Find a flaw. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Examples of function societies?
>capitalism
there I found the flaw
>Armies
Are animals regarded as property or does the NAP apply to them too? Wouldn't want a bunch of autists derailing my scientific experiments because of muh animal rights
>also, how would you prevent disasters and market failures before they occur?
>>68186558
>roads
>"national" defense
>moral standards
>pollution
>other externalities
>autistic adherence to NAP, which is nonsense and leads to hilarious moral quandries
>state is inevitable, who control it is what matters
>being a bunch of bowtie toting manchildren
>>68186634
>Examples of function societies?
>It has never existed, therefore it can never exist.
We can find examples of private law, private arbitration firms, private defense agencies, and nearly all aspects of a theoretical anarcho-capitalist in societies throughout history, but anarcho-capitalism as we know it has never existed. This, however, does not exigently prove that an anarcho-capitalist society could never exist.
>>68186703
>Armies
Private defense agencies.
>>68186771
>Are animals regarded as property...
Animals in statist societies can be regarded as property, and natural law does not apply to animals, and therefore, the NAP is not applicable towards animals. If you can own an animal then it is your property, and you may do what you please with your property so long as what you would like to do with your property does not involve the infringement upon the equal rights of others/involve a violation of the NAP.
>Wouldn't want a bunch of autists derailing my scientific experiments because of muh animal rights.
They wouldn't.
>also, how would you prevent disasters and market failures before they occur?
Are you asking what the faults with Austrian economics are?
>>68187187
A private military is a retarded idea...
>>68186929
>>68187187
>Are you asking what the faults with Austrian economics are?
I don't know. I like the Austrians, I'm reading Hazllit's Economics in One Lesson. But my doubts are whether we wouldn't need a government or some sort of entity separate from the corporations to oversee the amount of resources and the environment. Does the market react immediately to things like pollution, disasters, etc.? Should there be shitty infrastructure companies allowed to build buildings prone to crumble and say "Oh, if they fall, the market will correct it." Sounds like you'd need a disaster to happen before the market truly did something. (hope it makes sense)
>>68187150
>roads
Are you of the opinion that a road is a technological marvel so complex that a private company could never conceive or create one? Private roads have existed in the United States.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2714184/Rolling-Businessman-sets-private-toll-road-rolled-chippings-charging-2-time-motorists-bypass-closed-section-main-road.html
>"national" defense
In an anarcho-capitalist society private defense agencies offer to provide individuals with defense.
>moral standards
Please elaborate.
>pollution
Environmental issues are treated as property crimes, such as destruction of property and trespassing. If company X pollutes the air on my land then I have had my property rights violated by company X. Additionally, third parties who are affected by environmental issues like pollution who have had their property rights infringed upon, (smog affects the air on their land), may seek reparations for damages incurred.
>other externalities
Please elaborate.
>autistic adherence to NAP, which is nonsense and leads to hilarious moral quandaries
Please elaborate.
>state is inevitable, who control it is what matters
Please elaborate.
>>68187507
very. private military is a nice way of saying mercenaries. mercenaries cannot be asked to defend an entire nation. you need soldiers bound to duty by more than just a paycheck.
You make libertarians look like retards.
Ancaps pls go
Capitalism requires currency to make payment of workers and financial transactions run smoothly. Without a unified currency, factories and businesses would be unable to function. You'd have to barter and negotiate literally every transaction of any kind since no one would agree on the value of things. Once you're reduced to bartering, capitalism falls apart. Unified currencies and banking allow capitalism to exist. You can't have capitalism in anarchy.
1/2
>>68187647
>But my doubts are whether we wouldn't need a government or some sort of entity separate from the corporations to oversee the amount of resources and the environment.
First, understand that a corporation, by definition, cannot exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, as a corporation is a business that is granted particular protections and privileges, such as bankruptcy protection, by the state.
I'm a bit confuse by what you are asking me anon, sorry. When you say we might need a government or some sort of entity to "oversee the amount of resources", what do you mean?
>Should there be shitty infrastructure companies allowed to build buildings prone to crumble and say "Oh, if they fall, the market will correct it."
It is undoubtedly in the best interest of the construction company to build buildings that are not prone to collapse. If a company had a propensity to build such structures, they would not be in business for very long, assuming that they would receive any contracts in the first place. Such companies are inherently incentivized to build the most structurally sound buildings as possible so that they can continue to receive contracts and create profit.
>Sounds like you'd need a disaster to happen before the market truly did something.
This of course is to imply that the only thing which prevents any company from providing to consumers a low quality good or service is regulation. In a free-market economy companies are incentivized to provide to consumers the highest possible quality good or service at the lowest possible cost for if they do not the potential consumers will take their business elsewhere, and that respective company will suffer. Just to tie this all together, it is in the best interest for the construction company to build structures that are structurally sound, cost effective, etc., for if they do not build such buildings, or prove to those who they are attempting to do business with that they are incapable of building...
>>68188430
Okay, that actually makes sense. Would this society be sort of "survival of the fittest" or social Darwinism?
