Anarcho-capitalism: The Empty Ideal

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Anarcho-capitalism is often criticized for leading to a dystopian nightmare. That is correct. But even more than that, it leads to a dystopian nightmare in which states exist in everything but name. Here is an essay I wrote some time ago which explains why anarcho-capitalism is an empty ideal - because its proposed replacements for governments are hardly distinguishable from governments in practice. It is in fact likely that the proposed replacements for governments would be much worse than the governments we have today, but I did not consider it necessary to go into that argument.

Libertarianism is a view shared by a small minority of the population, and anarcho-capitalism is a fringe belief that is controversial even among libertarians. The number of anarcho-capitalists in the world is insignificant, and they have established no political organizations of their own. With such a tiny number of supporters, it should come as no surprise that anarcho-capitalism has even fewer critics. People generally start criticizing only those ideologies that they consider to be serious threats to their own ideas and values. And anarcho-capitalism is no threat to anyone at the moment. But things may not always remain that way. The wave of neoliberalism that is sweeping the globe has a tendency to drag along various radical individualist philosophies, such as libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Besides their individualist obsession, the one other thing they have in common is fanatical dogmatism. And as neoliberalism proves to be morally and intellectually bankrupt, many of its supporters will conclude that they failed because they were not dogmatic enough. In the individualist mind, the state is the source of all evil, so if anything goes wrong with the application of their ideology in practice, then it must be due to them not going far enough in reducing the size of the state. So they will get more radical and push for a smaller state, which will cause more problems, which will lead them to want to reduce the size of the state even further. It is not difficult to see how this slippery slope may lead many neoliberals and libertarians to embrace anarcho-capitalism at some point in the future, after all their other schemes have failed. Thus it may be useful to pre-emptively criticize and refute anarcho-capitalism right now.

First, we need a few definitions. What is anarcho-capitalism? It is the ideology that advocates the abolition of government. Nothing more, nothing less. What separates anarcho-capitalists from real anarchists is that anarcho-capitalists want to abolish only the government and keep just about every other feature of existing society intact, whereas anarchists want to abolish capitalism and sometimes other things as well. So anarcho-capitalists want to change fewer things about the world than anarchists.

But what is the government? If anarcho-capitalism is based on a desire to abolish the government, then the nature of the anarcho-capitalist utopia depends entirely on what is understood by "government". All anarcho-capitalists define the government using some variant of Weber's Thesis; the shortest version of that Thesis is as follows:

"The government is an organization that holds a monopoly over the use of force in a certain geographic area."

In other words, what makes someone the government is the fact that they have a monopoly over the use of "men with guns" (police, army, etc.) to enforce their will over a certain area. Some versions refine this definition to say that the government merely claims a monopoly over the use of force (so that a government is still a government even if its monopoly is challenged by, say, a rebel army).

Very well then; what does it mean to abolish the government? Well, you have to abolish all monopolies over the use of force (and/or claims to such monopolies). This does not mean abolishing the use of force. Anarcho-capitalists do not oppose the use of force - they only oppose monopolies over it. So anarcho-capitalists do not object to any of the current functions and institutions of government - courts of law, parliaments, presidents, bureaucracy, police and army - as long as they allow competition. In other words, anarcho-capitalism is not opposed to anything governments do as long as they allow everyone else to do it too.

Anarcho-capitalists want to replace the functions of government - particularly the writing of laws and the enforcement of those laws - with private protection agencies. Instead of paying taxes to a government to protect you according to its laws, you would be able to pay a private agency of your choosing to protect you according to laws of your choosing. Those private protection agencies can be organized just like present day governments. In fact, it is likely that they would be organized exactly like present day governments, since governments provide a tried and true model of law enforcement. Why fix what ain't broken? Private agencies are not likely to invest in researching entirely new methods of developing and enforcing laws when old ones work just as well.

So instead of paying taxes to governments, people in the anarcho-capitalist utopia would pay fees to private agencies that are mostly organized the same as governments. What's the difference? Well, anarcho-capitalists say the difference lies in your ability to choose which protection agency you hire. But wait, you can already choose which government you live under. You can move to a different country. There are almost 200 of them in the world. Granted, it's not that easy to move to another country; it costs money. But even in anarcho-capitalism, private agencies won't serve customers all over the world. You can't rely for protection on an agency whose closest security agents are on another continent. You will have a limited number of local firms to choose from. How many? Well, Paul Birch (who was an anarcho-capitalist himself) wrote an essay (http://www.paulbirch.net/AnarchoCapitalism2.html) explaining how private agencies would most likely establish local monopolies. To make a long story short, agencies can cut costs by serving customers who live close together. And people will find it more convenient to hire the same agency as their neighbors. These two tendencies work together to make geographically-based agencies more competitive than agencies who spread out all over the place. So you will only have one agency - maybe two - serving your local area. Exactly the same as with governments. In fact, a private security agency with a local monopoly fits perfectly with the definition of a government.

At this point in the argument, anarcho-capitalists usually begin grasping at straws to find some significant difference between their private agencies and present day governments. They often invoke the fact that movement between countries is not only limited by the cost of transport, but also by restrictions that governments place on immigration and emigration. This is true, but private security firms - especially geographically-based ones - are able to create the exact same kind of restrictions. They may choose to build a reputation by serving only certain types of customers that fit a certain standard (akin to placing restrictions on immigration), or they may offer lower fees or other benefits in exchange for making it difficult for customers to terminate their contracts (akin to placing restrictions on emigration).

Finally, one last argument remains: Anarcho-capitalists reject social contract theories on the grounds that people do not voluntarily enter into contracts with their governments, but are rather born into them. In other words, you do not choose to be a citizen of your country. You were born a citizen. You may, of course, abandon your citizenship and move to another country after you reach adulthood, but anarcho-capitalists do not consider this to be sufficient freedom. How, then, would anarcho-capitalism provide more freedom?

