AMA: Anarcho-capitalism

Author: Bones

Posts

Total: 41
Topic's author
#1
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
Recently had a good debate on Anarcho-Capitalism - the idea that the state apparatus ought to be evicted from its normative functions and replaced by privatised organisations. Because of how radical this idea is, I'm interested to hear some questions or concerns with the theory and hopefully answer them. Some questions which may be of interest might involve; 

  1. How can economic monopolies be contained? 
  2. How do we prevent malevolent terrorists from taking over? 
  3. What organisation writes and enforces the law?
  4. Don't socialised programs help people in need?
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
In anarcho capitalism, would it be acceptable to acquire land, even large tracts of land that are country sized and start a community on them? A community where we vote on leadership, create a constitution? set up 3 branches of government and agree to certain things like the voting age being 18, banning drunk driving within the confines of our community etc?
#3
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 269
Posts: 7,620
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
The world is all about power, and those too weak to obtain it.

In anarchy, if there is no democracy, then there is no any way to make any consistent laws, as who would make them?

If I can make my laws only on my property, and everyone else can make differrent laws on theirs, then that maybe works.

As for preventing terrorists, then anarchy obviously needs military funded by voluntary donations, and if threat rises, then people will donate to such military to be safe since its the only military not imposing force on them.

As for economic monopolies, I dont think there is a way to prevent that, but anarchy is supposed to reduce number of monopolies since without minimum wage and without taxes, then small buisnesses have no those additional costs, where with government, both small and large buisness have additional costs, but large buisnesses are better able to negate those costs by having larger amount of saved money at disposal.

As for people in need, then we all know that while government helps some, at the same time it harms others as there is no way for government to make money without taking that money from someone, including small buisnesses too. So the people in need are those the government took money away from, either by taxing their buisness either by taxing buisness which would otherwise employ them, and additionally government reduces the amount of money that goes to charity as if someone is forced to pay lots of taxes, then he will be less willing to give to those in need, and since we know that government's distribution of wealth isnt 1:1, so to say, if government takes 1 dollar from you, in no way it will give 1 dollar to the poor, but often the government wastes huge amounts of money on things which clearly dont cost that much, which causes waste of resources. Also, government has no real motivation to greatly help people in need and it only helps them partially and for political points, as the government will only help as much as it is forced by people and voters, and as we can see, that didnt work so far as countries still have high amounts of poverty but whats worse is that poor people have to do difficult jobs for 10 hours a day and 6 to 7 days of week just to get food and place to live, which is not significantly different from slaves in the past.
Topic's author
#4
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@WyIted
Yes, within all communities, any rules which one may wish to impose can be done so. However, I think that such a community would see neighbouring jurisdictions, where there aren't oppressive forces like taxation, or the necessity to adopt certain security firms (state police) and favour their model. Furthermore, in this world you describe, it would be unjust to compel some individual to stay within the system. 
Topic's author
#5
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Best.Korea
You seem to have answered a lot of your own questions with quite a good understanding. If this topic interests you, you should read me and Savants debate. 

In anarchy, if there is no democracy, then there is no any way to make any consistent laws, as who would make them?
There's a book authored by Morris which puts forth the idea of a free market of laws, which argues that natural forces will find the must just laws to govern the people. 

 
#6
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
-->
@Bones
it would be unjust to compel some individual to stay within the system
What if the communities surrounding that community do similar things and they can only realistically migrate to owned country sized pieces of land that have adopted constitutions, various forms of government etc. Etc. 
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,980
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
How would contracts and property rights be enforced?
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,980
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Bones
  1. How can economic monopolies be contained? 
    Monopolies exist through the application of force and regulations limiting competition.
  2. How do we prevent malevolent terrorists from taking over? 
    Good Q
  3. What organisation writes and enforces the law?
    Good Q
  4. Don't socialised programs help people in need
Socialism always starts with individual charity.
Topic's author
#9
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@WyIted
What if the communities surrounding that community do similar things and they can only realistically migrate to owned country sized pieces of land that have adopted constitutions, various forms of government etc. Etc. 
I only believe that there are two ways of acquiring property - original appropriation or trade. So the government doesn't have a right to simply proclaim they own land and then write their laws and rules in place. Individuals in their own homes control the rules of their domain completely. So the government you describe wouldn't have the ability to impede on your rights if you want to live in an anarchical way.   
Topic's author
#10
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@Greyparrot
How would contracts and property rights be enforced?
Regarding contracts, these will be agreed upon in the presence of a third party arbitrator. Here, this company would presumably be in the business of writing up contracts and ensuring they will be upheld by each party. In the case that a contract is not upheld, such an agency will be incentivised to take action, or else risk their public image being damaged and by extension losing business. Furthermore, individuals will have an incentive to uphold contracts given they themselves have a reputation to maintain. If they are the kind of person to break contracts, then this will make it difficult for them to engage in further contracts, or dealings with individuals. 