2/2
>>68187647
>>68188430
...such buildings then they will not receive those prospective contracts.
If I were to hire a construction company to build a building in a free-market economy with no sort of regulation on behalf of a state, (which is what we would have in an anarcho-capitalist society), I would likely hire a company to examine the foundation of the building being constructed for me to ensure that it is structurally sound. I might hire this company to periodically check the structural soundness of the building, whether or not wiring is done safely, whether or not sufficient security devices are installed, etc., to make sure that I am not squandering my money. It is in the best interest of the company to build the highest quality building they can, and it is in my best interest to ensure that the building is being built properly.
>>68187927
>mercenaries cannot be asked to defend an entire nation.
In an anarcho-capitalist society there is no nation, so one individual private defense agency would never be burdened with such a task.
>>68188270
I am the same OP from two days ago. You asked this same question in that thread and I answered it. I then asked you if my answer was sufficient and you did not respond. If you would like I can rephrase my answer for you. Would you like me to do that?
>>68188899
I was never in any of your threads.
>>68188886
>Would this society be sort of "survival of the fittest" or social Darwinism?
Not in the slightest. The most effective way in which those who are impoverished can be helped directly with those who have the desire and the means to help such people is charity. Charity is much more capable, as a system, of providing assistance such as housing, welfare, and food to the poor and needy. In an anarcho-capitalist society, there would still be those individuals who would engage in altruism and sacrifice, and would help their fellow man, just as we have in today's society.
https://www.theadvocates.org/effective-government-welfare-compared-private-charity/
>>68189202
I get what you're saying. My grandmother is part of one of those religious groups and they gave us a ton of food for Christmas. Lasted several months. I always have this feeling that an ancap society or a society without "moral unity" would descend into a degeneracy hellhole of drugs, crime, prostitution and sodomy.
>>68188270
>>68188989
>Capitalism requires currency to make payment of workers and financial transactions run smoothly.
This is false. Capitalism is simply an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned. Prior to the establishment of a nationally used currency in the late 19th century, capitalism existed. Capitalism can exist with or without a universally accepted currency.
>Without a unified currency, factories and businesses would be unable to function.
The absence of a unified currency would certainly make it more difficult for factories and businesses to conduct transactions, trades, and exchanges fluidly. However, your statement implies that without a centralized power establishing a currency which would be used by the general public no such currency would exist. This is to deny the existence of spontaneous order. Language is an example of a system that was established and adopted by peoples of particular regions without centralized powers creating and enforcing them. We also witness such occurrences in nature, such as the way in which Canadian geese form a V-shape formation in the sky. The geese do not sit around and decide that one goose will form the point and the rest will take off behind that goose; rather, they enter into formation naturally and spontaneously.
http://fee.org/articles/spontaneous-order/
>You can't have capitalism in anarchy.
This is false; you can have capitalism in societal structures predicated on both anarchism and statism.
I hope I've answered your question. Please let me know if I haven't.
>>68189551
> I always have this feeling that an ancap society or a society without "moral unity" would descend into a degeneracy hellhole of drugs, crime, prostitution and sodomy.
I can't definitively say that an anarcho-capitalist society would lack moral unity; however, it is likely that individuals would become members of communities in which other members share the same values they hold. In such a society you might find socially conservative people in one region, with socially liberal people in another.
As far as the drug issue is concerned, in an anarcho-capitalist society individuals would be free to ingest whatever sort of substances they desire, as this does not involves a violation of the NAP, nor does it involve the infringement upon the rights of others. However, we have a great longitudinal example of whether the decriminalization of drugs has any impact on the drug use rate in... PORTUGAL! I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on this issue as someone who has seen such policies firsthand, but from the studies I've read I understand that the decriminalization of drugs has no significant impact on the overall rate of drug use.
As far as crime is concerned, the only thing that could be considered a crime is an act in which the rights of others are violated, or one initiates the use of violence, force, or coercion against others. And again, you would have private defense agencies.
Prostitution would be legal, and so would sodomy depending on how you define that term.
Primitivism is the only good form of Anarchism
This flag is making me want to be an ancap tho
LOL
THIS
FOREVER
>>68186558
Boring flag
It doesn't work because the strong people will create a system to enforce on the weak. See the warlords of Africa. Any civilized nation has some sort of control of masses.
>>68190656
>not anarchism
This old argument. Anarchism is a political system in which there is an absence of a state. Anarcho-capitalism would likely be rejected by Spooner, Warren, etc., and certainly does not fall in line with historical individualist anarchist sentiments concerning capitalism, but this does not mean that anarcho-capitalism is therefore not "real" anarchism. Understand that if you say that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism, then you are forced to create an entirely new category which anarcho-capitalism alone will occupy, as it is, according to you, neither a form of anarchism nor statism.
>supports capitalism and private tyranny
Could you elaborate?
>Racist
Could you elaborate?