Well, anarcho-capitalism would replace governments with security agencies, which - as noted above - are essentially identical to governments in every respect. People would hire these agencies for protection, and, as people often do, many of them would have children. Anarcho-capitalists never seem to explain how they see children fitting in their utopia. In the absence of a single state to establish custody laws and ages of consent, what would be the status of children? Would they be treated as the property of their parents? Or would 3 year olds be allowed to sign binding contracts? It is reasonable to assume that different protection agencies would treat children differently and set their own ages of consent. In any case, most parents would naturally want to protect their children from murder, rape or assault. They would no doubt wish to enter their children into contracts with security agencies as soon as they are born, and before those children have the intellectual capacity to make legal decisions on their own (you can't spend the first years of your life with no protection against crime). So the children, as they grow up, will find themselves bound to an agency much like present day children find themselves bound to a state. Until they reach the age of consent (whatever that is), children in an anarcho-capitalist society will have to live by the laws of the agency their parents chose for them. Just like our children have to live by the laws of our governments.

Thus the main anarcho-capitalist argument against social contract theory - that you never ASKED to be born under the jurisdiction of your government - is absurd. In every society we can imagine, you cannot choose the conditions you are born into. Anarcho-capitalists believe the social contract is illegitimate because you are born into it rather than choosing it as an adult. But you have to be born into some contract, you have to be born under some set of laws. No kind of society can escape the simple biological fact that parents have to make decisions for their children.

So what is left of anarchy? There are security agencies that can, and probably will, be organized just like modern governments. People pay fees to these agencies just like we pay taxes. Yes, the agencies compete against each other, but so do our governments. People may switch between agencies, but people may also switch between governments in our world. Our governments put up various barriers to movement - restrictions on who can immigrate or emigrate - but anarcho-capitalist security agencies can also be selective with their customers and make it difficult for people to terminate their contracts with them. Our governments are based on geography, but it is also likely that security agencies would choose to operate within certain areas and may well develop local monopolies. Finally, people are born under the jurisdiction of governments, but people would also be born into contracts with protection agencies.

In brief, the anarcho-capitalist utopia is virtually identical to the world we live in right now. The application of anarcho-capitalist principles would make no practical difference at all. Therefore, anarcho-capitalism is an empty ideal - it leads right back to where we started. And it isn't just anarcho-capitalism that suffers from this problem. Notice I began with two definitions: A government is an organization that holds (or claims) a monopoly over the use of force, and anarcho-capitalism is the idea that we should abolish governments. It turned out that this idea amounts to nothing at all. In other words, abolishing monopolies (or claims thereof) over the use of force makes no practical difference. Thus, ANY kind of "anarchism" that is based upon this idea - any kind of "anarchism" that just wants to abolish the government and leave everything else intact - will lead right back to the world we have today.

If you really want freedom, try something else.

[trivas7]

Nice work, Kwisatz. You do this nicely: you show how the inherent logic of an ideal dialectically negates itself. :)

[Bud Struggle]

Yea, good post. Nice work. Realisticly, you are fighting a straw man, I can't even in fiction reply for the anarcho-capitalist nonsense.

But well thought out and well written.

[trivas7]

Yea, good post. Nice work. Realisticly, you are fighting a straw man, I can't even in fiction reply for the anarcho-capitalist nonsense.

Indeed, in truth the anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron. She fails to understand that the state is mandated by capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

Indeed, in truth the anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron. She fails to understand that the state in mandated by capitalism.

I'm thinking at best a Medeival village of some sort--but even then there was the Baron.

[Shekky Shabazz]

Anarcho-capitalism is often criticized for leading to a dystopian nightmare. That is correct. But even more than that, it leads to a dystopian nightmare in which states exist in everything but name. Here is an essay I wrote some time ago which explains why anarcho-capitalism is an empty ideal - because its proposed replacements for governments are hardly distinguishable from governments in practice. It is in fact likely that the proposed replacements for governments would be much worse than the governments we have today, but I did not consider it necessary to go into that argument.

Libertarianism is a view shared by a small minority of the population, and anarcho-capitalism is a fringe belief that is controversial even among libertarians. The number of anarcho-capitalists in the world is insignificant, and they have established no political organizations of their own. With such a tiny number of supporters, it should come as no surprise that anarcho-capitalism has even fewer critics. People generally start criticizing only those ideologies that they consider to be serious threats to their own ideas and values. And anarcho-capitalism is no threat to anyone at the moment. But things may not always remain that way. The wave of neoliberalism that is sweeping the globe has a tendency to drag along various radical individualist philosophies, such as libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. Besides their individualist obsession, the one other thing they have in common is fanatical dogmatism. And as neoliberalism proves to be morally and intellectually bankrupt, many of its supporters will conclude that they failed because they were not dogmatic enough. In the individualist mind, the state is the source of all evil, so if anything goes wrong with the application of their ideology in practice, then it must be due to them not going far enough in reducing the size of the state. So they will get more radical and push for a smaller state, which will cause more problems, which will lead them to want to reduce the size of the state even further. It is not difficult to see how this slippery slope may lead many neoliberals and libertarians to embrace anarcho-capitalism at some point in the future, after all their other schemes have failed. Thus it may be useful to pre-emptively criticize and refute anarcho-capitalism right now.


Asserting your way to victory and knockin down a few strawmen along the way, good start. meh, I'll keep going



First, we need a few definitions. What is anarcho-capitalism? It is the ideology that advocates the abolition of government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where are you getting this from?



