jaredsmith:Never thought of it that way. But what about kids? They can't afford to buy their own protection and let's just say their parents can't afford to do so either.
Kids can't afford their own food. Is this unjust? Perhaps we should hold the entire food industry hostage, violently stealing their fruit to feed starving children. What happens when parents cannot afford food?
Consider the question your asking with another market good. Security can be a cheap market commodity but only if it is allowed to thrive in a free-market. I would have a hard item believing that with insurance policies ect.. it would be hard to afford.
jaredsmith: I'm not asking about other goods or trying to compare to other situations. All I am trying to know is if there is a way to guarantee the rights for people that are in no position to pay for them. Just because I am 8 years old and I have no way of getting a job that could pay for my security does this mean I have no protection? I only ask this because I see it as a potential problem.
I'm not asking about other goods or trying to compare to other situations. All I am trying to know is if there is a way to guarantee the rights for people that are in no position to pay for them. Just because I am 8 years old and I have no way of getting a job that could pay for my security does this mean I have no protection?
I only ask this because I see it as a potential problem.
You seem to be in a common state of beleif that your 'rights' and 'justice' and 'security' is adequately being distributed. Though you have never lived in a different system so you cannot imagine how it could be improved over the current status quo. You see that we at least appear to be better off than some other countries so you assume its working.
I recently had a close friend's father murdered by an irresponsible driver. Half a year has gone by and we are still awaiting 'justice'. They know who did it, they know the company who issued the tour bus, they know so much information yet they continue to keep the information from us. It's been half a year and we are not allowed to seek any type of justice. The police simply tell us to wait for them to finish their investigation at their leisure.
Meanwhile a local police officer was gunned down. Half the state was dispatched and they found the guy within 24 hours and through him in jail. Hundreds of people went to police officers funeral.
Why is this man getting special treatment? We are paying customers, even if by force. If this was a private security agency they would have long since been fired. The truth is the modern police force has no incentive what so ever to serve you. Do you realize that most legal violations in many cities are done from a revenue standpoint of the state? It has nothing to do with serving, protecting, and fostering peace.
If you really believe our current system is adequate than it is probably because you have not yet had to deal with it. The truth is our modern police force is a failure in so many ways across the entire country. Just as our modern education system is, and all other socialized goods we have. There is no economic calculation and the system is morally bankrupt.
So the next time you defend the police force consider the thousands of people still waiting for their justice, some have been waiting decades for the louts to actually do some investigative work and find their culprits.
That sounds to me more like localized minarchy rather than anarchy. Anarchy would have private law enforcement and courts.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Raudsarw: What if the state suddenly decides to legalize murder?
What if the state suddenly decides to legalize murder?
I don't think the State is the authority on morality. They proven that many times.
Wanderer: Anarchy could have private law enforcement and courts.
Anarchy could have private law enforcement and courts.
Fixed that for ya.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
I mean, do I just claim the road in front of my house as mine?
jaredsmith: I mean, do I just claim the road in front of my house as mine?
Did you read the article I linked to? Usually, you build the road on your property, otherwise why would you build it?
You have a driveway, more than likely. A road is just a driveway on a much bigger scale.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
You act like I'm trying to defend our current system. I'm not. I'm just trying to imagine what an anarchist society would be like. In one way I'm doing this by imagining if I was an 8 year old in trouble. And my question really hasn't been answered, but I'm guessing from some responses that the answer is no they won't be protected.
If I have neighbors? Who can say they own the already built road?
jaredsmith: if I was an 8 year old in trouble.
Don't most 8 year olds in trouble have some sort of legal guardian to attend? I don't understand your question. It seems to imply that children would be discarded when in need.
It misleads us because your directing a what-if question at anarcho capitalism but modern mixed-market big government systems do nothing to address the needs of children either.
jaredsmith: If I have neighbors? Who can say they own the already built road?
Your neighbors and you own the entire community as a single estate based on some form of cooperative ownership, or it can be owned by some other landlord from whom you rent land. (Both systems are more or less the same.)
