Honestly, I find that it, in fact, is not common knowledge--not in the real sense at least. Yes, most people know of such words which generally espouse the central philosophies, as in the Declaration of Independence when it speaks of inalienable rights; but very few actually bother to understand what these principles and axioms actually mean, encompass and entail. Look at the bill of rights, for instance. Most people think they get their rights from a piece of paper, or if they're religious, from god. In actuality the bill of rights is entirely unnecessary and redundant. All of those 'rights' or 'freedoms' are extensions of the axiom of self-ownership--but most people are ignorant of that truth. Further, I suspect it's this basic lack of philosophizing and understanding about things they take for granted without full comprehension that attributes to their equal ignorance about libertarianism as a whole, and what it stands for. It's not necessarily that it's rejected, but that it's simply unrepresented to the masses who are content to remain ignorant about such things. This may seem like a somewhat self-righteous or elitist position to take, since obviously I ascribe to libertarian principles, but as I said--from my experience it seems to be accurate. Rarely do I ever find people who actually enjoy philosophizing or discussing morality IRL, which is largely why I resort to internet forums like this for such things, because I value delving into these kinds of subjects. As well, I don't think most people have an understanding of what federal coercion really is, or how widespread it is. If the income tax, for instance, was largely understood to be coercion... it'd have been abolished decades ago. This is an illogical conclusion about an anarchist society which has been refuted time and again. If you're interested you can read the link I've already posted... Others have built on Rothbard's ideas since he's compiled them, but they're still a solid groundwork, if nothing else.
I may be wrong and i am open to correction but the only example of Anarchist Capitalism has been the Wild West in America.. I have read of Medieval Iceland also but the details here are very sketchy if i remember correctly.. I would be more inclined to believe that Socialist Anarchism could be viable.. The Kibbutz's in Israel and even some Hippy Communes would be a small scale example of this.. From what i have read in the past all of Rothbard's writings are just ideas and have never been practiced or tested and would not work IMO but i will read the stuff you have posted..
Socialist anarchism is disgustingly contradictory IMO, especially since the concept of socialism can't even manage to stand on its own two feet. It's true there are few examples of true anarcho-capitalism, that doesn't necessarily mean anything... one way or another. Rothbard doesn't just write ideas. He builds on the ideas of others, evolving previous ideas using reason. Federalism was just a theory at one point too, until the Constitution was drafted.
I think most recognize the income tax as coercion, but justify it as necessary and acceptable. I think what libertarians are looking for is for enough people to realize that it's not necessary or acceptable. Throughout the whole of American history, it only seems a small (but sometimes powerful) minority have realized this... always based on the same information/society as everyone else.
What financial incentive would Exxon have to do this? If they support keeping cannabis illegal now it is only because they can externalize the costs of prohibition (through government which coerces money from its citizens via taxation). If they had to pay the full costs of prohibition there is no way they would support it, as they would have to spend massive amounts of money with little financial return. Furthermore, who would continue to purchase Exxon products if they tried to begin some such reign of terror? They would run out of money very quickly.
If that's the truth, then the failing of the masses is not just, or only, ignorance but also lack of principles or perhaps a general apathy toward principles which is equally as bad.
The War on Drugs is pocket change compared to the entire federal budget... the government and these corporations do not really need taxpayer money to fund prohibition. Exxon could probably fund prohibition itself... but the entire oil industry would pitch in aswell, along with every textile industry, the prison industry, and anyone else profiteering on prohibition. If these corporations behind prohibition can stay in business now, what's going to change? Good luck getting people to boycott gasoline to legalize cannabis. They basically got this racket on lock down. Maybe corruption runs a little deeper than we'd like to think.
Oil can be used to make a variety of different products, more than I can even think of actually; products which cannabis or hemp might otherwise be used to produce. But really this is just another reason to dissolve the state, since it is through the state that coercive prohibition such as this is possible. Exxon would have no such power to fund prohibition in an anarchist society, regardless of how much money they may have to spend on such, where laws emerge from the NAP. The more likely scenario would be Exxon choosing to invest in hemp production, broadening their production and profits.
Hemp is the only plant with enough biomass to replace fossil fuels. Henry Ford created a crude form of ethanol from hemp when he was first designing the Model-T. The only problem was, hemp could not be cultivated efficiently enough to supply the needs for mass automobile production. Not until the 30's were there machines that could cultivate hemp efficiently enough. Also, Dupont patented a number of plastics that could be replaced by hemp. Andrew Mellon was one of the primary investors in both Mobil (Exxon) and Dupont and was the Secretary of the Treasury in the 30's. He advised Hoover to name his nephew Harry J. Anslinger to the original head of the DEA... Anslinger's primary goal was to find a way to convince congress and the nation to outlaw cannabis hemp. Not because it was harmful to the mind or society, but because it would cost Mellon and the corporations he was invested in loads of money. This is why it was so important for the US government to make sure most every nation on the planet outlawed cannabis hemp. If it was really just a social problem in the US, they wouldn't care if people in India got high... but if other nations could produce hemp, then these corporations would go out of business. Everyone on this forum should read The Empreror Wears No Clothes Cannabis prohibition runs way deeper than even most GrassCity users know. Don't get your hopes up for up for the end of prohibition anytime soon... it's not a matter of personal freedom. This is why Obama gets paid to laugh when legalizing cannabis is brought up... not because he's a retarded prohibitionist, but because he's a corrupt Decepticon.