What separates anarcho-capitalists from real anarchists is that anarcho-capitalists want to abolish only the government and keep just about every other feature of existing society intact, whereas anarchists want to abolish capitalism and sometimes other things as well. So anarcho-capitalists want to change fewer things about the world than anarchists.


Again, where is this coming from? I'd have to assume you are refering to the characteristics of private property, maybe you could clarify.



But what is the government? If anarcho-capitalism is based on a desire to abolish the government, then the nature of the anarcho-capitalist utopia depends entirely on what is understood by "government". All anarcho-capitalists define the government using some variant of Weber's Thesis; the shortest version of that Thesis is as follows:

"The government is an organization that holds a monopoly over the use of force in a certain geographic area."

In other words, what makes someone the government is the fact that they have a monopoly over the use of "men with guns" (police, army, etc.) to enforce their will over a certain area. Some versions refine this definition to say that the government merely claims a monopoly over the use of force (so that a government is still a government even if its monopoly is challenged by, say, a rebel army).


It's strange you keep using the terms 'utopia' and 'all' when describing ACist beliefs within your arguments. It's almost as if you're making up the other sides' claims as to make your own arguments seem reasonable. Because I know of no ACists that claim there will be 'utopia', and there is certainly different ideas that exist throughout AC philosophies.

But whatever, if it helps your cause, who cares right?



Very well then; what does it mean to abolish the government? Well, you have to abolish all monopolies over the use of force (and/or claims to such monopolies). This does not mean abolishing the use of force. Anarcho-capitalists do not oppose the use of force - they only oppose monopolies over it. So anarcho-capitalists do not object to any of the current functions and institutions of government - courts of law, parliaments, presidents, bureaucracy, police and army - as long as they allow competition. In other words, anarcho-capitalism is not opposed to anything governments do as long as they allow everyone else to do it too.


This is so entirely wrong, particularly the bolded, it again makes me wonder if you have any idea what you are actually arguing against.

I'm gonna stop here. Maybe you could say where you acquired your idea of AC from?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm gonna stop here. Maybe you could say where you acquired your idea of AC from?
From talking to ancaps. I based that essay on what they told me. The arguments surrounding social contract theory, for instance, were taken right out of a debate I had with an ancap.

Your entire post consisted of telling me that my idea of anarcho-capitalism is wrong. In that case, please explain how it is wrong. If anarcho-capitalism advocates the abolition of anything else besides government, tell me what that is, and which anarcho-capitalist author talked about it. If it's not true that ancaps "do not object to any of the current functions and institutions of government as long as they allow competition", tell me which functions of government ancaps would oppose even if they were performed by private companies. If it's not true that "Anarcho-capitalists do not oppose the use of force", show me a single ancap who opposes "retaliatory force" (which is the kind of force supposedly used by libertarian governments and private security agencies).

And I make no excuses for using words like "utopia." In fact my essay was excessively respectful and kind. Anarcho-capitalism is a laughing stock, a fantasy so idiotic that even a child could see it for the bullshit it is.

But go on - don't rely on my definition of it. Give me your definition of anarcho-capitalism and I'll deconstruct that instead. I can play by your rules any time, and still win.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This is so entirely wrong, particularly the bolded, it again makes me wonder if you have any idea what you are actually arguing against.On PoliticalCrossfire, I asked a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist how a dispute over a private protection agency consisting of rapists would be resolved under his envisioned system.

The answer: war. :laugh:
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2897713&highlight=#2897713

[Shekky Shabazz]

If it's not true that ancaps "do not object to any of the current functions and institutions of government as long as they allow competition", tell me which functions of government ancaps would oppose even if they were performed by private companies.


Coercion



If it's not true that "Anarcho-capitalists do not oppose the use of force", show me a single ancap who opposes "retaliatory force" (which is the kind of force supposedly used by libertarian governments and private security agencies).


Retaliatory force is different from coercion and aggresion


And I make no excuses for using words like "utopia."

That's fine. But like I said, I've never heard an ACist make any claims of utopia.



In fact my essay was excessively respectful and kind. Anarcho-capitalism is a laughing stock, a fantasy so idiotic that even a child could see it for the bullshit it is.


lol, this is gold



But go on - don't rely on my definition of it. Give me your definition of anarcho-capitalism and I'll deconstruct that instead. I can play by your rules any time, and still win.
[/QUOTE]

This is a good place to start

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

One side note, I don't consider myself to be an ACist, but I do agree with much of it

[BobKKKindle$]

"Anarcho-capitalism" is based on a conception of the capitalist system which presents markets as systems of distribution and allocation based on an equal distribution of power between producers and consumers. However, although free competition is often seen as an important feature of capitalism, this is not a dynamic which can be observed in the real world, such is the degree of centralization which has occurred during the imperialist epoch. In all markets, the number of firms decreases over time, as more successful firms are able to purchase the assets of, or merge with smaller firms facing the danger of bankruptcy, and, once a market has reached a sufficient degree of concentration, the remaining firms may choose to form a cartel, and agree on the quantity of the good which should be produced, and the price at which the good should be sold, to maximize the welfare of the participating firms, at the expense of consumers, thereby eliminating all forms of competition. Modern capitalism is based on large firms which operate in multiple economic sectors and across a large geographical area, and have sufficient financial power to influence political processes, despite the formal separation of political and economic spheres. This conflicts with the conception of markets contained within the anarcho-capitalist paradigm, and is the outcome of the economic dynamics which have driven the development of capitalism. This was, of course, something Lenin recognized:

"Half a century ago, when Marx was writing Capital, free competition appeared to the overwhelming majority of economists to be a “natural law”. Official science tried, by a conspiracy of silence, to kill the works of Marx, who by a theoretical and historical analysis of capitalism had proved that free competition gives rise to the concentration of production, which, in turn, at a certain stage of development, leads to monopoly. Today, monopoly has become a fact"

Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism


CoercionWhat exactly would you define as coercion? Wage labour is a coercive dynamic, because people who do not have ownership of productive property have no choice but to sell labour-power as a commodity in exchange for a wage, to purchase the basic goods they need to survive and avoid death from starvation. To argue that wage-labour is a freely-chosen economic transaction is absurd, because choice only has meaning if there are viable alternatives to any given course of action, and dying cannot be described as a viable alternative.

