Anarchocapitalism questions

[Taraz]

This would probably get a lot more responses in the politics forum, but I would just as soon not have to deal with all the bullsh*t over there.

As far as I understand it, an AC world rely on perfect information and no barriers to entry for new companies. Is this true?

I agree that the free market could take care of almost anything under these circumstances. But consumers never have perfect information. Hell, they rarely even have semi-accurate information. It also seems like there would be huge barriers to entry into a lot of fields of commerce. This seems especially true if we try to go to an AC system from our current state.

And in terms of education and health care, it seems like purely profit seeking organizations won't maximize learning and good health. It seems like it would be in your best interest to look like you're doing a great service, but to instead provide spotty service. As long as a large percentage of your clientele is not aware of your shortcomings you'd probably do well. I'm thinking of health care in particular when I say this since so many insurance companies seek to deny compensation wherever they can.

Yes, I could probably search for some of these answers on the internet or through the archives. But a cursory search didn't reveal anything and I'm sure there are enough ACers out there who'll be happy to respond. Right?

[JussiUt]

I would also be interested in this as I'm quite shocked to see so many "ACists" in the politics forum. The whole idea of "all state intervention is bad, free market is God" seems foreign to me but also like Taraz said it's really hard to picture it actually working properly.

I don't think companies are so responsible as they think and I don't think people would always know when a company would be behaving irresponsibly.

[Archon_Wing]

Ah yes, the politics forum is a real zoo and honestly I keep my posting level there at the same level as I would at BBV because any extra effort seems to be a waste of time due to the random people nitpicking at others and calling each other names (OMG You liberal!, OMG you fascist!) [but such is politics], but here's what I got:

I think the idea is the issue of choice. That is, you could still have some kind of structure run by the community, but it is entirely optional-- one does not have to fund it or participate in it if they don't want to. The state does not let you opt out and uses force to prevent people to opt out. Another notion is that bureaucracy is inefficient compared to the free market; indeed government provided services are subpar because the government can create its own monopoly and can stamp out the competition, so there's no need for improvement. Ac'ist also believe that the government has no accountability, except to itself. One thing I do find interesting is that the AC'ists do assert that their concept of a society is not a perfect world, it's simply a better alternative than the status quo, so it's not lalalla dream land.

As for why people are into these ideas, at least in the US, probaly has to do with the increasing government interference with personal freedom (War on Terrorism, Patriot Act, Drug War, UIEGA, etc)

[Paragon]

Your complaints apply even moreso to government. All they try to do is maximize profit (taxes, special interests), all while providing lip service and propaganda. They clearly are not rational and do not have perfect information -- in fact, they are intentionally deceptive and use false information on a regular basis. Besides, there is too much data in today's modern economy to be processed by some archaic central authority. Only a decentralized free market based on voluntary exchange can adequately provide for so many people's diverse needs.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Your complaints apply even moreso to government. All they try to do is maximize profit (taxes, special interests), all while providing lip service and propaganda. They clearly are not rational and do not have perfect information -- in fact, they are intentionally deceptive and use false information on a regular basis. Besides, there is too much data in today's modern economy to be processed by some archaic central authority. Only a decentralized free market based on voluntary exchange can adequately provide for so many people's diverse needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I don't think I ever said that a government would be able to provide these services better than the free market could. I was just asking how an ACer deals with these objections.

I agree that our current government is pretty corrupt due to all the special interests money that is going around. In theory, however, we should be able to vote for any changes that we want. The propaganda part makes things difficult because the government (especially the current administration) misinforms the public on about every issue.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I think the idea is the issue of choice. That is, you could still have some kind of structure run by the community, but it is entirely optional-- one does not have to fund it or participate in it if they don't want to. The state does not let you opt out and uses force to prevent people to opt out. Another notion is that bureaucracy is inefficient compared to the free market; indeed government provided services are subpar because the government can create its own monopoly and can stamp out the competition, so there's no need for improvement. Ac'ist also believe that the government has no accountability, except to itself. One thing I do find interesting is that the AC'ists do assert that their concept of a society is not a perfect world, it's simply a better alternative than the status quo, so it's not lalalla dream land.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a pretty good answer. From what I've read from AC posters it seems like they are saying that the free market would handle these issues perfectly. But if it's just a matter of having choices and alternatives it seems like a more plausible strategy.

I guess I just think that it's crazy that we don't have universal health care. It's insane to me because it's often a bigger burden on the state because people aren't getting early treatment and preventative care.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I understand it, an AC world rely on perfect information . . . Is this true?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. Since such a thing does not and can not exist. Imperfect information merely represents arbitrage opportunities that allow the market to function.

[ QUOTE ]
...and no barriers to entry for new companies.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what sense? In the sense that there is no government to erect artificial barriers to entry? Yes. In the sense that you still actually have to have the knowledge and capital to enter a market competitively? No. Obviously.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the free market could take care of almost anything under these circumstances. But consumers never have perfect information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry about it. You're dealing with a strawman characterization of the theory. Perfect information is not necessary for the market to work, quite obviously, since markets exist and perfect information does not. The same is true of capital-free competitive entry; markets don't require such a ridiculous condition to exist for them to work. Again, quite obviously, since they do work and it doesn't exist.

I am truly mystefied by these bizarro objections to markets that always pop up. How exactly are these supposed to be points against the market and in favor of government? The information available to government central planners is infinitely MORE imperfect than the information available to individual market participants making individual decisions about their own lives and circumstances. A government's very EXISTENCE is by definition an exercise in erecting barriers to competitive entry in practically every industry.

Up is down, left is right, dogs are cats and destroying markets makes better markets, apparently.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your complaints apply even moreso to government. All they try to do is maximize profit (taxes, special interests), all while providing lip service and propaganda. They clearly are not rational and do not have perfect information -- in fact, they are intentionally deceptive and use false information on a regular basis. Besides, there is too much data in today's modern economy to be processed by some archaic central authority. Only a decentralized free market based on voluntary exchange can adequately provide for so many people's diverse needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I don't think I ever said that a government would be able to provide these services better than the free market could. I was just asking how an ACer deals with these objections.

I agree that our current government is pretty corrupt due to all the special interests money that is going around. In theory, however, we should be able to vote for any changes that we want. The propaganda part makes things difficult because the government (especially the current administration) misinforms the public on about every issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bear in mind, it is strongly implied in all questions like this that what you are REALLY saying is "Neener neener, if the ACists cant give a perfect, simple solution to all of my questions then clearly the whole thing is a scam even though my alternate solution, the state, is just as bad or worse at solving this exact same problem."

I can make a pretty good guess based on your posting history that this is NOT, in fact, what you are saying. But it generally IS what everyone else who asks questions like this is saying. I'm just trying to warn you and give some explanation for the seemingly hostile or presumptuous responses you are going to get.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
From what I've read from AC posters it seems like they are saying that the free market would handle these issues perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't read very carefully. The free market is not utopian. Problems exist in free markets. The market is, in fact, a system for dealing with problems at minimal cost, not for magically making them go away. If there were no problems, there would be no need for markets.

