Anarcho-Capitalist

[chameleoncomplex]

I have a freind who is an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Being rather sympathetic to Anarcho-Socialism myself, I have had many discussions with him about why I am opposed to Capitalism.

However, he keeps bringing all my arguments back to how this or that wouldn't be a problem under a truly 'free' market system.

I am finding it hard to put forward any of the evils of Capitalism that aren't in some way reliant on state facilitation e.g. Imperialism, Monopolistic Media Control, Corporate Atrocities (such as Ecocide) & Globalization. I need some help here.

Also he is a keen philosopher & I am having a big argument over selfishness, which he feels is good as nothing can ever be done out of true altruism as he says that we always do things to feel good inside or to benefit in some way, no matter how selfless they appear.

This too has got me stumped.

[jake williams]

One thing I might suggest - there's likely a difference, though there are inevitably overlaps, between what is actually "right", what we can actually come to an intellectual conclusion is moral, and what our moral instincts are. Perhaps we have a moral instinct to do what our society and our intellect tells us is moral? Is it then selfish to obey this moral instinct?

Does it matter at all?

Anarcho-capitalists/Objectivists/Neo-libertarians(ie. the American breed)/Randians/all these fuckers, they just strike me as anti-social psychos who think their view of the world and other people is "human nature".

[#FF0000]

In my opinion he's right about altruism, however, I don't sweat it because it doesn't mean anything about socialism or communism. In fact, you could probably use that argument on altruism to support socialism/communism/anarchism.

As for anarcho-capitalism: There's no ideology more childish. To think that an entire society of people who are only interested in looking out for #1 would be remotely stable or just is ridiculous. How does he figure that monopolies and cartels wouldn't be formed? How would he prevent corporations from eventually just replacing the state, with private military contractors playing the role of the police? How would he prevent everything (in particular EDUCATION) from becoming just a big advertisement for the coporations and cartels? What about worker's rights? How would they be dealt with?

Look at the 1900's, and the abuses the robber barons got away with WITH government around. How does he expect a capitalist system WITHOUT a government to bust cartels and monopolies, to be fairer? Seriously. Get back to me with his answers on this.

EDIT:

Okay, I've got a few more questions for this guy.

How will "Justice" be served under an Anarcho-Capitalist society? A friend of mine just sent me an article that points out a pretty big flaw in Anarcho-Capitalism. Let me just quote the part of the article that struck me the most:


In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no state, and all the courts are private courts. There is no final court of appeal that all are obliged to recognise, and no uniform code of justice can be enforced. Laws are determined on the market. Everyone may choose which of the competing courts he will look to for protection; and he may alter his choice at will.


In a just anarcho-capitalist society the courts enforce the common law; but there is no guarantee that an anarcho-capitalist society will be just. It will be just only if the "hidden hand" of the market makes it so. Since a just society is economically efficient, there is reason to hope that the hidden hand will lead to justice, even (or especially) in the absence of the state. This is the hope of anarcho-capitalism.


Even if a just anarcho-capitalist society should exist, there is no guarantee that it would be stable. There are many conceivable sources of instability (and many possible ways in which the threat of such instabilities might be averted) but in this essay I am concerned with only one. That one may prove fatal.


The flaw (if it is a flaw) lies in the nature of the courts. Again, there are a number of difficulties that may arise in the operation of the courts under anarcho-capitalism; again, I shall concentrate upon only one. That one is basic.


His argument might be that "the consumers will demand common-law justice", but this is so naive it makes me dizzy. Modern advertising is all about making someone want what they don't need. Go back to the 20th century once again and look at how advertising and marketing became a science thanks to psychologists like Freud and John B. Watson. Look at how advertisements began drifting away from focusing on the practical aspects of a product (This product is useful and is worth your money), and began to evoke emotions in the consumer in order to move units (This product will make you happy and fulfilled!). Businesses once needed to feed an existing demand to make money. Now, any company with enough cash and bright enough marketers can simply create a demand. (see: Manufacturing Consent. More or less the same thing.)

Anyway, yes. Tell me how he responds.

