Anarcho-Capitalists: YouTube challenge

Can anyone provide answers to this guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlEjbhqOBeM

Is it QTronman's video? The Objectivist? Bleh. I've wasted about 5 video responses on him over the past week.

LibertyIsNotGiven, D4Shawn and few others have already made some decent responses.

His super-sarcastic demeanor is super-annoying. Also, his chin-growth is not diametrically proportioned, which for some reason annoys me as well.

The questions are pretty standard. Roads: the growth of the usage of the automobile obviously goes hand in hand with governments laying down highways through land confiscations. So demanding that free markets provide the same kind of leisure that you can enjoy when the government takes from others to provide for you, is kind of stupid. Toll roads exist. Private/communal roads exist. I personally use a private road 4-5 times a week and the road is maintained by only 15-20 people living in houses along the road. Sure, it's not tarmacked and it has a few potholes (which, by the way, government maintained roads have around here, as well, besides the big highways the politicians themselves use), but I have a suspension in my car as well as a driving wheel, with which to steer clear of the potholes.

Fire departments: First off, setting fires or paying someone to set fires is not a good business model. Obviously you are going to get caught at some point and be in world of doodoo. Secondly, as far as I can see, a better business model would be to offer fire protection coverage based on monthly fees. This would ensure a steady income as well as eliminate any incentive for the fire department to set fires, as more fires would only mean more expenses. It would also create an incentive for the fire department to push for more fire prevention (smoke alarms, extinguishers, etc) either through varying fees or outright denying service to those unwilling to take these preventative measures.

Libertas est Veritas:

His super-sarcastic demeanor is super-annoying. Also, his chin-growth is not diametrically proportioned, which for some reason annoys me as well.

The questions are pretty standard. Roads: the growth of the usage of the automobile obviously goes hand in hand with governments laying down highways through land confiscations. So demanding that free markets provide the same kind of leisure that you can enjoy when the government takes from others to provide for you, is kind of stupid. Toll roads exist. Private/communal roads exist. I personally use a private road 4-5 times a week and the road is maintained by only 15-20 people living in houses along the road. Sure, it's not tarmacked and it has a few potholes (which, by the way, government maintained roads have around here, as well, besides the big highways the politicians themselves use), but I have a suspension in my car as well as a driving wheel, with which to steer clear of the potholes.

Fire departments: First off, setting fires or paying someone to set fires is not a good business model. Obviously you are going to get caught at some point and be in world of doodoo. Secondly, as far as I can see, a better business model would be to offer fire protection coverage based on monthly fees. This would ensure a steady income as well as eliminate any incentive for the fire department to set fires, as more fires would only mean more expenses. It would also create an incentive for the fire department to push for more fire prevention (smoke alarms, extinguishers, etc) either through varying fees or outright denying service to those unwilling to take these preventative measures.

We need only go back a hundred years when New York had these market fire stations and it did not work out well then, what would make it work well now? What about the poor bastards who do not have the fee to pay for service. A free market can work for the most part but in some instances I believe it to be impractical.

 

 

anonnymous:

We need only go back a hundred years when New York had these market fire stations and it did not work out well then, what would make it work well now? What about the poor bastards who do not have the fee to pay for service. A free market can work for the most part but in some instances I believe it to be impractical.

 So what you are saying is, "People freely associating can work for the most part, but sometimes they have to be forced to do what's best for them."

As far as the poor go, there are volunteer fire stations that work quite well around where I live (Midwest US).

You never cited what in specific was wrong with them, why it was so and why that would legitimise the non sequitur of government provision of the service.

-Jon

wombatron:

As far as the poor go, there are volunteer fire stations that work quite well around where I live (Midwest US).

I agree. We have similar facilities in my neck of the woods. It's not even mainly about helping the poor, but people view it as a meaningful and rewarding way to spend one's free time. They enjoy the community feeling that quenching fires brings about, and of course the reverence of their fellow men.

AnCap is not just about making profits. In the absence of coercive government, voluntary non-profit associations won't disappear, but are likely to expand their services due to a reallocation of funds which had formerly been consumed by government.

Plus, I strongly doubt a government agency would be able to put a 100$ as effectively into actually fighting fires than any private organization, be it business or non-profit, could.

Sphairon:

wombatron:

As far as the poor go, there are volunteer fire stations that work quite well around where I live (Midwest US).

I agree. We have similar facilities in my neck of the woods. It's not even mainly about helping the poor, but people view it as a meaningful and rewarding way to spend one's free time. They enjoy the community feeling that quenching fires brings about, and of course the reverence of their fellow men.

AnCap is not just about making profits. In the absence of coercive government, voluntary non-profit associations won't disappear, but are likely to expand their services due to a reallocation of funds which had formerly been consumed by government.

Plus, I strongly doubt a government agency would be able to put a 100$ as effectively into actually fighting fires than any private organization, be it business or non-profit, could.

 

 I agree completely.

wombatron:

 

anonnymous:

We need only go back a hundred years when New York had these market fire stations and it did not work out well then, what would make it work well now? What about the poor bastards who do not have the fee to pay for service. A free market can work for the most part but in some instances I believe it to be impractical.

 So what you are saying is, "People freely associating can work for the most part, but sometimes they have to be forced to do what's best for them."

As far as the poor go, there are volunteer fire stations that work quite well around where I live (Midwest US).

