My Argument for Free-Market Anarchism

[keysle]

diearo's .... are your gov't

[Fruerik]

I would argue that a monopoly on the free market is impossible. However, if that's would be the case anyway the consumers would have "decided" it. Then, what's the problem?

[Taurine93]

stop fucking the camera let it sit still!

[lnd3005]

DROs... like "states," but customers.  That's a great idea, but isn't this the same thing as the security companies Rothbard and others described?

[lnd3005]

*with customers

[newmoongathering]

The problem with the monopolies are the worst in healthcare.

[jackriter]

"anarcho" capitalism. Good luck trying to privatise the state.

[dodododa]

You mentioned the flaw in Anarchy yourself, some other outside force will come in and establish their own government on you.

[ConstitutionSupportr]

Not if everyone has guns.

[sharperguy]

It is impossible to maintain a state without significant existing support from the vast majority of citizens in that area - or convincing them somehow without using force.

It isn't really a state otherwise anyway, just a violent regime to be opposed.

[sharperguy]

When I say "it isn't really a state" I was referring to an outside force that might try to impose a government.

[dodododa]

Iceland didn't have violent minorities with guns.

[dalejrfan800]

I see, what does that have to do with anything. Maybe if there was still such a thing called public executions, they might get the hint. Also, if you'd notice those violent minorities are mostly in major cities. I don't plan on ever living in a major city. Also, maybe if everyone had a weapon there wouldn't be that issue. This is why in the old west people had holsters on their sides. For quick access.

[PeaceLoveAbby]

Oh wow. Governments don't harbor monopolies, CAPTIALISM harbors monopolies. A monopoly is a product of capitalism that squashes any hope of improvement. Seriously? Philanthropy NEVER works; people get greedy and don't get less greedy. It's entropy. In order to contain the stupid beings running amuck that are humans, there needs to be some sort of structure. Enough with the violent monopolies, I'd rather have a government in charge of my healthcare and education than the CEO of a major company.

[jarel101]

you should watch Hal Turner Shows New AMERO Currency

[josephwtf]

Why are you using HL2 soundtrack?

Better off making your own shit.

[todd9271990]

This video is a fallacy storm.. Just to throw my 2 cents in: it's funny how socialism has to clean up capitalism when it crashes.

[threebobs]

This comment is a fallacy storm. 

Would you like to debate this point?

[teewillis1981]

Socialism has to clean up disaster capitalism when it crashes. We have not seen Free Market Capitalism at work. When you dilute capitalism with state force, what results is FASCISM. Don't blame capitalism for our inability to implement it in its purest form.

[threebobs]

I've noticed that Anarcho-Capitalists are far more eloquent than Statists and Socialists.

They swear less. Are less combative. And are more logical.

Has anyone else noticed that?

[Sigil23]

I've definitely noticed that. And this is coming from an anti-capitalist anarchist Although I should qualify that by saying that I don't have a problem with capitalism in and of itself, but as it is an arm of the state, I cannot consent to it. Paradoxically, I find capitalism to be a kind of masked socialism, but that's a whole other manifesto.

[PeaceLoveAbby]

Not exactly. Perhaps in the "YouTube" world, but I find Socialist believers (although this may be swayed by my own personal beliefs) to be much more tactful and intelligent, and they usually speak with more knowledge than Anarcho-Capitalists. Generally, Socialists are pissed off at the system at hand, so I can understand their aggression. Every person has a breaking point for their slick exterior and will resort to anger to try to get their point across. I can understand the anger...

[Sigil23]

Whether "anarcho-capitalists" or "anarcho-socialists" are more tactful and knowledgeable is not a matter of truth, but of experience filtered through taste and personal preference. I've never understood "anarcho-capitalism" or "anarcho-socialism" as being anything other than misguided oxymorons, and newer strains like "anarcho-syndicalism" and "anarcha-feminism" seem so contrived that I can't even be bothered with them.

[teewillis1981]

I would love to hear how it's a masked socialism. I can't conceive of such a force.

[sharperguy]

I know that many AnCaps claim that although we advocate capitalism, a lot of the goals socialists and communists are trying to achieve would likely be fulfilled regardless.

For example the divide between rich and poor closing, war and murder reducing, less hierarchy etc.

