how will courts have any authority? remember voluntary exchange. I.E. your courts are not my courts so they don't mean a pile of shit to me. and if my 'competitive coercive force' is more well equipped or better armed or just plain meaner then your lawsuit is little more than paper flapping in the wind. we already see situations where companies just plain refuse to pay in lawsuits where they are found liable.
There are literally books written on this subject. You want me to point them out to you, or do you really believe I have the time to explain exactly how the market would create a justice system? I mean honestly dude, what do you want from me? I can only lead you to water, I can't make you drink. If you commit a crime, you will be handed a notice most likely of your court date. If you don't respond and/or show up, you can be tried and sentenced in absentia. Different courts will probably have different policies on coercion, so if you're found guilty, one court may break into your house and arrest you, and another may just post everywhere that you're a guilty criminal and the market will handle it without any coercion. If you still want more info, there is again, a lot of reading material on this subject, a lot of which probably is in that thread. You're literally asking me to figure out what millions of people on the market will do once they're allowed to operate freely. As I've said, there are a lot of other people who I trust to do this better than I can and even they can't accurately predict how each market will handle each situation. Yea, all the honest citizens are really going to take kindly to your criminal organization that doesn't even listen to the respectable courts in the area. The only way this competitive coercive force could even survive like this is if it was somehow legitimized by the people in the area. Otherwise, you'd have a popular revolt against your competitive coercive force.
This is my main problem with anarcho-capitalism, it's basically a Democracy. There are no preserved maxims or golden rules. Instead of voters, everything changes at the whim of consumers. The other problem I have is the potentially messy transition period between failed institutions and the new ones that are built up to replace them... which wouldn't be very frequent, but still.
So you are admitting that all this talk about how much better things would be with unregulated markets is just theory then? I mean, if "we've never had true capitalism", then how do you know that everything will be so much better if we went to that system now. How do you know that if we did away with our Government and all it's intervention in the market and it's police forces and fire departments and public roads, that our country wouldn't look like Somalia in 10 years? Although you may fail to see it, they certainly don't have a coercive Government intervening in their markets. They have groups of people who have united to protect their collective interests (we call them gangs). They don't have police forces. They don't have "socialized" fire departments. They don't really have taxes. And it's a paradise where those with the ability to defend their interests can work hard and amass great wealth. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live there. And now you tell me your plan is to copy Somalia and it will make America a better place. I think I'll pass on that. Thanks anyway!
You think government preserves maxims and golden rules better than a group of people working together can?
which brings us directly back to a centralized authority structure, using coercion to enforce rules on people who may or may not want to 'voluntarily exchange'. in three or four exchanges of conversation you (the presumed anarchist) are advocating a central 'governmental' (or a reasonable facsimile) structure asserting presumed authority over a citizenry (real, or in this case imagined) against their will. it is a circular argument.
If they've aggressed against someone they're no longer just voluntarily exchanging... That's what we were talking about, right? You're the one who's making this difficult, not me. I'm simply trying to respond to your point about how uncooperative criminals could be dealt with by the market. Authority isn't bad. Anarchists don't reject authority. We reject authority that is not truly legitimate, like the federal government (or any other government not based on consent). None of us agreed to accept their drug laws. None of us agreed to accept their borders, their tax code, etc. Having an authority to bring criminals to justice is not a bad thing and does not conflict with anarchism. I'm done defending anarcho-capitalism from you in this thread. Take it to the competing agencies of retaliatory forces thread for further discussion. You've shown very little interest in learning about anarcho-capitalism and yet you seem to like attempting to tear down my idea of it. Why don't you do some reading before you assume that anarcho-capitalism isn't actually anarchism?
That doesn't make food not scarce. Sorry. Maybe you don't understand the concept of scarcity, but food is finite.