[Demogorgon]

He's just running around you with silly arguments that are the stock slogans of anarcho-capitalism that rely solely on the opponent not being prepared for them

Their favourite (and worst) argument is that anything bad about capitalism comes down to the state. THe reasoning is that because you find the state involved somewhere along the line in most of capitalism's evils that this is all down to the state and has nothing at all to do with those blameless corporations. There are many counter arguments that can be deployed here. Point out of course that because the state is a capitalist state it essentially acts as the enforcer of capitalist interests. Point out also that capitalism requires a state of one form or another. We actually have a vaguely functioning example of anarcho-capitalism: Somalia. Apart from that being nobody's idea of an ideal society, warlords there have stepped into the void left by the collapse of the government and are now providing the same "service" the government previously provided for capitalsits and in an even more brutal manner.

Also cut through this free market bullshit as fast as you can. First of all capitalist markets require governments. Plain and simple. Get that out the way. Secondly because the market equilibrium point for a firm will often not be the profit maximising point for it, if it has the power to distort the market it will distort the market. Not every firm has that power but some do. And they always use it when they can get away with it. Anarcho-capitalism, presuming it will hold up at all will not stop them in the slightest so the free market is out the window.

As for that crap about selfishness, it is well documented and proven through Game Theory (usually a favourite os these types) that people have strong inequity aversion and hence are by definition not entirely selfish and do carry out acts of altruism.

[chameleoncomplex]

One thing I might suggest - there's likely a difference, though there are inevitably overlaps, between what is actually "right", what we can actually come to an intellectual conclusion is moral, and what our moral instincts are. Perhaps we have a moral instinct to do what our society and our intellect tells us is moral? Is it then selfish to obey this moral instinct?

Does it matter at all?

Anarcho-capitalists/Objectivists/Neo-libertarians(ie. the American breed)/Randians/all these fuckers, they just strike me as anti-social psychos who think their view of the world and other people is "human nature".

Yes, he is a black & white thinker...philosophically he thinks in binary, either something is true or not...very mathematical thinker.

I was going to suggest to him that the fact that he has never had a girlfriend is a reflection on his lack of empathy for people & understanding of truths beyond logic, but I thought this a little below the belt.

[#FF0000]

Yes, he is a black & white thinker...philosophically he thinks in binary, either something is true or not...very mathematical thinker.

I was going to suggest to him that the fact that he has never had a girlfriend is a reflection on his lack of empathy for people & understanding of truths beyond logic, but I thought this a little below the belt.

Haha. Good use of judgment there.

But, yes. It's painfully obvious that he's got no goddamn clue as to how people work. Social science and natural science are very, very, very, VERY different things with very very very very different rules.

[chameleoncomplex]

He's just running around you with silly arguments that are the stock slogans of anarcho-capitalism that rely solely on the opponent not being prepared for them

Their favourite (and worst) argument is that anything bad about capitalism comes down to the state. THe reasoning is that because you find the state involved somewhere along the line in most of capitalism's evils that this is all down to the state and has nothing at all to do with those blameless corporations. There are many counter arguments that can be deployed here. Point out of course that because the state is a capitalist state it essentially acts as the enforcer of capitalist interests. Point out also that capitalism requires a state of one form or another. We actually have a vaguely functioning example of anarcho-capitalism: Somalia. Apart from that being nobody's idea of an ideal society, warlords there have stepped into the void left by the collapse of the government and are now providing the same "service" the government previously provided for capitalsits and in an even more brutal manner.

Also cut through this free market bullshit as fast as you can. First of all capitalist markets require governments. Plain and simple. Get that out the way. Secondly because the market equilibrium point for a firm will often not be the profit maximising point for it, if it has the power to distort the market it will distort the market. Not every firm has that power but some do. And they always use it when they can get away with it. Anarcho-capitalism, presuming it will hold up at all will not stop them in the slightest so the free market is out the window.

As for that crap about selfishness, it is well documented and proven through Game Theory (usually a favourite os these types) that people have strong inequity aversion and hence are by definition not entirely selfish and do carry out acts of altruism.

Yes, good points there.

He will no doubt want me to expand on the "capitalism requires a state of one form or another" concept as he believes that as the State supports the monopolistic extentions of Government we call Corporations - they will inevitably collapse without the support of the state.

I think he views Capitalism as this little friendly eco-system of petite-bourgeois traders serving each others needs - which I do to a certain extent - except that I believe certain social-institutions that provide a safety net (the welfare state) for the poor & needy are steps in the right direction away from Capitalism & that an unhealthy focus on profits will always lead to exploitation of some form.

