Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Anarcho-Capitalism  (Read 13963 times)

Zack Bass

  • Guest
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #45 on: January 01, 2004, 06:04:57 am »



The drug war is waged by the FED. And it's the most vial of the victumless crimes by far.


If you are a big-time drug trafficker, then it is the Feds you must fear.
However, for the vast majority of people, it is the local Cop who imprisons him.

The Feds never - and I mean never - go after a User for simple Possession and Use of drugs.  I don't know if they have a Law against it, but they never arrest anyone for that.  It's your local Cop who does that.  Don't you ever watch "Cops" the TV show?  They just love setting people up and hauling their asses into the County Jail to face State Charges.  You never ever see a Federal Agent doing shit like that.

If New Hampshire would simply decree that anyone in the State was allowed to practice medicine, and write prescriptions, then the Feds would allow all of us to have anything in the PDR just by walking into WalMart.  Who limits your access to these drugs?  THE STATE!
Logged

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #46 on: January 22, 2004, 06:07:54 pm »

Can anyone answer this critiqe of AnCap?


[In an AnCap society] exactly who determines what use of force is "initiatory" or "coercive," and what is "defensive" or "retaliatory"? By what process is that determination made? Or, to put it in terms of "rights": Who determines whether, in any given use of force, "rights" have been violated -- and thus, who is the aggressor, and who the victim? By what procedure? What theory or interpretation of "rights" is to be used? Rand's? Henry George's? Lenin's? For society, how are such determinations made with finality? And how is that verdict enforced? As a corollary: who determines which agency is a "protection agency," and which is a mere gang of aggressors? By what method and standard?

You see, anarchists sincerely believe that they are merely advocating "competition" in the protection of rights. In fact, what their position would necessitate is "competition" in defining what "rights" are.

What anarchists omit from their basic premises is a simple fact: conflicting philosophies will lead to conflicting interpretations of the meaning of such basic terms as "aggression," "self- defense," "property," "rights," "justice," and "liberty." Deducing away, syllogism after syllogism, from these mere words does not mean that the people employing them agree on their meaning, justification or implementation.

Without a philosophical consensus, "competing agencies" (driven to maximize profits by satisfying their paying customers) will offer opposing, rival social factions any interpretations each wants. Definitions of "rights" and "liberty" and "justice" will become as much a matter of "competition" as will the methods, personnel and procedures each agency will offer to provide. And which agency will attract the most customers? Of course, the one that "gets results" by best satisfying consumer demand: i.e., the one which can impose its own definitions of "aggression" and "self-defense" on competitors.

www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html
« Last Edit: January 22, 2004, 06:14:17 pm by New Intellectual »
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #47 on: January 22, 2004, 06:10:41 pm »

 After all, would you hire an agency that couldn't adequately protect your own interpretation of your rights? Consider the justly-maligned profession of defense attorneys. They'll defend any client for a buck, using any argument, any tactic to boost their chances of winning, truth be damned. (When people today say, "I need a good lawyer," do they mean "I need a pillar of integrity" -- or do they mean instead: "I need a guy who can win for me"?) Would anyone argue that it is merely the fact of "government courts" that make these shysters possible? Don't you suppose that they would find similar employment in a totally privatized system, in which the "sovereign consumer" reigns?

Then why limit such amoral, anything-to-win behavior only to attorneys? Isn't it reasonable to assume the same motives would govern at least a significant portion of "protective agents"?

Today, a "legal monopoly" exists to put shady private detectives and private extortionists behind bars. It serves as a final arbiter on the use of force in society. We all agree it does a less-than-exemplary job much of the time; but it's there. What happens when it isn't? Or worse: when the shady detective or extortionist has replaced it, in a marketplace where profits depend on satisfying the subjective desires of emotional clients?

Anarchists say this scenario is unrealistically pessimistic: it assumes people are going to want to do the wrong thing. In fact, people "naturally" seek their rational self-interest, they declare, once government is out of the way. They would try to cooperate, work things out.

