The Ellimist
This is the agreed upon debate between us, though I would like to consider more of a discussion. Furthermore, I see no reason to put a restriction on others providing substantive contributions.
I'm going to make my "opener" relatively brief and concise, because I expect the length to balloon outwards from there and do not wish to spend too much effort on opening points that lead to strawmen or dead-ends. Nor am I initially going to go over every concern I have with ancapism; indeed, I'll start by focusing on one central issue in particular.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement:
When asked "how does ancapism deal with X", the response can generally be categorized as "privatize the cost-reward structure of X such that externalities are minimized and individuals have the maximum incentive to do productive things with X, either directly or indirectly (e.g. hiring a third party)."
Note that I'm not saying that this encapsulates the entire philosophy of ancapism, but rather that it reflects the general practical solution template to issues that non-ancaps think require a monopoly of force / mandatory collective action.
If you agree, here's my next question: how do you handle activities with consequences that are inherently impossible to privatize without artificial mandate? Because if X isn't properly privatized and you don't accept some sort of collective action or enforcement like taxation, regulation, etc., you run into two primary problems:
1. Free-riders suffer no consequences so you'll see more of them, especially if X is a subtle issue flying under the radar rather than something big and dramatic that social pressure may take care of.
2. Negative externalities are impossible to avoid, so you'll suffer if others don't do their share even if you did nothing wrong yourself.
We run into this problem a lot in daily affairs and we always resort to emulating the state, e.g. requires members of a school club to pay dues. (Note that the argument that the club is voluntary while living in your country isn't always is a red herring here as we are talking about the pragmatics)
X could be things like:
Large-scale air and ocean pollution
Facilitation of anti-bacterial resistant bacteria
Long-range airborne viruses
An asteroid strike
DE Sidious
That's my first concern, and I think conversation can flow from here.
(Note: you've pointed out to me that groups of wealthy people would take action in these circumstances. This can solve some of the potential problems, but not all of them because some of them require action on a broad scale and not just financial capita.)
I'm going to make my "opener" relatively brief and concise, because I expect the length to balloon outwards from there and do not wish to spend too much effort on opening points that lead to strawmen or dead-ends. Nor am I initially going to go over every concern I have with ancapism; indeed, I'll start by focusing on one central issue in particular.
Do you agree or disagree with the statement:
When asked "how does ancapism deal with X", the response can generally be categorized as "privatize the cost-reward structure of X such that externalities are minimized and individuals have the maximum incentive to do productive things with X, either directly or indirectly (e.g. hiring a third party)."
Note that I'm not saying that this encapsulates the entire philosophy of ancapism, but rather that it reflects the general practical solution template to issues that non-ancaps think require a monopoly of force / mandatory collective action.
If you agree, here's my next question: how do you handle activities with consequences that are inherently impossible to privatize without artificial mandate? Because if X isn't properly privatized and you don't accept some sort of collective action or enforcement like taxation, regulation, etc., you run into two primary problems:
1. Free-riders suffer no consequences so you'll see more of them, especially if X is a subtle issue flying under the radar rather than something big and dramatic that social pressure may take care of.
2. Negative externalities are impossible to avoid, so you'll suffer if others don't do their share even if you did nothing wrong yourself.
We run into this problem a lot in daily affairs and we always resort to emulating the state, e.g. requires members of a school club to pay dues. (Note that the argument that the club is voluntary while living in your country isn't always is a red herring here as we are talking about the pragmatics)
X could be things like:
Large-scale air and ocean pollution
Facilitation of anti-bacterial resistant bacteria
Long-range airborne viruses
An asteroid strike
DE Sidious
That's my first concern, and I think conversation can flow from here.
(Note: you've pointed out to me that groups of wealthy people would take action in these circumstances. This can solve some of the potential problems, but not all of them because some of them require action on a broad scale and not just financial capita.)