Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Anarcho capitalist question

  1. #1

    Anarcho capitalist question

    I have always had a problem with the AC worldview...I've always felt like Anarchy will give rise to tyranny. Every time. Imagine a society with no government. People contract freely and voluntarily with each other, the economy booms as competition drives the price of everything down and the quality of everything up, and people protect their property with their own firearms or with private security firms, which all does a great job preventing petty crime which drops to its lowest levels in human history. Everything is hunky dory anarcho-capitalist bliss, right?

    Well, you have two problems, and they're both named Adolf Hitler. If you're an enlightened anarcho-capitalist, Hitler is your worst enemy. He's not enlightened at all. He doesn't give a rat's ass about what system creates the most prosperity for the most people. He cares about what creates the best world for Adolf Hitler, and his ego will simply not allow him to be satisfied with being a successful businessman, no matter how rich. He needs dictatorial power to accomlish his dreams because, see, he's a Nazi and wants to eliminate from the human race what he sees as its weak links. In the first scenario, the domestic one, he'll pop up in the middle of a bust in the business cycle, exploit the economic turmoil and promise prosperity to those who join him and use fear, terror and baby steps to destroy any resistance. In the second scenario, he's already done this in a faraway land, and he shows up at your borders with tanks and bombers. Private security firms are great at preventing petty crime, but they're ill-equipped to wage war on a large scale.

    Someone please tell me, in an anarcho-capitalist system, who is going to stop Adolf Hitler in either or both scenarios?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Hitler was created by the League of Nations.

    I am not sure I am a Anarcho-Capitalist,, (not sure I'm not). But what does AC have to do with National Socialism? Or Psychotic Megalomaniacs?

    I am capitalistic though not particularly greedy, And I also believe that the Government should not interfere in the Markets.

    What has that to do with Hitler?
    Last edited by pcosmar; 08-07-2011 at 02:55 PM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  4. #3
    I'm not sure. That's kind of what I'm asking. Whatever system exists (including ancap), there will still be people out there with Hiter-type views. How are they stopped, in an anarcho capitalist system, from taking over and establishing a dictatorship?

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    I'm not sure. That's kind of what I'm asking. Whatever system exists (including ancap), there will still be people out there with Hiter-type views. How are they stopped, in an anarcho capitalist system, from taking over and establishing a dictatorship?
    Well,, in this country they could be stopped by following the Constitution.

    The problem is, that presently we are NOT following the constitution and are leaning toward National Socialism.
    It such a case,, it could happen here.

    Anarcho-Capitalism is not a political system but an economic philosophy. A free market.
    Last edited by pcosmar; 08-07-2011 at 03:06 PM.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  6. #5
    I think he's asking how could anarcho-capitalism stop someone like Hitler and his followers from coming to power.

  7. #6
    You are correct that the Constitution empowers the government both to suppress insurrections and to guarantee a Republican form of government, so a Hitler would be stopped by the government here. But what about in an ancap society? That's my question

  8. #7

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I think he's asking how could anarcho-capitalism stop someone like Hitler and his followers from coming to power.
    Anywhere? Elsewhere? Not sure it could.
    But a Managed and restrictive Market helped to create the environment that gave rise to such. The absence of Free market invited/created Hitler
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Anywhere? Elsewhere? Not sure it could.
    But a Managed and restrictive Market helped to create the environment that gave rise to such. The absence of Free market invited/created Hitler
    I thought it was the sanctions and reparations imposed on Germany after WWI.

    Regardless, the example could be changed to Mussolini, Stalin, or any one of the dictators in history.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    I thought it was the sanctions and reparations imposed on Germany after WWI.

    Regardless, the example could be changed to Mussolini, Stalin, or any one of the dictators in history.
    Sanctions and reparations imposed. That would be severe restrictions on the Market, translated to extreme hardships on the people.
    Not a Free Market by any means.

    But i think there is some confusion as to what Ancap is. It is not a political system.

    It is an economic philosophy. One that believes in a Sound Money and free and unrestricted trade.

    It could conceivably exist in several political systems, though unlikely in any authoritarian system. By their very nature they seek control.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    But i think there is some confusion as to what Ancap is. It is not a political system.

    It is an economic philosophy. One that believes in a Sound Money and free and unrestricted trade.

    It could conceivably exist in several political systems, though unlikely in any authoritarian system. By their very nature they seek control.
    Anarcho = 0 government

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by LibertyEagle View Post
    Anarcho = 0 government
    Yes. No government involvement in the Market. Buying selling and trade unrestricted by the government.
    A Free Market.
    It could exist within a constitutional (limited) government. It could also exist under a dictatorship, though that is unlikely.
    As it is unlikely to impossible under a socialist or communist system.