>>68186558
>MY SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE ECONOMIC AND GOVERNMENTAL PHILOSOPHY WILL WORK PERFECTLY
>I JUST NEED ALL OF YOU TO SUBSCRIBE TO MY SPECIFIC WORLDVIEW AND NEVER EVER TRY ANYTHING ELSE OR IT FALLS APART
>>68186558
There are none, assuming you slowly privatize all government functions instead of going directly from a statistic government too anarchy.
Have a flag I made, based Anarchanon. Thoughts?
The realpolitical fact that we live in democracy and that ancapism or libertarianism are *not achievable* without first securing demographics.
Go ahead and google how sympathetic nigs and burritos are to your pet-ideology, be my guest.
Hopefully you'll realize that demographic securitization is a prerequisite for any minimal government society because it requires a naturally-occuring high trust between individuals that has historically only come out of white and a few asian societies.
>>68186558
Too idealistic.
>>68190463
Or they could just stop paying...
I'm an Authoritarian, I believe Libertarianism and especially any type of anarchy is flawed, but holy shit how retarded do you have to be to think this is a good point?
I mean wouldn't it be better to say, instead,' well now with all that money I'm going to hire some 'assistance' to help with protecting you', and that progresses to a slavery-like system with armed enforcement.
That would be so much better, and it took me not even 10 seconds to think of.
Do you even brain?
>>68186558
>Anarcho-
Found it.
>>68191121
Or they'll just get steamrolled by some nearby powerful nation with a strong unified government.
>>68190656
>calling everything racist
Ancap is faggotry but good lord that makes me sympathize with them.
I'm sorry I hate on you so much Rothbard. Minus the autism you were an ok guy.
Civilization has always had a central authority of some sort since it began.
Having no central authority is a massive power vacuum, and someone will fill it and become the de facto government.
>>68186558
No middle class
>>68191121
>See the warlords of Africa.
Could you give me an example of this?
>>68191241
I saw you and this flag in the last thread, it's fucking cool. I'll use it as the pic for the next an-cap thread!
>>68191282
>The realpolitical fact that we live in democracy and that ancapism or libertarianism are *not achievable* without first securing demographics.
I agree with this statement. It is certainly true that the first step in achieving a stateless society is convince people that our ideas are viable and desirable.
There is an interview Milton Friedman gave during the Clinton presidency in which he was asked about which government departments he would eliminate. After he gave his answer, the interviewer followed-up by asking a question that began with "If you were dictator for a day..." and Friedman interrupted by saying "No, no, I don't want to be made dictator. I don't believe in dictators." He went on to say that if he can't convince people that minimal statism works then we ought not to have minimal statism. The clip I'm talking about starts at the 23:50 mark, check it out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSumJxQ5oy4
Now as far as the racial issue is concerned, I can definitively say that you are wrong. My evidence for this is in Somalia. As you probably know, the government in Somalia collapsed in 1991, and although there have been three main efforts in which individuals attempted to institute governments, they have had anarchy since then. Save for adult literacy and the percent of children attending school, the conditions of the people in Somalia are now better than they ever were when the people lived under the state. Here is a great study about Somalia pre and post government:
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
stop making these threads
saged
>>68191351
You must not have an ounce of brain matter to understand the point the comic is trying to make.
Let me spell it out for you child.
While a completely simplistic comic and half humor, the comic implies that in a anarcho capitalist society that one would have to pay for protection or get a analy ravaged by criminals. While the comic only shows that he is sitting on his throne, in reality he is using some funds for men and arms to ward of criminals.
The person or persons in charge of protection will corrupt eventually and we all know what happens then.
>you could just leave or stop paying.
I could also stop paying my taxes or leave to another country. The limitations would be the same in an anarcho capitalist societies. The application process to get into communities with decent protection and not a totally crazy asshole in charge will be long as everyone else will have the same idea.
In the end you're just gonna deal with it like we all deal with our government currently. You won't leave, you won't stop paying.
>you could start your own community
Maybe, you better actively recruit good people from other communities by either money or charisma. You would still need money regardless to purchase guns for hire to protect your community during its infancy
>>68191387
>Or they'll just get steamrolled by some nearby powerful nation with a strong unified government.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, private defense agencies would exist, and likely flourish.
>>68191705
>Civilization has always had a central authority of some sort since it began.
>slavery has always existed as an industry, so slavery cannot ever be absent as an industry.
Just because anarcho-capitalism has never existed in full, (we have had every aspect of anarcho-capitalism in societies throughout history, such as private courts, private defense agencies, etc.), does not necessarily mean that it cannot be a viable societal system.
>>68191827
>No middle class
Could you elaborate?
>>68192119
Thanks anon. These threads titles are frankly a little bait-y, but your writing that is contained within is top-tier.
>>68186558
Where is this ideology really fleshed out?
> Conflict of interests
> Conglomerations and merging leaving one at a disadvantage to others.
>>68191351
>I'm an Authoritarian
Anarchy is a power vacuum that will be filled by whoever fights dirtiest. Do you want dictators? Cause that's how you get dictators.
>>68186558
Well first, we have to agree upon a way to evaluate governments (or lack thereof). Is a utilitarian approach acceptable to you, or would you prefer a rights minimizing approach? Or do you have a third option?