[Zurdito]

To argue that wage-labour is a freely-chosen economic transaction is absurd, because choice only has meaning if there are viable alternatives to any given course of action, and dying canbot be described as a viable alternative.

of course. if wage labour is not coercion, then me putting a gun to Shekky´s head is not coercion either, because he is free to choose the bullet if he wants.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is a good place to start

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html

One side note, I don't consider myself to be an ACist, but I do agree with much of it.
From your source:


Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that
1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.
...which is exactly the definition I used in my essay. You fail.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

If it's not true that ancaps "do not object to any of the current functions and institutions of government as long as they allow competition", tell me which functions of government ancaps would oppose even if they were performed by private companies.
Coercion
Ah, but according to ancap "philosophy" (I use the term loosely), anything done by a private company is by definition NOT coercion.

So, for example, if the government puts a gun to your head and says "you are in my country; give me money or I'll shoot you", ancaps call that coercion. If a private company puts a gun to your head and says "you are on my private land; give me money or I'll shoot you", ancaps call that voluntary exchange.

Like I said, ancaps are not opposed to anything the government does, they just want the same things done by private companies competing in a market.


Retaliatory force is different from coercion and aggresion.
No it's not. The so-called difference is based entirely on who started the conflict, and in most real life conflicts it is entirely subjective to determine who "started it" - in fact each side usually finds arguments to accuse the other of having started it.

For example: Who started World War One?

[BobKKKindle$]

No it's not. The so-called difference is based entirely on who started the conflict, and in most real life conflicts it is entirely subjective to determine who "started it" - in fact each side usually finds arguments to accuse the other of having started it.The idea of "retaliatory" force (as opposed to "aggression") is also questionable because, in Britain, capitalism was established through a series of enclosure acts which prohibited the use of common land for cattle grazing and so forced large numbers of rural inhabitants to move to urban areas, where they provided an important source of labour power during the initial stages of capitalist development. Marx described this process of enclosure as the "primitive accumulation of capital" and this poses problems for the concept of "peaceful" or "voluntary" economic transactions, because capitalism came into existence by violent means and so arguably all seizure of property is justified as a response to this initial historical act of aggression. The same argument is also applicable into neo-colonial states, as the historical exploitation of these states and deliberate disruption of industrial development means that the contemporary seizure of foreign assets is also justified, under the anarcho-capitalist conception of what constitutes an act of "aggression".

Of course, communists have no need to support this system of ethics - we stand for the interests of the oppressed, and so if workers commit an act of "aggression" when they take control of the factories and capture the mansions of the bourgeoisie, so be it.

[Shekky Shabazz]

What is anarcho-capitalism? It is the ideology that advocates the abolition of government. Nothing more, nothing less.




Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that
1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.



...which is exactly the definition I used in my essay. You fail.

Ugh



Ah, but according to ancap "philosophy" (I use the term loosely), anything done by a private company is by definition NOT coercion.


Not even close.



No it's not. The so-called difference is based entirely on who started the conflict, and in most real life conflicts it is entirely subjective to determine who "started it" - in fact each side usually finds arguments to accuse the other of having started it.



So what? There are mechanisms to resolve these kinds of disputes.



For example: Who started World War One?


Governments

[Comrade Rage]

Governments
Wrongo!
Capitalists started World War One, namely the munitions industries of the countries involved. (Krupp, et. al.)

[Shekky Shabazz]

Wrongo!
Capitalists started World War One, namely the munitions industries of the countries involved. (Krupp, et. al.)

How did they pay for all those weapons?

[Comrade Rage]

How did they pay for all those weapons?With tax money stolen from the working-class by a government that doesn't hold it's best interests at heart.

[Shekky Shabazz]

With tax money stolen from the working-class by a government that doesn't hold it's best interests at heart.

So we agree then?

[Comrade Rage]

So we agree then?Only on the necessity to demolish the current system. As a Marxist - Leninist - Hoxhaist I am diametrically opposed to 'anarcho-capitalism', it's oxymoronic (with an emphasis on moronic), and it would be an absolute disaster for the working class.

[Shekky Shabazz]

Only on the necessity to demolish the current system. As a Marxist - Leninist - Hoxhaist I am diametrically opposed to 'anarcho-capitalism', it's oxymoronic (with an emphasis on moronic), and it would be an absolute disaster for the working class.

I was only clarifying we agreed on WWI because you originally exclaimed I was wrong, including the use of bold text.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What is anarcho-capitalism? It is the ideology that advocates the abolition of government. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anarcho-capitalism is the political philosophy and theory that
1. the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and
2. a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible.
Ugh.
A free-market private property economic system is already considered morally permissible by the existing status quo. The abolition of government is the only difference between anarcho-capitalism and the status quo. That was the point of my definition.

But if you think that considering a free-market private property economic system to be "morally permissible" (whatever that means in practice - with no state, who cares what you consider "morally permissible" or not?) somehow invalidates my arguments, please explain how. After all, my arguments assumed that ancap private defence agencies would be competing in a - you guessed it - free-market private property economic system.



Ah, but according to ancap "philosophy" (I use the term loosely), anything done by a private company is by definition NOT coercion.
Not even close.
No? Then please define "coercion" and explain how, in your view, a private company could do it. Then explain how anarcho-capitalism could stop them doing it.