He also has this other argument that all tax is co-ersive as - if you do not pay tax you will be - ulitmately - taken to prison. Which I also believe to a certain extent, but feel I feel it is in his case an apology for not wanting to redistribute his wealth to the poor.

[Demogorgon]

Yes, good points there.

He will no doubt want me to expand on the "capitalism requires a state of one form or another" concept as he believes that as the State supports the monopolistic extentions of Government we call Corporations - they will inevitably collapse without the support of the state.

I think he views Capitalism as this little friendly eco-system of petite-bourgeois traders serving each others needs - which I do to a certain extent - except that I believe certain social-institutions that provide a safety net (the welfare state) for the poor & needy are steps in the right direction away from Capitalism & that an unhealthy focus on profits will always lead to exploitation of some form.

He also has this other argument that all tax is co-ersive as - if you do not pay tax you will be - ulitmately - taken to prison. Which I also believe to a certain extent, but feel I feel it is in his case an apology for not wanting to redistribute his wealth to the poor.
Yes you can easily show that capitalism needs a state. Who will protect private property? Enforce contracts? Without a state what is to stop me and some pals going round and simply helping ourselves to someone elses property if we want it? He will answer "natural rights". That is metaphysical bullshit, but don't go there, it is not productive. Instead point out that when European settlers came to North America they actually claimed to recognise the natural property rights of the Native AMericans, but that didn't stop them plundering their land, the laws in place only protecting settler property.

Anarcho-capitalists ultimately though have this very idealised view of a society made up of small traders and the like. It essentially harks back to an imaginary past. Maybe pre-Union New England, or the popular conceptions of it anyway. But what kind of world does he think we live in? In this world of instant communication, fast travel and much technology there simply is not room for the kind of economy he envisages. Even if the corporations were to collapse (they probably wouldn't, they are powerful enough to create their own de facto government), we still wouldn't see what he wants.

As for the taxation argument. Well much the same consequences await you for not paying debts or meeting rent payments or whatever, but I doubt he he is opposed to that. He will say that loans and rent are arrived at through a free market and "legitimised by process". But so is tax when you think about it. There are 180 odd countries each with their own tax systems, a few lack taxes altogether. Under any other circumstances, he would call that a great outcome of the free market.

[jake williams]

Yes, he is a black & white thinker...philosophically he thinks in binary, either something is true or not...very mathematical thinker.

I was going to suggest to him that the fact that he has never had a girlfriend is a reflection on his lack of empathy for people & understanding of truths beyond logic, but I thought this a little below the belt.
I consider myself similar philosophically similar to what you're suggesting (logical, "mathematical", to a limited extent even "binary") but I think that in no way precludes empathy or even altruism and so forth.

[Organic Revolution]

How about this? Capitalism requires exploitation to keep a market afloat, and anarchism would require the absence of exploitation, therefore these two things are mutually exclusive.

[chameleoncomplex]

I consider myself similar philosophically similar to what you're suggesting (logical, "mathematical", to a limited extent even "binary") but I think that in no way precludes empathy or even altruism and so forth.

Yes, that is certainly true...I have another friend who is a systems analyst...very, very logical, left brain thinker...but very empathetic & caring about people also.

Viewing empathy as more of a right brain 'skill' (using the term 'skill' rather cynically), I wonder if he (my anarcho-capitalist) friend has wandered off too far into the realms of left brain thinking.

Would anybody else on here view empathy as a right brain 'intelligence'?

It definitely requires a certain amount of ability to visualize or feel oneself in someone else's shoes, but then I suppose it requires some analysis of their 'predicament' in a rational left brain sense too.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Also he is a keen philosopher & I am having a big argument over selfishness, which he feels is good as nothing can ever be done out of true altruism as he says that we always do things to feel good inside or to benefit in some way, no matter how selfless they appear.

This too has got me stumped.
That's not keen philosophy, that's one of the oldest fallacies in the book. There is no evidence that people only do things that make them feel good, because there is no way to detect or measure good feelings. How does he know that "we always do things to feel good inside or to benefit in some way?" How can he possibly presume to know the motivations of every human being on the planet?