I'm a big fan of the Rawlsian approach, in which case, I think anarcho capitalism loses because the veil of ignorance test tends towards a social safety net.
>>68186558
>not Authoritarian-capitalism
topjej.
>>68192540
>Just because anarcho-capitalism has never existed in full, (we have had every aspect of anarcho-capitalism in societies throughout history, such as private courts, private defense agencies, etc.), does not necessarily mean that it cannot be a viable societal system.
You sound like the "real communism has never been tried" people. Rational self-interest precludes libertarian meme societies from forming because people are smart enough to realize that someone has to be in charge.
like communism it leads to a weak nation, it only lasts as long as other nations dont come along and outcompete you or simply invade and obliterate you
1/2
>>68192299
>The person or persons in charge of protection will corrupt eventually and we all know what happens then.
This is improbable. The assertion is that private defense agencies will inevitably begin to initiate the use of violence against others and no longer serve their clients. Assume that private defense agency X begins to go from house to house and kill all inhabitants and then loot the houses. First, agency X would need to contest with the private defense agencies contracted by those who they are attacking. Now let us assume that the people they begin to attack are their own clients who have not contracted the services of any other agencies. Then what?
It is an economic fact that when there is a demand, there is a supply, regardless of whether meeting the call for the demand involves a violation of law, some level of ethical ambiguity, etc. You can use drugs and prostitution as current examples. Now consider that in an anarcho-capitalist the possibility that you have laid out in which a defense agency, (X in this case), begins to terrorize its own clients would be acknowledged. So in this society the demand is a defense agency that can be contacted and whose services can be attained at a moments notice, when agency X is 10 minutes away from your house. As a result of this demand existing, a supply would exist. So, a defense agency would exist in which its services could be obtained at a moments notice for an necessarily higher fee compared to defense agencies that may not ever have to defend a clients property, as the moments-notice agency, (which we'll call agency M-N), would be required to engage in battle.
Also consider the following: it is not in the best interest of agency X to begin to harm others. Those who have contracts with agency X will immediately find another agency to use, (assuming that the contract does not contain a clause in which it states if agency X turns tyrannical the contract is void, which would be a silly contract...
>>68191351
Because the nation's protection is not a fucking market, it's serious business.
The measure of a nation's military is not its efficiency it's its capacity to defend and attack. That's why the US military, a huge wasteful blob, reigns over the entire world, whereas smaller and more efficient militaries are footnotes for history.
Having multiple competing firms reduces the total amount of resources available for defence because Firm A and Firm B are both drawing from the same well, and unless Firm A is just altruistically going to get involved even though the defenders only paid Firm B then Firm B is going to be half the capacity of comparative state military A, no matter how "efficient" it is.
So you either have one protection firm large enough to actually protect the nation that out-competes all the others making it impossible to hire anyone else, or you have a multitude of firms that are equally useless.
>>68192299
You can't freely leave nations though. If your argument is "well, this has the same flaw as statism, except its slightly easier to deal with in a anarcho society" then your argument against anarcho society sucks.
2/2
>>68192299
>>68193569
...to sign). Agency X would, after attacking innocent persons, be unable to remain in business. It would not be advantageous for this agency, from a monetary standpoint, to begin to violate the rights of others.
>>68192566
>Thanks anon. These threads titles are frankly a little bait-y, but your writing that is contained within is top-tier.
I use the "find a flaw" phrase because it's borderline inflammatory and usually gets people to post in the thread. And thank you for the compliment, I appreciate it.
>>68192734
>Where is this ideology really fleshed out?
What exactly do you mean by this?
>Conglomerations and merging leaving one at a disadvantage to others.
You are giving the argument that monopolies will arise in a free-market economy. Can you give me an example of a monopoly that was birthed from within the private sector without government help and sustained this monopoly-hold for any period of time that could be considered substantial without government intervention? Friedman could only find two, which were anomalies: the NYSE and the DeBeers diamond company, neither of which are monopolies any longer.
>>68193074
>Is a utilitarian approach acceptable to you, or would you prefer a rights minimizing approach?
I suppose you would get different answers from different proponents of anarcho-capitalism, but I reject all utilitarian arguments, as the ethical system I subscribe to is Natural Law, of which the NAP is an extension of. Is this what you are asking? Forgive me for not understanding the question.
>>68193248
>You sound like the "real communism has never been tried" people.
I'm not arguing that real anarcho-capitalism has never been tried, I'm arguing that anarcho-capitalism has never been tried. We have cut-and-dry examples of communist states, but we do not have the luxury of pointing to anarcho-capitalist states and learning from them.
>>68194115
anrachfags on damage control
>>68194362
DUDE WEED LMAO
>>68194296
>I suppose you would get different answers from different proponents of anarcho-capitalism, but I reject all utilitarian arguments, as the ethical system I subscribe to is Natural Law, of which the NAP is an extension of. Is this what you are asking? Forgive me for not understanding the questio
Yeah, I just wanted to know how you evaluate what makes a system of government (or lack thereof) good.
