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...

[TomCollins]

[ 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?

[The Don]

[ 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.

[hmkpoker]

[ 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?

[TomCollins]

[ 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.

[superleeds]

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.

[The Don]

[ 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?