nvm

nvm

No it doesn't distribute resources most effectively. It's a market form that actually collapses over time, like most anarcho-constructs, due to internal pressures.

Next.

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction of terms. How can you have capitalism without a body(aka government) to protect property rights?

Fugitive Sisyphus said:

Anarcho-capitalism is a contradiction of terms. How can you have capitalism without a body(aka government) to protect property rights?

Click to expand...

And therein lies the definitional problem of anarcho-capitalism

it won't work because there'll always be guys that would take candy from babies and steal old ladies' purses. Then everyone will form a government that punishes people from stealing candy from babies and purse snatching.

Once that's done people will get ideas like how it would be awesome if we had these pathway type things to use to get to other places. Then they would have the government build said pathway type things. Then everyone would get together and decide to stop all the people from crashing head on into each other, so they'd make rules and pay people to enforce them.

Then after about 4000 years someone would post one their government funded intertubes that everyone should try anarcho-capitalism. Rinse, wash, and repeat as desired.

Somalia's a good working example of anarcho-capitalism. I use the term "working" very lightly here.

Externalities seem to argue for government intervention.

xarthaz said:

Being the probable future form of government(Why? It distributes resources most efficiently due to competition and free market in all areas of society), it is a good idea to discuss it.

Click to expand...

Economic counterexamples to the "capitalism" part: Public goods. Externalities. Merit goods. The free market doesn't solve everyting (see: public finance, environmental economics, health economics) and even in the best of cases, the market can fail (see: overlapping generations framework). Counterexamples to the "anarcho" part: legal framework. Private property protection. Enforcement of contracts. etc. Capitalism rests on a specific set of legal and social norms that your anarchism, by definition, would not provide.

Bill3000 said:

Somalia's a good working example of anarcho-capitalism. I use the term "working" very lightly here.

Click to expand...

That's interesting actually. I mean, think about it.

What is Somalia famous for? Pirates!

And what do pirates do? Prevent Global Warming!



Therefore, in order to prevent Global Warming, we must embrace Anarcho-Capitalism

Externalities aside, I can't imagine why having a non-uniform code of laws due to the existence of a vast multitude of private law systems could be considered more efficient...

And hell, how would anarcho-capitalism differ from any primitive non-communal society that didn't regulate much, anyway?

JerichoHill said:

No it doesn't distribute resources most effectively. It's a market form that actually collapses over time, like most anarcho-constructs, due to internal pressures.

Next.

Click to expand...

No, it collapses because anarchism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Anarchism itself has never collapsed due to "internal pressures," but to external ones; the forces of the counterrevolution, generally under the Marxist-Leninist banner (ironically enough).

xarthaz said:

The answer is: it is in the interests of private governments to solve problems peacefully, as an attack against a government representing someone else will surely attract a counterattack and cause the destruction of the capital of those who pay for the governments clients. Thus, only rational, peaceful governments will be able to keep their customers.

Click to expand...

How absurd. What anarchist would advocate the existence of a government?

xarthaz said:

Being the probable future form of government(Why? It distributes resources most efficiently due to competition and free market in all areas of society), it is a good idea to discuss it.

A good point to start with is the skepticism of privately owned governments being able to maintain peace due to conflicts between each other and due to members of different governments being involved in legal issues.

The answer is: it is in the interests of private governments to solve problems peacefully, as an attack against a government representing someone else will surely attract a counterattack and cause the destruction of the capital of those who pay for the governments clients. Thus, only rational, peaceful governments will be able to keep their customers.

Click to expand...

Lol, I don't think that governments are heading that way at all. You're an American right?

The answer is: it is in the interests of private governments to solve problems peacefully

Click to expand...

Really? The worst governments in history and the world, North Korea, Hitler's Germany, the USSR, countless totalitarian states, kingdoms and so forth, were all for the most part privately controlled regimes. They were unalterable by and unaccountable to the public. Power within these regimes was concentrated to a private family, oligarchy or a single leader, in essence making them private regimes. Anarcho-capitalism, in practice, seeks to create many small and not so small private regimes and if history is any guide to us, some of these groups and regimes would not think that peaceful solutions are always in their best interests. And indeed, even an apparently peaceful solution can be exploitive.

Anarcho-capitalists claim that their ideology is the logical conclusion of the libertarian thinking that the "best government is the government that governs the least". But all that anarcho-capitalism does is that it recontextualizes the entire system of laws, entitlement and privilege in private property. Anarcho-capitalism is basically another conception of coercion and government, one where the privileges of property owners would be enforced to the extreme (because any violation of their property rights can be considered theft, any regulation is slavery), while those who could be described as have-nots would be rendered politically meaningless because anything other than selling themselves to slavery (i.e. wage labor without any public regulations) would be considered aggression on their part. Any political organization no matter how peaceful would be considered aggression if it contradicts with the narrow libertarian ethic in which the rich are self-evidently and universally entitled to their power and wealth.

Gustave5436 said:

Anarchism itself has never collapsed sue to "internal pressures," but to external ones;

Click to expand...

I was having a hard time trying to figure out, how anarchy could "collapse". Finally understood that this is what normal people call "progress" or probably "end of paleolithic" .

does anyone besides anarcho capitalists dont think anarcho capitalists are idiots?

holy king said:

does anyone besides anarcho capitalists dont think anarcho capitalists are idiots?

Click to expand...

Anarcho capitalists are totalitarians. It's utterly ironic. In the name of anarchy they intend to less freedom and less choice than Stalin or Mao ever dreamed of.

Anarchy as a popular notion is merely a stepping stone from adolescent rage to adolescent self importance. Objectivism correlates to adolescent self importance.

@OP

Ah, now I see what you're a disciple of. Sorry, Galt's Gulch is that way.

Yeekim said:

I was having a hard time trying to figure out, how anarchy could "collapse". Finally understood that this is what normal people call "progress" or probably "end of paleolithic" .

Click to expand...

The word you are looking for is "regress." For a free society to transform into an unfree form would be a "regression," not a "progression," assuming one values freedom.

Of course, such a regression would not be a "collapse," but a "destruction," as a free people will not simply discard their own freedom; it must be taken from them by external forces.

Gustave5436 said:

The word you are looking for is "regress." For a free society to transform into an unfree form would be a "regression," not a "progression," assuming one values freedom.

Of course, such a regression would not be a "collapse," but a "destruction," as a free people will not simply discard their own freedom; it must be taken from them by external forces.

Click to expand...

Letting my neighbor steal my cow isn't freedom. At least not the kind i want. And we give up freedom everyday, force is hardly needed. Just propaganda and logic (sometimes, giving up freedom is a good thing)