I'm going to assume here that you base most of your philosophy on Locke's work. Is that fair to say? I'm just trying to define "natural law" here.
>>68186558
>Find a flaw
"Not an argument."
>>68186558
Most people are too stupid, irresponsible, and short-sighted to make decisions that are in their own best self-interests. If you could get together a country where the average IQ was like 140, and there were strong enough religious or philosophically driven sentiments towards hard work, self-discipline, and cooperation, then maybe you could get ancap to work, but under those conditions you could get pretty much any system of government/anarchism to work, even if they wouldn't be as productive.
1/2
>>68194115
>Because the nation's protection is not a fucking market, it's serious business.
It is not a market because a market for defense does not exist.
>The measure of a nation's military is not its efficiency it's its capacity to defend and attack.
How else would you define military efficiency?
>Having multiple competing firms reduces the total amount of resources available for defence because Firm A and Firm B are both drawing from the same well...
Having a state-run defense agency, (military), reduces the total amount of resources available for itself because it is drawing from a singular well. Resources needed by a defense agency are necessarily finite, so what exactly is the argument?
>and unless Firm A is just altruistically going to get involved even though the defenders only paid Firm B then Firm B is going to be half the capacity of comparative state military A, no matter how "efficient" it is.
It sounds like you are talking about how an anarcho-capitalist society which would have multiple defense agencies, (David Friedman approximated in his book The Machinery of Freedom that there would be 100-200), would be unable to defend its clients from an invasion by a nationalized military force. Let me provide to you a few arguments as to why this would be unlikely.
First we may assume that defense, when handled by the private sector, would be more effective in providing to its customers protection than a publicly run defense agency. This assumption is reasonable for the fact that whenever the private sector and public sector go head to head and attempt to provide similar services, the private sector always succeeds in distributing the more effective service. Such examples include public housing vs. private housing, the United States Postal service versus FedEX, and public schools versus private schools.
Second, we may assume that it is in the best interest of each private defense agency to provide to its clients the highest possible quality...
2/2
>>68194115
>>68195330
...service at the lowest possible cost. This assumption is reasonable for if a company is not effective in offering to its customers/potential customers the highest possible quality service or good at the lowest possible cost, then the consumer will attain the services of another company or goods from another company. So, the defense agencies are incentivized to provide to their clients the highest possible quality service at the lowest possible cost. In the example you have given, it would likely be in the best interest of the private defense agencies to form a temporary conglomeration in an effort to stop the invaders, as this is what would be necessary to provide to their clients the highest quality defense they can.
Now reconsider the first assumption, which is that private defense agencies function more effectively than publicly-funded and maintained militaries. This would mean that privately funded agency X that receives funding of $100,000,000 annually is more efficient in attacking and defending than publicly funded agency Y that receives funding of $100,000,000 annually. Now consider that these private defense agencies temporarily merge to serve their clients. It is reasonable to conclude that the private defense agencies would be competent in repelling such an invasion by a nationalized military.
>>68194296
>>68194693
Well, I gotta crash, but I'll leave you with this: the large, terrible problem with natural law is dealing with people who have dfferent conceptions of natural law than you. Having a nation, and eventually a nation of nations, you get to standardized those issues, and society flows more smoothly as a result.
>>68195330
>It is not a market because a market for defense does not exist.
Correct, because national defense is a public good and public goods are always most effectively distributed by the state. That's what makes them a public good.
>How else would you define military efficiency?
Dollars per unit of capacity, of course. Efficiency = getting more for less. Capacity = how much you have. 100 efficient dollars are still going to have less capacity than a million inefficient ones.
>Having a state-run defense agency, (military), reduces the total amount of resources available for itself because it is drawing from a singular well.
This is how I can tell you entirely missed the point.
Imagine a well. This well can output 100 units of productivity per period of time and will never run out. When the state controls the well it allocates all 100 units to a single force. When 4 private military contractors share the well they can allocate at best 25 units to their forces. The problem is that 25+25+25+25 does not equal 100, because the first 25 are using 5.56mm and the second 25 are using 7.62mm, and the third 25 are using T-55s and the last 25 are using M1s. See the problem? If all the PMCs have a unified structure so that they can work together then it becomes impossible for their services to be differentiated. PMC 1 is not cheaper than PMC 2 because they both have identical equipment, command structure, doctrine, etc. etc. etc. Furthermore, the consumer has no choice. And you STILL have doubleup, where 1 unit of air cavalry can service 0-10 units of infantry and PMC 1 and 2 both have 5 units of infantry and 1 unit of aircav, so when they combine they have twice as much aircav as they need.
>First we may assume that defense, when handled by the private sector, would be more effective in providing to its customers protection than a publicly run defense agency.
No we may not assume that. See above.
Post continues
>>68194693
>Yeah, I just wanted to know how you evaluate what makes a system of government (or lack thereof) good.
That system which ensures the Natural born rights of man and allows each man to exercise his Natural born rights.