Think of it like this. There are two general strategies that you can imagine employing to solve the problems that arise due to being alive. You can allow people to freely cooperate and compete, innovate solutions, and allow consumers to choose amongst alternative solutions for their various problems, allowing good solutions to flourish and bad solutions to falter. Or, you can institute a violent monopoly that arrogates to itself the tasks of a) unilaterally deciding what is and what is not a "problem", b) unilaterally deciding what is and what is not a "solution" to the "problem", c) force everyone to buy into that solution, regardless of whether it is actually a good idea for them (in their opinion), and d) institutionalize these "solutions" in the absence of any sort of market testing.

It is clear to me which of these is the better strategy, and which the worse.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
From what I've read from AC posters it seems like they are saying that the free market would handle these issues perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't read very carefully. The free market is not utopian. Problems exist in free markets. The market is, in fact, a system for dealing with problems at minimal cost, not for magically making them go away. If there were no problems, there would be no need for markets.

Think of it like this. There are two general strategies that you can imagine employing to solve the problems that arise due to being alive. You can allow people to freely cooperate and compete, innovate solutions, and allow consumers to choose amongst alternative solutions for their various problems, allowing good solutions to flourish and bad solutions to falter. Or, you can institute a violent monopoly that arrogates to itself the tasks of a) unilaterally deciding what is and what is not a "problem", b) unilaterally deciding what is and what is not a "solution" to the "problem", c) force everyone to buy into that solution, regardless of whether it is actually a good idea for them (in their opinion), and d) institutionalize these "solutions" in the absence of any sort of market testing.

It is clear to me which of these is the better strategy, and which the worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think an interesting, SMP-related tangent to this thread would be discussing the situations and personalities of those who would prefer the latter of these two choices (although no one would say they preferred it when put in such terms). I'd bet the majority of them would not be the power-hungry, impose-my-will types, but rather the "I'd rather trust the gov't to take care of that sort of thing for me" type.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Bear in mind, it is strongly implied in all questions like this that what you are REALLY saying is "Neener neener, if the ACists cant give a perfect, simple solution to all of my questions then clearly the whole thing is a scam even though my alternate solution, the state, is just as bad or worse at solving this exact same problem."

I can make a pretty good guess based on your posting history that this is NOT, in fact, what you are saying. But it generally IS what everyone else who asks questions like this is saying. I'm just trying to warn you and give some explanation for the seemingly hostile or presumptuous responses you are going to get.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's precisely why I didn't post this in the Politics forum. I genuinely haven't had much exposure to AC theory, so I figure I could get more accurate info here and less yelling back and forth.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

You don't read very carefully. The free market is not utopian. Problems exist in free markets. The market is, in fact, a system for dealing with problems at minimal cost, not for magically making them go away. If there were no problems, there would be no need for markets.

Think of it like this. There are two general strategies that you can imagine employing to solve the problems that arise due to being alive. You can allow people to freely cooperate and compete, innovate solutions, and allow consumers to choose amongst alternative solutions for their various problems, allowing good solutions to flourish and bad solutions to falter. Or, you can institute a violent monopoly that arrogates to itself the tasks of a) unilaterally deciding what is and what is not a "problem", b) unilaterally deciding what is and what is not a "solution" to the "problem", c) force everyone to buy into that solution, regardless of whether it is actually a good idea for them (in their opinion), and d) institutionalize these "solutions" in the absence of any sort of market testing.

It is clear to me which of these is the better strategy, and which the worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great answer and pretty much what I was looking for. It's hard to pick out what educated ACers really think about an AC world because there is so much fighting back and forth in the Politics forum. So it's hard to tell if people think it's just better than government or a 'perfect' system.

I think I would mildly object to your claim that government 'unilaterally' decides anything. It seems like if the government ever did anything we didn't like we would be able to use our voting power to change its actions. I guess in practice it isn't so easy, but that's the theory anyway.

Do you think the difference between the two groups has to deal with who believes that there is such thing as a "public interest" and who does not? I think the idea of government handling certain scenarios is appealing to me because I don't really trust individuals to help out where help is needed. It seems like if I trust government something will be done to help out the bottom 20% of a population. Obviously there are HUGE amounts of problems with this 'help', but it seems better than leaving them to their own devices and relying on charitable donations. Maybe I just don't trust rich people /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

I guess it's hard to know how the free market would really deal with these things because there has never really been a truly AC system to evaluate. So I'm just trying to get an idea of how ACers think it would go. I'm not trying to bash AC ideas or anything because I honestly don't know what they are entirely.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I think an interesting, SMP-related tangent to this thread would be discussing the situations and personalities of those who would prefer the latter of these two choices (although no one would say they preferred it when put in such terms). I'd bet the majority of them would not be the power-hungry, impose-my-will types, but rather the "I'd rather trust the gov't to take care of that sort of thing for me" type.



[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not sure that you’ll find these sorts of folks on an SMP/poker forum, I think you would have to consult your local kindergarten class for a lively debate with enthusiastic individuals that would be in the category of, “ I’d rather have others take care of things for me - type.”

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think companies are so responsible as they think and I don't think people would always know when a company would be behaving irresponsibly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some companies would be responsible because that's how their founders and operators choose to act.

On the other hand some companies would be willing to do anything for profit- how responsible they were would depend on how vigilant consumers were in reacting to actions like those. You will notice though that the exact same problem exists in politics, the mere existence of government cannot alleviate the problem since at the core it is still people making the decisions and people watching to make sure they aren't criminals.
However when the two systems are compared the market whips out its trump card. If 10% of people realize that GW Bush shouldn't be in power under a state they are screwed as long as he can still get enough votes. Under the market though those 10% can turn to an alternative and proceed to be more prosperous than those who support him. This makes life better for those 10%, but it also provides a stark contrast for the 90% who now have more information. They can compare their lives under Bush to those who are lived in very similar situations absent Bush which will provide better information for their next decision.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think an interesting, SMP-related tangent to this thread would be discussing the situations and personalities of those who would prefer the latter of these two choices (although no one would say they preferred it when put in such terms). I'd bet the majority of them would not be the power-hungry, impose-my-will types, but rather the "I'd rather trust the gov't to take care of that sort of thing for me" type.



[/ QUOTE ]

I’m not sure that you’ll find these sorts of folks on an SMP/poker forum, I think you would have to consult your local kindergarten class for a lively debate with enthusiastic individuals that would be in the category of, “ I’d rather have others take care of things for me - type.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, they are grossly underrepresented on a poker forum, but I certainly wouldn't need to go to kindergarten to find them.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I think I would mildly object to your claim that government 'unilaterally' decides anything. It seems like if the government ever did anything we didn't like we would be able to use our voting power to change its actions. I guess in practice it isn't so easy, but that's the theory anyway.