[gombet]

Bush was elected in 2000 by an illegal process and Gore submitted to that crap. Thus a president was elected without a valid count of ballots and fraud was perpetrated in Florida by the then governor Jeb Bush.

Gasoline at the pumps in 2000-2001 was at $1.50 to 99 cents a gallon. What do we have now and one question who caused all this price gouging at the pumps over the past 8 years?

[leninstreet]

In what way would the police department improve if you made it private? I would argue that a private police department would literally make people(owners, friends of owners) immune to prosecution. This would erode any credibility that they might have today. If you under fund and ignore you public services they will indeed suck.

[teewillis1981]

I don't know that a privatized police department would exist in the form that we now have. Laws now are convoluted because of government monopoly over the law-making process,in a free market, laws would be less of an abstraction. PDs would be very limited in what it would be able to do, its very concern would be protecting private property and remaining objective in civil disputes. Why would they have to maintain objectivity? Because another more efficient PD could take its place.

[leninstreet]

You think too much of free markets. There are plenty of very successful companies that do immense damage to society because they operate in a very short-sighted way. In fact I would claim that most companies create way more damage then value they actually produce. That's because environmental effects are externalized and irrelevant. Take for example one the most successful restaurant in the world MacDonald's. They serve you food that is guaranteed to make you fat and give you a heart attack.

[threebobs]

Do governments do immense damage to society?

270,000,000 people were killed as a result of "defense".

Make sure YOUR system abides by your standards.

[sharperguy]

As anarcho-capitalists we believe that externalities which companies create would be significantly reduced due to the emergent nature of the law system. If people were being harmed by something a business was doing, it would be much easier to stop or reduce this harm.

Currently, large corporations use their political influence to offset the costs of many unsustainable practices onto the public or onto public land.

[RaddNiner]

I haven't read any literature on anrchocapitalism, but I have watched a lot of youtube on it and there are issues that are consistently avoided.

How is justice dealt to someone who has no contract with a DRO and has not voluntarily signed a contract?

How would you stop somone from emiting huge amounts of Mercury and poisening people 500 miles away and survive on fishing?

[RaddNiner]

Just because violence would be bad business for DROs doesnt mean that they would have no incentive to amass arms and 'turn into a government'. What makes you think that all DROs would be content with being just a DRO? Why don't you see a problem with the power vacume that would exist. Don't you think that there would be people who would want to rise to a centralized power? If this people exist won't they be a big problem?

[sharperguy]

It's only a power vaccum if the state collapses and people are LOOKING for someone to replace it.

Exactly what happened at the fall of the Somalian state, except after some fighting it was revealed that nobody really wanted another regime, so there wasn't one.

[BrightAnarchist]

Thanks!

[TheCZMan]

Companies to serve the people? Since when? The only obligation for a company is to gather profits. Nothing else. Nothing more. If it goes with the service of its potential customers, so it be. But nothing compulsory.

I really wonder where the idea that monopoly is only possible thanks to a government.

Amusingly, Icelanders had a monopoly on their structure of power. Ummmmm... sounds like some monopolies might not be that bad. The very day this structure of power had to compete with another

[GBart]

Did you actually watch the video?

Ever heard of Microsoft or the concept of innovation?

Anyway, BA -

How would a minarchy address vertical or horizontal consolidation?

[TheCZMan]

Yes, I watched the video. I had to.

Heard of Microsoft. Heard they did not illustrate that much the concept of innovation.

I dunno. A minarchist would be more suitable to ask to.

[GBart]

Thats why I said "BA -", addressing BrightAnarchist.

Did the government invent railroads or flight? What about television or radio? Name a technological innovation that would exist without the free market and corporations.

[TheCZMan]

Well, I think Smith was not that wrong on the case of infrastructures, wasnt he?

The question is unsurprisingly flawed because more and more in the western world, realistic thinking is yielded up in favour of casting falsification against an hypothetical world.

Of course, it is impossible to name a technological innovation that would exist without the free market and/or corporations.

All people can do is listing innovations which are directly a consequence of government.

Warfare being...

[TheCZMan]

of primary importance in the Western world, army R&D programs have born many technological innovations.