 

no I am not saying sometimes people need to be forced, or that it is even ethical to force anyone to do anything. Maybe an arraingment can be worked out for the poor in a free market. What I am saying is that all people should be afforded the opportunity to have fire protection even if they can not afford a privately held force. We to have volunteer fire services around here but most volunteer services are partially funded thru the state.

Jon Irenicus:

You never cited what in specific was wrong with them, why it was so and why that would legitimise the non sequitur of government provision of the service.

-Jon

 

much the same problems that have been discussed here and elsewhere. Competiton starting fires, fires being started to force people to purchase services, people not having the funds just plain not having service and other corrupt actions. I am not suggesting that government needs to be the one to provide the service. I would prefer the private sector do it but it must include provisions for the common good of the community.

 

 

I too agree completely and think that altruism would go a long way in assuring all people fire protection.

I don't see why there would be any more "competition" to destroy houses by firemen than there would be similar competition among carpenters.  Or perhaps car companies (or car insurance companies) carjacking cars and running them off bridges.

We to expect an anarchist society to be filled with rogue carpenters and car companies bent on making profits?

 

Should we have state control of house building and car selling?

no and I am not suggesting such but in a free market there will be corupt people to contend with and there will always be disadvantaged people as well. The challenge is how to deal with both.

Thing is, in the free market corrupt people tend to lose money. In the government, corrupt people tend to rise above.

How about bundled services?

You don't pay your fire protection monthly bill and your water and power also go off since they are billed by the same company.

I was thinking this could work in communities as a condition of purchasing the house in the first place. Then have as a contractual clause that the 'community association' has the first right to purchase the house in the case that the residents want to sell so they could impose these conditions on the next buyers as well to take care of the 'free loader' problem.

You don't like it, don't buy a house in that community.

Sure, it's just recreating the state through contract but if someone were truly opposed to something like this they would be free to live in some shanty town and not have to worry about paying for services they didn't feel they really needed.

And isn't the constant cry of 'what about the poor' just a red herring to show how the Free Market is heartless and that the Invisible Hand goes around bitchslapping people who are less well off than your bourgeoisie ass?

"What about the poor" working their way out of poverty instead of becoming reliant on State funded charity?

"What about the poor" working their way out of poverty instead of becoming reliant on State funded charity?

 

What about being human and caring for your fellow humans who can least afford to live? I am not suggesting that a welfare state be created but unless humans can address the needs of the truely poor and disadvantaged a free market would result in people losing their humanity in exchange for proffit. I truly think that the issue could be address without creating a welfare state. Such as maintaining a stable currency, educating people in understanding the overall benifit of a educated and healthy populace, teaching that compassion and love for fellow human beings is a virtue, that issues can be resolved without forcing people to comply, quite the contrary people who are compassionate and giving rarely need to be forced.

And what I wrote precludes this option?

thats nonsense, what about the disabled, undereducated, racial class structure, hell I personally know good honest hard working people and have been their intire life that if they lost their jobs today would be destitute in a matter of months, some weeks. In a free market there would be an oligarchy just as there is now and no amount of hard work would overcome that.

anonnymous:

thats nonsense, what about the disabled, undereducated, racial class structure, hell I personally know good honest hard working people and have been their intire life that if they lost their jobs today would be destitute in a matter of months, some weeks. In a free market there would be an oligarchy just as there is now and no amount of hard work would overcome that.

Well, given that:

1) Almost all oligarchies and monopolies right now are government created, and

2) The labour problems today are entirely government created because of their labour laws, minimum wages, taxes, etc.

On what exactly are you basing the assumption that a stateless society will have oligarchistic and monopolistic competition?

 

Are they going to be destitute because they have no savings during frictional unemployment? Blame the banking system, low interest rates, inflation defrauding the savers, etc.

Are they unable to find jobs because of structural unemployment? Blame the government's labour laws, high taxes strangling industries, the financial system that didn't let them save for a re-education scheme, and the crap the government provides for re-education. As well as decades wasted on public "education" *cough* indoctrination.

Are they unable to find jobs because of cyclical unemployment? Blame fractional reserve banking which causes the boom-bust cycle.

So far, all of your problems have been caused by the government's intervention, and in the absense of any logical or empirical proof that the free market naturally tends towards unjust monopolies and oligopolies, I fail to see your argument.

 

Within the government, schemes that work have their budgets cut. Programmes that fail, have their budgets boosted. The government rewards failure and punishes success, even in its own programmes.

Within the government, due to their monopolistic nature, corruption thrives because you have no alternatives. The free market however provides the best cure and prevention against corruption - competition.

 

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at...

much the same problems that have been discussed here and elsewhere. Competiton starting fires, fires being started to force people to purchase services, people not having the funds just plain not having service and other corrupt actions. I am not suggesting that government needs to be the one to provide the service. I would prefer the private sector do it but it must include provisions for the common good of the community.

Not buying that this is a problem with the market. Sounds more like a lack of enforcement of the law. As for people lacking the funds, they can rely on charity and/or cheaper rates under competition.

-Jon

anonnymous:

thats nonsense, what about the disabled, undereducated, racial class structure, hell I personally know good honest hard working people and have been their intire life that if they lost their jobs today would be destitute in a matter of months, some weeks. In a free market there would be an oligarchy just as there is now and no amount of hard work would overcome that.