Well, if they did, why would they need any agency -- governmental or private? Why wouldn't five billion people naturally cooperate on this planet without any legal or institutional framework to resolve disputes?

The problem, of course, is everyone disagrees about what his rational self-interest is. Ask the Palestinians and the Israelis to define "rights," "force," "property," "justice," "self-defense," and "protection." Or ask the IRA and the British. Or George III and George Washington.

www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #48 on: January 22, 2004, 06:11:45 pm »

 So, how do we best limit the capricious use of force by those millions whom we call "the public"? Let's compare anarcho- capitalism with limited government.

Under anarcho-capitalism, "the public" is called "the market," and "votes with its dollars" to have its way about the use of force in society. In a political system (i.e., under a "monopolistic government"), "the public" is called a "political constituency," and votes with ballots in order to have its way about the use of force in society.

But in the latter case, if the government has been constitutionally limited, the masses are typically thwarted in having their way at the expense of others. They can't use force to do anything they want. As private criminals, their acts are limited by the government. And government agents themselves are limited by the Constitution. Our Founders were geniuses at limiting power. It's taken lovers of coercion over 200 years to subvert our Founder's system to its current state; and still, our system is far from being totalitarian.

In the market, by contrast, what's to stop thugs, and by what standard? Surely no private company would deliberately handcuff itself, with separations and divisions of powers, and checks and balances. Such silly, inefficient "gridlock" and "red tape" would only make it less competitive. No, a competitive company must be flexible to respond to shifting "market demand." That means the demand for whatever consumers may want, anything at all. It can't tie its own hands by limiting itself. After all, some other company or industry would always be willing to operate without such moral self-limitation. What firm would restrain itself, when the sleazy, unscrupulous Acme Protective Service across town is just itching for the same customer contracts, and willing to promise clients "no limits?"

Anarchists proclaim faith that in the marketplace, all the "protection" companies would rationally work everything out. All companies in the private sector, they assert, have a vested interest in peace. Their reputations and profits, you see, rest on the need for mutual cooperation, not violence.

Oh? What about a reputation for customer satisfaction -- and the profits that go with getting results? I guess anarchists have no experience in the private sector with shyster lawyers, protection rackets, software pirates and the like. Aren't they, too, responding to market demand?

If the "demand" for peace is paramount, please explain the bloody history of the world.

www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #49 on: January 22, 2004, 06:13:06 pm »

 Anarcho-capitalists forget their own Austrian economics. It was Von Mises who described the marketplace as the ultimate democracy, where "sovereign consumers voted with their dollars" to fulfill their desires. Not necessarily good desires, mind you: just "desires." Whatever they happened to be. The market was itself amoral: it simply satisfied the desires of the greatest number. (That's why Howard Stern sells better than Isaac Stern.)

In other words, the market, like water, can't rise higher than its source. And its source is the people -- the same people who vote in a representative political system. The marketplace is no more moral than the people who are "voting with their dollars." If there's a demand, some supplier will always come along to fill it -- a demand for anything from chocolates to child prostitutes. What "market mechanism" would arise to distinguish between the two -- and by what right and standard would it enforce such distinctions?

* * *

Anarchists think the "invisible hand" of the marketplace will work in the place of government. But read what Adam Smith had to say about businessmen in that famous "invisible hand" passage. Smith knew that government was a precondition of the market, and of the working of the "invisible hand." Without government, the "invisible hand" becomes a closed fist, wielded by the most powerful gang(s) to emerge. Why? Because government prevents competing forces from defining -- and enforcing -- their own private "interests" subjectively and arbitrarily.

Even if 99 percent of "protection agents" behave rationally, all you'd need is one "secessionist" outlaw agency, with it's own novel interpretation of "rights" and "justice," tailored to appeal to some "customer base" of bigots, religious fanatics, disgruntled blue collar workers or amoral tycoons with money to burn. Do anarchists care to argue that outlaw agencies -- given our current intellectual and philosophical "marketplace" -- would have no such constituencies? Dream on.

