Anarcho Capitalism: Pros (DarthSkywalker0) vs. Cons (The Ellimist)

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

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 just want to clarify something real quick.

This thread is fine and all, and you said you weren't interested in restricting other people from participating, but just for future reference, you actually can't even if you wanted to. If you post a thread in the forum, anyone can participate in it. You are unable to restrict other members from posting in a thread, just in case anyone gets the bright idea to make similar threads with the desire to restrict people. Not happening.

Carry on.

The Ellimist
Alright, cool. thumb up

The central issue of ancapism is that of property rights. The state, having a monopoly on force, is best placed to be an arbiter of those rights. When one acquires a piece of land, they will register it with the state, which affords that person the protection the state provides. And history tells us that corporations and the landed like this arrangement. In 1930s Spain, it was the landed class and the capitalists who rallied behind fascist Franco in order to crush the anarcho-communist uprising in Catalonia. They did not hire a private militia to defend their property, but deferred to the state, and a heavy handed one at that. In Germany, also, the big industrialists rallied around Hitler, bankrolling his "Hitler Over Germany" campaign, which played a large part in his victory over the socialist and communist parties in Germany.

Really, the reason why ancapism fails and has never been tried on a serious scale, is because the corporations and landed have absolutely no interest in it. Why would they want the dissolution of an entity that not only can enforce their property rights without fear or favour, but also provides them with an educated workforce and transportation links, among other things? And dissolving the government would no doubt lead to a power vacuum that could be filled by all sorts of nasty extremists, and would create an enormous amount of uncertainty (which is the last thing corporations want when they are planning investment years ahead of time, in some cases).

I also think it's totally incompatible with human nature. Ultimately, people crave safety and security (2nd on Maslow Pyramid). And although a state does mean sacrificing certain rights, it also means the creation of an entity that is capable of exacting justice and keeping order. And paradoxically, the dissolution of the state could lead to the creation of a new state even more overbearing than the one that preceded it. People could be pretty scarred if the dissolution of the state resulted in riots and severe unrest. In Quebec, we saw perhaps a glimpse of this in the Murray-Hill Riots (known as the 'night of terror') when the state police went on strike and a wave of crime resulted. If this happened after the state was dissolved as ancaps want, it would not be surprising to see a military strongman assuming control with the promise to restore order. And if history tells us anything, it's that the capitalists and landed would support this, because the only alternative would be paying thousands upon thousands to defend all their property with mercenaries. Not just against violent rioters, but also against those with competing claims on their property (which could create a scary corporate arms race). A state provides such services at zero cost outside of taxation and has the monopoly on force actually required to detain, try and arbitrate on a mass scale.

Though that's just my two cents, I'll leave the debate to you two

Ancap is a dead-on-arrival ideaology that would almost immediately transform into something else; probably something scary.

thumb up

Ancapistan would thrive. I mean so would an Ethnostate but whatever works.

Poor Ellimist.

laughing out loud

What are your political leanings Quan?

Originally posted by Pessimystic
What are your political leanings Quan? Independent and I review every situation from an impartial view.

Classic Centrist cuck?

Originally posted by Pessimystic
Classic Centrist cuck? Do not project your lifestyle of cucking onto me. I march to the beat of my own drum, you beta.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Do not project your lifestyle of cucking onto me. I march to the beat of my own drum, you beta.
The idea that everyone just projects their insecurities is as ridiculous as the idea that everyone who hates homosexuals are homosexuals.

Originally posted by Pessimystic
The idea that everyone just projects their insecurities is as ridiculous as the idea that everyone who hates homosexuals are homosexuals. I didn't say everyone I just said you at this time. When I see a spade I call it.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.