anarchocapitlist stability

[mrgold]

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?

[Matty]

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.

[mrgold]

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

[Matty]

In common usage it is much more than that.

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

[lehighguy]

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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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?

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[lehighguy]

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

What if the other guy has a bigger foot?

[lehighguy]

"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.

[tylerdurden]

[ 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?