Since we cannot read minds, we must judge people's actions based on the things we can actually see and measure. And we see a lot of altruism in the world. What goes on inside the head of a person who performs an act of altruism is impossible to know, and moreover it is irrelevant. It doesn't really matter why people do things as long as they do them.

The argument that people are always acting out of selfishness has no evidence to support itself, so it usually relies on circular logic to hide the fact that it is just a glorified guess. Here's how you can deconstruct it:

Him: People are always selfish.
You: Why?
Him: Because they always do things to feel good inside or to benefit in some way, no matter how selfless they appear.
You: How do you know this? What evidence do you have of the existence of such good feelings inside?
Him: I know people get emotional benefits from their actions because otherwise they wouldn't take those actions.
You: Why wouldn't people take those actions in the absence of emotional benefits?
Him: Because people are always selfish.

There you have it. The argument is circular. "People are selfish because they are selfish."

[jake williams]

I think the argument is more along the lines of "I am a sociopath and only do things selfishly, and hence everyone else does too". I was reluctant to turn to this perception of it, but it's really how it appears.

[apathy maybe]

Read Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. It details how an "anarcho-capitalist" society will form a state. Of course, there are hundreds of problems with the text, both that part and the rest. So I would also suggest reading some of the various critics of the text.

As well, you can have a look at An Anarchist FAQ, specifically section F, http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secFcon.html and the first appendix, http://www.infoshop.org/faq/append1.html .
Have fun.

[chameleoncomplex]

In my opinion he's right about altruism, however, I don't sweat it because it doesn't mean anything about socialism or communism. In fact, you could probably use that argument on altruism to support socialism/communism/anarchism.

As for anarcho-capitalism: There's no ideology more childish. To think that an entire society of people who are only interested in looking out for #1 would be remotely stable or just is ridiculous. How does he figure that monopolies and cartels wouldn't be formed? How would he prevent corporations from eventually just replacing the state, with private military contractors playing the role of the police? How would he prevent everything (in particular EDUCATION) from becoming just a big advertisement for the coporations and cartels? What about worker's rights? How would they be dealt with?

Look at the 1900's, and the abuses the robber barons got away with WITH government around. How does he expect a capitalist system WITHOUT a government to bust cartels and monopolies, to be fairer? Seriously. Get back to me with his answers on this.

EDIT:

Okay, I've got a few more questions for this guy.

How will "Justice" be served under an Anarcho-Capitalist society? A friend of mine just sent me an article that points out a pretty big flaw in Anarcho-Capitalism. Let me just quote the part of the article that struck me the most:



His argument might be that "the consumers will demand common-law justice", but this is so naive it makes me dizzy. Modern advertising is all about making someone want what they don't need. Go back to the 20th century once again and look at how advertising and marketing became a science thanks to psychologists like Freud and John B. Watson. Look at how advertisements began drifting away from focusing on the practical aspects of a product (This product is useful and is worth your money), and began to evoke emotions in the consumer in order to move units (This product will make you happy and fulfilled!). Businesses once needed to feed an existing demand to make money. Now, any company with enough cash and bright enough marketers can simply create a demand. (see: Manufacturing Consent. More or less the same thing.)

Anyway, yes. Tell me how he responds.

Good points there..

His argument seems to be that Monopolistic Corporations can't exist without government awarded franchises, licences & subsidies & sees Corporations as merely extensions of State. He would argue that with 'true' free-market competition huge corporations would be priced out of the market by other companies.

In terms of education, he may argue; how would people stop the State from making education propagandist in terms of the governments vested interests?

In terms of workers rights, he feels that employees will be forced to be nice as employees or they will lose those employees to other companies.

Yes, I have had some discussion with him about the subliminal psychology used in advertising to get people to buy sh*t they don't need...that is one argument I appear to be 'winning' at the moment.

[chameleoncomplex]

How about this? Capitalism requires exploitation to keep a market afloat, and anarchism would require the absence of exploitation, therefore these two things are mutually exclusive.

I like where you are going with this...please expand....

[Kitskits]

Even if you cannot find more evils of capitalism than those related to state power etc (There are more of course, just like unemployment, alienation etc but let this go) don't worry.