So the profits of the toll collection would/ could be split up between neighbors/community? Also how does one come to claim his/her land (if land is not owned by anyone and say a couple different people want it)?
jaredsmith:Also how does one come to claim his/her land (if land is not owned by anyone and say a couple different people want it)?
Whoever used it first becomes the original appropriator.
Stranger: jaredsmith:Also how does one come to claim his/her land (if land is not owned by anyone and say a couple different people want it)? Whoever used it first becomes the original appropriator.
Exactly, We subscribe to the concept of homesteading, as Stranger explains.
jaredsmith:I'm not asking about other goods or trying to compare to other situations. All I am trying to know is if there is a way to guarantee the rights for people that are in no position to pay for them. Just because I am 8 years old and I have no way of getting a job that could pay for my security does this mean I have no protection?
First, I think you have to be careful with the word "rights." Certainly, the child has these rights - just as I have the right at present to keep my property. But having a right is not in itself a guarantee that the right will be respected - after all, I'm taxed. So, yes, we can guarantee that those who can't afford to pay for protection have the full set of negative rights - but not that they are able to enforce these.
Now, we have ways to provide them - through charity, through low-cost insurance plans, and so on. But, in the end, we have no guarantee that the protection can be provided to each and every person, and yes, those who cannot afford to pay for it are less likely to have it than others.
But, to be fair, you cannot put this forward as a problem with anarcho-capitalism unless you are willing to apply it to the alternative. The alternative to anarchy is some form of statism. Is there any form of statism under which we can guarantee such protection to everyone? If not, then the lack of that guarantee is not a problem, and I'd maintain that the answer is no. So a fair question to ask is - do more or less people have such protection under anarchy vs. statism, and how is the decision made as to who has it? Under statism, it's made in a variety of more or less arbitrary ways. Under anarchy, it's made, in my opinion, in the most morally acceptable way - the value of effort from others that you may claim is equal to the value that you have provided for others, mediated through the price system. What is your suggestion for the rationing?
jaredsmith:You act like I'm trying to defend our current system. I'm not. I'm just trying to imagine what an anarchist society would be like. In one way I'm doing this by imagining if I was an 8 year old in trouble. And my question really hasn't been answered, but I'm guessing from some responses that the answer is no they won't be protected.
Ok, that's one thing to imagine. One can also imagine being in a variety of other dangerous positions in a state. The question is - when are more such positions likely to arise, how do they arise, and what can be done about them? I would submit that under statism, the situation arises more often, in a more morally arbitrary way, and less can be done about it. It really isn't fair to come up with "what-if" scenarios for one system without addressing their analogues in other systems.
As an extreme example, anarchy cannot possibly function if literally every member of society is a psychopath. This cannot count as a deficit, though, since no form of state would work either - work in the sense of produce a functioning society. Anarchy cannot lead to immortality, nor can it cope with a deadly virus that is extremely infectious and kills with absolute certainty - in the sense that no treatment could possible be devised. But, then again, neither could any other system. You cannot compare a system to utopia, you have to compare it to other options. If utopia were an option, most of us would pick it.
Ok most of my questions have either been answered in this forum or by other research, but one last question: what best describes my friend's idea of "market anarchy"?
I was thinking a mix of direct democracy and minarchy.
jaredsmith: what best describes my friend's idea of "market anarchy"? I was thinking a mix of direct democracy and minarchy.
what best describes my friend's idea of "market anarchy"?
But what your friend described
jaredsmith:So an anarcho-cap friend of mine was telling me that there would be several groups within a society that meet together to propose new ideas for rules and regulations on what society does, but he told me that the citizens would vote on each and every one of these rules and regulations.
This is not Anarcho capitalism at all. I don't know what he's talking about but any use of a democracy is a negation of freedom. The democratic process is a process that employs coercion. The market does not do this.
I realize he is wrong, but what was he describing? (As I posted: I was thinking a mix of direct democracy and minarchy.)