Possible problems with anarcho-capitalism

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

So there would be a court system? I didn't realize that. Who enforces the orders of the court? How is that not like a government?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because everyone can use their own court, and magically they will agree.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
I could just buy a piece of someones property 1 inch thick making a donut. How would be move his stuff? He can't. He is basically homeless and his property is worthless now. You don't think he'd pay? What if I wanted to buy his property with all on it at a huge discount? Wishful thinking isn't going to make your system work.

Would you sell 1 inch of your land to someone for $1000? I know I would, especially if I still had full access rights to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You believe that a rational arbitrator (the most profitable ones under AC) would actually uphold this? Courts in AC wouldn't be machines incapable of any discretion. Maybe if the individual owned a significant piece of land in his surrounding property, but as I said, it would be very difficult to acquire this. The mere fact that someone would spend their time doing this is inconcievable to me.

As I said, a lot of things are possible under statism but I never argue that these possiblities invalidate the system.

Corporations hire lobbyists in an attempt to gain favorable legislation which may or may not be detrimental to people on a much larger scale. Other corporations gain market power through intellectual property laws at the expense of possible competition and lower prices. Just a couple examples of people exploiting the statist system.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
So there would be a court system? I didn't realize that. Who enforces the orders of the court? How is that not like a government?


[/ QUOTE ]

It is put pretty well right here (I also suggest reading the subsequent link)

[InchoateHand]

Where are these rational market actors your non-system is predicated on to be found? Certainly not on Adam Smith's green earth.

[natedogg]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the reason I can't accept the premise that anarcho-capitalism could work. I've never heard a good explanation of how slavery would not exist under anarchocapitalism.

But basically, I don't see much use for government beyond protecting me from slavers and foreign other than protecting me from foreign invaders.

natedogg

[Borodog]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the reason I can't accept the premise that anarcho-capitalism could work. I've never heard a good explanation of how slavery would not exist under anarchocapitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now when governments actually eliminates slavery, you'll finally have one point in favor of statism.

A good friend of mine works tirelessly to fight sex slavery in the anarchic, chaotic region of . . . North Carolina. Slavery exists under every State on the planet.

[natedogg]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the reason I can't accept the premise that anarcho-capitalism could work. I've never heard a good explanation of how slavery would not exist under anarchocapitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great. Now when governments actually eliminates slavery, you'll finally have one point in favor of statism.

A good friend of mine works tirelessly to fight sex slavery in the anarchic, chaotic region of . . . North Carolina. Slavery exists under every State on the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is he working as a vigilante? If not, I imagine it is the authority of the state that gives his work any meaning or hope of success.

Granted, the state is close to worthless but I'm not convinced there would be any way to prevent violent coercion of the strong over the weak without it.

natedogg

my beef is mostly - how do private security firms defend our "society" when China decides to send 2 million troops at us in full force? What if we in a recession and the private firms are cutting back?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
my beef is mostly - how do private security firms defend our "society" when China decides to send 2 million troops at us in full force?

[/ QUOTE ]
Definitely a problem especially since we won't have any allies, being stateless and all.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Is he working as a vigilante? If not, I imagine it is the authority of the state that gives his work any meaning or hope of success.

[/ QUOTE ]

She is a social worker working for a non-profit organization. She works closely with the police and courts, i.e. the state. But since the police and courts are state monopolies, that's not really surprising.

[ QUOTE ]
, the state is close to worthless but I'm not convinced there would be any way to prevent violent coercion of the strong over the weak without it.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) The majority of what disuades "violent coercion of the weak by the strong" doesn't have anything to do with the state. If you doubt this, think about these questions. Do you think most people don't kill and rob other people because they are afraid of the police, courts, or prisons? What do you think would disuade a mugger more, the remote chance of being arrested and the even more remote chance of being convicted, or the immediate chance of being shot by an armed victim? Which do you think disuades a burglar more, the remote chance of being arrested and the even more remote chance of being convicted, or a security system, a big barking dog, and the immediate chance of being shot by an armed homeowner?

b) How is the state supposed to prevent violent coercion? The whole point of the state is the violent coercion of the weak by the strong, the strong being the state. The state is violent coercion.