I typed in "anarcho-capitalism" on Facebook just to see if there was a page. There is. Then I saw three comments towards the bottom of the page.
1. Anarcho-Capitalists would inevitably commit the same violence they criticize the state of. Thus, the spirit of anarcho-capitalism is not realistic or attainable.
2. I just want to state that Anarcho-capitalism is as moronic and displaced from reality as Marxism. Neither can work in real world practice.
3. Eh my 2 cents, it doesn't really work, an unregulated financial system will always lead to the rich getting richer and the poor getting taken advantage of.
What do you possibly say to these types of people? All of the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist beliefs I have now are from reading a ridiculous amount of studies/papers by Ron Paul, Rockwell, etc. I can't tell these people, "Yeah, go read this 300-page book by Rothbard and it will explain where you're wrong." I'll write down the answers I'd give to the previous comments, but hopefully you guys can tell me what you say to people who criticize the free market that will at least get them to look into it rather than assume the worst.
1. If people are naturally violent, there's no point of putting them in power. When it comes to two people with the same amount of violence inside of them, the one in power is much more dangerous.
2. I don't even know how to respond to this. It's basically an assumption with no facts brought up or anything.
3. I know that's absolutely untrue because a true free market would adjust. But how would I quickly explain how the price of goods would automatically fall if people weren't paid enough to buy the goods in the first place? This is all known knowledge to me, so it's hard to tell what people know. This kid goes on to explain that the financial crisis was due to the deregulation of financial institutions, so I guess he doesn't know much at all.
Anyone have advice for me?
What violence, and how would anarcho-capitalist (who wouldn't have the same monopoly of force as the State) commit the same violence as the State? The statement is nonsensical, I can't see where an-caps would commit the same type of violence.
Markets work in real world practice, why wouldn't anarcho-capitalism work in real world practice if all the services the State provides would be provided competitively on the market?
Just another strawman, as are the other two. Anyone can make simple-minded statements like these on a social networking program and act like they are a damn philosopher. I've been in a few quarrel's on Facebook, and the other person had no knowledge of anything, when I'd actually bring up reading a book on economy theory they got quiet. They just spew out some rhetoric and generalizations about libertarians, and try to make it an insult, for example "anarcho-capitalist want to get rid of min wage laws lol". If I start citing sources to support my case, they shut up. It can sometimes be hard to ignore, especially when you know you have the upperhand, and one can so easily point out the flaws etc, but it's generally useless.
I was arguing with a Marxist (or communist, he didn't want to sit still, so I couldn't pin him down that easily). I sent him a link to chapter 7 of Theory & History (and some other things) and the debate came to a hault. Sometime later in another debate, after he finally read what I sent him, he tried to be sarcastic and reply with "If I was an idiot I would be a dialectical materialist, which I'm not", without providing anymore information, I wrapped up Marxist philosophy in a nutshell, in which he could no longer reply.
How about
Serious academics subscribe to anarcho capitalism, marxism, democracy, republicanism, etc. None of these ideas can be dispensed in a few flippant sentences. Try harder.
The other issue I would say is that there is a serious amount of "mental debugging" to be done. What I mean is that you have to deprogram yourself from the Statist mindset and that takes a great amount of time to study and learn the arguments. People who are disinterested will stay with the status quo. My trek to become an-cap took me 7 months, and even longer to change from being your everyday Republican into a minarchist (which really just spawned after having an attitude of wanting to be different from my parents and peers, but after seriously looking at the arguments I think I made the right choice ).
At any rate, I just try dropping little hints whenever I can in the hopes that they will pick up study on their own (which would be the only way to truly convince them). Whenever something anti-State comes up, I offer the proposition of checking out Rothbard on Wikipedia. That's pretty much how I got started after learning how much everybody idolized him.
As for the individual answers, here would be my try in a few sentences per objection:
1. This isn't the central objection to the State from an-caps. An-caps are just opposed to the monopolization of force which leads to abuse. An-caps are not against rules, just a healthy respect for rules which is actualized via the dillution of power. Free markets would enable defense contractors to respect the rights of people more frequently and only enforce laws that are egregious enough for people willing to spend money (this would eliminate waste and get rid of egregious things like the war on drugs and prostitution which is wasting your money). [Note: This of course goes back to the mental debugging I was talking about, these people would first need to get off of their moral high horses and realize how they are being busybodies]
2. This doesn't deal with the argument, first and foremost. Calling something a pipe dream does not diminish its legitimacy just because you find it unfeasible. This doesn't even constitute an argument. I would also state the case that there aren't a bunch of would-be criminals running around waiting to ruin society if not for the existence of state police. The people who believe the State protects them never can name single individuals who would, in the absence of the state, begin stealing, raping, and murdering (and even then there would still be private defense to quell those things if it were true).
3. What does "unregulated" mean in this context? Why can't the free market create regulatory firms if there is demand for regulation? Do you have any reason to believe the rich would continue getting richer at the expense of the working class? [INSERT: some random information about the late 1800s and financial expansion rate]
Depending on how much room you have/time you want to spend, you can do a few things.
Here are a few suggestions.
- A world without theft, murder and rape isn't likely, but theoretical conceivable and desirable; that's why we want to achieve it. The anarchist ideal is to have a functioning society, without the institution government - based upon taxation and the monopoly of law. Maybe it's not achievable, but isn't there something attractive to it - just as a world without theft is?
- Don't try the moral argument only and when you do, try to do it in a non-dogmatic way. 'Taxation is theft', for example, is a conclusion, not an argument. Try to play the 'isn't there something morally dubious with the institution government and the way it threats citizens as resources'? Something like that.
- Try to emphasize - if they aren't full blown communists - that what anarchists do is push the extend voluntary interaction (communual, for profit, non profit, etc.) is used in society to achieve goals and so on. We can have a reasonable discussion wether or not this can be done for certain things - but dismissing it out of hand, is just begging the question, isn't it? Unless they think anarchists are only crazy people; the principle of charitable interpretation should reign supreme.
- Try to emphasize that there are indeed good and reasonable possibilities that a stateless society could break down; but that this is true for all societies everywhere. Proving that it 'might' brake down isn't good enough; you have to proof that it is more likely to have bad results - or far worse results - than the nationstate global order we live in. That's a lot harder to do.
Stuf like that works more. Even if they aren't convinced, I think I have better conversations because of it.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.