The defence of property rights will be the responsibility of the home owner. Because of this, they have the right to bear arms, as a means to ensure their property is defended. Furthermore, homeowners can contract defence agencies which will serve the purpose of surveilling and maintaining peace. We have some reasons to believe this will be done better than the police. 

  1. These agencies, unlike the state police, risk extinction, if their performance is poor. 
  2. These agencies, unlike the state police, have an active incentive to do good.
  3. These agencies, unlike the state police, will offer contracts detailing what services they owe their customers. 


#11
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
-->
@Bones
So the government doesn't have a right to simply proclaim they own land and then write their laws and rules in place
No, I am talking about a group of people coming together, but let's scale it down. Perhaps people buy property and own the few acres it is on. Certainly they could create laws and taxes and even a police force and fire department on their plot of land. Perhaps they sign a contract so the community retains rights to the land but they can sell it amongsts themselves and pay a small property tax on the land, but they may only sell it to those who agree to respect the community rights to the land. It wouldn't be a government proclaiming they own land. Just a community of people who come together and form a government among themselves for the land they occupy.

You would agree that somebody could deed property to their children wouldn't you? And that if those children obtained property in a community that formed some sort of central party that presides over the land than that would have to be respected as honestly when you put it this way only the rights to the land is passed down, the community would retain ownership?

#12
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
Another question.

Is it okay for a person to trespass on land they do not own in an anarcho capitalist society?
Topic's author
#13
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@WyIted
You would agree that somebody could deed property to their children wouldn't you? And that if those children obtained property in a community that formed some sort of central party that presides over the land than that would have to be respected as honestly when you put it this way only the rights to the land is passed down, the community would retain ownership?
For each new occupant that exists, there would need to exist a new contract, ensuring both parties wish to involve themselves in the union. For instance, this new individual might not approve of the police force, and for this reason, refuse to opt in and pay the taxes. 

Also, when you describe "a community of people who come together and form a government among themselves for the land they occupy", I would presume that given the freedom they are afforded, that other agencies which provide the function of the government would arise. And so the State function would then again open to the market forces - that is unless the community you are describing forbids their citizens from choosing other services. 


Topic's author
#14
Bones
Bones's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 965
3
7
9
Bones's avatar
Bones
3
7
9
-->
@WyIted
Is it okay for a person to trespass on land they do not own in an anarcho capitalist society?
"Trespassing" implies that some piece of owned land is being transgressed upon so no, that would not be allowed. However, if the land has not been claimed in any way then they have the right to travel on it. 
#15
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 1,700
3
4
8
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
8
For each new occupant that exists, there would need to exist a new contract, ensuring both parties wish to involve themselves in the union. For instance, this new individual might not approve of the police force, and for this reason, refuse to opt in and pay the taxes. 
well like I was trying to say. The original owner basically has given this self formed government ownership of the property and essentially transfer rights to the property to his child. So I guess if the son did not want to agree to pay taxes and use the police force etc., property ownership would have to go back to the self formed government and he would have to leave the community and hope all of the lands in the surrounding communities have not formed similar self styled governments with the land they own.

"Trespassing" implies that some piece of owned land is being transgressed upon so no, that would not be allowed. However, if the land has not been claimed in any way then they have the right to travel on it. 
So a few questions regarding this;

1. What if somebody or many people buy the land surrounding them and cut them off from resources?
2. If the neighbor is playing loud music or shining a light through their window at night, would these beams of light or sound waves be considered trespassing?
#16
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,858
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Bones
There's a book authored by Morris which puts forth the idea of a free market of laws, which argues that natural forces will find the must just laws to govern the people.
I think we've seen what a "free market of laws" looks like, it's an HOA and that's not good.

Why is my impression wrong?