[/ QUOTE ]

The idea of voting out the bad and the good in is flawed when compared to the market. How can you know if the person you are voting into power will be better, the same, or worse than those you are voting out? Just as a hypothetical lets say the US holds a vote between two new products, coke and pepsi. Everyone has a year worth of primaries to make up their mind, and then a vote is held. Coke wins since more people prefer its taste to Pepsi. Pepsi is outlawed and everyone drinks coke, 10 years down the line though the increase incidence of blindness in the population is traced back to drinking Coke. Now what? If you switch to pepsi you can't be sure that drinking pepsi for 10 years won't have higher rates of blindness (or worse side effects). Under a market though there are a bunch of people drinking coke, and a bunch drinking pepsi (and tons of other drinks as well) and there is a lot more information out there to make a more correct decision.
From 2000-2007 who would have been a better president, Gore or Bush? We know what Bush did and how its turned out so far, but we have no frickin clue as to what Gore would have done in those same situations and if it would have been better, worse or about as bad.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I would mildly object to your claim that government 'unilaterally' decides anything. It seems like if the government ever did anything we didn't like we would be able to use our voting power to change its actions. I guess in practice it isn't so easy, but that's the theory anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

The government does things I don't like all the time. The magical "power" of voting doesn't seem to allow me to change its actions, though.

When the result is the same whether or not you take some action, describing that action as "powerful" seems pretty silly, wouldn't you say?

Voting is like shooting arrows into the sky trying to pop the Moon.

[Phil153]

Borodog,

That's all great until you talk about specifics. Like stopping organized crime from taking over and controlling key industries. Like protecting kids from abusive parents. Like a particular county saying gays or blacks can't live there, and forcibly evicting them.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog,

That's all great until you talk about specifics. Like stopping organized crime from taking over and controlling key industries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like it does now?

Strange how you never seem to acknowledge that organized crime only dominates those industries made black by government fiat. And how you never have any comeback except platitudes and assertions and moving of goalposts for the fact that criminals cannot dominate free markets because of factors like time preference, costs, and decision making skills. On a level playing field, businessmen outcompete criminals day in and day out. This is why businessmen dominated the alcohol industry before and after prohibition, but violent criminals dominated during. Why did the criminal grip on that industry not survive the end of Prohibition if violence is such a great market strategy, hmm? The only place criminals can dominate is in places where the playing field is made unlevel by government. High time preference individuals make poorer decisions because they cannot include long term costs and consequences into their economic planning. Criminals are the epitome of high time preference individuals; they want immediate satisfaction and damn the consequences. Violence is costly. People who made poor decisions and incur higher costs will never outcompete people who make better decisions and incur lower costs in a free market.

Oh, sorry. I guess I wasn't supposed to talk, again, about these "specifics" that you accuse me of not talking about.

It amazes me how you apologists for the state trot out the same tired old beat-down arguments over and over, as if you never heard them debunked the first thousand times.

And my favorite part is this, that your answer to "preventing organized crime from taking over and controlling key industries" is to . . . have organized criminals take over and control key industries.

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/brilliant.jpg

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

The government does things I don't like all the time. The magical "power" of voting doesn't seem to allow me to change its actions, though.

When the result is the same whether or not you take some action, describing that action as "powerful" seems pretty silly, wouldn't you say?

Voting is like shooting arrows into the sky trying to pop the Moon.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the only one that feels that way, yeah you're pretty much screwed. But if you can organize and convince a significant amount of people of your cause, you can make some change.

With that said, our system is pretty broken. Something needs to be changed. I'm just trying to how a completely free market system would compare to other alternatives.

[Phil153]

I do indeed have answers to your point. And it's interesting that you completely ignored the other two questions. That's very common with your kind:

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c153/Borodog/brilliant.jpg

Anyway I'm derailing Taraz's thread so I'll ask those two questions in politics.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The government does things I don't like all the time. The magical "power" of voting doesn't seem to allow me to change its actions, though.

When the result is the same whether or not you take some action, describing that action as "powerful" seems pretty silly, wouldn't you say?

Voting is like shooting arrows into the sky trying to pop the Moon.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the only one that feels that way, yeah you're pretty much screwed. But if you can organize and convince a significant amount of people of your cause, you can make some change.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true because of government. In the free market, if I don't like something some firm is doing, I don't have to patronize them. I don't have to organize or convince a single person of jack [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
With that said, our system is pretty broken. Something needs to be changed. I'm just trying to how a completely free market system would compare to other alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does liberty, social cooperation, and the minimization of conflict compare to the institutionalization of violence?

For me, favorably.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I do indeed have answers to your point. And it's interesting that you completely ignored the other two questions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't see them. I think you probably deleted the post and reposted it before I responded.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
This is only true because of government. In the free market, if I don't like something some firm is doing, I don't have to patronize them. I don't have to organize or convince a single person of jack [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
What if they're the only firm in your area? Choice works fine with things supermarkets in large cities, but when it comes to major roads, power, water, security, national defence, and anywhere where something is naturally controlled by one or few companies, you are indeed still subject to majority rule.

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't see them. I think you probably deleted the post and reposted it before I responded.

[/ QUOTE ]
I edited them in about 30 seconds after. You must have responded immediately. Mea culpa.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Like protecting kids from abusive parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain what makes it impossible for the free market to protect children from abusive parents. I would be particularly interested since the question has already been addressed multiple times on these very fora.

[ QUOTE ]
Like a particular county saying gays or blacks can't live there, and forcibly evicting them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahahah. You slay me dude.

How does a "county" say gays or blacks can't live there in the absence of government to artificially create such a law? And if all property owners in a contiguous geographical region decided that they did not want to sell or rent to a particular group, what is the problem? They own the property, don't they? That community would suffer in the market compared to other communities that did not restrict the pool of potentially productive members by arbitrary factors like skin color and sexual preference.

This is of course diametrically opposed to YOUR prefered system, which has a long and storied history of institutionalizing violence against minorities in the LAW. They were called Jim Crow LAWS for a reason. Segregation was the LAW. Slavery was the LAW. Fugitive slave LAWS were the LAW.

What next, you're going to defend government as the agent that (eventually) cleaned up these messes? The ones it created? How generous!

[Phil153]

I'll bring this up in politics.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is only true because of government. In the free market, if I don't like something some firm is doing, I don't have to patronize them. I don't have to organize or convince a single person of jack [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]
What if they're the only firm in your area? Choice works fine with things supermarkets in large cities, but when it comes to major roads, power, water, security, national defence, and anywhere where something is naturally controlled by one or few companies, you are indeed still subject to majority rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

Argument by assumption of the conclusion. I love it.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

What if they're the only firm in your area? Choice works fine with things supermarkets in large cities, but when it comes to major roads, power, water, security, national defence, and anywhere where something is naturally controlled by one or few companies, you are indeed still subject to majority rule.


