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.