>I'm going to assume here that you base most of your philosophy on Locke's work. Is that fair to say?
I personally couldn't possibly pick one philosopher, and again, you'd get a different answer from different an-caps, but Locke is certainly one of the philosophers who made great contributions in reshaping and fine-tuning the framework of Natural Law, (which St. Thomas formally founded, although we can trace the history of Natural Law and the idea of natural born rights back to Aristotle).
>I'm just trying to define "natural law" here.
I would define it is a rights-based ethical framework in which man is endowed with natural-born inalienable rights stemming from mans rights of self-ownership, or something like that. For the purpose of this discussion Natural Law as Locke defined it is fine.
>>68195983
>...the large, terrible problem with natural law is dealing with people who have different conceptions of natural law than you.
I agree that this could be a problem. As I've said earlier in the thread, the first step in achieving an anarcho-capitalist society is to convince people that this is a desirable and viable system. So long as a large group of individuals believe in, subscribe to, and adhere to the NAP we are on our way. As far as Natural Law is concerned, there certainly isn't a hivemind. Locke differs from Rothbard who differs from Acquinas who differs from Grotius. So long as the basic tenets are similar and most of those who believe in Natural Law believe in similar principles I don't think there would be an issue.
>>68195901
>In the example you have given, it would likely be in the best interest of the private defense agencies to form a temporary conglomeration in an effort to stop the invaders, as this is what would be necessary to provide to their clients the highest quality defense they can.
This is your biggest mistake.
Pic related is a map of the Red Sea area, with Egypt on the left, Israel in the middle, and Jordan on the right with Saudia Arabia beneath it. For the purposes of this exercise Jordan and Saudi Arabia have suddenly become a stable, functioning anarchist region. The states are totally gone and no disruption occurred when they went.
Israel wants to conquer Aqaba. Aqaba is a better port for Israel, allowing it to field a larger and more capable navy in the Red Sea area. Renting it is not acceptable because Israel's strategic posture requires permanent and very sensitive installations be constructed there if a naval base were to be made - the kind of installation Israel needs to retain absolute control over and that Aqaba will not permit construction of anyway due to the risks the installation poses. The port must either belong to Israel or not belong to Israel.
So Israel launches a full attack on Aqaba. The entire fighting power of Israel is directed on this single city. Aqaba is quickly overrun - no matter how _efficient_ the forces are a single city cannot hold off an entire nation.
But that's not the end of the story. More to follow.
>>68197289
Aqaba and Quweira are both subscribed to the same PMC, so the Quweira garrison is also available. However, it knows that a head-on attack on conquered Aqaba is impossible to win. It appeals to the other cities for help. Maan agrees, because Aqaba gives it favourable export terms that Israel will not. El Jafr says no. El Jafr does not export to Aqaba it exports to Maan, and though it knows Maan will suffer it probably won't hit El Jafr too hard so why fork out a fortune to fight a battle it doesn't care about? And Haql? Haql knows that if Israel wins Maan will be forced to export through Haql at any price, letting Haql gouge the fuck out of Maan. At best Haql does nothing. At worst Haql fights with Israel.
This is not some bullshit meme example. This is how Europe functioned for centuries. Everyone has their own interests and they're not all aligned with each other even when everyone shares the same ideology and politics thanks to simple geography and economics. This is just 5 cities. Our anarchists cannot even rally 5 cities against an entire nation. How can they possibly win?
They can't, and that's why there are no city-states and micronations left. They all got devoured in the 1300-1800s and all that's left are superstates. The greatest irony is that we all live in anarchy right now. The international system is structurally anarchic. Nobody's going to appear from heaven and make you leave Poland alone. The human response to actual real life anarchy is the League of Nations, the United Nations, NATO, the Warsaw Pact - ANYTHING to provide order in chaos and light in darkness.
Anarchy is a meme ideology for memers.
End post.
>>68196378
Thank you for the posts anon, I appreciate the discussion not only for myself but for those who lurk and read them. This is a bump. I am writing my response.
>>68190656
>mutualism
>anti-capitalist
>market economy
one more bump, almost finished with my post.
>>68195330
>First we may assume that defense, when handled by the private sector, would be more effective in providing to its customers protection than a publicly run defense agency.
This argument falls flat when you consider that national militaries of different nations have to compete with each other to maintain the existence of the nation they serve.
>>68196378
>The problem is that 25+25+25+25 does not equal 100, because the first 25 are using 5.56mm and the second 25 are using 7.62mm, and the third 25 are using T-55s and the last 25 are using M1s.
First, understand that you have just stated that "25+25+25+25 does not equal 100..."
The analogy of the well is an inappropriate one. This is because a publicly (state) run military which holds a well will likely hold a well that has a unit output of X per period of time Y, while the privately run "military" which holds a well will likely hold a well that has a unit output of X+# during Y, where # has a value greater than 0. In this case, you must consider that the private military will own and maintain a well which has an output greater than the well owned and maintained by the public military, for the reasons that we have already established which goes to the nature of these systems.