So what? There are mechanisms to resolve these kinds of disputes.
Yeah. Two of them: The state, or war.



For example: Who started World War One?
Governments
Which governments? Certainly not the government of Brazil, for instance.

It's as if I asked you who committed some murder and you answered "people."

[IcarusAngel]

On PoliticalCrossfire, I asked a self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist how a dispute over a private protection agency consisting of rapists would be resolved under his envisioned system.

The answer: war. :laugh:
http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2897713&highlight=#2897713






HAHAHAHAHAH!.

God damn fascists, anyway. Seriously, some of them advocate corporate tribal warfare that actually makes fascism seem tame.


And good job *****slapping that fucking idiot making up the facts in the Reagan thread. A friend of mine had to own another idiot at another forum who was making up similar stories about Reagan and so on.

Conservatives just pull facts out of their asses when defending that mass murderer who was responsible for millions of deaths in Latin America.

[Shekky Shabazz]

A free-market private property economic system is already considered morally permissible by the existing status quo.

No. The illusion of it might exist to certain degrees, but it is still only an illusion. There is no free-market where monopolies of force violently coerce the entire population. Regardless of what % of people believe a particular story about what characteristics their government has or should have, it doesn't change the nature of government.



But if you think that considering a free-market private property economic system to be "morally permissible" (whatever that means in practice - with no state, who cares what you consider "morally permissible" or not?) somehow invalidates my arguments, please explain how. After all, my arguments assumed that ancap private defence agencies would be competing in a - you guessed it - free-market private property economic system.


I was only pointing out that you were being rude while you were in the middle of one of your semantics games. I suppose this happens a lot when you make as many broad assertions as you seem to.


No? Then please define "coercion"

Coercion is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.


and explain how, in your view, a private company could do it.

Sure, a private company could coerce, but it's not a very smart way of doing business., they wouldn't be around for long.



Then explain how anarcho-capitalism could stop them doing it.


AC doesn't *do* anything. This coercive company wouldn't be able to compete with legitimate businesses in a free market.



Yeah. Two of them: The state, or war.


What makes a system of justice and dispute resolution administered by the state impossible for a private entity?



Which governments? Certainly not the government of Brazil, for instance.


What does it matter?

[Robert]

With tax money stolen from the working-class by a government By a what?

Shek, do stick around. If they let you.

[Dean]

In brief, the anarcho-capitalist utopia is virtually identical to the world we live in right now. The application of anarcho-capitalist principles would make no practical difference at all. Therefore, anarcho-capitalism is an empty ideal - it leads right back to where we started. And it isn't just anarcho-capitalism that suffers from this problem. Notice I began with two definitions: A government is an organization that holds (or claims) a monopoly over the use of force, and anarcho-capitalism is the idea that we should abolish governments. It turned out that this idea amounts to nothing at all. In other words, abolishing monopolies (or claims thereof) over the use of force makes no practical difference. Thus, ANY kind of "anarchism" that is based upon this idea - any kind of "anarchism" that just wants to abolish the government and leave everything else intact - will lead right back to the world we have today.

If you really want freedom, try something else.

This is somethign that is so very simple that it is almost painful to think about. It is painful, that is, to think that people have an entire "individualist" ideolgoy set up that is indeed empty in this way. I can only hope you will convicne some of the anarchocaps here with this :)

[Robert]

I can only hope you will convince some of the anarchocaps here with this

How many are there?

Dean, every philosophy looks painfully obvious to its adherents and apologists.

[Demogorgon]

Sure, a private company could coerce, but it's not a very smart way of doing business., they wouldn't be around for long.

It is the most effective of all ways of doing business. Why do you think mob bosses become so rich? Without laws or restrictions against such behaviour, many more will do it.

[Shekky Shabazz]

It is the most effective of all ways of doing business. Why do you think mob bosses become so rich? Without laws or restrictions against such behaviour, many more will do it.

Mobs become rich because of laws and restrictions, not lack there of. When certain goods or services are legislated against, a black market is created, paving the way for illegitamate business interests to operate.

If coercion is the best way of doing business, why doesn't Coke just drop some bombs on Pepsi factories? They could double their business overnight?

[Demogorgon]

Mobs become rich because of laws and restrictions, not lack there of. When certain goods or services are legislated against, a black market is created, paving the way for illegitamate business interests to operate.Not really. Gangsters often operate in entirely legitimate fields as well. Nightclubs are a good example, also they are heavily into the limousine business over here for reasons I am not entirely sure of. Obviously making things illegal does tend to attract criminal enterprises, but they thrive anywhere where they can operate behind the scenes. Without restrictions upon such activity, they will do it as they please.


If coercion is the best way of doing business, why doesn't Coke just drop some bombs on Pepsi factories? They could double their business overnight?
Because those people who run Coke would prefer not to live out the rest of their lives in prison and have their business shut down as a criminal organisation. In a situation where there were no such restrictions upon them, it is not inconceivable that they might perform such an act, perhaps not upon Pepsi who could probably fight back just as hard, but certainly on smaller competitors. In situations where the authorities can't or won't stop such behaviour, it is relatively common for competing firms to use violence against one another.

[Shekky Shabazz]

Not really. Gangsters often operate in entirely legitimate fields as well. Nightclubs are a good example, also they are heavily into the limousine business over here for reasons I am not entirely sure of.

What are these gangsters doing that is coercive in regards to those fields, slashing Towncar tires and watering down drinks?



Obviously making things illegal does tend to attract criminal enterprises, but they thrive anywhere where they can operate behind the scenes. Without restrictions upon such activity, they will do it as they please.


