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)

[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 ]
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 ]

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 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.