Although I'm by no means aligned with this guy's political ideology, he makes a good point. Is an anarcho-capitalist society really that "free" if virtually everything is private property?
Of course it would take time for another company to emerge. Any solution you could possibly propose will take time, and I could just as easily ask you what you expect people to do in the meanwhile. People are supposed to do whatever they are supposed to do. The answer to their problems won't fall out of of the sky.
You didn't mention boycotts. You're just positing a corporation that simply doesn't care whether consumers are satisfied or not, doesn't care about effects of its behavior on its reputation, and doesn't care about whether its holding prices high will attract outside entrants. You can do that if you want, but I dispute whether that's a likely scenario. Does the CEO have devil horns too?
Why do you also assume that all the roads are owned by one entity? Empirically, at least, in free markets there are usually several competing utility companies. Cartels are also quickly broken down when there is free entry.
Mutual aid doesn't necessarily mean that people go without your roads, though they might well and decide to take another route/mode of transportation. Your roads are competing with every other alternative on the market, after all. It may also mean that they provide each other with cash to make the purchase.
Again, there are plenty of possible solutions. I don't think its me that has to defend them all, since real life is much more complicated, so much as you that needs to justify why you are so certain that people are stupid and incapable of solving problems like this.
Buzz Killington:But surely when a certain system (private roads in this case) is proposed, you have to face the problems it creates!
Perhaps. But I think the "problems" in this case are not so much caused by private roads as just the general human desire to be a jackass. They will be present under any system you adopt. And there may be all sorts of ways of solving them. People have come this far.
MMMark:Let's make things even worse. In addition to doing all the rotten things you've mentioned, let's give this dictatorial corporation six more powers: 1. The power to make everybody pay for its roads, whether or not those people use the roads, without suffering any legal consequences; 2. The power to impose a money monopoly on all the people, grant the monopoly to itself, and then print as much money as it pleases. Now it can never go broke or bankrupt. 3. The power to assault, imprison, and kill any other competitors in the road business, without suffering any legal consequences. 4. The power to assault, imprison, and kill angry protestors, without suffering any legal consequences. 5. The power to do all these things anywhere in the world (see, for example, Lew Rockwell: US enjoys sending Tomahawks, killing). 6. The power to do anything else, all without legal consequences. In other words, let's turn this dictatorial corporation into...a government. It seems to me that, even in the highly unlikely, worst-case scenario, the free market is preferable, and by a considerable margin.
I don't believe in government owned roads, I just am skeptical of having all roads be private (I would like there to be at least some voluntarily funded roads built by communities).
Perhaps there could be a mixture of "public" (community built) and private roads.
Too many fallacies, but I stopped at 3:57. His business "quickly becomes an astounding successs, consumers love his products and this drives millions of businesses out of the market."
Back to reality, that business is Google, and it has CREATED untold opportunities and market expansion, it has vastly improved the productivity of the entire world. Case closed.
Mon. 12/05/28 21:28 EDT .post #157
Buzz Killington:I don't believe in government owned roads, I just am skeptical of having all roads be private (I would like there to be at least some voluntarily funded roads built by communities).Perhaps there could be a mixture of "public" (community built) and private roads.
triknighted:I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so I can answer unbiasedly.
So only anarcho-capitalists are biased?
triknighted:He brings up a point about people being intelligent enough to own everything, but I say why not? If someone is so intelligent and capable that he or she can, in essence, have a foothold in every industry, then it's still not slavery. Like the alien said, "You are free to not work for me," something to that effect. In essence, it isn't slavery.
Agreed.
triknighted:On a smaller scale, it is the same. What happens when you own a pizza [shop], and right next door someone builds another pizza shop that taste better for less money? That's competition. You need to adapt. What's keeping you from making an even better recipe or lowering your prices, or offering more supply for the same demand? Nothing is stopping you.
triknighted:Now if the alien decided to build a wall in the design of a fence on land that he bought fairly, thus keeping everyone in . . . that's why I'm not an anarcho capitalist, because it could happen. Nobody is there to enforce any law against purchasing private property, and if they wanted to avoid it, they would need private law enforcement, and who's to say the owner of the law enforcement agency isn't the property purchaser's grandkid.
Actually, I think this scenario is more likely when a state exists, because the state considers itself (so to speak) to be the true owner of all the land under its jurisdiction. But it has an interest in letting people believe that things are otherwise.
On the other hand, I'm confused by your statement that "nobody is there to enforce any law against purchasing private property". Why do you make that assumption? It seems to me that you're implicitly switching to your preferred definition of "anarchy", which is synonymous with "chaos". However, anarcho-capitalists neither desire nor advocate chaos.
triknighted:Too many what ifs. I think a government is needed simply to preserve individuality, liberty and property, and such a thing would certainly intrude on liberty as it boxes people in. Liberty takes precedence over property. For instance, if a helpless heroine is locked in someone's car and the owner is holding her against her will and you see her trying to escape when she can't, absolutely destroy the property to help her get out. Liberty over property always (though I admit such a case where a distinction would be needed is rare).
I think reading about the self-ownership principle might help you here. To me, liberty requires respecting self-ownership. But that means respecting what's essentially a property right in one's own body. So there's no necessary dichotomy or dilemma between liberty on the one hand and property on the other.