>Furthermore, the consumer has no choice.
How so? An individual may choose to not receive the services of any private defense agency.
>And you STILL have doubleup, where 1 unit of air cavalry can service 0-10 units of infantry and PMC 1 and 2 both have 5 units of infantry and 1 unit of aircav, so when they combine they have twice as much aircav as they need.
This is an interesting claim. I have never addressed the issue of "double-up", and I am unable to refute the claim that this problem would likely occur and result in a problem. I am going to consider this claim and write a response for you and post it in tomorrows an-cap thread if you don't mind.
>>68197289
>no matter how _efficient_ the forces are a single city cannot hold off an entire nation.
This is to say that New York City could not hold off an assault from Grenada. It is certainly possible for "a city to hold off an entire nation".
My response to your Middle-East example will follow.
anarcho-capitalism seems pretty fascinating to me, can anyone recommend where i can find some more reading material / videos on the subject?
>>68186558
> a stripper with a heart of gold
> dat REAL marxism which could totally work in the real world
> anarcho capitalism
3 things that exist only in the imagination of fools
anarchy is destructive.
hyphenating it with any political ideology is simply retarded
anarchy destroys all systems and order, which is poisonous to capitalism.
the ONLY time anarchy is a viable solution to a government system is if your living under a dictatorship and have to tear that motherfucker down
and even then "anarchy" will soon be replaced with some form of "archy" even if it just petty street gangs grabbing turf
anyone who espouses anarcho-____________ism is an angsty tween who should go back to watching twilight and beating off
>>68186697
Don't forget the anarcho part.
Two obviously flawed system massed together just because.
Infact, capitalism is just going to make an anarchistic society more antagonistic. Idiotic.
>>68187187
> private laws, private courts, private defense agencies
we used to call that Organized Crime.
youre a moron.
in your utopian fantasy, a strongman would assemble a band of raiders, declare himself king of chicago and institute a monarchical totalitarian state.
or gangs would turn the streets into Night of the Warriors.
you would be among the first to die, angsty tween tryhards cant scrap a lick.
if youre lucky you would wind up as some crime lord's pet gimp.
>>68191177
> Anarchism is a political system
and that's when everyone realized you really do actually have downs syndrome...
A set of arguments for *some* level of regulation: http://raikoth.net/libertarian.html
Excerpt:
>As a thought experiment, let’s consider aquaculture (fish farming) in a lake. Imagine a lake with a thousand identical fish farms owned by a thousand competing companies. Each fish farm earns a profit of $1000/month. For a while, all is well.
>But each fish farm produces waste, which fouls the water in the lake. Let’s say each fish farm produces enough pollution to lower productivity in the lake by $1/month.
>A thousand fish farms produce enough waste to lower productivity by $1000/month, meaning none of the fish farms are making any money. Capitalism to the rescue: someone invents a complex filtering system that removes waste products. It costs $300/month to operate. All fish farms voluntarily install it, the pollution ends, and the fish farms are now making a profit of $700/month – still a respectable sum.
>But one farmer (let’s call him Steve) gets tired of spending the money to operate his filter. Now one fish farm worth of waste is polluting the lake, lowering productivity by $1. Steve earns $999 profit, and everyone else earns $699 profit.
>Everyone else sees Steve is much more profitable than they are, because he’s not spending the maintenance costs on his filter. They disconnect their filters too.
>A self-interested person never has any incentive to use a filter. A self-interested person has some incentive to sign a pact to make everyone use a filter, but in many cases has a stronger incentive to wait for everyone else to sign such a pact but opt out himself. This can lead to an undesirable equilibrium in which no one will sign such a pact.
A semi-pretentious, meta explanation: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/
1/2
>>68197315
The first issue I see with this hypothetical scenario is that Aqaba is conquered. Why is this so? You state that "a single city cannot hold off an entire nation", which is an absurd assertion. If this is the premise on which this scenario is founded then we must begin again with a premise that is not flawed. But let us assume for the sake of this argument that for whatever reason, Aqaba is conquered by Israel.
Anon, I do not understand the dilemma within the scenario brought forth in this post. The relationship concerning trade for Maan, the fact that El Jafr will not offer any help to Aqaba, and the fact that Haql has conducted a cost-benefit analysis of aiding Aqaba all seems trivial and ill-informed.
The first logical issue your scenario employs is that these cities are acting collectively. Assuming that these cities are located in an anarcho-capitalist society no city would act as a collective unit. Those individuals located within these regions would act independently, and so a scenario in which cities are equipped with decision-making abilities is not applicable in the context of a stateless society. In this scenario Maan decides to aid Aqaba. How does Maan aid Aqaba in an anarcho-capitalist society? There could not be an arbiter who makes the final call as to whether or not all individuals located in the region of Maan either aid Aqaba or do not aid Aqaba. As you would find with El Jafr and Haql, some individuals located within Maan would choose to send resources to Aqaba while others would not. The idea that cities in a stateless society would be structured identically to those within a statist society and offer unified decisions similar to those given by cities in statist societies that create trade regulations is nonsensical.
