[LinusKS]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

To put it simply: is it not fair to say anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism without government; it’s government by capitalists?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you are more or less correct, in my opinion. And being governed by capitalists, with profit incentives, would be a far sight better than what we have today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad we can agree about that much, at least. If we could agree that the argument is about who gets to make the rules, rather than about whether society can function without them, that'd be a big step forward.

Most ACists seem to believe that if the owners get to make the rules, that's the equivalent of having no rules at all, or that their system of capitalism is somehow "natural."

Both assumptions are invalid, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
There are pros and cons to having no government, just as there are pros and cons to having big government. You have to weigh the totality of it all, not just isolated quesions like "OMG WHO WILL PROTECT THE KITTENS"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that there are pros and cons.

I disagree that "OMG WHO WILL PROTECT THE KITTENS" is an isolated question, if you mean it as a kind of stand-in for "Who will defend the defenseless?"

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the things the government does badly wouldn't happen because there's no profit in it. (think about the public education system we have now for example).

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people beat up on public education. I think there's there's an important issue that tends to get skimmed over in this debate: which is that the performance of a school is usually determined not by the facilities, or even by the teachers, but by the kids who go there.

If you have one group of schools for the kids of parents who care enough about them to pay extra for their education, and are also generally from middle- and upper- income homes, it shouldn't be surprising that those schools do better than the ones for the rest of the kids.

The private schools are better, but it's not because of they're private; it's because of the kids who go there.

[ QUOTE ]
The sets of rules you'd have to live by would be far more local and you'd have many options even within the same locality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with that. I've often thought that living in a small country offers much more in the way of opportunities for genuine participation in government than does living in a country the size of the the US.

My problem is with arguing that small states or principalities are not states, simply because they're ruled by the owners of the real-estate, rather than by democratically elected representatives.

[ QUOTE ]
And of course, these sets of rules you choose to be governed by are your CHOICE. Don't underestimate the importance of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, yes and no on that one.

ACists say there's no reason why they should have to move, just because they want a different kind of government.

I think there's lots of people who feel that way, and would feel like, "You can always move" is just not acceptable.

In other words, ultimately people have to get along, and the idea that people can just keep moving from one place to another until they find just the right government is problematic.

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of people dismiss that as irrelevent. I've noticed that the most ardent detractors to AC/libertarianism betray a deep contempt for personal liberty and choice.

The paternalists and the moralists see eye to eye. Authoritarian rule over your every choice is not objectionable to either of them in the end. (And don't underestimate how much of leftwing policy is truly driven by a hatred of the rich as opposed to a love of the poor. Many are willing to sacrifice the liberty of ALL just to get to the rich. Again, think of the public education system we have now).

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm as much for freedom as the next person - and perhaps more so. My problem is that the system(s) ACist describe would not result in freedom for the vast majority. Instead of "no rulers" what ACists are talking about is rule by (1.) the most violent, or (2.) the most wealthy.

And I prefer representative democracy over either of those.