Finally, if you were to ask me whether I think one or more states could arise from anarcho-capitalism, my answer would be yes. That might surprise you, but I see the rejection of (consistent) self-ownership as the founding principle for every state. Even today, a majority of people seem to reject consistent self-ownership, because they seem to think that parents own their children (in some cases, until the state-defined "age of majority").
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
triknighted:What I mean is this: if I bought a property in the middle of what is no Kansas, let's say, and there's a lot of property around mine that I don't own so someone buys it and, say he's a sociopath, decides to build a 20 ft. wall I have no means of climbing over, and the wall surrounds my property, who comes to my aid if I can't defend myself? It's a legitimate question that I have [not] yet heard an answer to.
With all due respect, I think you're trying to hold onto something that I call "the illusion of certainty". What I mean is that you seem to be assuming that, with a state, you would necessarily be rescued from such a situation, perhaps even within a certain amount of time. But how does that follow? Indeed, when it comes to the United States, there have been multiple court cases that have clearly explained that state agents have no legal obligation to protect individuals. I don't know for sure, but I imagine there have been similar court cases in other countries.
No serious anarcho-capitalist believes that abandoning the state will usher in Heaven on Earth. I think it's safe to assume that (what we see as) injustice will still occur even in the absence of the state. But I also think that abandoning the state will necessarily amount in less injustice occurring thenceforth, as the state cannot continue to exist without committing injustice.
triknighted:The AnCap model sounds nice, and I agree, businesses would function and on the whole, things would be really good for a while . . . until another nation decides to invade the territory/region/area (I know there's private ownership of weaponry, which is good, and private companies can develop weapons, which is even better . . . but I need evidence that it can compete with the technology and organization of an entire military or two that might attack us) and until people start having competing companies interpret "the law" differently.
Check out what the Afghani and Iraqi "insurgents" have done against the US and allied military forces over there. No, the latter haven't entirely left (yet), but they are pulling back quite a bit.
I think a counter-balance to interpreting "the law" differently is keeping "the law" as limited as possible. One could say that this is what classical liberals really meant by "limited government".
Autolykos: triknighted:The AnCap model sounds nice, and I agree, businesses would function and on the whole, things would be really good for a while . . . until another nation decides to invade the territory/region/area (I know there's private ownership of weaponry, which is good, and private companies can develop weapons, which is even better . . . but I need evidence that it can compete with the technology and organization of an entire military or two that might attack us) and until people start having competing companies interpret "the law" differently. Check out what the Afghani and Iraqi "insurgents" have done against the US and allied military forces over there. No, the latter haven't entirely left (yet), but they are pulling back quite a bit. I think a counter-balance to interpreting "the law" differently is keeping "the law" as limited as possible. One could say that this is what classical liberals really meant by "limited government".
I would consider myself to be a classical liberal, and I agree. One thing you should take into account is that the Rules of Engagement have made U.S. forces equivalent of putting a huge guy in a street fight forcing him to wear boxing gloves and adhere to strict boxing rules while he's fighting a no-rules street fighter with brass knuckles. It's how to British lost and, unfortunately, it's how our military operates. There are no rules to war.
triknighted:I would consider myself to be a classical liberal, and I agree.
So there's your answer. The only thing I think you have left to abandon is the notion that there must be a territorial monopolist in settling disputes. Such a monopolist would have to resort to aggression to enforce its monopoly, which conflicts with the non-aggression principle.
triknighted:One thing you should take into account is that the Rules of Engagement have made U.S. forces equivalent of putting a huge guy in a street fight forcing him to wear boxing gloves and adhere to strict boxing rules while he's fighting a no-rules street fighter with brass knuckles. It's how to British lost and, unfortunately, it's how our military operates.
For one thing, my understanding is that the official British rules of engagement weren't as strict as the official US rules of engagement. For another, US military forces have broken their official rules of engagement many times over. I don't know about the British, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they did as well.
triknighted:There are no rules to war.
That depends on what you think the point of war is. Do you agree with Clausewitz, that war is politics by other means? Or do you take a more primitive view - that war is simply about trying to exterminate "the enemy"?
Autolykos: triknighted:I would consider myself to be a classical liberal, and I agree. So there's your answer. The only thing I think you have left to abandon is the notion that there must be a territorial monopolist in settling disputes. Such a monopolist would have to resort to aggression to enforce its monopoly, which conflicts with the non-aggression principle. triknighted:One thing you should take into account is that the Rules of Engagement have made U.S. forces equivalent of putting a huge guy in a street fight forcing him to wear boxing gloves and adhere to strict boxing rules while he's fighting a no-rules street fighter with brass knuckles. It's how to British lost and, unfortunately, it's how our military operates. For one thing, my understanding is that the official British rules of engagement weren't as strict as the official US rules of engagement. For another, US military forces have broken their official rules of engagement many times over. I don't know about the British, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they did as well. triknighted:There are no rules to war. That depends on what you think the point of war is. Do you agree with Clausewitz, that war is politics by other means? Or do you take a more primitive view - that war is simply about trying to exterminate "the enemy"?
Also, my understanding is that wearing boxing gloves means your hands are protected far better than a pair of brass knuckles, and is one of the reason for the large increase in brain damage and fatalities and serious injuries compared to bare-knuckle boxing. (Which focuses far more on body hits.)
So basically, you give one guy these gloves, and as long as he has them on he can keep breaking faces of the guilty and innocent alike, without feeling any pain from it. Yeah, an apt analogy for warcrimes under the cover of humanitarianism.