The state doesn't go away in anarcho-capitalism. Yeah, it is such a ridiculous theory that doesn't even take into consideration that the private police/security and shit like that will eventually replace the former state. So now if you wanna call anarcho-capitalism the period between the past state and the future state and desire that, well, I don't know what to say.

Keep in mind, the debate among you and your friend is not a deabate between anarchism-sympathizers. Anarcho-capitalism is not a legitimate form of anarchism.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

His argument seems to be that Monopolistic Corporations can't exist without government awarded franchises, licences & subsidies & sees Corporations as merely extensions of State.

He would argue that with 'true' free-market competition huge corporations would be priced out of the market by other companies.
That is only the case in markets with diseconomies of scale - that is to say, markets where small companies are more efficient than large companies. But such markets are exceedingly rare - in fact I can't think of a single example.

Most markets - and particularly markets for industrial products - have economies of scale. That is to say, larger companies are more efficient than small companies. This happens in every market with fixed costs (every market where you must pay a fixed amount of money to keep your factory or shop running, regardless of the number of goods you produce).

Suppose, for example, that you want to go into the business of producing widgets. You buy a widget machine that requires electricity worth $500 per day in order to keep running (this is a fixed cost - most costs related to electricity, water, gas and other utilities are fixed costs; since most industries require such utilities, most industries have economies of scale). In addition, you need to pay $25 worth of raw materials and labour in order to produce one widget. Now suppose you want to run a small shop making 10 widgets per day. In that case your daily costs are 500 + 10*25 = $750. Divided by the number of widgets, that comes down to a cost of $75 per product. But what if you want to run a big business producing 100 widgets per day? Then your daily costs are 500 + 100*25 = 3000. Divided by the number of widgets, that comes down to a cost of $30 per product.

There you have it. The big business pays $30 per product while the small business pays $75 per product. The big business is therefore more efficient and will out-compete the small one. All other things being equal, the process will continue indefinitely, with the same large business getting larger and pushing all small competitors out of the market, until a single company remains. And that's how you get a natural monopoly.


In terms of education, he may argue; how would people stop the State from making education propagandist in terms of the governments vested interests?
By voting. If the people don't like what the state is doing, they can vote the current government out of power. And if the political system were more democratic, they could selectively vote only the people in charge of education out of power.

And how exactly does your friend propose to stop private corporations from making education propagandist in terms of corporate interests? Keep in mind that the paying customers of private schools are not the children but the parents. Private schools don't compete to attract children, they compete to attract parents. And parents will not sit in class to listen to the teachers speak, so they will not know if their children are being fed veiled propaganda. In fact, whenever there is a conflict between the interests of parents and children, private schools will cater to the parents - teaching creationism, for example, because that's what the parents want, even though it is in the children's best interests to learn real biology.


In terms of workers rights, he feels that employees will be forced to be nice as employees or they will lose those employees to other companies.
The act of terminating an employment contract is more damaging to the employee than the employer. The boss loses one worker among many, which might hurt his profits a little bit, but the worker loses his source of income, which hurts him a lot more. That's why you'll never see individual workers demanding their rights under threat of quitting their jobs - the boss will just say "go ahead, quit, I dare you!" since he knows that the worker stands to lose more than he does.

Switching companies is not nearly so easy, because companies don't just try to grab as many workers as possible. That's not how business works. You can get a new job if and only if a rival company happens to need someone with your skills - and even then you'll only get an entry-level job.

Furthermore, it's quite possible for all companies to treat their workers equally badly. Your friend might say, "but then one company will realize that it can get better workers if it offers better conditions, and it will do so." That's only true if the benefit of getting better workers is greater than the cost of offering them higher wages and better conditions - which is usually not the case.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I am finding it hard to put forward any of the evils of Capitalism that aren't in some way reliant on state facilitation e.g. Imperialism, Monopolistic Media Control, Corporate Atrocities (such as Ecocide) & Globalization. I need some help here.
Well, ultimately, private property itself can only exist while there is a state to protect it with the force of its army and police.

Sure, anarcho-capitalists might want to replace that with competing protection agencies, each with its own army and police, but what happens when there is a conflict between two such agencies? Either they agree to work together - which basically means that they merge into a single agency and the process continues until only one agency is left as the new state - or they go to war (which will only end when one agency has defeated all others and thus established itself as the new state).