[/ QUOTE ]

And your still wrong. Under a market I always have the choice to minimize my costs by minimizing my consumption. Even if a company had a monopoly *I* still get to choose how much of their product to purchase. A government doesn't offer that option, if I don't drive on government roads I still end up paying for those that do.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
And if all property owners in a contiguous geographical region decided that they did not want to sell or rent to a particular group, what is the problem? They own the property, don't they? That community would suffer in the market compared to other communities that did not restrict the pool of potentially productive members by arbitrary factors like skin color and sexual preference.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, this happens in our current system anyway. We have laws to prosecute offenders at least. Do you really see no problem with a system in which this is completely legal and justified though? I don't think this community would suffer in the free market if they could simply find enough people to fill up my community though. I dunno, allowing this leads to a whole host of problems in my mind.

Also it's kind of disingenuous to say that the reason we had Jim Crow laws was because of government. They were there because the people in those areas wanted segregation.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The government does things I don't like all the time. The magical "power" of voting doesn't seem to allow me to change its actions, though.

When the result is the same whether or not you take some action, describing that action as "powerful" seems pretty silly, wouldn't you say?

Voting is like shooting arrows into the sky trying to pop the Moon.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're the only one that feels that way, yeah you're pretty much screwed. But if you can organize and convince a significant amount of people of your cause, you can make some change.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's a huge problem, because I have to convince a majority of people to agree with me, and they have to care. This is why it has been extremely hard to progress in civil rights in some areas, such as gay rights because a lot of people are either indiffrent to it, or actively oppose it.

If a certain business were to not serve gays, I suppose I could take my buisness
elsewhere. That doesn't matter much I suppose, but if I could convince like say 10% of people who go there to go elsewhere it would still hurt the offending business a bit. (Give them bad press, tell my friends, etc)

But what if a buisness loses more customers if they accepted gay people? Well, then it's a problem with the mindset of society, and neither state or non-state solutions will work unless the mindset can be combatted. But I'd imagine it'd still spur a niche market that did serve gays, though.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

That's a huge problem, because I have to convince a majority of people to agree with me, and they have to care. This is why it has been extremely hard to progress in civil rights in some areas, such as gay rights because a lot of people are either indiffrent to it, or actively oppose it.

If a certain business were to not serve gays, I suppose I could take my buisness
elsewhere. That doesn't matter much I suppose, but if I could convince like say 10% of people who go there to go elsewhere it would still hurt the offending business a bit. (Give them bad press, tell my friends, etc)

But what if a buisness loses more customers if they accepted gay people? Well, then it's a problem with the mindset of society, and neither state or non-state solutions will work unless the mindset can be combatted. But I'd imagine it'd still spur a niche market that did serve gays, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but if you can convince 10% of people of your cause you have huge power in our democracy. See: Pro-Israel, Pro-Cuba lobbies, and others.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's a huge problem, because I have to convince a majority of people to agree with me, and they have to care. This is why it has been extremely hard to progress in civil rights in some areas, such as gay rights because a lot of people are either indiffrent to it, or actively oppose it.

If a certain business were to not serve gays, I suppose I could take my buisness
elsewhere. That doesn't matter much I suppose, but if I could convince like say 10% of people who go there to go elsewhere it would still hurt the offending business a bit. (Give them bad press, tell my friends, etc)

But what if a buisness loses more customers if they accepted gay people? Well, then it's a problem with the mindset of society, and neither state or non-state solutions will work unless the mindset can be combatted. But I'd imagine it'd still spur a niche market that did serve gays, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, but if you can convince 10% of people of your cause you have huge power in our democracy. See: Pro-Israel, Pro-Cuba lobbies, and others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess, but that seems to require a lot more effort, organization, and resources. It's a bit easier to convince someone to buy stuff elsewhere then to ask them to donate money to a cause; not that people who care wouldn't, but it's a bit harder.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I guess, but that seems to require a lot more effort, organization, and resources. It's a bit easier to convince someone to buy stuff elsewhere then to ask them to donate money to a cause; not that people who care wouldn't, but it's a bit harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. I'm just trying to clean up your argument a bit /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Archon_Wing]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I guess, but that seems to require a lot more effort, organization, and resources. It's a bit easier to convince someone to buy stuff elsewhere then to ask them to donate money to a cause; not that people who care wouldn't, but it's a bit harder.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true. I'm just trying to clean up your argument a bit /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, that's always a good thing.

Let me add on to my previous argument:
If homophobia were rampant and it's actually more profitable for a business to reject gay people, then it may be worse in a society with a powerful state. There will most likely be laws against homosexuality, and thus alternatives that accept gay people probaly won't show up, unless they are underground. I wouldn't speak up against a business that rejected them for fear of being associated with them. They basically have little or no chance, and you could say that was the case about a few decades ago. Now we don't live in a society that extreme anymore, but it's still quite bad.

[m_the0ry]

AC is simply too ideal to exist in practice.

Many many famous economists through time - from Marx to Smith to Keynes - have acknowledged that one of the best economies is a market economy. Very few if any of them have suggested that a market economy should entirely replace government.

AC has no practical antitrust mechanism, no practical environmental protection mechanism and no practical civil rights mechanism. It proposes an easy solution to complex problems - really it's demagoguery.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

AC has no practical antitrust mechanism

[/ QUOTE ]

The market has the single most effective antitrust mechanism, consumer choice.

[ QUOTE ]
no practical environmental protection mechanism

[/ QUOTE ]

Again it has the single most effective protection, lawsuits against those who damage your property.

[ QUOTE ]
no practical civil rights mechanism

[/ QUOTE ]

The truest freedom is the ability to earn and to spend a dollar.
Booker T Washington

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

AC has no practical antitrust mechanism

[/ QUOTE ]

The market has the single most effective antitrust mechanism, consumer choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever heard of advertising? Mergers? Brand loyalty? These things are real. This statement is among the most ridiculous I've heard.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no practical environmental protection mechanism

[/ QUOTE ]

Again it has the single most effective protection, lawsuits against those who damage your property.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I can somewhat understand. Negative externalities - when they hurt someone else in the market (very important distinction here) - would be better handled in AC. Privatization of law would make these conflicts a market demand and a profitable business. Who owns the air? The pacific ocean? Explain to me who will be the two litigating parties in the situation of someone dumping 500 tons of radioactive waste into the middle of the ocean? Now hearing the case of "Nature v. Doe".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
no practical civil rights mechanism

[/ QUOTE ]

The truest freedom is the ability to earn and to spend a dollar.
Booker T Washington

[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds really good and yet it completely evades the point. The point being, there is no body to ensure that everyone does in fact have that freedom.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]




The market has the single most effective antitrust mechanism, consumer choice.



