[quote]thefederalist wrote:
Again, anarchy is COMPLETELY different from libertarianism. We had this discussion a short while back. Read some Emma Goldman and you will see that for true anarchists no form of capitalism is acceptable.
Anarchy is about being relieved of all things that constrain us, gov’t; property; etc. [/quote]
Look up the structure of the name. Archy - State, An -without, without state/power/kingship/&c. yes once a state becomes so inefficient it also turns into anarchy, which many people assume is what Libertarian-Anarcho’s are about.
No form of capitalism? There is only one form of capitalism.
[quote]Dabba wrote:
But aren’t you forgetting a very important concept here? That being law. In an anarchist society, couldn’t law itself be privatized and the people choose which companies laws they want to follow? [/quote]
And when one company decides the ‘client’ of another company has committed an illegal act against their own client, what then? Does the company of the offender notify the other that the accused doesn’t have a contract with them, and therefore, isn’t bound by their laws? Or what if the company of the accused simply holds a show trial and slaps him on the wrist. Now the victim and his company are disatisfied. This happens over and over, one company refusing to aggresively enfore laws against ‘clients’ when wrongs are committed against others outside of their jurisdiction. Where does that lead? I’ll tell ya. War. ‘Companies’ will simply merge to gain the benefits of being the larger natio…er, company.
There’s a reason this supposed ‘natural state’ of man doesn’t actually exist in nature. I bet we could rerun human existence over, and over, (if we were omnipotent), and Anarchy would be no more than an odd transition here and there betweens differening states/forms of government. Why? Well, despite it sounding good on a Mises Insitute post card, it’s NOT our nature.
Nonaggression is a necessary component to restore that natural order.[/quote]
You’ve got the wrong species, then.
Edit: And anyways, where is this idea coming from that it is nonaggression which restores the natural order? Nature is just bursting with aggression. Unless the lions are getting along with the zebra (and each other, even) these days.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Life is only “nasty, short, and brutish” because of the power structure and the fact the people are constantly fighting over it.[/quote]
Yes, but that fact doesn’t stop the power structures from inexorably emerging out of human relations; in fact, that human urge to dominate etc. is why they emerge in the first place.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Life is only “nasty, short, and brutish” because of the power structure and the fact the people are constantly fighting over it.[/quote]
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Life is only “nasty, short, and brutish” because of the power structure and the fact the people are constantly fighting over it.[/quote]
So, what’s the natural order again?[/quote]
In human terms it is a society that is ordered by a noncoersive hierarchy (just as it is with most animal species) – the naturally elite, if you will. These are those whom make it on merit alone and not just by force of arms or brute strenght. Heck, we could even call it a meritocracy.
If you think about it, even the brutally strong fall into a natural hierarchy but it would be a mistake allow them to order society for us.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And when one company decides the ‘client’ of another company has committed an illegal act against their own client, what then?[/quote]
Well, ideally, the law would be settled through an “arbitration firm”, which coordinates with the private companies that are in opposition. Most opposing companies would want to sign a contract with each other beforehand, specifying the arbitrator who would settle them, before any disputes arise because it is very costly for two companies to be in constant opposition over these things.
The private defense companies would obviously try to seek out the arbitration firm that its customers prefer the most, so as to make the most profit. These arbitration firms, or private courts, compete with each other on the market as well. People are free to choose which laws they want to be subjected to.
This may sound insane, but remember that there are different laws for different states right now, and some even for different cities. My guess is that the protection agencies would find it convenient to use similar courts, and the courts would find it convenient to use similar laws in order to make things simple for the consumers.
This would most likely prevent the war that you are envisioning. However, let’s suppose that two companies don’t have a prior agreement with each other and they are in opposition over which court to use. Still, even in this situation it doesn’t mean there must be war, since war is not very profitable on the open market.
Some sort of bargaining process may arise, where one company persuades the other to use their court, but they must pay the company a sum of money, so both firms end up happy. So, it may not be confusing and chaotic as one might think.
Again, these would be settled by the arbitration firm, and the private courts’ laws.
The problem with what you’re saying is, that this is the exact same argument that statists use to attack the free market for supposedly producing monopolies. It simply isn’t profitable for a company to incur a huge loss in order to POSSIBLY knock out all of its competition.
I think that you’re right, however, and one company may try to do this. But the funds that it would need to garner in order to do this would become so costly to its consumers, that they would eventually leave and hire another private company. Or they just may not want war over one case and may leave for that reason alone. Even if companies decided to merge, all it takes is one company to leave that collusion and undercut the others for bigger profits.
You also gotta’ realize, that in a free market, the people who would be fighting the war could easily leave one company for another, and if their company does go to war, that company would most likely have to raise the wages of these employees (read: thugs, lol) in order to compensate their potential injury or death. This means higher rates for customers, so again another incentive for the consumers to leave that company.
Well, you may be right here. I think we would have to go back to the origins of the state and why it first was created in order to see whether it was really created on need, or on superstition (as is implied by many anarchists).
Ha ha, the Mises Institute has some really good stuff on economics, but they go off the deep end sometimes on other things, I agree. However, I am actually not getting this particular version of anarcho-capitalism from the Mises Institute. I think Rothbard actually had a different vision of anarchy then the one I described above.
Also, I just want to point out that I wasn’t the one who said this was the natural state of man. In fact, if I was an anarchist, I might say that fear-mongering and superstition was the more accurate normal state of mankind. I mean, historically speaking, big states are very regular and normal occurrences.
Finally, I just want to make clear that I am not an anarchist and I have my own reasons for why I believe anarchy is not the way to go. I’m merely exploring the possibility.
[quote]Jab1 wrote:
Idealism is stupid. But if it makes you happy…[/quote]
Defeatism is stupid. But if it makes you happy…[/quote]
Haha, I’m not defeatist, don’t put words in my mouth. I just don’t care about perfecting society.