As for the rest of it I think you're exactly right that the key to efficient government function is found in creating/allowing appropriate incentive structures. Namely:

  • These agencies, unlike the state police, risk extinction, if their performance is poor. 
  • These agencies, unlike the state police, have an active incentive to do good.
  • These agencies, unlike the state police, will offer contracts detailing what services they owe their customers.

    • I do not see the point in calling the new model anything other than "police" though.

    #17
    Greyparrot
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Debates: 4
    Posts: 22,980
    3
    4
    10
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Greyparrot
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @ADreamOfLiberty
    I think we've seen what a "free market of laws" looks like, it's an HOA and that's not good.

    At least you can opt out of a neighborhood by living somewhere else. But yeah, it would definitely increase tribalism if laws can be radically different from one locality to the next.
    Topic's author
    #18
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 30
    Posts: 965
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @WyIted
    For each new occupant that exists, there would need to exist a new contract, ensuring both parties wish to involve themselves in the union. For instance, this new individual might not approve of the police force, and for this reason, refuse to opt in and pay the taxes. 
    well like I was trying to say. The original owner basically has given this self formed government ownership of the property and essentially transfer rights to the property to his child. So I guess if the son did not want to agree to pay taxes and use the police force etc., property ownership would have to go back to the self formed government and he would have to leave the community and hope all of the lands in the surrounding communities have not formed similar self styled governments with the land they own.
    I'm not sure why in this instance anyone would give their home to the government when it could instead just be their private property. If someone transferred ownership of their home to the government, that would open up to multiple vulnerabilities, like the right for the government to instantly kick you out, because the home is not "yours". 

    1. What if somebody or many people buy the land surrounding them and cut them off from resources?
    This is called  Blockean Proviso. Stephan Kinsella writes quite a succinct response. 


    Remember that property rights is a fundemental part of the libertarian ethic, and so the above circumstance can only actualise if there is no one in the unoccupied area. However, as you illustrate, if there is somewhere there, then an entitlement to the land would be unjust.  

    2. If the neighbor is playing loud music or shining a light through their window at night, would these beams of light or sound waves be considered trespassing?
    I'll have to think about this one in more depth but there may be a degree where it does become trespassing - although not physically transgression, you are using some means to impede on someones private property at an extreme level. 



    Topic's author
    #19
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 30
    Posts: 965
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @ADreamOfLiberty
    There's a book authored by Morris which puts forth the idea of a free market of laws, which argues that natural forces will find the must just laws to govern the people.
    I think we've seen what a "free market of laws" looks like, it's an HOA and that's not good.

    Why is my impression wrong?
    It is theorised that in a market based law, normative principles will be more streamlined and better reflect the interest of the people. You might ask whether the interest of the people is good, and I would think that it is - people generally have a good understanding of right and wrong through their reaction to when certain acts are done to them - when something bad or unjust is happening to them, they generally know and want to prevent it. And so a market of law would simply scale this system up. 

    I do not see the point in calling the new model anything other than "police" though.
    You can call it anything you want, but the main factor is that it will not be a monopoly and it will not be run by the "state". 

    #20
    ADreamOfLiberty
    ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,858
    3
    2
    2
    ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
    ADreamOfLiberty
    3
    2
    2
    -->
    @Bones
    There's a book authored by Morris which puts forth the idea of a free market of laws, which argues that natural forces will find the must just laws to govern the people.
    I think we've seen what a "free market of laws" looks like, it's an HOA and that's not good.

    Why is my impression wrong?
    It is theorised that in a market based law, normative principles will be more streamlined and better reflect the interest of the people. You might ask whether the interest of the people is good, and I would think that it is - people generally have a good understanding of right and wrong through their reaction to when certain acts are done to them - when something bad or unjust is happening to them, they generally know and want to prevent it. And so a market of law would simply scale this system up. 
    Well then let's take the typical expectations that are found in an abusive HOA and see how it would evolve in the scenario you describe.

    You normally have 70-90% who want to regulate certain things about their neighbors such as parking, landscaping, and noise making. You've got 5-10% who are going to do something that will piss off 2-5% (The dreaded karens).

    Because the Karen screams the loudest and uses deception and the normies don't have the time nor interest to figure out who is right the boards of HOAs become infested and often monopoized by karens.

    You can roll the answer into the answer to Wylted's question: 2. If the neighbor is playing loud music or shining a light through their window at night, would these beams of light or sound waves be considered trespassing?