Ever heard of advertising? Mergers? Brand loyalty? These things are real. This statement is among the most ridiculous I've heard.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why do companies advertise? They advertise to try to gain market share, because other companies are also advertising, because consumers don't just have a choice between product A and product B, they also have the choice not to buy either. All mergers are not profit generating, bigger =! better in the market. Some mergers fail, some are never tried because the benefits are dubious. Mergers between certain companies who are certain sizes at certain times are profitable, it does not imply that all mergers are profitable.
Brand loyalty doesn't imply that people will stick with one type of soda no matter what, it just means that people are willing to tolerate some increase in price (or decrease in quality). Though this doesn't extend to new consumers nearly as much, and new consumers enter the market every day. A company that relied to much on bran loyalty will end up in trouble (see Ford Motor company).

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as I understand it, an AC world rely on perfect information and no barriers to entry for new companies. Is this true?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, why would you assume this to be the case?
[ QUOTE ]
It also seems like there would be huge barriers to entry into a lot of fields of commerce. This seems especially true if we try to go to an AC system from our current state.

[/ QUOTE ]
Government increases barriers to entry (outright government mandated monopolies, favorable regulation, and profit-killing taxes just to name a few).
[ QUOTE ]
And in terms of education and health care, it seems like purely profit seeking organizations won't maximize learning and good health. It seems like it would be in your best interest to look like you're doing a great service, but to instead provide spotty service.

[/ QUOTE ]
This type of scenario only depends on how limited competition is. Government historically has almost always limited competition (if not outright made competition illegal), whether it be in services it provides, or by those it favors.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I would also be interested in this as I'm quite shocked to see so many "ACists" in the politics forum. The whole idea of "all state intervention is bad, free market is God" seems foreign to me but also like Taraz said it's really hard to picture it actually working properly.

I don't think companies are so responsible as they think and I don't think people would always know when a company would be behaving irresponsibly.

[/ QUOTE ]
We simply see voluntary solutions and agents acting on a free market with competition to be better then coercize solutions and bureacrats with no motivation to supply actual good results.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
any extra effort seems to be a waste of time due to the random people nitpicking at others and calling each other names (OMG You liberal!, OMG you fascist!)

[/ QUOTE ]
cite plz.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that our current government is pretty corrupt due to all the special interests money that is going around. In theory, however, we should be able to vote for any changes that we want.


[/ QUOTE ]
The game is structured so that the rich elites run the show. That's how it's always been, and until large amounts of people begin convinced of it's illegitamacy, that's how it'll always be.
[ QUOTE ]
The propaganda part makes things difficult because the government (especially the current administration) misinforms the public on about every issue.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just one example of what I'm talking about. Another is the fact that the government owns the courts, police, military, and schools.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really trust individuals to help out where help is needed.

[/ QUOTE ]
Those who work for the state are individuals too.
[ QUOTE ]
It seems like if I trust government something will be done to help out the bottom 20% of a population.

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you really think that historically governments have been around to help out the poor? An inflationary monetary policy, a history of war profiteering, and cartelizations through government regulations all show otherwise.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
What if they're the only firm in your area?

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean kind of like.....a government?

If they're the only firm in the area and they're doing a [censored] job methinks someone else could make some good dough by doing a not so [censored] job. And if that was still to [censored] another guy could attempt to better and make more money.
[ QUOTE ]
when it comes to major roads, power, water, security, national defence, and anywhere where something is naturally controlled by one or few companies

[/ QUOTE ]
Why do you think any of these are naturally supplied by one or a few companies. If they do a [censored] job, another one's right around the corner to capitalize on it.
[ QUOTE ]
you are indeed still subject to majority rule.

[/ QUOTE ]
So worst case scenario in AC land is the norm under the status quo. I'm ok with that.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Also it's kind of disingenuous to say that the reason we had Jim Crow laws was because of government. They were there because the people in those areas wanted segregation.

[/ QUOTE ]
History shows that Jim Crow laws were enacted by people that were scared of losing a job to a freed slave. Businesses were hiring freed slaves right and left and the government acted to "fix" this situation.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]

AC has no practical antitrust mechanism, no practical environmental protection mechanism and no practical civil rights mechanism. It proposes an easy solution to complex problems - really it's demagoguery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Last time you trotted out this argument I linked you to over twenty articles over these subjects. Have you been reading them?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also it's kind of disingenuous to say that the reason we had Jim Crow laws was because of government. They were there because the people in those areas wanted segregation.

[/ QUOTE ]
History shows that Jim Crow laws were enacted by people that were scared of losing a job to a freed slave. Businesses were hiring freed slaves right and left and the government acted to "fix" this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting like "government" is some big brother term here. It's not like ten people unilaterally decided to have Jim Crow laws. People in the south were racist and wanted them. You make a lot of good points, but you really need to give this one up.

I guess you could say that government is responsible because it allows for the possibility of unjust laws. But don't act like the people were all righteous and the big, bad government came in and mucked it all up.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that our current government is pretty corrupt due to all the special interests money that is going around. In theory, however, we should be able to vote for any changes that we want.


[/ QUOTE ]
The game is structured so that the rich elites run the show. That's how it's always been, and until large amounts of people begin convinced of it's illegitamacy, that's how it'll always be.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I said getting special interest money out of politics and campaigning would be a HUGE improvement.

I don't really see how we go from our current system to an AC system anyway. I mean, even if AC was the answer, how can we possibly get there from our current state? If we just shut down a bunch of government programs there will be another host of problems before we can let the free market decide things.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also it's kind of disingenuous to say that the reason we had Jim Crow laws was because of government. They were there because the people in those areas wanted segregation.

[/ QUOTE ]
History shows that Jim Crow laws were enacted by people that were scared of losing a job to a freed slave. Businesses were hiring freed slaves right and left and the government acted to "fix" this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting like "government" is some big brother term here. It's not like ten people unilaterally decided to have Jim Crow laws. People in the south were racist and wanted them. You make a lot of good points, but you really need to give this one up.

I guess you could say that government is responsible because it allows for the possibility of unjust laws. But don't act like the people were all righteous and the big, bad government came in and mucked it all up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not the enactment of the laws, specifically, that matters. These 'laws' could arise in an AC society as well. But you just wouldn't be forced to obey them at gunpoint. You could simply leave whatever collective had established those laws, and hire whomever you wanted. That is impossible under government, where even if it is a racist minority, all are forced to go along.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also it's kind of disingenuous to say that the reason we had Jim Crow laws was because of government. They were there because the people in those areas wanted segregation.

[/ QUOTE ]
History shows that Jim Crow laws were enacted by people that were scared of losing a job to a freed slave. Businesses were hiring freed slaves right and left and the government acted to "fix" this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting like "government" is some big brother term here. It's not like ten people unilaterally decided to have Jim Crow laws. People in the south were racist and wanted them. You make a lot of good points, but you really need to give this one up.