Oops -- did I say "outlaw?" Under anarchy, there is no final determiner of the law." There would be no final standard for settling disputes, e. g., a Constitution. That would be a "monopoly legal system," you see. That's because anarchists support the unilateral right of any individual or group to secede from a governing framework. (After all -- wrote anarchist Lysander Spooner a century ago -- I didn't sign the Constitution, did I?)

So whose laws, rules, definitions and interpretations are going to be final?

Consider the logical alternatives under anarcho-capitalism. Either...

1. No "protection agency" imposes or enforces any of its interpretations, standards, definitions, decisions or verdicts on any other competing agency, or on any individual acting as his own agent. In which case, there is no "final arbiter" of disputes, no court of final appeal, no enforceability. Everyone some agency deemed "guilty" of an improper initiation of force would retain a unilateral right to ignore the verdict of that agency, or to "secede" from any rule-making framework designed by that agency or any group of agencies.

From a practical standpoint, a "protection agency" which could not enforce retribution or restitution against a wrong-doer would be a paper tiger. Who would pay for such toothless "protection"? Who would stand to lose?

But who would stand to gain under this option? Only the thugs, who would unilaterally declare themselves immune from anyone's arrest, prosecution or punishment. Either as individuals or in gangs, they would use force, unconstrained by the self- limitations adopted by the "good" agencies.

In short, under this option, the good would unilaterally restrain themselves, while the bad would assume the right to use force without self-limitation, and with no fear of retaliation. This option would mean de facto pacifism by the moral, in the face of the immoral.

Now consider the only other option available under anarcho- capitalism:

2. Some enforcement framework must eventually arise and impose final verdicts on everyone. In practice, this would mean either (a) a dominant agency arises in the market, and enforces its interpretations and verdicts on everyone else, by brute force and coercion if necessary; or (b) a group of agencies decides to impose a mutually-agreed-upon framework on everyone. In short, a single legal system and final arbiter mechanism would arise by "market forces." (This utopian notion is endorsed by many anarchists, who concede that in the market there would likely arise a single legal framework.)

Alas, this does not resolve the anarchist's dilemma. In either 2(a) or (b), you have a de facto "legal monopoly" on the use of force -- the same "immoral" coercive situation for which anarchists denounce governments. Wouldn't 2(a) or (b) amount to "unlimited majority rule," or "might makes right"? In the final analysis, no one would be allowed to ignore or secede from the verdict imposed by the majority of agencies. If so, then what becomes of the alleged "right to ignore the state," the "right to secede," or the "right not to delegate away one's personal "right of retaliation"? Also, what becomes of the minority agencies which disagree with the majority -- or to any lone individual who is not represented by any agency? Where is "consumer sovereignty"?

In sum: Either you have no final arbiter to enforce verdicts, or you do.

www.vix.com/objectivism/Writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Mike Lorrey

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2745
  • Live Free and Never Die
    • The International Libertarian
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #50 on: January 22, 2004, 07:29:16 pm »

So, how do we best limit the capricious use of force by those millions whom we call "the public"? Let's compare anarcho- capitalism with limited government.

Under anarcho-capitalism, "the public" is called "the market," and "votes with its dollars" to have its way about the use of force in society. In a political system (i.e., under a "monopolistic government"), "the public" is called a "political constituency," and votes with ballots in order to have its way about the use of force in society.

But in the latter case, if the government has been constitutionally limited, the masses are typically thwarted in having their way at the expense of others. They can't use force to do anything they want. As private criminals, their acts are limited by the government. And government agents themselves are limited by the Constitution. Our Founders were geniuses at limiting power. It's taken lovers of coercion over 200 years to subvert our Founder's system to its current state; and still, our system is far from being totalitarian.

In the market, by contrast, what's to stop thugs, and by what standard?

The masses are thwarted because, unlike majoritarianism, where the minority is not served, market minorities are called 'niche' markets, and there will always be enterprises willing to serve niche markets.
Logged
The International Libertarian: The Journal of Liberty For Everyone, Everywhere, All The Time

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Anarcho-Capitalism
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2004, 03:06:22 pm »

In fact sometimes Nich markets are more profitable then majority or mass markets.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up