages. Currently, governments provide protection to polluters, often (but certainly not exclusively) by setting "standards" of acceptable pollution (acceptable to political committees, not to those actually affected by pollution).

[ QUOTE ]
The most economically efficient result would be for all of the residents of the island to pay the operator of the plant $10 for a total of $1,000 to stop operating the plant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?! That's basically reverse extortion - you're creating incentives to pollute. In that case, people would be lining up to create the cheapest possible pollution-creation device. Why not sue the guy for the $2000 in damages? He then goes out of business (i.e. he stops polluting) and others see that polluting is bad for business.