    How would "normative principles in market based law" thwart the karens and their evil schemes? (and yes that is the goal,  liberty is the root objective value regardless of government or societal organization)
    #21
    RationalMadman
    RationalMadman's avatar
    Debates: 564
    Posts: 19,930
    10
    11
    11
    RationalMadman's avatar
    RationalMadman
    10
    11
    11
    So basically caveman politics
    #22
    Best.Korea
    Best.Korea's avatar
    Debates: 269
    Posts: 7,620
    4
    6
    10
    Best.Korea's avatar
    Best.Korea
    4
    6
    10
    -->
    @Bones
    I have a question tho.

    So what is anarch's opinion on child marriages and at what age does person become capable of making contracts in anarchy?

    Because I have little to no understanding of how anarchy would look like, so I am curious how would you solve who gets to decide for a person when that same person is incapable of making own decisions or if there is doubt that person will regret said decision?
    Topic's author
    #23
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 30
    Posts: 965
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @ADreamOfLiberty

    Because the Karen screams the loudest and uses deception and the normies don't have the time nor interest to figure out who is right the boards of HOAs become infested and often monopoized by karens.

    You can roll the answer into the answer to Wylted's question: 2. If the neighbor is playing loud music or shining a light through their window at night, would these beams of light or sound waves be considered trespassing?

    How would "normative principles in market based law" thwart the karens and their evil schemes? (and yes that is the goal,  liberty is the root objective value regardless of government or societal organization)
    I think this exposes an additional issue with government issued programs. Because they are not in risk of termination, nor are incentivised by market forces, those most irritating wind up having the most power. In a truly free market, this will not happen - any business model preference the interest of the 70% - 90% and cater to their needs for basic economic reasons. If there is a niche 2% causing a hassle, this isn't really a cause for concern, given they will be overwhelmed by the majority and more logical individuals of society. 

    Basically, is it more profitable to appease the loud 2%, or the quiet 90%? 

    Topic's author
    #24
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 30
    Posts: 965
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @Best.Korea
    So what is anarch's opinion on child marriages and at what age does person become capable of making contracts in anarchy?
    Anarchy basically allows for ones liberty to be maximally exercised - in the case of children, it is clear that such a capacity is not yet learnt, and it would constitute aggression if some older figure groomed them into marriage. 

    #25
    Best.Korea
    Best.Korea's avatar
    Debates: 269
    Posts: 7,620
    4
    6
    10
    Best.Korea's avatar
    Best.Korea
    4
    6
    10
    -->
    @Bones
    So you are not a consequentialist then? 

    Do you believe that when two liberties are in contradiction, that the smaller liberty should get destroyed in favor of a greater one, as opposed to greater liberty being destroyed in favor of the smaller one?

    As you must know, child marriages do increase birth rates, and by result, birth rates increase amount of people, which in turn increases amount of people being able to exercise liberty of living.

    So do you not think that preventing people from being born destroys their liberty, or does in your view only the liberty of born and conceived counts?
    #26
    Greyparrot
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Debates: 4
    Posts: 22,980
    3
    4
    10
    Greyparrot's avatar
    Greyparrot
    3
    4
    10
    -->
    @ADreamOfLiberty
    What I see as problematic with tribal versions of the law is that there will no longer be an equal application of the law in a predictable manner. I am not sure how tribalistic law is a superior solution.
    Topic's author
    #27
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 30
    Posts: 965
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @Greyparrot
    @ADreamOfLiberty
    There are reasons to doubt that the State would provide better law than that of the free market. These are some of my thoughts, as well as notes from texts I've read. 