So wait. The solution to all of our problems is to have a perfectly imformed and always thinking populous? Why didn't anyone think of this before?!
I also vote that we avoid just having a link war, or saying "well you need to read this author then" Because... we're on the internet. And we could just do that back and forth ad infinitum. Por favor: Summarize? or better yet Put it in your own words. Not only does this prove that you understand the material, but if you don't, then it proves that as well.
Er... no? Wut? It'd be preferable if everyone were perfectly informed, but this is expecting too much from people. The difference is in an anarchist society other people aren't forced to suffer due to the misinformed masses or the coercive state. For instance: I won't be denied the right to use cannabis at my leisure because the state, or the majority, thinks that I shouldn't be using cannabis. I'd be able to make that decision for myself, as would everyone else. It's not as simple as that. You're essentially asking me to explain in detail a set of moral principles, and then to delve into individual economic, social and political issues applying those principles, explaining how they would be applied, how they would be effective and why the alternatives are less desirable for each case. This would require a great deal of time and effort on my part, resulting in a massive post or collection of posts which you probably won't even read due to its sheer size, in order to satisfy the fact that you're otherwise too lazy or disinclined to delve into the suggested material which has already been provided elsewhere. If you have a specific argument to address, then do so... but don't expect me to explain anarcho-capitalism to you in full.
Look, I'm an advocate of limited government. We need some form of centralized government to keep a nation from tearing itself apart. Examples of areas where weak central governments looking over strong confederate nation have nearly always torn itself apart and become a federation. It's not that difficult to plug this into an anarchist scenario: With time, there will be struggles for power. It will just happen. It happened when the U.S. applied the Articles of Confederation, it happened when the Catholics rebelled in Switzerland. Eventually companies/private agencies, without a strong central government tying them together, will all vye for some sort of dominance. When one has some sort of dominance, some of the others won't like having to follow their orders. I mean, isn't that the point of an anarchy? Doing what you want to do, not what you have to do? These entities would rebel, and who knows what would happen. Then of course, there's public works, like construction and military, or even just a militia. Who would pay for the armed forces to fight a nation's battle without the ability for some sort of entity to collect taxes? No one would just front a couple hundred million dollars for the sake of the people except the government, and I doubt citizens (that's just how psychology works buddy) in every area would have the ability or cooperation needed to pay enough money to keep such programs in working condition. Who would pay for bridge-builders, highways, etc, etc? Who would pay for education? How many people do you think could front $9200 for their childs education each year? Another company stepping in, fronting money out of the goodness of it's heart? Where would it get this money? Where would these private agencies receive income to regulate? Taxes? Isn't that a principle of not having a government? Of course, don't even attempt to ignore the fact that aggression towards citizens, corruption, etc wouldn't occur. We have a government to keep as much of this under check as possible. Please, enlighten me.
I don't buy it, checks and balances hardly ever work, after all Hitler was appointed chancellor in order to keep him ‘in check'.
Yes, but what makes you think doing away with government would do anything about it? Doing away with Constitutional-Republics of a Federation in favor of a country with no centralized governments is unintentionally just setting the society up for a dictator. And there they would be, at square 1. There's no way a system of checks and balances would work between private organizations, which is inevitably a specific company (or such) coming into dominance.
Isn't that how it is now? To say that humans are going to stop stealing in anarcho-capitalist society is, of course, ridiculous; nevertheless, to say that this doesn't happen when we have big brother watching over us is naive.
Yeah, but for the most part, it's at least illegal in a government-run society. The only notion of punishment in an anarcho-capitalist society is vigilantism. Anarchy is a ticking time-bomb of violence, whether it's from corporations, militias, or your neighbor. edit: After all, who's going to pay for prisons to operate? Or some sort of judicial system? Taxes? Another company donating money from the goodness of it's heart? Then what's the point of Anarchy if you're simply switching from a centralized alliance of agencies to an unstable confederacy of private agencies (or whatever you would call an anarcho-capitalist society in which private agencies collect taxes)?
So let me get this straight: You're basically saying because some people are potentially power-hungry, they should be given power? You also seem to be in favor of corporatism if you believe a central government should be tying private business together. How do you reconcile the fact that in every instance of minarchy, the government invariably expands in power and scope? All of these things could arguably be paid for by private citizens an/or businesses. Militias are largely voluntary anyhow. Private security firms would be for-profit businesses, similar to how they are now. We already pay for these things. Where do you think the government gets its money? Also, if you're going to attempt to use psychology as a basis for your argument, you might want to be a little less vague about the psychological foundations you're leaning on. "That's just how psychology works" is not an explanation of any kind. There's a demand for bridges and roads. Why wouldn't a businessperson invest in a bridge, or road, to maintain it in exchange for a toll to use it? Privatization of infrastructure is all over the place. Why wouldn't schools be built and charge tuition? How do you think private schools and colleges are maintained? Your arguments here seem to be ignoring reality. We already have all of these things. We have private security. We have private infrastructure. We have private schools. And yet, government is the primary aggressor. And this is a violation of NAP, so no. Um, no. Anarcho-capitalism would have security firms for protection and private courts for arbitration, if not also private prisons for violent offenders. Do you have any historical precedent to back up your claim that anarchy is "a ticking time-bomb of violence" or are you just regurgitating myth you've been indoctrinated with about anarchy? They'd operate just like any other business.