Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism

[tylerdurden]

[ 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?

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[superleeds]

The law?

[tylerdurden]

[ 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.

[TomCollins]

[ 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?

[The Don]

[ 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

[The Don]

[ 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.

[hmkpoker]

[ 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.

[TomCollins]

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

[tylerdurden]

[ 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?