[DixyHair]

So you want one big DRO, made up of self-interested people, to do everything? Besides, corporations, like governments, are at the mercy of culture; if that wasn't the case then they wouldn't be wasting so much money on suits, ties, & fancy office furniture.

[cogar48]

"Companies to serve the people? Since when? The only obligation for a company is to gather profits." And in a truely free market you'd rack up more profits by serving the people. Say one business has a shitty customer service record and sells shitty products, but they have a competitor who sells good products and has good service, the bad would go out of business and we'd have good products and thus profits serve the people.

[TheCZMan]

Yeo the true scotsman argument.

When it does not happen, one can tell it is not a truely free market. Always something exterior to blame...

[cogar48]

A free market is only regulated by competition. If a monopoly takes over, it's not a free market, if the Government regulates, it's not a free market.

[TheCZMan]

The normal outcome of a competition is a monopoly. So pretty hard for a free market to exist.

[cogar48]

Explain how you came to this conclusion.

[TheCZMan]

How did I come to this conclusion?

Maybe by observation. Besides, it is not a personal conclusion.

If you can name a carried out competitive process ending with no monopoly, it would help.

[cogar48]

I suggest you watch this: watch?v=eYTgwzHU6xg&feature=vi­deo_response

[sharperguy]

I don't think I could name a "carried out competitive process" that DID end in monopoly!

Unless you count certain dictators being elected....

[TheCZMan]

So you never watch a sports season?

Well, it is not that hard to do. Put your bottom in a couch and turn up the TV. Matches are broadcast at different schedules so you need to follow up.

After that, enjoy.

[sharperguy]

So when the system is designed to produce monopolies, it does?

Sounds a lot like the state to me...

[TheCZMan]

In sports? Over a season?

Nah. On the contrary, in sports, the system is rigged in order to hide the very fact that competition natural outcome is the production of a monopoly.

Consequent as broadcasters sell the competitive process. They have to sustain it and let it not achieve its natural course.

[sharperguy]

Then how can it be an example of competition creating a monopoly then?

This argument is going nowhere, you still haven't presented any real theory or evidence to support your claim that competition always results in monopoly.

[sharperguy]

Well for one thing, the state IS a monopoly. So with a state, there will always be at least ONE monopoly.

You are also forgetting that when you voluntarily choose to do business with someone you do so because that person can suit your needs better than anyone else offering or than doing it yourself. This is why businesses serve their customers.

[TheCZMan]

The point was not about the state being a monopoly or not. I dont care about that.

The point was about the natural outcome of competition: leading to a monopoly.

So claiming to destroy monopoly through competition is a complete joke.

As to the rest, introducing fallacies like people chosing to do business with someone will always end up with flawed conclusions.

[sharperguy]

Why is it a complete joke? Why is it a fallacy?

You still haven't presented any theory or evidence.

[TheCZMan]

Evidence of what? That you dont choose to do business with someone?

Do you chose to eat? to drink? I dont think so.

The drivel is so weak that it takes the faith of believers to live. No evidence will do the trick. Same as for believers in a god.

Now, if you have evidences and a way to burst a monopoly through competition, contact any sports league. They will be extremely interested in your findings as sustaining competition and preventing the natural outcome is a main expenditure.

[sharperguy]

You say that competition leads to monopoly, yet you offer no alternative but a monopoly.

You use ad hominem attacks.

You say that sport is evidence that competition leads to monopoly - except it's designed to lead to a single winner (which I already said).

I probably won't be replying to what you say next unless it seems you are making some real arguments.

[TheCZMan]

Since when do people need to offer an alternative to state a reality?

Do people need to offer an alternative when they state that death is the natural outcome of life?

An unpleasant outcome does not come with the need to provide an alternative.

Get real. I dont need to make 'real arguments' What I said is already well established and validated.

You are the one in desesperate needs to make real arguments.

Take my piece of advice: as you know a way to a competition ending with no

[TheCZMan]

monopoly, join the sports team organizers. Trade your knowledge against 1pc of what they need to invest in order to preserve what they sell: the competition process.

In two or three years, if you have contacted the NFL, the NBA, NHL, the various leagues involved in football in Europe, you will be at the head of a hefty gain, around 100 M$. So do. Not only you wont have to work for the rest of your life but you will have proven your words with facts.

[corridorofpower]

This is amazing! I cannot believe you think the threat of getting caught by police does not prevent murders!