I'm for anything like this as much as any other libertarian. I don't think anything like this will happen in my lifetime, but I hope it does. I'm just pessimistic about our gov and I think things are going to really unravel in the next year, meaning a bad event such as 9/11 to keep the fear and 'need' for our government alive. When I think about how to form a good government in today's world I am baffled, but so were our founders when they made our country. It just seams like it would end just like any government in Nigeria. I get they are not wealthy and that is the cause of many problems (along with the number of ethnicities living together separately if that makes any sense ha). I just see that groups like military coups, usually headed by some rich guy from the country, get some power and build it gradually, then try to take over a nation for more wealth. This greed for anything in life really is present in most people and is the reason the Builderburgs are doing what they do today. All that I'm saying is if we try to start another country, we would really be open to mega banks trying to control the country as they do now. There are just so many flaws with a perfect idea I just don't look forward to coming times... Also, if there needs to actually be a law for one man to kill another man, how evolved are we really? There shouldn't have to be a government and it sucks that our blows monkey cock while trying to control everything about us.
It's called prediction of future markets. Any sort of prediction of the future is "just theory". You know that there are a lot of people who make a living off predicting the future markets, right? Naa, I guess I shouldn't assume you understand economics at all. If you understood what true capitalism was, you'd know why. True capitalism entails free markets, which is just about as "much better" as we can get. I'd love to hear your proposition that is better than the free market. How do I know? How about you stop asking ridiculous questions, and then maybe I'll address them. The US isn't going to crumble into chaos comparable to Somalia without the government. Only a true statist would believe such in-bred nonsense. Read up. They actually do. You're the only one who's failing to see the intervention. Yea, the only difference between a gang and the government is the government is a monopoly legitimized by the people. The horror! I'm sure we can't afford those things here though without our benevolent gubment! The comparison of the United States to Somalia is a complete fucking joke and really displays your ignorance of the history of Somalia. Wow, just wow. Yes, dude. Our plan is to copy Somalia. :headdesk: And your plan is to copy Nazi Germany. The next time you bring up Somalia in regards to anarcho-capitalism, I'm going to bring up Nazi Germany (or even Soviet Russia) in regards to state socialism. The comparison is equally fair.
I read the title of this post and couldn't stop laughing at the irony. Government defending us from criminals? Uh, that's kind of hard to do when the Government is comprised of mostly criminals. And I don't mean that just subjectively, I mean that in a literal sense too. Have you see the criminal records of those in Congress? Some of them couldn't get a job working as a bank teller, yet they're in charge of our financial system.
Well if we produce enough food to feed everyone regardless of whether you want to call it scarce or not, everyone should eat.
One of the main reasons Somalia sucks is because Africa sucks. And free markets aren't the cause of Africa's suck. If there's enough food for everybody to eat then it would be cheap enough for everybody to afford it.
Bottom line is society needs a central authority. If you remove the government you will end up with lots of smaller groups of people, whether it's towns or families, or whatever. They get in disagreements, and then what? They settle their dispute in a civil way in court? Oops, courts are run under the authority of the government. Guess they just bear arms and the more powerful one wins. Eventually you end up with crazy powerful organizations like the mafia which would only have as much authority as their strength allows them and the society is even more oppressive than the status quo. For advanced societies, there must be a central authority (government) to facilitate the implementation of technology and general infrastructure such as phone satellites, power grid, sewage system, transportation, etc. Sorry, but it just isn't possible for society to function without a government imo.
You read the thread at all or just come in here to spew your statist propaganda? On the myth of the natural monopoly: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf On your "we need central authority or we'll have chaos" argument: http://forum.grasscity.com/politics/546694-competing-agencies-retaliatory-force.html It helps to read threads before entering them and addressing the obvious objections to your view if you're interested in any sort of discussion; otherwise, the other posters will be reduced to repeating the same shit they previously posted. It's actually not. The (not so) Wild West did pretty well without a powerful, central gubment watching their backs. http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf
Slightly off topic but...is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the most violent area's of the United States seem to be the more liberalized area's? Why is that?