I guess you could say that government is responsible because it allows for the possibility of unjust laws. But don't act like the people were all righteous and the big, bad government came in and mucked it all up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which people? The black people? The non slave owning business owners looking for cheaper labour costs? The progressive civil rights movement (such of it that existed)? Or a small group of the politically connected who used the guns of the state to get their way where they couldn't otherwise.

[m_the0ry]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

AC has no practical antitrust mechanism, no practical environmental protection mechanism and no practical civil rights mechanism. It proposes an easy solution to complex problems - really it's demagoguery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Last time you trotted out this argument I linked you to over twenty articles over these subjects. Have you been reading them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please post the link again here (SM&P). I would really enjoy looking at them again.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also it's kind of disingenuous to say that the reason we had Jim Crow laws was because of government. They were there because the people in those areas wanted segregation.

[/ QUOTE ]
History shows that Jim Crow laws were enacted by people that were scared of losing a job to a freed slave. Businesses were hiring freed slaves right and left and the government acted to "fix" this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting like "government" is some big brother term here. It's not like ten people unilaterally decided to have Jim Crow laws. People in the south were racist and wanted them. You make a lot of good points, but you really need to give this one up.

I guess you could say that government is responsible because it allows for the possibility of unjust laws. But don't act like the people were all righteous and the big, bad government came in and mucked it all up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which people? The black people? The non slave owning business owners looking for cheaper labour costs? The progressive civil rights movement (such of it that existed)? Or a small group of the politically connected who used the guns of the state to get their way where they couldn't otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you really trying to say that the people in the south were against Jim Crow laws? White workers who would be undercut/displaced were against black labor and a whole host of simply racist people who didn't want blacks to have equal standing under the law.

I think you guys are also underestimating terror tactics by racist people in the south. Does anybody really think that companies that hired blacks wouldn't be targeted by random people throwing rocks through windows and molotov cocktails and things like that? Even if 10% of business were willing to hire blacks, they probably wouldn't because of the social stigma.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also it's kind of disingenuous to say that the reason we had Jim Crow laws was because of government. They were there because the people in those areas wanted segregation.

[/ QUOTE ]
History shows that Jim Crow laws were enacted by people that were scared of losing a job to a freed slave. Businesses were hiring freed slaves right and left and the government acted to "fix" this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting like "government" is some big brother term here. It's not like ten people unilaterally decided to have Jim Crow laws. People in the south were racist and wanted them. You make a lot of good points, but you really need to give this one up.

I guess you could say that government is responsible because it allows for the possibility of unjust laws. But don't act like the people were all righteous and the big, bad government came in and mucked it all up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which people? The black people? The non slave owning business owners looking for cheaper labour costs? The progressive civil rights movement (such of it that existed)? Or a small group of the politically connected who used the guns of the state to get their way where they couldn't otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you really trying to say that the people in the south were against Jim Crow laws? White workers who would be undercut/displaced were against black labor and a whole host of simply racist people who didn't want blacks to have equal standing under the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there were for sure some people that were against the Jim Crow laws right? Most black people for a start. I don't see how this isn't anti-state. A bunch of racist people enforced their views on others through the power of the state so we have to have a state? Also if most people were for the laws how were they repealed? Doesn't that make a mockery of the idea of a democracy?

[ QUOTE ]

I think you guys are also underestimating terror tactics by racist people in the south. Does anybody really think that companies that hired blacks wouldn't be targeted by random people throwing rocks through windows and molotov cocktails and things like that? Even if 10% of business were willing to hire blacks, they probably wouldn't because of the social stigma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think any structure of laes and courts would come down pretty hard on people who damaged property and endangered lives.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

But there were for sure some people that were against the Jim Crow laws right? Most black people for a start. I don't see how this isn't anti-state. A bunch of racist people enforced their views on others through the power of the state so we have to have a state? Also if most people were for the laws how were they repealed? Doesn't that make a mockery of the idea of a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to point out that not much would have changed under an AC system. Obviously the government can be used for evil, I would never say otherwise. I'm just shocked to see that people would think it would be so much better in that point in our history if it were all free market based.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you guys are also underestimating terror tactics by racist people in the south. Does anybody really think that companies that hired blacks wouldn't be targeted by random people throwing rocks through windows and molotov cocktails and things like that? Even if 10% of business were willing to hire blacks, they probably wouldn't because of the social stigma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think any structure of laes and courts would come down pretty hard on people who damaged property and endangered lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so naive. You think there weren't laws against this back then? Did it matter much?

Again, on this issue I'm not trying to say that government was some great force. I'm just saying that you can't point to that point in the history of the south and say that the free market would have solved it. That's just a ludicrous claim.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

But there were for sure some people that were against the Jim Crow laws right? Most black people for a start. I don't see how this isn't anti-state. A bunch of racist people enforced their views on others through the power of the state so we have to have a state? Also if most people were for the laws how were they repealed? Doesn't that make a mockery of the idea of a democracy?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to point out that not much would have changed under an AC system. Obviously the government can be used for evil, I would never say otherwise. I'm just shocked to see that people would think it would be so much better in that point in our history if it were all free market based.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I think you guys are also underestimating terror tactics by racist people in the south. Does anybody really think that companies that hired blacks wouldn't be targeted by random people throwing rocks through windows and molotov cocktails and things like that? Even if 10% of business were willing to hire blacks, they probably wouldn't because of the social stigma.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think any structure of laes and courts would come down pretty hard on people who damaged property and endangered lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so naive. You think there weren't laws against this back then? Did it matter much?

Again, on this issue I'm not trying to say that government was some great force. I'm just saying that you can't point to that point in the history of the south and say that the free market would have solved it. That's just a ludicrous claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

But who needs to do that? As a matter of fact, we don't even need to say that AC would even be BETTER than the government. Just that it wouldn't be way, way worse. Why? Because we already have, on our side, the fact that non-coecive>coercive.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also it's kind of disingenuous to say that the reason we had Jim Crow laws was because of government. They were there because the people in those areas wanted segregation.

[/ QUOTE ]
History shows that Jim Crow laws were enacted by people that were scared of losing a job to a freed slave. Businesses were hiring freed slaves right and left and the government acted to "fix" this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're acting like "government" is some big brother term here. It's not like ten people unilaterally decided to have Jim Crow laws. People in the south were racist and wanted them. You make a lot of good points, but you really need to give this one up.

[/ QUOTE ]
With this point I'm not impying any big brother problem. This particular point was a tyranny of the majority problem. Business owners were fine with hiring black people. The white people who could either lose their job or take a pay cut from the sudden surge in black people needing jobs. Whites then used government to "fix" this.
[ QUOTE ]
I guess you could say that government is responsible because it allows for the possibility of unjust laws. But don't act like the people were all righteous and the big, bad government came in and mucked it all up.

[/ QUOTE ]
people act based on preferences and incentives. if you give someone a mechanism for grabbing power from group X for yourself and you can do it in a "legitamate" manner, more times then not the average person will do it. The average politician is going to be disproportionately more greedy and power hungry then the average person, making this even worse.