[DixyHair]

Prove that it does. I'm personally more afraid of retaliation that cops, though I, like most people, also have a sense of morality that stops me from doing such things.

[sharperguy]

The drug prohibition puts the insensitive for organised crime and gang violence through the roof.

[corridorofpower]

DixyHair: I do concede that police presence has little effect on spontaneous murders. However, would you really argue that getting caught by the police is not a factor in the cost-benefit analysis of a planned murder?

[corridorofpower]

sharperguy: Yes, drug prohibition (or any other kind of excessive regulation) incentivizes organised crime. The problem is with the laws, not with the idea of having a police force.

A monopoly of force prevents me from getting caught in the middle of other idiots beating the shit out of each other, which is what happens is countries where the police force is corrupt or non-existent.

[sharperguy]

This is why anarcho-capitalists promote a more emergent system of lawmaking, that must go to the demands of customers and isn't written arbitrarily by politicians who's intensives are only indirectly tied to the wishes of their constituents and are open for exploitation/persuasion due to their monopolistic position.

[corridorofpower]

While this is a noble aim, I believe the populous is not educated enough just yet to take proper advantage of an anarchist system. Judging by the way they vote, it seems to me all hell would break loose if they were given a more direct path to lawmaking. I too dream of an anarchist utopia at some point in the future but I do not currently see any immediate feasible action We (The People) can take that will unequivocally lead towards this goal other than improving education.

[sharperguy]

I'm not sure why you think "all hell would break loose".

I agree that the goal of getting rid of the state isn't one that's going to be achieved soon, but there's no point waiting to get the theory out there.

The problem isn't that people aren't ready for this - all the state does is make things worse so it should be a safe bet to get rid of it.

The only thing that needs to be changed is the belief in the legitimacy of state power.

[corridorofpower]

I think if people could, in some direct sense, choose their own laws they would not choose wisely.

The state does not "only make things worse". It does some good things and some bad things. The question is, "How can we improve the system?" The anarchist suggestion is to get rid of the state. While I agree that the state can be made leaner I think the police is one area that should, in the foreseeable future, belong to the state and be funded through forced taxes.

[sharperguy]

This form of emergent governance would be preferable because people aren't just picking laws arbitrarily but are picking the laws which benefit them the most at least cost. Only the laws which satisfy these would be able to survive.

More importantly, there's no reason to assume that state politicians can ever create laws "wisely". I would argue that they can't because of a lack of direct incentive due to their monopolistic position.

[corridorofpower]

Hehe, we're writing comments at the same time :P

I agree that we should move towards a system which creates better incentives for politicians. Politicians have a temporary monopolistic position, and it's only the fact that the citizens are so think that they can get away with what they do. It's kind of tough on smarter people, but generally people get what they deserve.

[corridorofpower]

The advantage of democracy is not only that it provides some freedom, but that it prevents total disaster - there are mechanisms in place to limit the government's power, e.g. elections, bill of rights. This makes the situation stable. To remove the state is to remove this stability. Various forces may start vying for power (through physical means), although there will be improved freedom.

[corridorofpower]

There needs to be something in place to pacify your "fellow man". A monopoly of force is one such thing. I don't see any others.

[sharperguy]

You're still making the false assumption that because politicians are elected that the same problems you identify with regular people do not apply to them.

I fail to see how the state has ever prevented disaster. Wars around the globe have always being created by states. This is because they have the power to make people pay for things that they normally wouldn't if they had the choice.

[corridorofpower]

Politicians are special. It's a necessary evil.

Once again: the state prevents disaster by stopping smaller forces from fighting with each other. In countries where the state is weak, smaller forces do fight with each other. It is horrible to live in those countries.

There is price to pay for the stability of good government: waste. (This may be combated through making the government more transparent, more accountable and educating the citizens.) It's a price worth paying.

[corridorofpower]

I'll put it this way: the state is a relatively benevolent racketeer. Much more benevolent than an "average" racketeer that is likely to emerge in anarchy. Racketeers in, say, Russia or Columbia or Somalia, are worse than governments such as the US or the UK or Australia.

This is why I will favour government until I am shown that anarchy can be set up in such a way as to guarantee the emergence of relatively benevolent racketeers (DROs). As yet, I have not seen it.

[corridorofpower]

Americans avoid legal situations like the plague???

How about not criticizing the current system, eh? I thought that was rule #1.

[Moragauth]

In the absence of government barriers, transaction costs fall, and thus the optimal firm size shrinks. Hence it is unlikely for massive firms to exist in free markets, especially in law and defence.

[madeye0]

What if I would have no money to pay my DRO or even my medical care.

[jjrglobal]

The herd would be thinned

[madeye0]

"The herd would be thinned"

Nice answer you cynical prick. But that's not the society I would like to live in.

[Moragauth]

It's called charity.

[madeye0]

Then I am dependent on other people and they have power over me.

[DixyHair]

That's already how things are.

[LibertyIsNotGiven]

**"Then I am dependent on other people and they have power over me."**

This is different from taking handouts from government ... how, exactly? Is government not "other people?" The only difference I see is one involves a gun in my face, and the other doesn't.

[TheCZMan]

Ummmm.... no. The big difference is that in one case, it is done and in the other case, it is not done as shown by History.

Most people who are in trouble with the government are only in trouble with it because it is a stronger tyrant than them and therefore prevent them from exerting their own tyranny.

Many people loathe the government because it prevents them from being tyrannical.

[jjrglobal]

In order for any government to give anything to anyone they must first take it from someone else, by force. How do you justify this? I don't know what your talking about when you bring up people who are in trouble with the gov and how they just want to be tyrants. I'm not sure you do either. Charity has always worked. Look at the days before health ins, there were charity hospitals everywhere. You should look into moving to North Korea, it would suit your way of thinking.

[TheCZMan]

Yep, that is that. Charity has always worked. It worked so well that the government has no crack to go into.

Ummmm... If I remember well, citizenship and living in the US is not compulsory. You can drop US citizenship anytime and go live elsewhere. If you dont, you consent to live in the US under the current rules. Rules which include taxation. Now how consenting to give money is being robbed? Would like to hear about that.

[jjrglobal]

Are you mentally challenged? WTF are you talking about being robbed? There should be taxation for defense and to protect our liberties, but not to give away. People that are dependent on gov't are being held back by what they think is a helping hand. They are afraid to lose their benefits by going to work. Kinda like the stimulus checks, looks good on the surface, but bites you on the ass down the road. Charity and free market capitalism has and will work again if given the opportunity.

[TheCZMan]

I think I am starting to be mentally challenged. Even the most balanced person would get into troubles I think.

A taxation for defense is not giving away? How is that? What is defense?

I see no answer on the very assumption that charity worked well...

[Moragauth]

If you mean to say, you cannot force them to provide you with goodies, then yes, you cannot.

[madeye0]

So if I am not likable and also not able to pay for my medical care on my own I am fucked. I want to live in a society with some securities, one of them is that if I would become seriously ill somebody will take care of me, even when I am alone and poor. It's simple like that. Anarcho-capitalism is in my eyes one of rhe most unstable and vulnerable systems out there. Market is a wild beast which doesn't know the word humanity.

[madeye0]

Also what's up with the fucking thumbs up/thumbs down shit. Is this some popularity contest or what?

[Moragauth]

No - it's that your comments are stupid.

[Moragauth]

Yeah, imagine that - you actually have to offer something to others to gain something else! Wow. If you want to live in a society which offers so-called guarantees, do so. Just do not pretend these are rights or that you may force others to do so. In my eyes, anarcho-capitalism is one of the most stable and invulnerable systems out there. States are a wild ebast which don't know the word humanity. What a fucking sobfest...

[madeye0]

kid

[WorBlux]

Welfare makes the children of it's recipients lose more than 1% of their intelligence and lifetime earning potential per year their parents receive it compared to those who parents have the same pre-welfare income and that did not accept welfare.

What you want is to use a gun to perpetrate a system that does far more harm than good in the long term.

Charity and charitable organizations and people have long helped those who fell upon hard times through no fault of their own.

[PoliomanGamer]

If you get a bunch of people in a new country, all of them Anarchists, ok, then what?

[FistsoFuckinFreedom]

Loved the video, one minor correction though. Iceland did have a legislature, however you're right, almost everything was done voluntarily and they were probably the freest people at the time.