Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 137

Thread: Critique of Anarcho-Capitalism

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Without an objective standard and a means of enforcement, it means no rules. You're welcome.
    Who said there wouldn't be an objective standard? Or means of enforcement? The market would determine the rules. Over time, the arbitrators that rule most often in agreement with the public would put the arbitrators that don't out of business.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    @silverhandorder

    Our discussion of monarchy is off-topic, and I don't want to hijack my own thread any further.

    If you'd like to continue that discussion, please post in one of the monarchy related threads I linked earlier.

    Regarding the issue at hand - whether anarcho-capitalism is possible - I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point.

    Would you summarize?

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    But now suppose that instead of grocery stores merging to form GroceryKing, it's private defense agencies merging to form DefenseWorld. When it raises prices, and new private defense agencies enter the market and begin competing prices back down, and DefenceWorld reacts by hiring thugs to burn down their offices, what happens? Will DefenceWorld be prosecuted and punished? By whom? GroceryKing had to fear the legal system. DefenceWorld is the legal system. If it has the might to forcibly exclude its competitors from the market, it can, there is nothing to stop it from doing so, and so it maintains its monopoly.
    By consumers that disapprove of their tactics?
    In all of human history, the people have never once risen up and overthrown the state.

    Why would you assume this would happen in ancapistan?

    See my earlier comments regarding the 'New Libertarian Man'

    By a well funded competitor or competitors that are capable of fighting back?
    The premise of the argument is that DefenceWorld is the result of the merger of most/all PDAs.

    i.e. it is much larger than any remaining competitors

    i.e. any remaining competitors are not capable of fighting back

    If you doubt that such a large firm could form, I refer you back to my comments about the merger movement in American history.

    Monopolies are profitable; there's no reason to think businessmen wouldn't form them when given the opportunity.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 11:40 AM.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    In all of human history, the people have never once risen up and overthrown the state.

    Why would you assume this would happen in ancapistan?
    The whole point of the thought experiment is to assume that the people would value freedom and respect property rights. If they don't, then the market would just form a new state, which is what idiots have done throughout history. It is why I have maintained that sneaking around to try to elect a liberty candidate that pretends to be a typical Republican is a waste of time. If the people remain ignorant, you won't have liberty, no matter who is elected.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The premise of the argument is that DefenceWorld is the result of the merger of most/all PDAs.

    i.e. it is much larger than any remaining competitors

    i.e. any remaining competitors are not capable of fighting back

    If you doubt that such a large firm could form, I refer you back to my comments about the merger movement in American history.

    Monopolies are profitable; there's no reason to think businessmen wouldn't form them when given the opportunity.
    It's hard to believe that they would get to that point without competitors taking them down a notch. And if the market did not approve of the monopoly, they would find other options. If they did approve, then see the first part of this post.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post

    But now suppose that instead of grocery stores merging to form GroceryKing, it's private defense agencies merging to form DefenseWorld. When it raises prices, and new private defense agencies enter the market and begin competing prices back down, and DefenceWorld reacts by hiring thugs to burn down their offices, what happens? Will DefenceWorld be prosecuted and punished? By whom? GroceryKing had to fear the legal system. DefenceWorld is the legal system. If it has the might to forcibly exclude its competitors from the market, it can, there is nothing to stop it from doing so, and so it maintains its monopoly.

    I'll await your response, anarcho-capitalists.
    How is DefenceWorld different from what you have now? Minarchy doesn't work because every time it starts writing horror scenarios it inevitably just explains what it already promotes.

    But the answer is simple. DefenceWorld cannot make anyone buy its goods. If it does something objectionable then the people will refuse to support it and it goes broke.

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    The whole point of the thought experiment is to assume that the people would value freedom and respect property rights. If they don't, then the market would just form a new state, which is what idiots have done throughout history. It is why I have maintained that sneaking around to try to elect a liberty candidate that pretends to be a typical Republican is a waste of time. If the people remain ignorant, you won't have liberty, no matter who is elected.
    And that is a totally unrealistic assumption.

    It's hard to believe that they would get to that point without competitors taking them down a notch.
    If firms want to merge, they can merge.

    Competitors (or customers) have no way of stopping them.



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    How is DefenceWorld different from what you have now?
    It isn't. DefenceWorld is a state. That's the point.

    DefenceWorld cannot make anyone buy its goods.
    Sure it can.