    Anarco Capitalism does not require NO Government, only a government that leaves the market alone.

    at least to my understanding.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  15. #13
    So, we need government ... to protect us from tyranny!

    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    I have always had a problem with the AC worldview...I've always felt like Anarchy will give rise to tyranny. Every time. Imagine a society with no government [...]
    Every time? What is your evidence for this? Whatever you "imagine?" Forgive me if I am not impressed.

    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    Well, you have two problems, and they're both named Adolf Hitler. If you're an enlightened anarcho-capitalist, Hitler is your worst enemy. He's not enlightened at all. He doesn't give a rat's ass about what system creates the most prosperity for the most people. He cares about what creates the best world for Adolf Hitler, and his ego will simply not allow him to be satisfied with being a successful businessman, no matter how rich. He needs dictatorial power to accomlish his dreams because, see, he's a Nazi and wants to eliminate from the human race what he sees as its weak links. In the first scenario, the domestic one, he'll pop up in the middle of a bust in the business cycle, exploit the economic turmoil and promise prosperity to those who join him and use fear, terror and baby steps to destroy any resistance. In the second scenario, he's already done this in a faraway land, and he shows up at your borders with tanks and bombers. Private security firms are great at preventing petty crime, but they're ill-equipped to wage war on a large scale.
    There is abundant & overwhelming historical evidence for the tendency of states to tyranny. Given this mass of history, explain to me why the burden of proof should be placed on anarchists, rather than on statists.

    Consider the fact that the scenarios you outline actually happened - under a statist (not an anarchic) system!

    Given this fact, don't you think it's more than just a little ridiculous (not to mention ironic) to demand that anarchists justify themselves with respect to the scenarios you outline?

    And although I do not feel in the least obliged to provide a priori "proof" (if that is even possible) that anarchism is safe from your scenarios, I will point out that at least under anarchy, there would be no central authority over which a Hitler could seize control. There would be no agency with a monopoly on the use of force whose resources a Hitler could command in his efforts toward tyranny, butchery and war. These are no small things.

    A would-be tyrant under statism has a ready-made apparatus for the imposition of his will upon society. All that is required is that he achieve control of it - which is exactly what Hitler did. I find it very difficult to believe that Hitler would have had a harder time of it under statism than under anarchy. In fact, statism made Hitler's goals easier to achieve - much easier.

    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    Someone please tell me, in an anarcho-capitalist system, who is going to stop Adolf Hitler in either or both scenarios?
    I'm not saying your scenarios couldn't somehow happen under AC - nothing is guaranteed (except that the only constant is change).

    But if your scenarios are supposed to make us dubious about any system they are likely to arise under, shouldn't it be statism (rather than anarchy) that gives us doubts?

    Stated differently, your closing question is completely backwards. It should be:

    "Someone please tell me, in a statist system, who is going to stop Adolf Hitler in either or both scenarios?"
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    A would-be tyrant under statism has a ready-made apparatus for the imposition of his will upon society. All that is required is that he achieve control of it - which is exactly what Hitler did. I find it very difficult to believe that Hitler would have had a harder time of it under statism than under anarchy. In fact, statism made Hitler's goals easier to achieve - much easier.
    This. Concerns like this are strong arguments against a centralized coercive monopoly. Gaining control of the state apparatus is more possible and more dangerous than a rogue agency or dictator becoming powerful enough to tyrannize the public.

    If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop them — short of the immensely difficult process of revolution. In a libertarian society there would be no need for a massive revolution to stop the depredation of gangster-States; there would be a swift turning to the honest police forces to check and put down the force that had turned bandit. - Rothbard
    My post here applies to the Hitler scenario. It is the same objection, the only difference being that we are naming a specific dictator instead of a generic gang. But of course the dictator would need a gang to accomplish anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wesker1982 View Post
    They would be dealt the same as any other criminal gang. First, they would lose all their funding because people don't want to pay for a criminal gang, and rates would become very high once they became violent because their customers would have to pay for the violence (it would take a vast majority of the population willing to pay for a criminal gang in order for them conquer, and if people are so disposed, nothing could stop the inevitable destruction). They would lose their clients to more efficient and non-criminal agencies. Second, in the best interest of their clients, the non-criminal defense agencies would physically stop any organization engaging in criminal acts.

    Also, all reputable insurance agencies would stop giving coverage to PDA's that became criminal. This is also a reason for a loss of business because the costs of the rogue PDA's actions would have to be absorbed by the consumer instead of the PDA's insurance.
    Also see:



  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Wesker1982 View Post
    If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus, with its monopoly of coercive weapons, there is nothing at present that can stop them — short of the immensely difficult process of revolution. In a libertarian society there would be no need for a massive revolution to stop the depredation of gangster-States; there would be a swift turning to the honest police forces to check and put down the force that had turned bandit. - Rothbard
    Here's an important question: "If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus," how could anyone tell the difference?