If we are still talking about fire corporations, don't those people pay property taxes? And house insurance? (at least here, house insurance is mandatory.) Then private fire corps don't really change anything other than it would be forced by the house insurance, possibly part of the package. It's not like it would be expensive... In the cities, where the risk is higher and you may need expensive capital like helicopeters and very well trained workers, it would be more expensive for each building to have, but in each building you have a lot of people living there, so it would result in the same costs.

In a free market, you have no oligarchy. The rich don't climb by pushing the poor down, and the poor don't have claims on the rich. Btw, racial discrimination is unlikely without segregation laws and some labor laws that take away the comparative advantage of them. And anyway, you can't fight it with laws.

anonnymous:

thats nonsense, what about the disabled, undereducated, racial class structure, hell I personally know good honest hard working people and have been their intire life that if they lost their jobs today would be destitute in a matter of months, some weeks.

What about them?

The whole premise of your argument is based around the assumption that without the State there would be no charity to provide for people who are down on their luck.

Even today I stop in little towns across the US and see donation cans with a sign that reads something to the effect of "Sarah's college fund" to help some local underprivileged kid become the first person in their family to go to college. The purpose of this isn't so they can go and not work a day at the university while on the financial aid gravy train like I managed to do in combination with the GI Bill but to 'allow' them to even have the chance to bootstrap themselves in to a financially stable situation in The Big City.

Now I do admit that all the private charity groups would practice a 'welfare to work' program unlike the multi-generational welfare recipient system we have today. But without the minimum wage pricing these people out of the market there would be a viable path to escape the 'poverty cycle'.

The 'racial class structure' has some financial disincentives attached to is as well if the business owners aren't legally restricted from hiring the 'downtrodden' race, see below.

As to the disabled, you think Quasimodo hung around the Notre Dame Cathedral just for kicks or did the priests put him to work performing tasks that were within his abilities? Maybe like ringing the bell, giving him a purpose instead of just living like a useless drain on society.

And do you think the parishioners didn't realize that their church donations were going to support him and had a problem with this as long as he didn't go around snatching up little girls?

True, saying church donations were 'voluntary' back then is a bit of a stretch, but you get the point...the community looking out for 'their own' instead of some nameless, faceless bureaucrat treating them with contempt and disdain because they are making them have to work when they get paid the same no matter how much work they do.

anonnymous:

In a free market there would be an oligarchy just as there is now and no amount of hard work would overcome that.

Of course there would be...if you listen to all the statist propaganda.

But in reality without having the State to prop up these economically unstable relationships you would find the opposite.

Two different factories, on will only hire whites while the other will hire anyone that is capable enough to do the job, which do you think will be able to produce a cheaper product given the assumption there is a surplus of black workers and so their wage rates are depressed compared to white workers?

The only way the 'whites only' factory could hope to compete is to get a law making it illegal to hire a black worker and under a Free Market this would be impossible to do.

Even if the whole local society supported these racially segregated practices there is nothing stopping an outsider from coming in and setting up shop to take advantage of the glut of surplus workers. The locals couldn't stop this from happening as they would be unable to use the Long Arm of the Law to stop them and as the now employed workers have money to spend in the local economy they would probably be a bit wary of spending it at places that discriminate against them. So now you have a boom in non-discriminatory businesses that would provide the exact same goods and services as the established ones but at a cheaper price due to them also being able to take advantage of a surplus labor situation.

Feel free to replace 'discriminate' with any method that this supposed oligarchy would use to establish control of the market place.

So, I repeat, what about them?

Fred Furash:

anonnymous:

thats nonsense, what about the disabled, undereducated, racial class structure, hell I personally know good honest hard working people and have been their intire life that if they lost their jobs today would be destitute in a matter of months, some weeks. In a free market there would be an oligarchy just as there is now and no amount of hard work would overcome that.

Well, given that:

1) Almost all oligarchies and monopolies right now are government created, and

2) The labour problems today are entirely government created because of their labour laws, minimum wages, taxes, etc.

On what exactly are you basing the assumption that a stateless society will have oligarchistic and monopolistic competition?

 

Are they going to be destitute because they have no savings during frictional unemployment? Blame the banking system, low interest rates, inflation defrauding the savers, etc.

Are they unable to find jobs because of structural unemployment? Blame the government's labour laws, high taxes strangling industries, the financial system that didn't let them save for a re-education scheme, and the crap the government provides for re-education. As well as decades wasted on public "education" *cough* indoctrination.

Are they unable to find jobs because of cyclical unemployment? Blame fractional reserve banking which causes the boom-bust cycle.

So far, all of your problems have been caused by the government's intervention, and in the absense of any logical or empirical proof that the free market naturally tends towards unjust monopolies and oligopolies, I fail to see your argument.

 

Within the government, schemes that work have their budgets cut. Programmes that fail, have their budgets boosted. The government rewards failure and punishes success, even in its own programmes.

Within the government, due to their monopolistic nature, corruption thrives because you have no alternatives. The free market however provides the best cure and prevention against corruption - competition.

 

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at...

One, I am not suggesting that we have big government taking care of the needs of people. I am for as free a market as the people will allow.My contention is that even if you had an entirely free market there would be people who are disadvantaged and those issues would need to be addressed and wether the people would be resolved to do so is doubtful given the examples of greed and  corruption that we see today. There would be a need for regulation as well, for people left to their own devices will not always behave in a responsible or ethical manner. I think we can agree that if we did not have this massive government that we now have there most certainly would be a lot more money in circulation in the economy. Would that money be used in an ethical and responsible manner? The way I see human nature today I doubt seriously that that would be the case with all companies or all the people. My main point is that even though a free market theoretically can exist realistically would it be more benificial than the capitalist system that has gotten us were we are today

 Government magnifies the power of the corrupt and the selfish-without-a-self.  On a free market, corruption would simply not be profitable.

There would be a need for regulation as well, for people left to their own devices will not always behave in a responsible or ethical manner.

Regulating people is never the solution to anything.  The entire point of libertarianism is that people are left to make their own decisions with their own life, liberty, and property.

BlackSheep:

anonnymous:

thats nonsense, what about the disabled, undereducated, racial class structure, hell I personally know good honest hard working people and have been their intire life that if they lost their jobs today would be destitute in a matter of months, some weeks. In a free market there would be an oligarchy just as there is now and no amount of hard work would overcome that.

If we are still talking about fire corporations, don't those people pay property taxes? And house insurance? (at least here, house insurance is mandatory.) Then private fire corps don't really change anything other than it would be forced by the house insurance, possibly part of the package. It's not like it would be expensive... In the cities, where the risk is higher and you may need expensive capital like helicopeters and very well trained workers, it would be more expensive for each building to have, but in each building you have a lot of people living there, so it would result in the same costs.

In a free market, you have no oligarchy. The rich don't climb by pushing the poor down, and the poor don't have claims on the rich. Btw, racial discrimination is unlikely without segregation laws and some labor laws that take away the comparative advantage of them. And anyway, you can't fight it with laws.

You make very valid points with the fire insurance issue but then again one would be putting their faith in a company that could very well declare banckruptcy or deny coverage for various reasons. In a free market their would be any number of people that would make considerable amounts of money greater than most simply thru better business practices and there for would over time aquire a certain degree of power, a free market does not imply that everything would be equal. I agree you can't fight racial discrimination on an individual level with laws but on a public level it would pose a problem in the form of segregation, we can see that today not because of government but because people practice it in their schools, churches, and businesses.

 

Anonymous Coward:

anonnymous:

thats nonsense, what about the disabled, undereducated, racial class structure, hell I personally know good honest hard working people and have been their intire life that if they lost their jobs today would be destitute in a matter of months, some weeks.

What about them?

The whole premise of your argument is based around the assumption that without the State there would be no charity to provide for people who are down on their luck.

Even today I stop in little towns across the US and see donation cans with a sign that reads something to the effect of "Sarah's college fund" to help some local underprivileged kid become the first person in their family to go to college. The purpose of this isn't so they can go and not work a day at the university while on the financial aid gravy train like I managed to do in combination with the GI Bill but to 'allow' them to even have the chance to bootstrap themselves in to a financially stable situation in The Big City.

Now I do admit that all the private charity groups would practice a 'welfare to work' program unlike the multi-generational welfare recipient system we have today. But without the minimum wage pricing these people out of the market there would be a viable path to escape the 'poverty cycle'.

The 'racial class structure' has some financial disincentives attached to is as well if the business owners aren't legally restricted from hiring the 'downtrodden' race, see below.

As to the disabled, you think Quasimodo hung around the Notre Dame Cathedral just for kicks or did the priests put him to work performing tasks that were within his abilities? Maybe like ringing the bell, giving him a purpose instead of just living like a useless drain on society.

And do you think the parishioners didn't realize that their church donations were going to support him and had a problem with this as long as he didn't go around snatching up little girls?

True, saying church donations were 'voluntary' back then is a bit of a stretch, but you get the point...the community looking out for 'their own' instead of some nameless, faceless bureaucrat treating them with contempt and disdain because they are making them have to work when they get paid the same no matter how much work they do.

anonnymous:

In a free market there would be an oligarchy just as there is now and no amount of hard work would overcome that.

Of course there would be...if you listen to all the statist propaganda.

But in reality without having the State to prop up these economically unstable relationships you would find the opposite.

Two different factories, on will only hire whites while the other will hire anyone that is capable enough to do the job, which do you think will be able to produce a cheaper product given the assumption there is a surplus of black workers and so their wage rates are depressed compared to white workers?

The only way the 'whites only' factory could hope to compete is to get a law making it illegal to hire a black worker and under a Free Market this would be impossible to do.

Even if the whole local society supported these racially segregated practices there is nothing stopping an outsider from coming in and setting up shop to take advantage of the glut of surplus workers. The locals couldn't stop this from happening as they would be unable to use the Long Arm of the Law to stop them and as the now employed workers have money to spend in the local economy they would probably be a bit wary of spending it at places that discriminate against them. So now you have a boom in non-discriminatory businesses that would provide the exact same goods and services as the established ones but at a cheaper price due to them also being able to take advantage of a surplus labor situation.

Feel free to replace 'discriminate' with any method that this supposed oligarchy would use to establish control of the market place.

So, I repeat, what about them?

I do not presume that without government there would be no charity to help the disadvantaged, as a matter of fact I am against government being directly involved in people's lives, Do I beleve that there should be regulation other than free market forces, yes.

Can small towns provide enought funds to help those in need in their communities, no. Would prices be cheaper, only if the money supply was stable, maybe.

Your position on the disabled for the most part, even though it seems a litle sarcastic, is a valid point, considering that there are many disabled people who could find something productive but there are those who would not be able to do anything, which leaves the question of how to care for them. Churches and community associations can do a great deal to help but can they do enough and if not what then?

Your description of the race issue in the work place is simplistic and is quite unrealistic.

wombatron:

 Government magnifies the power of the corrupt and the selfish-without-a-self.  On a free market, corruption would simply not be profitable.

There would be a need for regulation as well, for people left to their own devices will not always behave in a responsible or ethical manner.

Regulating people is never the solution to anything.  The entire point of libertarianism is that people are left to make their own decisions with their own life, liberty, and property.

 

If regulating people is not the solution to anything what about rape, robbery, and murder? Would that not require so recourse?

anonnymous:

Can small towns provide enought funds to help those in need in their communities, no. Would prices be cheaper, only if the money supply was stable, maybe.

So an unsustainable community should be able to require others to subsidize it?

Nothing inherently wrong with people following jobs instead of having a belief that they are entitled to remain in a place where they grew up and living off the population at large.

History would show that there weren't mass die offs of poor people when there wasn't enough forced charity to provide for them. People help each other out when possible when they have a sense of 'community' which State programs destroy. How many people really plan to support their elderly parents anymore? This was so normal up until the days of Social Security that we as humans adapted to it as a species, menopause is so the grandmother isn't in reproductive competition with the mother of her grandchildren and the grandparent/grandchild relationship is mutually beneficial to both parties and the parents since it allows them to provide for the extended family in a more efficient manner.

This is all based on real scientific studies published under peer review BTW.

anonnymous:

Your position on the disabled for the most part, even though it seems a litle sarcastic, is a valid point, considering that there are many disabled people who could find something productive but there are those who would not be able to do anything, which leaves the question of how to care for them. Churches and community associations can do a great deal to help but can they do enough and if not what then?

Well, any answer I could give to that question would be politically incorrect to say the least. Let's just say that this problem wasn't much of a problem in the days of yore.

anonnymous:

Your description of the race issue in the work place is simplistic and is quite unrealistic.

How so?

I stole that from Walter Block anyway so you really should take that up with him.

If you don't think someone who sees an arbitrage opportunity in the form of a low cost workforce isn't going to take it if they aren't restricted by law then you haven't been paying too much attention to current events. That's pretty much the basis of the anti-globalization argument along with a few other issues.

You really think they would ship jobs halfway around the world if they could take advantage of the abundance of unemployed workers that are available in the US but they can't employ because of minimum wage laws? Or hire 'illegal' immigrants who will work for less than minimum wage because it's better than the alternative in their home country?

The very fact that there are around 10 million undocumented migrant workers in the US proves this point. Well, that and the fact that a disposable workforce is a lot cheaper than slavery since if a slave gets hurt you need to provide medical care so they keep their value but if an 'illegal' gets hurt you just tell them not to show up until they get better because there are ten more people to replace them down at the Home Depot every morning.

Yet another example where labor laws turn honest hardworking people into marginalized disposable commodities who are afraid to do anything about abusive workplace practices because 'La Migra' is just a phone call away.

If regulating people is not the solution to anything what about rape, robbery, and murder? Would that not require so recourse?

Regulations are decrees of the state.  Self-defense and restitution are not regulations; I don't need a coercive monopoly on the 'legitimite' use of force to tell me when I can defend myself and when I am justified in seeking compensation.

 

It seems to me like a lot of your questions have been answered thoroughly but I remain sympathetic to your concern for social justice. You hear awful things about the (un)free market today and people instantly associate that with the idea of a free market as proposed by a lot of libertarians (or perhaps they are not stating it explicitly enough). But this is not the case.

One place you may want to check out is The On Line Freedom Academy: www.tolfa.us. I will warn you that the point of the site is to convert you to a market anarchist so that we can walk away from government 20 or so years from now. Whatever its point, it provides the most rational argument for a free market I have heard to date.

It brings up a lot of good points that I think might get to the bottom of your question. It notes:

- a truly free market would see the rise of wealth and prosperity and in increased standard of living for all

- jobs would be abundant and anyone who wanted to work could. Job seeker and job provider would reach an mutually beneficial agreement and each would "win" from this voluntary contract. Fred Farush makes a great post about the controls, licenses, access to capital and regulations that prevent a poor individual from starting his own business. Those would be removed in a free society. A market is the absence of governmet.

- humans are, by nature, self-owners and therefore they think of their own self-interest before anyone elses. While you may perceive this to be bad, the fact of the matter is that it exists, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. The only way to allow humans to function peacefully with each other is in a truly free market because it places natural "controls" on humans to act "good."

Everyone has morals (and a conscience) that tells them right from wrong. The state distorts their sense of right or wrong by removing their choice from the matter (ie through elections) so that one never really makes an important, direct, moral decision. Risk and reputation is never taken into account, so they are never weighed against the rewards and incentives to not do bad. The free market removes this barrier and makes people fully in control of their decisions. They are free to interact which also means that they a free (and thus responsible) for the decisions, both bad and good, that they make.

For example, if I knew that my neighbor was making a killing selling "authentic" Kevin Garnett jerseys, yet I found out that those jerseys were counterfit, I could tell everybody I knew about my neighbor ripping everyone off. I could put up signs, take an ad out in the paper, put it on the internet, etc. Not only is it going to make him look bad, but it is going to make those people who bought those jerseys pretty pissed off and they will (rightfully) demand their money back.

In essence there is a HUGE risk involved with being "bad." Not only does this man lose the money that he made but it severely damages his reputation with others in society so they will not do business with him in the future. Because everyone is free to own themselves, it is implied that they also own the risk involved in their decisions. They must bear responsibility for that. It is the only fair way. (and if it seems harsh then remember that there is always the possibility of someone starting a non-profit of sorts to help those type of people right their wrongs and get them "back on their feet" or whatever)

So, people are rewarded when they do good in the market and are punished when they do bad. The incentives and risks are all placed in the proper places, thus ensuring "fairness."

- another good thing to point out here is that because people act to benefit their own self interest, as shallow as it sounds, charity boosts the ego so charity will continue to flourish in the free market. It makes people feel good at a cost that they perceive to be right, plus charity has been with us since the dawn of humans. It's another part of being human. At least that is another way to look at it and see it from the premise of self-ownership

As a side note and to step of of sequence here, there does not need to be some final arbitrator in the matter of right or wrong because those are perceived terms. As long as two sides voluntarily agree to something, there really is no reason for you to mind. But, if you find something wrong with a certain situation you are free to make it known to others and do all that you can (without violating someone else's right to self-ownership) to right that wrong. In other words you are able to use self-defense or any other noncoercive way to protect your right to self-ownership but it has to be within strict proportion to the wrong done to you or anyone else. For in a free society the "accussed" has just as much right to self-ownership as you so they can counter whatever action you take. The incentives and risks are placed in the right places to ensure that you come to an agreement that benefits both sides.

Lastly, let's make it be known that humans are above all, rational reasoning animals. We may all do it differently but it is our ability to reason that makes us human. Given a situation, as described above, where the incentives, risks and rewards are all placed in the correct area (which shouldn't be difficult to figure out if we start with the premise that all humans have a right to self-ownership and proceed logically from that point) it would make logical sense that the best way to improve ones lot in life is to interact "fairly" with other human beings.

That is sort of the theory behind that site I mentioned and my reasoning may have some holes in it, but I hope you get the point. Free markets are they only thing that is compatible with human nature. Government destroys our moral compass or doesn't ever let it get much use (only superficially, like when we vote). Thus we never are the final decision makers and never weight the risks and rewards of each action. Logically, there has got to be a way for humans to interact wihtout government of any kind. It is just a matter of figuring out how that works (which is wicked hard if you happened to be one of the millions of lucky people to be herded through government indoctrination camps, oops, I mean schools!). Don't lose faith!

But if that is wrong and all human kind has to look forward to is government of some kind it is going to make me really depressed. Haha, I would hope that is not the case!

 

1. How would anarchists build roads?

By laying asphalt using various vehicular machines. How does anyone build roads?

It seems to me he doesn't understand central planning is more costly and severely more inefficient.

First off he says the government can say land is theirs and it magically becomes theirs (not really) or at least is under their control, which makes building roads cheaper. Yeah, I don't know what society he's living in, but the government isn't made up of magical creatures. It doesn't posess some magical essence, but it does posess guns, which cost money. And It does pay the salary of those who dictate that the road is under their control, It pays them hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope he's not supposing things would cost more in a society not ruled by the government because there's no one there to assert magical ownership of things without exchanging wealth.

Second off, he counters the notion that euntrapeneurs seek to profit off demand (everyone loves roads so therefore businesses will seek to generate/create them) by saying "you're a f*cking idiot". He has an interesting way of displaying intellectual superiority.

 

2. How would anarchists enforce laws?

Laws? How could he confuse a singular policy of non aggression with a statist, plural prohibition on action? I think the only response is to mimic his overused cliche statement that composed the majority of his argument.

Does he think people can't protect themselves from aggression? Does he think they are therefore justified in seizing their neighbors property to create a system that will supposedly protect them? And this STATE will protect him and his neighbor beyond what they could have voluntarily done? For a man with little "hope in human nature",  he's certainly endowing the concept with his faith and trust.

anonnymous:

We need only go back a hundred years when New York had these market fire stations and it did not work out well then, what would make it work well now?

Oh lawdy, Gangs of New York?

So I suppose the Water System wasn't socialized in New York? Businesses were free to put up fire hydrants wherever they wanted, right? Because Fire Brigades couldn't possibly have been fighting over the limited water resources brought on by government planning.

anonnymous:

One, I am not suggesting that we have big government taking care of the needs of people. I am for as free a market as the people will allow.My contention is that even if you had an entirely free market there would be people who are disadvantaged and those issues would need to be addressed and wether the people would be resolved to do so is doubtful given the examples of greed and  corruption that we see today. There would be a need for regulation as well, for people left to their own devices will not always behave in a responsible or ethical manner. I think we can agree that if we did not have this massive government that we now have there most certainly would be a lot more money in circulation in the economy. Would that money be used in an ethical and responsible manner? The way I see human nature today I doubt seriously that that would be the case with all companies or all the people. My main point is that even though a free market theoretically can exist realistically would it be more benificial than the capitalist system that has gotten us were we are today

 

 Look, it boils down to this:  you either give some people control over others (goverment), or you don't.  The faults of humanity don't change because you have government or not, but giving some people power over others creates greater incentives to be greedy and cruel and unethical, or even just apathetic.  Does government welfare really help people better than private welfare? 

In AC, there will undoubtedly still be greedy, cruel, unethical, and apathetic people, but there will be less incentive to be so, because society and the market can more effectively police such things than the public sector can, being more responsive and more adaptable to making the necessary changes. 

And, without restrictions and regulations on starting new businesses and other job creation activities, people can be more productive, and have more wealth to help the truly unfortunate, and the poor have more opportunities to find their way out of poverty.  It's not even necessary that ALL people be charitable, only that there's more charity and wealth to spread around than through government redistribution. 

No, AC is no utopia, there's no guarantee that some people won't slip through the cracks or suffer from some problem or other.  But government regulation cannot offer any such guarantee, either, and it is quite wrong to think that it can.  In short, government makes promises that it cannot keep--AC makes no such promises, only more opportunities for people to solve problems, and the natural incentives for doing so.

 

Dear V and others,

Please remember that the "free market" means "the condition in which all transfers of wealth are conducted by mutual consent of the owners involved".  Thus, the free market is a description of favorable economic conditions, not general society.  A free market simply does not exist when you have either economic crime (as most commonly understood - theft, vandalism, fraud), or its government equivalents (taxation, inflation/regulation, benefits).

A free market is completely infeasible for a complete society.  That's why libertarians don't advocate it.  The non-aggression principle clearly authorizes the use of force to establish justice.  Pacifists advocate free markets.  They advocate punishing the unjust through social ostracization and such.

More commonly here, you'll find libertarian capitalist anarchists, who believe that using force to establish justice is acceptable, and valuable.  They believe that widely-accepted views of justice would be valuable.  Thus, they believe professionals would be able to provide such services.  But the price structure doesn't change the law.  And no professional or group thereof has the authority to break the law.  Why don't they have the authority?  Because the people, in general, will not submit to them.  They will refuse to buy their services.  They will hire alternative services to protect them from the unlawful. 

Why won't the people submit to them?  Because they are educated, and they value liberty.  This is a pre-condition of anarcho-capitalism.  The people have the understanding and the supporting moral code that a free market is the best possible condition for virtually everyone, and anarcho-capitalism is the best means to ensure it.  The reason government is so prevelent is that just like gods of fire and water of old, when things become too large for people to see the underlying individual pieces, they tend to believe in magic, or other seemingly logical, simple illusions.  Thus, our goal is to tear down the illusions.

So, to answer the original thing about arson - arson is not a free market activity, and it cannot be dealt with via a free market.  This requires force to establish justice.  If the fire market approach didn't work in NY, perhaps this had to do with the failure of a public agency being able to investigate and enact justice in the case of arson.  And as pointed out, a business model of "bill you as needed" introduces the arson hazard, especially in an act that destroys so much evidence.

In the case that insurance defaults, liability does not vanish.  Otherwise, this would be fraud.  If the liable will not pay the insurance contract, they should have property forcefully taken and put at auction.  Agencies would do this at no cost to the victim, only as a cost forcefully imposed upon the liable.  The victim could do it himself, and no one would attempt to stop him.  If the liable hired guns to protect his property, he would face a battle, risking his life, and racking up greater financial penalties.  He would also face massive boycott and social ostracization, if for some strange reason no force wished to try to overcome his defense of injustice.  Over time, he can't win, however.  With no way to make money and expenses incurred in defending his stuff (which would be more costly than lawful protective services, as these goons would also face legal, career, and larger health risks), he would eventually go broke.  In almost all scenarios, the liable are best served by submitting toward justice.

And justice is provided by the wise professionals who compete to deliver the most clear and powerful definitions of justice, as applied to particular cases.  Arbitrators are successful in being consistent with themselves and society.  The best ones hear the most far-reaching and large-scale of cases; their judgments both educating the uninformed and agreeing with the impartial and informed.  A main function of this isn't simply to define justice, but to inform the public.  Only with the public's consent, in consistency with their view of law, can an agency use force in an economically beneficial way.  This consent is shown in profit ratios.

In the case where someone gets caught for some massive amount of fraud that they can't possibly pay, they should become a slave until the debt is repaid.  Society largely avoids this problem simply because they insure against such risks or don't take them.  People are equally free to try to prevent crime before it starts.  Credit checks, professional reputation, reasonable expectations are all similar to burglar alarms and firearms.

Now, for people who can't afford professional services.  They can rely upon charity, either from other individuals or directly from the agencies (which could be good PR - why does McDonald's offer charity).  They can rely on themselves to provide their own protection and serve justice when they have been wronged.  They can hire someone -> although they might not find the same quality professional service, some form may still exist, such as a neighborhood tough guy.  If they find themselves victimized, they may find some entrepreneurial agency willing to host a trial to establish and then to serve justice, simply adding their fees onto the perpetrator.  There are a myriad of options under ancap that didn't exist under a monopoly government.  Simply because the poor have the right to be protected doesn't mean they are.  Many think ancap is cruel because it says that some people couldn't afford this service to back up their human rights.  Rather, it is simply realist.  Simply because your rights are claimed to be protected doesn't mean they are.  If a private party offered to protect you and didn't, it'd be fraud.  When the government does it, its budgetary constraints.  They then prevent you from "taking the law into your own hands".  Well, someone has to!

As far as taking people out back and shooting them rather than giving them a trial, it would probably be in their best interest to give them a trial.  Are the people more inclined to vote for a government that gives a trial or not?  The same would apply with one's hard-earned money.  Even in extreme cases, people demand certainty in cases of capital punishment or other extreme sentences.  The less any organization that uses or decrees violence relies upon independent evaluation, the less credible they become.