    DefenceWorld: "Give me money."
    You: "No, I don't like your services."
    DefenceWorld: "Give me money or I'll shoot you."
    You: "Okay"

    See how that works?

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    It isn't. DefenceWorld is a state. That's the point.



    Sure it can.

    DefenceWorld: "Give me money."
    You: "No, I don't like your services."
    DefenceWorld: "Give me money or I'll shoot you."
    You:No.

    See how that works?

    In a war over control, the more people will win every time. Simple noncompliance alone will determine that. DefenceWorld, by its very nature would be smaller than the masses. Assuming, as you must or this argument isn't useful, that the majority of people are ideological anarchists, then DefenceWorld, no matter how big it gets, will every be big enough. The State cannot dominate the masses through force, only through manipulation. DefenceWorld, trying to do so to a mass of people who refuse the State itself would only see itself get destroyed.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    @silverhandorder

    Our discussion of monarchy is off-topic, and I don't want to hijack my own thread any further.

    If you'd like to continue that discussion, please post in one of the monarchy related threads I linked earlier.

    Regarding the issue at hand - whether anarcho-capitalism is possible - I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point.

    Would you summarize?
    Your OP does not make an argument that anarchy is impossible. It makes the argument that there is a potential for it to corrupt. No system is incorruptible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And that is a totally unrealistic assumption.
    At this time, it definitely is. So is assuming that having a king would make us any more free. Or assuming that a new constitution and bill of rights would make us any more free. Assuming that a minimal state of police and courts would not grow into a monster in short order with Boobus demanding social justice and protection from terrorists at every turn. You always get the government that the market wants. If you value liberty, you have to advertise, change the market's preferences.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If firms want to merge, they can merge.

    Competitors (or customers) have no way of stopping them.
    Sure they can. And so could their competitors. Unless your hypothetical world is even dumber than the world in which we currently live, they probably wouldn't wait around for DefenseWorld to dwarf everyone else before trying to cut into their customer base.

  13. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    In a war over control, the more people will win every time. Simple noncompliance alone will determine that. DefenceWorld, by its very nature would be smaller than the masses. Assuming, as you must or this argument isn't useful, that the majority of people are ideological anarchists, then DefenceWorld, no matter how big it gets, will every be big enough. The State cannot dominate the masses through force, only through manipulation. DefenceWorld, trying to do so to a mass of people who refuse the State itself would only see itself get destroyed.
    If everybody's a zealous anarchist, willing to risk his life to prevent a state like DefenceWorld from emerging, then sure, anarcho-capitalism will work. Likewise, if everybody's a zealous communist, willing to work even though he can take whatever he wants from the common storehouse without working, then communism will work. But both assumptions are unrealistic, people will not in fact behave that way, and so neither system will work in reality.

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    Your OP does not make an argument that anarchy is impossible. It makes the argument that there is a potential for it to corrupt. No system is incorruptible.
    Are all systems equally corruptible?

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If everybody's a zealous anarchist, willing to risk his life to prevent a state like DefenceWorld from emerging, then sure, anarcho-capitalism will work. Likewise, if everybody's a zealous communist, willing to work even though he can take whatever he wants from the common storehouse without working, then communism will work. But both assumptions are unrealistic, people will not in fact behave that way, and so neither system will work in reality.
    Everybody doesn't need to be an anarchist for it to work. It would take enough people that the market would enforce laws protecting private property, which would probably be a large majority, but not everyone. Communism would take everyone, and even then, they would starve or freeze or whatever to death without market prices to tell them how resources should be allocated.

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Are all systems equally corruptible?
    Maybe. But there is only one that isn't inherently corrupt.



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    At this time, it definitely is. So is assuming that having a king would make us any more free.
    No, that's not an assumption, it is the conclusion of an argument.

    It is supported by all the reasoning presented in this thread.

    This is in contrast to the New Libertarian Man, who is just hoped for, without any reasoning as to why/how he would come about.

    Or assuming that a new constitution and bill of rights would make us any more free. Assuming that a minimal state of police and courts would not grow into a monster in short order with Boobus demanding social justice and protection from terrorists at every turn. You always get the government that the market wants. If you value liberty, you have to advertise, change the market's preferences.
    For most of human history prior to the last ~150 years, the great masses of people have been politically impotent and/or apolitical. They're opinions (if they had any) did not matter. The state's behavior was a reflection of the goals of the rulers, not a reflection of the ideology of society at large. Your suggestion that monarchy require a New Monarchist Man akin to your need for a New Libertarian Man, is false. Monarchy does not require the masses to be ideological monarchists.

    Sure they can. And so could their competitors. Unless your hypothetical world is even dumber than the world in which we currently live, they probably wouldn't wait around for DefenseWorld to dwarf everyone else before trying to cut into their customer base.
    "Wait" to do what?

    If you own a company, and I own a company, and we meet this weekend to discuss a merger, and sign the papers to affect the merger, it's done.

    How does anyone else prevent this from happening?
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 01:13 PM.

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    They're opinions (if they had any) did not matter.
    Yes they did. If the people disapproved, they would have fought one of the countless wars throughout history to get out from under their rulers. Now, were they too dumb to realize that they had a choice many times? Sure, just like people today are. But that doesn't their opinions didn't matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    "Wait" to do what?

    If you own a company, and I own a company, and we meet this weekend to discuss a merger, and sign the papers to affect the merger, it's done.

    How does anyone else prevent this from happening?
    No one does. How do they prevent ABC Armed Defense and MercenariesRUs from merging to compete with them?

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Yes they did. If the people disapproved, they would have fought one of the countless wars throughout history to get out from under their rulers. Now, were they too dumb to realize that they had a choice many times? Sure, just like people today are. But that doesn't their opinions didn't matter.
    People react to what the state does (e.g. taxes get too high, they grumble, maybe revolt), sure.

    That's not what I'm talking about though.

    Rome didn't go from republic to monarchy because the masses suddenly converted from ideological republicanism to ideological monarchism.

    Medieval Europe wasn't feudal because the peasants were ideological feudalists.

    etc

    Sure people react to what the government does, and that affects the choices of rulers.

    That is not the same as saying that government is a reflection of the ideology of the masses.

    In other words, states only require the passive obedience of the masses; anarcho-capitalism requires their active support.

    No one does.
    Right, so there is nothing to prevent many firms from merging to form an entity like DefenceWorld.

    And once such an entity is formed, it has the might to enforce a monopoly - at which point it is in effect a state.

    How do they prevent ABC Armed Defense and MercenariesRUs from merging to compete with them?
    Suppose there are 100 PDAs.

    I'm proposing a scenario in which 90 of them merge, and force the other 10 out of business.

    You respond: well what if 50 merge to form one entity, and the other 50 merge to form another?

    First, if the survival of ancapistan depends on the happenstance that firms are evenly balanced in that way, it's survival is pretty damn tenuous.

    Second, if firms are equally balanced, it doesn't follow that they will continue to operate as peaceful, free market PDAs, as anarcho-capitalists would like. They could divide up the market, each recognizing the other's monopoly over its respective territory. Or they could fight it out (see earlier comments about civil war).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 01:51 PM.

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Communism would take everyone, and even then, they would starve or freeze or whatever to death without market prices to tell them how resources should be allocated.
    That aside, would you say that the New Communist Man (who is such a zealous communist that he works even through he can consume for free) is realistic? Is the New Libertarian Man (who is such a zealous libertarian that he risks his life to prevent states from emerging) any more realistic?

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    First, if the survival of ancapistan depends on the happenstance that firms are evenly balanced in that way, it's survival is pretty damn tenuous.
    It doesn't. If you have 90 private defense companies merging, unless they are all meeting one day in secret and merging all at once, then before they get 90 of them together, the others will band together to try to compete. If you are suggesting that they did all meet at once and merge without warning, then they could have a monopoly. After that, they would either continue to serve the consumer or be rejected by the consumer.

  23. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That aside, would you say that the New Communist Man (who is such a zealous communist that he works even through he can consume for free) is realistic? Is the New Libertarian Man (who is such a zealous libertarian that he risks his life to prevent states from emerging) any more realistic?
    They are equally realistic to the man who believes a state will provide him with any measure of liberty.

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    If you have 90 private defense companies merging, unless they are all meeting one day in secret and merging all at once, then before they get 90 of them together, the others will band together to try to compete. If you are suggesting that they did all meet at once and merge without warning, then they could have a monopoly.
    As I said in an earlier post, many dozens of gigantic mergers (resulting 70%, 80%, 90% marketshare) have occurred in American history. Whether they did it quickly, in secret, before anyone had a chance to react or (more probably) you're vastly overestimating what anyone could to stop it even with advanced knowledge, they did it, over and over again.

    After [merging], they would either continue to serve the consumer or be rejected by the consumer.
    No, because they would have the might to simply force consumers (now better called taxpayers) to pay.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 02:00 PM.

  25. #112
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    What do you make of that?

    Why didn't their competitors somehow prevent this from happening, as you suggest would happen in ancapistan?
    Government enforced barriers to entry? Or better yet, the monopolies didn't charge a monopoly price (or try to rob people at gunpoint as your mythical corporations do) even after consolidating, so it had no effect on the market anyway.



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Government enforced barriers to entry?
    Nope, companies simply got together and agreed to merge.

    Government had nothing to do with it.

    Or better yet, the monopolies didn't charge a monopoly price (or try to rob people at gunpoint as your mythical corporations do) even after consolidating, so it had no effect on the market anyway.
    I appreciate that monopolies don't work in a free market - as soon as the firm raises prices, it draws new competitors into the market.

    ...I said so in the OP.

    The lesson of the merger movement is that very large mergers are easily accomplished.

    And that matters because, when the firms in question are PDAs in ancapistan (unlike leather tanners in the US), they CAN use force.

    To summarize
    -huge companies can form, easily
    -huge companies that can't forcibly exclude competitors can't achieve monopolies profits (e.g. leather tanners)
    -huge companies that can forcibly exclude competitors can achieve monopoly profits (e.g. PDAs in ancapistan)
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 02:12 PM.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Are all systems equally corruptible?
    No. Anarchy is least corruptible on the average.

    To summarize
    -huge companies can form, easily
    -huge companies that can't forcibly exclude competitors can't achieve monopolies profits (e.g. leather tanners)
    -huge companies that can forcibly exclude competitors can achieve monopoly profits (e.g. PDAs in ancapistan)
    Not true. Look at occupation losses in Iraq. Now Imagine same attempted but in US. The occupation force would be wiped out by locals.

    You assuming that PDA will have the means to enforce an occupation vs a resisting populace. You assuming CEOs will get lobotomised and will go ahead with these mergers.
    Last edited by silverhandorder; 09-20-2016 at 07:00 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by The Gold Standard View Post
    Government enforced barriers to entry? Or better yet, the monopolies didn't charge a monopoly price (or try to rob people at gunpoint as your mythical corporations do) even after consolidating, so it had no effect on the market anyway.
    you have convinced me dude.

    how do we enforce permanent anarchy?
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  30. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by silverhandorder View Post
    No. Anarchy is least corruptible on the average.
    I agree sir.

    how do we enforce Anarchy? can it defend itself?

    or is it a Lady... like Liberty?

    (inquiring minds... want to know)
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  31. #117
    Of course we can. There are anarchist versions of courts and police and army.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cowlesy View Post
    Americans in general are jedi masters of blaming every other person.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Rome didn't go from republic to monarchy because the masses suddenly blah blah blah....
    Rome didn't go from a Monarchy to a Republic at all. You're full of sht. Nice try, though, ya fraud. In fact, it was the other way around. Even though it was never a true Republic anyway. People tend to use that term arbitrarily. In your case, I think you're being strategically dishonest. In fact, I know you are.

    Monarchy/"Republic"/Empire/Divided Empire...
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-23-2016 at 06:41 AM.

  33. #119
    I swear, I don't think I've ever met a more strategically dishonest person on this board than you, rev3. Almost to the point that it gives me the heebie jeebies. What a weasel.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-23-2016 at 06:34 AM.

  34. #120
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Because abolishing taxation means abolishing the state, and minarchists don't advocate abolishing the state.



    More or less



    I'm certain that they did not, as that would have been nonsensical. The state taxes, by definition. If a thing isn't taxing, it isn't a state.

    P.S. "Forced taxation" is redundant, all taxation is forced. If payment isn't forced, it isn't taxation.
    I really can't buy that. On it's face that would mean that a minarchist would advocate for taxation even if it was not necessary in order to carry out the essential functions they 'see fit' or however you'd like to say that. In order for minarchy to mean anything they must desire an end to taxation. But they just haven't found a solution that satisfies them, yet.



  35. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-05-2012, 05:31 AM
  2. Anarcho-capitalism vs Free Market Anti-Capitalism
    By awake in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 04:12 PM
  3. Anarcho-capitalism?
    By Che in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-21-2009, 10:50 PM
  4. Anarcho-Capitalism
    By LibertiORDeth in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 05:05 AM
  5. Anarcho-Capitalism
    By Fox McCloud in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 08:23 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
  •