    Seriously. Robbery, thuggery, murder, etc. - it's all there.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    Here's an important question: "If a group of gangsters should capture the State apparatus," how could anyone tell the difference?

    Seriously. Robbery, thuggery, murder, etc. - it's all there.
    They did that on 12/23/1913. Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Nelson Aldrich, Henry Davidson, "Colonel" Edward House, et. al.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    I have always had a problem with the AC worldview...
    Hello Willwash, anarcho-capitalism is not a world-view... it only deals specifically with political philosophy.

    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    I've always felt like Anarchy will give rise to tyranny. Every time. Imagine a society with no government. People contract freely and voluntarily with each other, the economy booms as competition drives the price of everything down and the quality of everything up, and people protect their property with their own firearms or with private security firms, which all does a great job preventing petty crime which drops to its lowest levels in human history. Everything is hunky dory anarcho-capitalist bliss, right?
    I'd enquire as to how this free society came about.

    While the purely free and laissez-faire society arises unselfconsciously where people are given free rein to exert their creative energies, statism has been the dominant principle throughout history. Where State despotism already exists, then liberty can only arise from a self-conscious ideological movement that wages a protracted struggle against statism, and reveals to the mass of the public the grave flaw in its acceptance of the propaganda of the ruling classes. The role of this "revolutionary" movement is to mobilize the various ranks of the oppressed masses, and to desanctify and delegitimize the rule of the State in their eyes. ~ Rothbard

    If it has been through a self-acknowledged struggle, far more likely to remain forever. All those competing private defence agencies etc. They solve the problem of "who watches the watchmen?" -> the answer is in the market, everyone watches each-other. It's called competition, and cartels fail consistently unless you have a state (monopoly on force etc.) backing it up. But yes, good times.

    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    Well, you have two problems, and they're both named Adolf Hitler. If you're an enlightened anarcho-capitalist, Hitler is your worst enemy. He's not enlightened at all. He doesn't give a rat's ass about what system creates the most prosperity for the most people. He cares about what creates the best world for Adolf Hitler, and his ego will simply not allow him to be satisfied with being a successful businessman, no matter how rich. He needs dictatorial power to accomlish his dreams because, see, he's a Nazi and wants to eliminate from the human race what he sees as its weak links.
    Who is this? The only reason anyone remembers, or even knows who he is - is because of the institution he was democratically elected to; the state. So far, the existence of people like him - is an argument against creating a monopoly.

    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    In the first scenario, the domestic one, he'll pop up in the middle of a bust in the business cycle, exploit the economic turmoil and promise prosperity to those who join him and use fear, terror and baby steps to destroy any resistance.
    There is no government; hence there is no business cycle. Ergo, no ability to exploit economic turmoil. As such this argument is null and void.

    Quote Originally Posted by willwash View Post
    In the second scenario, he's already done this in a faraway land, and he shows up at your borders with tanks and bombers. Private security firms are great at preventing petty crime, but they're ill-equipped to wage war on a large scale.
    Whose tanks and bombers? How? History tells otherwise...

    "What's funny is that the American Revolution was won by guerrilla warfare. Contrary to Washington's attempts to impede it and make the typical 'statist' army and mould of European ways, Congress too. It was the "un-organized", the actual self organised that were the most effective... not the politically centralized organised, at all!"

    The Anarchist Society vs. the Military State: The Insignificance of the Free Rider by Verdun Duk
    Last edited by Conza88; 08-08-2011 at 01:16 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  21. #18
    All -archists (min- or an-) please read this post:

    I got banned from chat for NO reason after being attacked for a half hour for statements like "MOST (not all) politicians are liars"

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...an-)-read-this
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post

    Yes, I want to force consumers to buy trampolines, popcorn, environmental protection and national defense whether or not they really demand them. And I definitely want to outlaw all alternatives. Nobody should be allowed to compete with the state. Private security companies, private healthcare, private package delivery, private education, private disaster relief, private militias...should all be outlawed.
    ^Minimalist state socialism (minarchy) taken to its logical conclusions; communism.



Similar Threads

  1. Anarcho capitalist question
    By willwash in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-07-2011, 03:08 PM
  2. Wow, I am now an anarcho-capitalist
    By socialize_me in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 246
    Last Post: 03-02-2009, 11:48 PM
  3. Where to buy anarcho capitalist flag?
    By Josh_LA in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-02-2009, 07:10 AM
  4. Are you a statist or anarcho-capitalist?
    By Conza88 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-18-2009, 02:22 PM
  5. Anarcho-capitalist FAQ
    By Conza88 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 231
    Last Post: 10-06-2008, 08:44 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •