anarcho-capitalism less sense than jewish lobster man

arguing against anarcho-capitalism re
Luke12000 link to other vid on same topic
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QChJnm_s0Q0

Summary of the main points in video

The argument begins with a premise that I think luke12000 and I can agree upon as a basis of further discussion. This premise relates to what features I think we both agree the ideal human society would have. They are that the ideal society would have....
1. most freedom possible
2. least coercion possible
3. people would for the greater part be free from suffering and misery

Beyond these points I try not to assume any further consensuses on morality or rights. I ask Luke and I suppose anyone else who wants to take part in the discussion whether or not they agree with this premise as if they do not we haven't got much common ground to work with. But assuming that we agree so far I then explain that I also agree with Luke about the state being a power structure which I would rather do away with but I don't make this a premise because I understand many may disagree. I highlight however that it is not the only possible coercive power structure imaginable and that all it takes for coercion is for a single individual to have the capability and willingness to exercise power over others.

Considering this I move on to try and show that in an anarcho capitalist society, despite the initial lack of a state, other power structures would inevitably arise and destroy the "ideal" of that society leading to in my view disastrous consequences. Before I take this further I try to preempt a point I think Luke might make as i'v seen him make it in the past. The point he makes is that as anarcho capitalist society is volunteeristic by definition then there could be no problems of force arising because if they did then badly effected people would use there volunteerism to opt out of the system or change it. My argument against this is one Everett has made which is that once people have amassed power however "legitimately" they do that then there is no more volunteerism. I point out for instance that people could voluntarily enter into slavery but once they have it's not so easy for them to free themselves.

For my argument showing why coercive power would arise, I start by imagining a hypothetical anarcho capitalist society coming into existence. One where the conditions for its success are as favorable as I could imagine them ever being in reality. I then show how in such a society there would eventually be people and groups with varying amount of property. I demonstrate further that over time this would lead to very striking differences in wealth. With a small minority controlling most of the worlds recourses and the majority owning very little (much as we see in the world today). This difference in wealth would lead to the coercive power structures arising either indirectly as the poorer class of people would be forced to do what the rich class say in order to access the recourses necessary for there survival or directly by the rich class using there recourses to create private armies and coerce the poor with these. Society has therefore lost its voluntary nature, provides little freedom or lack of coercion for its population and leads to a lot of suffering for a lot of the population.

I therefore conclude that as the results of an anarcho capitalist society would eventually be the exact opposite of what we agreed would be the results of the ideal society that anarcho capitalism cannot then be regarded as the ideal form of society.

I ask then are there any points I make here which you disagree with? If so why? If not how can you still support anarcho capitalism?

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• capatalsim
• anarcho-capitalism

[EthicalLibertarian]

I hold ancaps in high esteem is because they seem to be, ethically, the only consistent supporters of freedom.

The ideal of society should be an end to slavery and theft. We should not naturally hate heirarchy. Ancaps take the position that taxation is always theft, and in this regard they are correct.

Thus, consistent libertarianism is not a political system but an ethical one. Being a libertarian does not entail being for any political system, just being against any sort of aggression

[gilgamesh011]

@EthicalLibertarian

I really love it when people just state a bunch of their likes and dislikes its so much more captivating than real argumentation. If you didn't notice i made an argument in the video. If you like respond to the points i made, don't just come here and tell us your opinions without backing them up or even addressing anything i said. Nobody has any reason to care.

[givetheanarcapajoint]

This is hopeless, competition is not "always" good. And you've highlighted nothing. This is not about what's good and bad. Man, you Statists really really think like Creationists.

[gilgamesh011]

Its only hopeless because you don't deal with specific points. And I have highlighted important points, unless you don't think that the way societies shift and progress is an important point. You keep assuming that rampant capitalism will not lead to coercive force and market destroying monopolies over time, however where is the evidence for this or the argument for it? you just assume it also Im not a statist by the way I just support cooperation so some kind of stateless socialism.

[thisisbunk]

so on what issues do you support individual rights? what issues are they not important?

[gilgamesh011]

To me the idea of rights isn't very useful. The issue isnt so much about rights as preferable systems and outcomes. So I agree that a society which supports individual freedom tends to be preferable, provided that freedom dosnt lead to a even worse society than either of the original choices. Best of all however would be a society where individuals have freedom but use it to cooperate and share instead of compete.

[aoeaoae]

so in terms of WHO, we need to change US, to make US better; in terms of mechanism, we need to change what MONEY means. I.e. make it totally electronic, tractable contracts - tht way your wealth is true representation of your true contribution at given point in time. Say a singer is initially unsuccessful. Today a manager might buy up his rigths, In True System, when after 10 years say he becomes a huge success, he's suddenly a millionair. So it'll turn everyone into an enterpreneur/free person.

[aoeaoae]

As for the ethical axioms, my own personal preference is

The Right to Think, The Right to Know, The Right to Choose.

NO COERCION.

DO NO HARM.

(in that order).

Sanctity of the Individual/Consciousness, Equality before Law, No Arbitrary Power of anybody over anyone else.

When everyone acts according to these in their everyday life, everything will follow.

[aoeaoae]

Ethical Axioms define CORE VALUE SYSTEM defines Culture defines Customs mores and Laws defines the Society.

It's a little things in your everyday life - what you value, what you despise. Do you hold Fairness and Law dear, or Supremacy over the weak? That kind of thing. Then you get a "Western" society of Law, or Eastern Hierarchialism, or Arab Autocracy, or Russian Despotism.

Today nothing in the West stops u from actully creating your own structure and living inside it by its Laws. Today.

[aoeaoae]

Even state is good when it functions properly, is conducive to each member's advantage, and restrains itself otherwise.

What if an individual's goals are contrary to others'? That shall be evaluated by correspondence with the CORE VALUE SYSTEM accepted by that society. Anyone who desires and acts contrary to it will have by definition excluded himself from that society. You are free to join in, or opt out, but while you're in, you're IN.

The only thing left is to decide the ETHICAL AXIOMS.

[aoeaoae]

Culture's roots, the society's customs and mores, lie in Ethics - the moral choices and attitudes of the Individual member of given society. It's little things mostly, finding their expression in grand differences between various cultures in the end.

So focus on ethics, on morals, on choices of the Individual. The structure will form by itself, if it is the TRUE structure - i.e. one that grows by itself, not ENFORCED, not COERCED on anyone. Even state is good when it functions and restrained.

[aoeaoae]

Can tractable contracts be relied upon without some kind of an enforcing agency? Not likely. Enforcing is a part of a contract. You enter into a contract voluntarily, but then you are bound by it, by definition.

As for labels, does a state agancy provides this mechanism or an independent Law Courts system, what does it matter. Whatever the given society develops that will function in that regard, will be fine. It's all in the Culture, and that has its roots in ETHICS. The moral choices each

[aoeaoae]

Without fair compensation an individual won't labor; and economy won't function.

Fair compensation - true reward for true contribution - could only be through tractable contracts, tracking and re-evaluating every condition at any point in time. It's like instead of money you get a proper share of gains and losses in a mutual enterprise. The society which has the truest value discovery mechanism + the most flexible production structures, will win out, be most conducive to individual fufilment

[aoeaoae]

Plus, "ownership" fixates the production structure. It's great that the inventor of sliced bread gets rewarded for his ingenuity, it's only fair; but why should he get for that the sanctified ability to extract others' fruits of labor (after becoming an "owner" of sliced-bread corporation), and why should his grandchildren have that ability also? what is that a fair compensation for?

Fairness is fair conpensation for true contribution. Your true contribution can change with time.

[aoeaoae]

So, as long as society has money in its modern form, and unconditional property ownership, it has exploitation of despair and less-than-optimal value-discovery. The only true value of free markets system with competition and trade is that it serves for a decent value-dicovery mechanism (in guise of price-discovery). Of course any statist coercive system is worse in that sense, and as consequence the whole society becomes more inefficient and decapacitated. Plus, "ownership" fixates the structure

[aoeaoae]

Money lets you cheat; forces you to bet; lets you forfeit the original conditions of the contract if the true value has changed afterwards.

Whatever you "own" have any meaning only inasmuch as you can sell or lease it to others.

There is only so much produce you can grow without inviting day laborers and taking away from them 90% of the value they produce, all by mutual "free" concent. It's a great deal for you, but hey they have families to support. So that's the exploitation of despair.