You mean anywhere violence is the only method of dispute resolution? Where traditional methods of arbitration are prohibited by a monopoly of justice? Yes, they tend to do that.


Because those people who run Coke would prefer not to live out the rest of their lives in prison and have their business shut down as a criminal organisation. In a situation where there were no such restrictions upon them, it is not inconceivable that they might perform such an act, perhaps not upon Pepsi who could probably fight back just as hard, but certainly on smaller competitors.

It seems like they agree on a business model that does not involve violence and aggresion.



In situations where the authorities can't or won't stop such behaviour, it is relatively common for competing firms to use violence against one another.

Like, say, selling drugs? Well, only certain drugs, and only certain drugs that happen to be illegal. Why aren't Budweiser and Miller delivery guys shooting each other up at every store there at?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No. The illusion of it might exist to certain degrees, but it is still only an illusion. There is no free-market where monopolies of force violently coerce the entire population. Regardless of what % of people believe a particular story about what characteristics their government has or should have, it doesn't change the nature of government.
You are wrong, but that's irrelevant. We weren't talking about what exists, we were talking about what is morally permissible. That was the definition. And like I said, a free-market private property economic system is already considered morally permissible by the existing status quo. Whether it exists in practice or not doesn't matter - that wasn't what the definition said.


I was only pointing out that you were being rude while you were in the middle of one of your semantics games. I suppose this happens a lot when you make as many broad assertions as you seem to.
Ok, so you concede that my premises about anarcho-capitalism were correct, and that my conclusions logically follow?

This is, after all, what we were talking about before you changed the subject to me being rude. I'm often rude to libertarian filth. The point is, I also happen to be right, and you have done nothing to show otherwise.


Coercion is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force. Coercion may involve the actual infliction of physical or psychological harm in order to enhance the credibility of a threat. The threat of further harm may then lead to the cooperation or obedience of the person being coerced.
Nice, but vague. If you'll remember, we started this talk of coercion when I asked you which functions of government you would oppose if done by private companies, and you said "coercion." Now you've provided this definition of coercion, but unfortunately it's so vague that I can't tell which particular things done by governments could fit into it - and more importantly, I can't tell which of them would still count as "coercion" if done by private companies.

In my argument, I make the claim that anarcho-capitalists would not oppose anything currently done by governments as long as they were done by competing private companies and the individual could choose which company has jurisdiction over him. Do you deny that this is true?


Sure, a private company could coerce, but it's not a very smart way of doing business., they wouldn't be around for long.
Why not? If I can force you to do stuff for me, and there's no one strong enough to defend you, why shouldn't I do it?

For that matter, if I'm a private security firm under anarcho-capitalism, why shouldn't I buy lots of guns, make war on my competitors, kill them all, establish a monopoly in a geographical area, declare myself a state and enslave everyone? Sure, it's risky, but think of all the benefits of having your own private domain with a few thousand slaves! Lots of people would love to take the risk.


AC doesn't *do* anything. This coercive company wouldn't be able to compete with legitimate businesses in a free market.
You're just not creative enough. Think "aggressive business practices." As in, buy a tank and smash through the competition. Or a nuke, for that finishing touch. After all, you want nukes traded in an open free market, right? I'm sure that will lead to such a great peaceful world...

You know, I think you're talking to the wrong crowd. You should introduce this anarcho-capitalism stuff to Al-Qaeda. I bet they'd be your biggest fans. Especially when you tell them the part about the nuclear garage sale.


What makes a system of justice and dispute resolution administered by the state impossible for a private entity?
The fact that I can always refuse to be under the jurisdiction of the private entity. And I can ignore its judgement if I don't like it.

If a private entity is strong enough to impose a judgement on me against my will, it's a government. If it's not strong enough to do that... well, bring on the tanks.


What does it matter?
It matters because my point was that in the second largest conflict in human history we still can't say who really "started it." And you think that a conflict resolution system based on saying "he started it!" can actually work.

[Shekky Shabazz]

Kwi, I'll be gone for a few days, my corporate overlords have summoned me. I'll respond during the week. Also, I sent you a pm. peace

[Demogorgon]

What are these gangsters doing that is coercive in regards to those fields, slashing Towncar tires and watering down drinks?
Well you only know for sure what they are doing when they burn down each other's premises, which happens from time to time. Apart from that there are the obvious things like attacking and occasionally murdering competitors, using violence to prevent competition from emerging (how is anarcho-capitalism going to stop that pray tell?), running protection rackets and so on. As you would expect really.


You mean anywhere violence is the only method of dispute resolution? Where traditional methods of arbitration are prohibited by a monopoly of justice? Yes, they tend to do that.
Nope, anywhere that the authorities won't catch or stop them, which would be everywhere under anarcho-capitalism


It seems like they agree on a business model that does not involve violence and aggresion.

Where do you get that from? We know fine well that they would use force against smaller companies to drive them out of business. Absent a Government they would deal with each other through collusion and price-fixing, maybe even co-operating in driving out new competitors.


Like, say, selling drugs? Well, only certain drugs, and only certain drugs that happen to be illegal. Why aren't Budweiser and Miller delivery guys shooting each other up at every store there at?
No, anywhere they won't be caught. Gold diggers during the Australian Gold Rush, mine-owners in parts of Africa, Coca Cola(!) in Columbia and so on. All those are examples of legal businesses using extreme levels of coercion because it suits their business model.

[Shekky Shabazz]

And like I said, a free-market private property economic system is already considered morally permissible by the existing status quo. Whether it exists in practice or not doesn't matter - that wasn't what the definition said.

I don't believe this to be true and I think it does matter if it exists in practice, that is precisely the point right?



In my argument, I make the claim that anarcho-capitalists would not oppose anything currently done by governments as long as they were done by competing private companies and the individual could choose which company has jurisdiction over him. Do you deny that this is true?