The incentives of a free market on the other hand promote cooperation rather then conflict.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that our current government is pretty corrupt due to all the special interests money that is going around. In theory, however, we should be able to vote for any changes that we want.


[/ QUOTE ]
The game is structured so that the rich elites run the show. That's how it's always been, and until large amounts of people begin convinced of it's illegitamacy, that's how it'll always be.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I said getting special interest money out of politics and campaigning would be a HUGE improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I would contend that the voting block will never have the power to actually do this. If you polled every government elected politicians consiousness 95%+ would support having special interest groups in Washington.

Part of the problem is that a state treasury is a tragedy of the commons problem. You get elected and then while elected you take as much as you can out of the treasury to yourself and your connections. It doesn't bother you if every other official also get's his either, in fact it's beneficial for you.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see how we go from our current system to an AC system anyway. I mean, even if AC was the answer, how can we possibly get there from our current state? If we just shut down a bunch of government programs there will be another host of problems before we can let the free market decide things.

[/ QUOTE ]
First step is getting a large percentage of taxpayers to see the state as illegitamate. Refuse to pay taxes, the state will come crumbling down. I used to think that the best choice would be gradual reduction of the state, but the more I think about it the more this seems improbable.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

AC has no practical antitrust mechanism, no practical environmental protection mechanism and no practical civil rights mechanism. It proposes an easy solution to complex problems - really it's demagoguery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Last time you trotted out this argument I linked you to over twenty articles over these subjects. Have you been reading them?

[/ QUOTE ]

Please post the link again here (SM&P). I would really enjoy looking at them again.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. (http://libertariannation.org/b/bibhome.htm) For anyone interested, the link provides an organized list of hundreds of articles over several topics of the AC debate.

[ShakeZula06]

There seems to be a lot of SMP ACists that don't post in politics. Paragon, Vhawk, are you both ACists? I know madnak (though I haven't noticed him in a while) was also.

[Gregatron]

The most ironic thing about "Anarcho" capitalism is that, like Marxism, it is a Utopian ideology with totalitarian implications.

AC believes in authority based on mutual "free" association, the idea people will naturally and effectively create a free society. The summation of the choices they make will create a just and relatively equitable society. Resources will be allocated much more effectively than through interference by the "artificial" entity of the state.

The problem with this is the state is not an artificial construction. It is not some unnatural anomaly. Organized authority will develop in some form, be it in the form of a Mafia family, or a state, which as Borodog has correctly argued, and I tell my polisci classes, ARE fundamentally similar. They are both political entities. So would be a "free" association of organization responsible for collective security, public health, and transferring information regarding salient issues ("who to boycott"). Collective associations will effectively BECOME the state.

Okay Entourage is on. More later.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a lot of SMP ACists that don't post in politics. Paragon, Vhawk, are you both ACists? I know madnak (though I haven't noticed him in a while) was also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. I'm not entirely sure I understand all the ramifications of it, but I have a hard time objecting to the core 'tenet' that coercive states are wrong. I lurk in politics, post occasionally. I'd say I'm on my way down the road to AC.

Side note, it sucks that madnak doesn't post here any more. I could tell he was getting really tired of it a few months ago, and then he just stopped posting. Too bad, he was my favorite SMP poster. Plus we were supposed to do a SMP meet in AC this summer, which is now probably not happening.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
The most ironic thing about "Anarcho" capitalism is that, like Marxism, it is a Utopian ideology with totalitarian implications.

AC believes in authority based on mutual "free" association, the idea people will naturally and effectively create a free society. The summation of the choices they make will create a just and relatively equitable society. Resources will be allocated much more effectively than through interference by the "artificial" entity of the state.

The problem with this is the state is not an artificial construction. It is not some unnatural anomaly. Organized authority will develop in some form, be it in the form of a Mafia family, or a state, which as Borodog has correctly argued, and I tell my polisci classes, ARE fundamentally similar. They are both political entities. So would be a "free" association of organization responsible for collective security, public health, and transferring information regarding salient issues ("who to boycott"). Collective associations will effectively BECOME the state.

Okay Entourage is on. More later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two things: AC is anything but a utopian ideology. Also, I agree with your second point, in that I have no idea how the world is going to be so much different now than it was throughout human history. What innovations or developments have we made that will prevent the transtition from stateless groups to feudal monarchy or any other version of the state, that happened the first trip through history?

[Taraz]

With regard to the Jim Crow laws, I just think it was a bad example. There are plenty of problems with government, but I personally don't think much would have changed in a free market system.

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I would contend that the voting block will never have the power to actually do this. If you polled every government elected politicians consiousness 95%+ would support having special interest groups in Washington.

Part of the problem is that a state treasury is a tragedy of the commons problem. You get elected and then while elected you take as much as you can out of the treasury to yourself and your connections. It doesn't bother you if every other official also get's his either, in fact it's beneficial for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno, maybe I'm just more optimistic. I think people are starting to realize how corrupt the system is. A big start would be to make things transparent so that you can see who was financially backing every side of every issue on every ballot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't really see how we go from our current system to an AC system anyway. I mean, even if AC was the answer, how can we possibly get there from our current state? If we just shut down a bunch of government programs there will be another host of problems before we can let the free market decide things.

[/ QUOTE ]

First step is getting a large percentage of taxpayers to see the state as illegitamate. Refuse to pay taxes, the state will come crumbling down. I used to think that the best choice would be gradual reduction of the state, but the more I think about it the more this seems improbable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that is very probable either. It sucks, but we need to work within the system to get anywhere. I personally think it can be dangerous to advocate AC ideas within the current system, because the government isn't going anywhere. When people advocate letting privatization take care of certain things within our system, it's not actually the free market that is deciding things. The government is handing out contracts and things get even shadier.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
The most ironic thing about "Anarcho" capitalism is that, like Marxism, it is a Utopian ideology with totalitarian implications.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why, because yousay so? You have no idea what you're talking about if you think ACists are promoting a utopian society. Statists are much closer in their thinking that if they give a group of power hungry politicians the power and incentive to screw others over they won't.
[ QUOTE ]
The problem with this is the state is not an artificial construction. It is not some unnatural anomaly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who said the state was artificial and why would anyone care if the state was artificial or not?
[ QUOTE ]
So would be a "free" association of organization responsible for collective security, public health, and transferring information regarding salient issues ("who to boycott"). Collective associations will effectively BECOME the state.


[/ QUOTE ]
Again, why? It's really easy to make anything look bad when all you do is make wild assertions and strawmen.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't think much would have changed in a free market system.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Business owners were fine with hiring black people. The white people who could either lose their job or take a pay cut from the sudden surge in black people needing jobs. Whites then used government to "fix" this.