Furthermore, in this instance, private individuals are not owners of the land located in Aqaba. You have stated multiple times in this scenario that Aqaba acts as a unified body. In an anarcho-capitalist society...
>>68186558
>Anarcho-capitalism
Found your flaw.
>>68200518
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#Garrett_Hardin.27s_article
Who owns the lake? Is it public access?
2/2
>>68197315
>>68200594
...individuals own land. No land is owned collectively by a city. No city has territorial sovereignty. Every sentence in which one city acts as a unified body is null. The terms used cannot be applied to a scenario in which an anarcho-capitalist is warred with. Perhaps such a scenario would be applicable to some sort of collectivist anarchism, but this scenario cannot be applied to anarcho-capitalism.
>This is not some bullshit meme example.
Throughout this example you depict these cities as unified bodies which render decisions that all citizens accept or reject. The concept of individualism is non-existent in this example.
>>68199467
>Organized Crime
In an anarcho-capitalist society, crime is an act in which the rights of another are infringed upon. Read "Vices and Crimes" by Spooner. Private courts and defense agencies do not involve criminal activity.
>...a strongman would assemble a band of raiders, declare himself king of chicago and institute a monarchical totalitarian state.
>or gangs would turn the streets into Night of the Warriors.
As you alluded to, Utopia does not exist. There is no society in which no man aggresses upon others. There will always be those who initiate the use of violence, coercion, and force against others. The argument is that free-market anarchism would help birth the systems that can best provide the services rendered by the state.
>>68200518
I have work in 7 hours and my eyes hurt from straining them at my screen. I'm going to save your post and address it in the next an-cap thread. I'm sorry for not addressing it right now anon, it sounds interesting. Hopefully I'll see you in the next thread.
I'm done for the night guys. I'm going to save the posts by >>68197289 and >>68200518 so that I can address them in the next thread. Sorry for not doing so sufficiently/at all right now. Thanks for all the posts guys, its been informative/thought provoking.
>>68200594
>>68201392
It seems your main critique here is that because cities do not act as a single unit therefore the scenario is wildly changed. It's not. Whether the city acts as one or acts as a group of individuals that outcome can easily be the same. Most of Maan helps, most of El Jafr does not, for mostly the same reasons. There could be many individuals in Maan who rely on exports through Aqaba and so they help, while in El Jafr most people have little to no concern about Maan. However the decision is arrived at, though individuals or as a city unites, it will be the same. It will be the same because the reasoning behind the decision is the same for cities and individuals - there is no good reason to aid Aqaba outside of direct self interest. While some people may be motivated by principle they are generally the minority of any population, and may even be targeted by a majority that favours non-intervention for inviting the invaders to come and level the town by picking a fight.
And this raises another issue. When I subscribe to a private military contractor how much defence do I actually get? It would take me 10 years to pay for the equipment and training of one soldier, and I could obviously never pay the upkeep. Do I own a share in a soldier? If I want to intervene in Aqaba what intervention do my dollars actually buy? It's "anarchy" but the foreign policy is as determined by democracy as any other, and so you still get tyranny of the majority. And if 500 people want to intervene, which is enough for 3 soldiers and a Humvee, are those soldiers required to drive to their inevitable death?
It simply becomes more and more unworkable the more it's considered. Sure, it could _exist_, but it's definitely not going to be superior to a state military when it comes to winning a fight.
>>68198667
>the privately run "military" which holds a well will likely hold a well that has a unit output of X+# during Y,
This is unproven, relying on the assumption that anarchists can always buy themselves out of trouble. I am comparing like to like - two nations with identical resources - because no other comparison between militaries can be fair. To say "yes our army is shit but we're rich enough to pay our way through the war" is not a good defence strategy, because even anarchists may not always be rich. Crops could fail, natural disaster, slow uptake of emergent technology, a bust in the global economy that the nearby state somehow evades, etc. etc. etc.
The only good defence strategy is one that always works - even when you're poor. Obviously no such strategy exists, but the principle remains to get as close to it as possible. Relying on money, not soldiers, is not a good plan. You cannot 100% guarantee that you will always have economic superiority no matter how great the economy performs. Every economy has trouble spots. I'm not saying anarchist countries will have worse economies than states. I'm not saying anything about anarchist economies vs state economies. All I'm saying is that the superior defence strategy is the one that doesn't require a reliance on overwhelming economic superiority.
>An individual may choose to not receive the services of any private defense agency.
Sure, but no choice between agencies unless the agencies are differentiated, which makes inter-agency co-operation hard or impossible due to logistical concerns (all using different ammo, vehicles, doctrines). Either way you have a problem.
>It is certainly possible for "a city to hold off an entire nation".
Exception proves the rule. New York has a larger population than Sweden. Most cities don't. And New York certainly couldn't hold off the rest of the USA. Nor can every city be New York.
>>68195068
Everything with that will work...
>>68201392
Goodnight, godspeed.
>>68186558
you never think you can be very stupid people until he sees employees asking for a capitalist anarchy