AC denounces the initiation of force through violent coercion, whether this is carried out through a government or otherwise. This does not somehow imply that the existance of violence and coercion would disappear altogether, only that through an economic system of private property would violence and coercion be minimized.



Why not? If I can force you to do stuff for me, and there's no one strong enough to defend you, why shouldn't I do it?


might makes right?



For that matter, if I'm a private security firm under anarcho-capitalism, why shouldn't I buy lots of guns, make war on my competitors, kill them all, establish a monopoly in a geographical area, declare myself a state and enslave everyone? Sure, it's risky, but think of all the benefits of having your own private domain with a few thousand slaves! Lots of people would love to take the risk.


How is this scenario applicable only to AC? I'm sure you can think of examples of similar, or identical, adventures carried out by states.



You're just not creative enough. Think "aggressive business practices." As in, buy a tank and smash through the competition. Or a nuke, for that finishing touch. After all, you want nukes traded in an open free market, right? I'm sure that will lead to such a great peaceful world...


Again, how does this not apply to states?

As a side note, the existance of nuclear weaponry is one of a few issues I haven't thought about all that much in regards to AC.



The fact that I can always refuse to be under the jurisdiction of the private entity. And I can ignore its judgement if I don't like it.

If a private entity is strong enough to impose a judgement on me against my will, it's a government. If it's not strong enough to do that... well, bring on the tanks.


How do parties doing business located in two different states manage to resolve disputes?

[Shekky Shabazz]

Well you only know for sure what they are doing when they burn down each other's premises, which happens from time to time. Apart from that there are the obvious things like attacking and occasionally murdering competitors, using violence to prevent competition from emerging (how is anarcho-capitalism going to stop that pray tell?), running protection rackets and so on. As you would expect really.

Using violence requires a lot of money. How are these criminals raising all this money in the first place?

AC doesn't 'stop' anything. And it sounds like states aren't really doing that good of a job either.



Where do you get that from? We know fine well that they would use force against smaller companies to drive them out of business. Absent a Government they would deal with each other through collusion and price-fixing, maybe even co-operating in driving out new competitors.


How are these big megacorps attaining this status in a free market? By outcompeting everyone else.

How are these megacorps doing so under a state? By limiting their liability and restricting competition through political connections.



No, anywhere they won't be caught. Gold diggers during the Australian Gold Rush, mine-owners in parts of Africa, Coca Cola(!) in Columbia and so on. All those are examples of legal businesses using extreme levels of coercion because it suits their business model.

And how did Coke manage to use violence in Columbia and other Central American countries? Did they just fly in and fire away with all their tanks and bombs cuz they know that's the most lucrative way to do business? No. They used their political connections with local governments, which initiated violence upon private property owners. The state is the problem here, not lack there of

[Demogorgon]

Using violence requires a lot of money. How are these criminals raising all this money in the first place?

AC doesn't 'stop' anything. And it sounds like states aren't really doing that good of a job either.
The money simply comes from their income. Violently suppressing competition is a good investment that leads to greater profit. What possible reason would a company, knowing that there would be no legal consequences, have for not using such violence?

And the State does stop behaviour like this. Currently only a minority of businesses do it. Under anarcho-capitalism, they would all do it.


How are these big megacorps attaining this status in a free market? By outcompeting everyone else.

How are these megacorps doing so under a state? By limiting their liability and restricting competition through political connections.
The truth is that under anarcho-capitalism, there would be no competition at all. The entire economy would be built on monopolies, cartels, price fixing and violent suppression of opponents. Again, what possible reason would a firm have for not doing these things, knowing full well that if they do so they will make far more money and if they don't do it somebody else will?

As for firms using the state to their advantage under capitalism, well of course they do. Which makes me wonder why you think that under anarcho-capitalism they won't simply band together and create a new one, this time one even more attuned to their interests.


And how did Coke manage to use violence in Columbia and other Central American countries? Did they just fly in and fire away with all their tanks and bombs cuz they know that's the most lucrative way to do business? No. They used their political connections with local governments, which initiated violence upon private property owners. The state is the problem here, not lack there ofNope, they hire their own private hitmen and such to do it, the political connections are used to avoid prosecution. In a world where there is no possibility of prosecution, such activity carries even less risk. Why would firms like coke not keep it up?

[Shekky Shabazz]

The money simply comes from their income. Violently suppressing competition is a good investment that leads to greater profit.

Their 'income'? Which they acquired through violence, which they paid for with their income, which they acquired through violence, etc. How do they originally fund these adventures? Go to a bank and explain how they're gonna burn down SportsBar X? This money usually comes from 'illegal' activities where more qualified parties are prohibited from competing by the state.



What possible reason would a company, knowing that there would be no legal consequences, have for not using such violence?


Who said there would be no consequences? These companies being attacked would just stop protecting their property? And again, violence is EXPENSIVE. Guns and bombs and thugs cost a lot of money, that is a very good reason.



The truth is that under anarcho-capitalism, there would be no competition at all. The entire economy would be built on monopolies, cartels, price fixing and violent suppression of opponents. Again, what possible reason would a firm have for not doing these things, knowing full well that if they do so they will make far more money and if they don't do it somebody else will?


This is backwards. Monopolies/Cartels exist precisely due to state interference. The state DOES have the unlimited funds legitimate businesses do not in order to violently suppress competition.


As for firms using the state to their advantage under capitalism, well of course they do. Which makes me wonder why you think that under anarcho-capitalism they won't simply band together and create a new one, this time one even more attuned to their interests.

As this hypothetical takes place in ACland, the people there, having a strong belief in property rights, would not stand for it.