[/ QUOTE ]
It couldn't of happened with a free market. That's why they went to government.
[ QUOTE ]
I think people are starting to realize how corrupt the system is. A big start would be to make things transparent so that you can see who was financially backing every side of every issue on every ballot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Anyone I've noticed who think the system's currupt are becoming libertarians and anarchists (I'm aware that doesn't mean everybody, but i'd imagine it's the large majority).

But unfortunately people aren't by and large seeing the problems of the system. They've seen the problems of a lot of the Republicans. Rather then seeing this as a fundamental problem they see it as a single problem isolated to a certain group within the system, and they now throw their support behind either (a) unelected republicans yet to be shown as curruptable or (b) Democrats.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that is very probable either.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, i don't think either is probable. /images/graemlins/frown.gif Just think a crumbling of the state (when society is mostly supportive of ACism) then a slow safe reduction in government.
[ QUOTE ]
I personally think it can be dangerous to advocate AC ideas within the current system, because the government isn't going anywhere. When people advocate letting privatization take care of certain things within our system, it's not actually the free market that is deciding things. The government is handing out contracts and things get even shadier.

[/ QUOTE ]
No ACist would support this type of activity, and we make sure to denouce it when ever it comes up. At the very least it leads to a lot of strawmen (we got a lot of those in the politics forum after a company was awarded by California the right to handle the power grid and screwed it up).

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
It couldn't of happened with a free market. That's why they went to government.

[/ QUOTE ]

It wouldn't have been law, but I was just saying the situation would still be unbearably awful. Again, I just think that it's a bad example for showing why governments are bad. I take your point that it wouldn't have been law, but I don't think the situation would have been appreciably better.

[ QUOTE ]
But unfortunately people aren't by and large seeing the problems of the system. They've seen the problems of a lot of the Republicans. Rather then seeing this as a fundamental problem they see it as a single problem isolated to a certain group within the system, and they now throw their support behind either (a) unelected republicans yet to be shown as curruptable or (b) Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's pretty sad. We keep giving each side a turn instead of fixing the underlying problems. We'll give it to the Democrats until they muck something up and it turns out they're corrupt too and then we'll vote Republicans back in.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, i don't think either is probable. Just think a crumbling of the state (when society is mostly supportive of ACism) then a slow safe reduction in government.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it would be easier to convince people that certain policies lead to corruption in government rather than trying to prove that the idea of government itself is flawed. Governments give us some positive benefits and it's the only system we know, so I think lots of people are rightly skeptical when someone advocates a society free of any government.

[ QUOTE ]

No ACist would support this type of activity, and we make sure to denouce it when ever it comes up. At the very least it leads to a lot of strawmen (we got a lot of those in the politics forum after a company was awarded by California the right to handle the power grid and screwed it up).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, like I said, I haven't had much exposure to AC ideas. I'm trying to figure out how they differ from privatization advocates because they seem to be in favor of lots of the same things. I believe in free market capitalism, but I also believe that government can be useful as well. Theoretically they both should work very well, it's the practical application that gets things all messed up.

[mojed]

I didn't read all the posts, so this could well have been mentioned, but in case it hasn't been..

It seems that the case for intervention in markets is when externalities exist, that is, the market fails to account for negative externalities (like pollution), or when an industry fails to be profitable despite positive externalities (like education, perhaps).

In the case of pollution, I suppose that ideally in a free market, consumers would demand products that don't pollute (ie they will account for the negative externality in their consumption decision, and therefore market failure hasn't occured as pollution is represented in the demand side and therefore is represented in the price of a good). The trouble with this is tragedy of the commons issues.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
This would probably get a lot more responses in the politics forum, but I would just as soon not have to deal with all the bullsh*t over there.

As far as I understand it, an AC world rely on perfect information [..]

[/ QUOTE ]


So it's only for God?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Who owns the air?

[/ QUOTE ]

Air could easily be considered owned by the person breathing it in (or the person who owns the plants/animals breathing the air). If you dump X tons of crap into the air and Y number of people get lung cancer that can be traced back to those chemicals then they ought to be able to sue you right?

[ QUOTE ]
The pacific ocean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are there problems with owning the pacific ocean? People can own land, rivers and lakes. I admit it would be difficult to transition from our current situation to ownership because of the size and also our history of treating it as unowned (and unownable), but our history of acting like its unownable has lead to massive overfishing and massive dumping of waste. This (http://scienceblogs.com/deepseanews/2007/06/munitions_dumping_at_sea.php) was posted last week in politics. Who sues the army now? The us public, so not only will the public have to suffer the consequences of the dumping, they will also have to pay for it to be cleaned up!

[ QUOTE ]
That sounds really good and yet it completely evades the point. The point being, there is no body to ensure that everyone does in fact have that freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

People have defended and attempted to defend what they considered their own liberties for a long, long time. If I value them shouldn't I be the one to figure out how to defend them best?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
The trouble with this is tragedy of the commons issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are no commons, then there can be no tragedy of the commons.

[mojed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The trouble with this is tragedy of the commons issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are no commons, then there can be no tragedy of the commons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. In the case of the environment, even if we could represent all the environmental effects of an action in economic terms (a cost), individually the cost would be very small and will unlikely provide a disincentive, but the sum of the costs is very large, possibly catastophic. I think a problem is that people aren't entirely rational, and their collective irrationality could lead to serious consequences.

I really don't think that a pricing system works for everything, particularly unstable systems. Use the saying "the straw that broke the camel's back" as an example. What is the cost of putting a straw on the camels back? Is it the cost of purchasing the camel divided by the number of straws that lead to the camel's back breaking? Is it zero if we can assume that no one will put the final straw on the camel's back? And what if the camel has infinite worth? Then even the average cost of placing a straw on the camel's back is infinite, so no one can afford it and the resource (using the camel for transportation) is wasted. With regulation, however, unusual systems which have breaking points can be used productively, without catastrophe.

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The trouble with this is tragedy of the commons issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are no commons, then there can be no tragedy of the commons.

[/ QUOTE ]

If p and ~p then q.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
On a level playing field, businessmen outcompete criminals day in and day out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, along as the levelness of the Playing field is gaurenteed by the State.

One only has to look at regions with weak or failing states to see the proof of this. In these regions violent "criminals" are active in many markets including those deemed legitimate by the State.

ACists correctly identify the violent coercive nature of the State, but then often seem to drop the ball due to an intrinsically undeveloped theory of power.

The state projects much much much much more violence and coercion into legal markets than it does illegal ones. It does everything it can to control these, which of course includes excluding non legitimate violence from other parties or agents. This is why when the State fails, and can not project "legitimate" (intentional quotes)violence into markets, criminal elements move into leverage violence, fear and aggression in those markets.

Illegitimate markets the State merely seeks to manage or manipulate for its own ends, such as criminalizing its own civilian population in order to gain leverage over them.

But of course it is ultimately mistaken to say the State this, or the State that, if you are seeing the State as the end beneficiary. The state is a tool, not a cardinal entity, a means not an ends. Remove this tool and a new tool will be found to take its place.