    Under the state law

    • What is the state
      • The State, according to the standard definition, is not a regular, specialised firm. Rather, it is defined as an agency characterised by two unique, logically connected features. First, the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making. That is, the state is the ultimate arbiter in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. It allows no appeal above and beyond itself. Second, the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of taxation. That is, it is an agency that unilaterally fixes the price that private citizens must pay for the state's service as ultimate judge and enforcer of law and order.1
    • Stability 
      • Legislation, or law by decree, is by its nature less predictable than decentralised legal systems whose development is limited to extrapolations from previously established legal principles”. Because of lower predictability, less contracts are made owing to the uncertainty of their enforceability. 
    • Lacks no access to pricing mechanism. 
      • An arbitrary edict-based legislative system lacks access to a pricing mechanism, which would otherwise serve as an invaluable indicator of the effectiveness or desirability of a law relative to consumer or societal preference. With a pricing mechanism, one can judge such things by measuring their profitability
      • Hence, the pricing mechanism enables such a decentralised free market legal system to continually refine and reinterpret various legal codes more rationally relative to consumer preference.
    • The state is fundamentally a monopoly 
      • Most economists do the following: monopolies, being the instance where there exists an overly dominant sole distributor of a given good or service, are bad for society. 
      • To extend, we can see that the state is an entity which is the totally dominant sole distributor of a given service (the word of the law). 
      • By modus ponens then, the states monopoly over the law is equally harmful. 
    • Individuals are less likely to shape and improve the rules they are governed by. 
      • The relationship between the impact of one's vote on one's life, and the effort required to cast it renders voting unlikely. To vote according to one’s interests, one must determine what policies are actually in line with his interests and who represents these policies.
    • The very use of such representation is flawed 
      • Politicians can change their position at any time
      • Often ones full breadth of beliefs are not in accordance with politicians, and therefore they must compromise their views.


    Topic's author
    #28
    Bones
    Bones's avatar
    Debates: 30
    Posts: 965
    3
    7
    9
    Bones's avatar
    Bones
    3
    7
    9
    -->
    @Best.Korea
    Do you believe that when two liberties are in contradiction, that the smaller liberty should get destroyed in favor of a greater one, as opposed to greater liberty being destroyed in favor of the smaller one?
    Initiation of aggression is the foundation of the ancap moral philosophy. 

    As you must know, child marriages do increase birth rates, and by result, birth rates increase amount of people, which in turn increases amount of people being able to exercise liberty of living. So do you not think that preventing people from being born destroys their liberty, or does in your view only the liberty of born and conceived counts?
    There's a distinction between potential and actual liberty - a system can only logically account for actual liberties, given how extraneous the potential considerations are. 

    #29
    Best.Korea
    Best.Korea's avatar
    Debates: 269
    Posts: 7,620
    4
    6
    10
    Best.Korea's avatar
    Best.Korea
    4
    6
    10
    -->
    @Bones
    Initiation of aggression is the foundation of the ancap moral philosophy.
    So under that system, people have no obligation to make future generations, thus are able to destroy any liberty future generations would have if they were born?


    There's a distinction between potential and actual liberty - a system can only logically account for actual liberties, given how extraneous the potential considerations are. 
    I would disagree with that, as potential liberty becomes actual liberty when proper steps are taken, so not taking those steps essentially means actual liberty wont exist in that case, and if you hold stance that actual liberty is good, then it makes sense to convert potential liberty into actual liberty so that there is more of the actual liberty, and likewise, if you think destroying actual liberty is bad, then not creating it is bad too, since it carries same result, apparently that of actual liberty not existing in either case.
    #30
    ADreamOfLiberty
    ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,858
    3
    2
    2
    ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
    ADreamOfLiberty
    3
    2
    2
    -->
    @Bones
    Because the Karen screams the loudest and uses deception and the normies don't have the time nor interest to figure out who is right the boards of HOAs become infested and often monopoized by karens.

    You can roll the answer into the answer to Wylted's question: 2. If the neighbor is playing loud music or shining a light through their window at night, would these beams of light or sound waves be considered trespassing?

    How would "normative principles in market based law" thwart the karens and their evil schemes? (and yes that is the goal,  liberty is the root objective value regardless of government or societal organization)
    I think this exposes an additional issue with government issued programs. Because they are not in risk of termination, nor are incentivised by market forces, those most irritating wind up having the most power. In a truly free market, this will not happen - any business model preference the interest of the 70% - 90% and cater to their needs for basic economic reasons. If there is a niche 2% causing a hassle, this isn't really a cause for concern, given they will be overwhelmed by the majority and more logical individuals of society. 

    Basically, is it more profitable to appease the loud 2%, or the quiet 90%? 
    Well I think it depends on the business model as it were. The quietly 90% let HOA abuses go for years until it passes a point of true absurdity. Often judges or state journalists intervene before the 90% do something about it.

    Part of it is apathy but another part might be fear, since anyone who leads a movement against an HOA can easily become targets themselves.

    The difference here is that we're talking about the aggressive use of force. In normal market dynamics there is always the "no deal" option, not in this case.

    How will an "anarchist HOA" be "overwhelmed by the majority and more logical individuals of society"? Why don't we see that with existing HOAs which basically are formed organically from pre-existing agreements?