Nope, they hire their own private hitmen and such to do it, the political connections are used to avoid prosecution. In a world where there is no possibility of prosecution, such activity carries even less risk. Why would firms like coke not keep it up?

Why do you assume there would be no legal system?

OTOH, under statism, there are zero options available for those who the state chooses not to offer protection. Sorry poor Columbian farmers, better luck next time!

[Demogorgon]

Their 'income'? Which they acquired through violence, which they paid for with their income, which they acquired through violence, etc. How do they originally fund these adventures? Go to a bank and explain how they're gonna burn down SportsBar X? This money usually comes from 'illegal' activities where more qualified parties are prohibited from competing by the state.Of course they can get bank loans for their businesses. The businesses themselves are legal. The illegal activity is done on the side funded by the legal activity. And it is very lucrative illegal activity. If you scare off the competition, the rewards are great.


Who said there would be no consequences? These companies being attacked would just stop protecting their property? And again, violence is EXPENSIVE. Guns and bombs and thugs cost a lot of money, that is a very good reason.
What consequences will there be then? So long as these gangsters have sufficient force to bring to bear, who is going to stop them? The only people capable of doing so under Anarcho-Capitalism are gangsters with even more resources for violence. Eventually the most powerful gangsters will have carved out their empires and nobody will have the strength to challenge them.

And do you understand how investment works? All investment costs money, but it is done because it is expected to yield greater returns and that if you don't do it, somebody else will and put you out of business. Under anarcho-capitalism, violence is just another investment. If you have a good business, making a nice profit, you are not going to want competition to drive down the price so you will hire a few heavies to scare off anybody trying to move in on your turf. A few people won't take the hint though, and will try to set up shop anyway. You will need a bit more force to drive them out and if they are really persistent to kill or disable them. It costs money, but because it prevents competition, it more than pays for itself.

In addition to this, you are going to be a bit worried that somebody might try and do the same to you, so you will keep your boys on the go all the time to fight off attacks on you and to scare off anyone thinking of running a protection racket. Of course, again this will indeed be an expense, so you might think that with all these thugs at hand, why not use them to make a bit of money themselves? So you start running protection rackets yourself. Not only does this bring the money flowing in, but it gives you a reputation as someone you shouldn't mess with and protects your business, making you even better off.

Is there any reason at all not to do this? A businessman's only alternative is to try and run a business without violence, but at best all that will mean is that you will be paying a fortune to anyone who happens to run a protection racket and will have to abide by all sorts of conditions imposed on you by your less consciencious competitors in return for not being put out of business. At worse you will simply be driven out of business by force.

With the choices being making a great deal of money through violence and making a pittance and being a target of violence, who is going to choose the latter?


This is backwards. Monopolies/Cartels exist precisely due to state interference. The state DOES have the unlimited funds legitimate businesses do not in order to violently suppress competition.

I know this is an article of faith for you, but it is not true. States do protet their corporate clients (quite why you think a world where these big corporations wield so much power is going to give up a state, I do not know), but states do not use nearly as much violence as a rule as corporations do when there is no state. In parts of Africa for instance, there are some very lucrative mines, but incredibly weak Governments are unable to enforce rules there, so the different companies have free reign. The incredible amount of violence they bring to bear on anybody who tries upsetting their monopoly (in practice more often several firms in an oligopoly) is telling. That will be the general rule under anarcho-capitalism.

As for things like cartels and price fixing, this is going to be rife under anarcho-capitalism. The ideal thing to do is to drive out the competition through violence, but this won't always be practical, your competitors may be able to bring as much force to bear as you can and while you are engaged in a lengthy war of attrition new competitors might sneak into the gap being filled. To avoid this, you offer a truce. You make a mutually beneficial deal with your opponents, that will enhance both of your profits-at the expense of consumers and workers. You will agree to keep prices up and wages down. You might also agree to pool your resources when it comes to driving out new competitors and punishing anybody who dares break the cartel rules.


As this hypothetical takes place in ACland, the people there, having a strong belief in property rights, would not stand for it.
This is just silly. You are proposing that humans evolve into a super-race where everybody is united and agrees that capitalism is a wonderful thing? Besides, even if people won't stand for it, there is not a great deal that they can do. If this new Government simply decides to shoot anybody that disagrees (and newly emergent corporate backed states have a habit of deciding this) then disagreement will quickly fall away.

Incidentally, should people strongly believe in property rights, they are hardly going to stand for Anarcho-Capitalism. Under such a system, only those with an incredible amount of force to bring to bear are guaranteed in their property. Otherwise a more powerful party can simply take whatever they please from you. You have no recourse against that, unless you like getting shot, so in order to get your property back, you simply have to take what you fancy off of a party weaker than you, and so on.


Why do you assume there would be no legal system? A legal system requires a legislative body to write the laws, a judicial body to interpret them and to pass judgement and an administrative body to enforce the laws and the judicial judgements. Collectively these things are called "The State", something that you are against.


OTOH, under statism, there are zero options available for those who the state chooses not to offer protection. Sorry poor Columbian farmers, better luck next time!
If a capitalist Government turns on you, it is true that your only real option is armed resistance. That does not change under anarcho-capitalism if more powerful parties decide to turn on you.

In short, despite what you might claim, anarcho-capitalism would be characterised more by incredible levels of violence than anything else.

There is empirical validation of this as well. Anarcho-Capitalists sometimes point to Somalia as an example of their system in practice (claiming that it has become better off since the collapse of Government, ignoring the fact that all the economic benefits have come to the northern part which does have a functioning, though internationally unrecognised Government) and that is one of the most violent countries on earth.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Indeed. I'd like to know how a group of rapists would be stopped from forming their own private protecting agency and abusing their children. As I indicated in a few posts above, the anarcho-capitalist I asked replied with war.