Would this result in a more violent society?  No.  It just doesn't BS about the consequences of your actions.  Thus, there is little moral hazard to developing violent institutions.  We would like to think such a system would get rid of thousands of uses of violence in the name of laws that violate the free market.  It would get rid of imperial or geo-political warfare.  And if it were more efficiently done, it would result in less violent crime.  If more crime had to face full justice, you'd have less extreme crime, and it'd put more risk in crime.  And the more prosperous people are, the less likely they are to resort to violence.

...should have pointed out.  there is no singular law.  but there are general laws on which nearly all people agree.  "no one should violate the free market, except to enact justice."  that's really it, although you can expand that for many specific behaviors.  Surely, you'd find different resulting legal codes, with inconsistency.  Professional agencies would offer protection according to some consistent legal code, and they'd state their conventions in dealing with common inconsistences.  This may be some compromise agreement, or it may mean war.  In general, we'd find the most enforceable legal codes promote the most productive behavior.  Thus, all legal codes should tend to move towards a free market.  thus, it double supports itself.  the people desire the law that will most benefit themselves economically.  similarly, the best law will please the people while assuming the least cost.

 

...again, we are pre-supposing that the people have already realized this in their quest to ancap...

 

meambobbo:

A free market is completely infeasible for a complete society.  That's why libertarians don't advocate it.  The non-aggression principle clearly authorizes the use of force to establish justice.  Pacifists advocate free markets.  They advocate punishing the unjust through social ostracization and such.

So what you're saying here is that protections from fraud, coercion and theft would make a market inherently unfree because force would be needed to enforce these 'laws'?

How exactly does that follow?

 

dreamingoffreedominma:

It seems to me like a lot of your questions have been answered thoroughly but I remain sympathetic to your concern for social justice. You hear awful things about the (un)free market today and people instantly associate that with the idea of a free market as proposed by a lot of libertarians (or perhaps they are not stating it explicitly enough). But this is not the case.

One place you may want to check out is The On Line Freedom Academy: www.tolfa.us. I will warn you that the point of the site is to convert you to a market anarchist so that we can walk away from government 20 or so years from now. Whatever its point, it provides the most rational argument for a free market I have heard to date.

It brings up a lot of good points that I think might get to the bottom of your question. It notes:

- a truly free market would see the rise of wealth and prosperity and in increased standard of living for all

- jobs would be abundant and anyone who wanted to work could. Job seeker and job provider would reach an mutually beneficial agreement and each would "win" from this voluntary contract. Fred Farush makes a great post about the controls, licenses, access to capital and regulations that prevent a poor individual from starting his own business. Those would be removed in a free society. A market is the absence of governmet.

- humans are, by nature, self-owners and therefore they think of their own self-interest before anyone elses. While you may perceive this to be bad, the fact of the matter is that it exists, and it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. The only way to allow humans to function peacefully with each other is in a truly free market because it places natural "controls" on humans to act "good."

Everyone has morals (and a conscience) that tells them right from wrong. The state distorts their sense of right or wrong by removing their choice from the matter (ie through elections) so that one never really makes an important, direct, moral decision. Risk and reputation is never taken into account, so they are never weighed against the rewards and incentives to not do bad. The free market removes this barrier and makes people fully in control of their decisions. They are free to interact which also means that they a free (and thus responsible) for the decisions, both bad and good, that they make.

For example, if I knew that my neighbor was making a killing selling "authentic" Kevin Garnett jerseys, yet I found out that those jerseys were counterfit, I could tell everybody I knew about my neighbor ripping everyone off. I could put up signs, take an ad out in the paper, put it on the internet, etc. Not only is it going to make him look bad, but it is going to make those people who bought those jerseys pretty pissed off and they will (rightfully) demand their money back.

In essence there is a HUGE risk involved with being "bad." Not only does this man lose the money that he made but it severely damages his reputation with others in society so they will not do business with him in the future. Because everyone is free to own themselves, it is implied that they also own the risk involved in their decisions. They must bear responsibility for that. It is the only fair way. (and if it seems harsh then remember that there is always the possibility of someone starting a non-profit of sorts to help those type of people right their wrongs and get them "back on their feet" or whatever)

So, people are rewarded when they do good in the market and are punished when they do bad. The incentives and risks are all placed in the proper places, thus ensuring "fairness."

- another good thing to point out here is that because people act to benefit their own self interest, as shallow as it sounds, charity boosts the ego so charity will continue to flourish in the free market. It makes people feel good at a cost that they perceive to be right, plus charity has been with us since the dawn of humans. It's another part of being human. At least that is another way to look at it and see it from the premise of self-ownership

As a side note and to step of of sequence here, there does not need to be some final arbitrator in the matter of right or wrong because those are perceived terms. As long as two sides voluntarily agree to something, there really is no reason for you to mind. But, if you find something wrong with a certain situation you are free to make it known to others and do all that you can (without violating someone else's right to self-ownership) to right that wrong. In other words you are able to use self-defense or any other noncoercive way to protect your right to self-ownership but it has to be within strict proportion to the wrong done to you or anyone else. For in a free society the "accussed" has just as much right to self-ownership as you so they can counter whatever action you take. The incentives and risks are placed in the right places to ensure that you come to an agreement that benefits both sides.

Lastly, let's make it be known that humans are above all, rational reasoning animals. We may all do it differently but it is our ability to reason that makes us human. Given a situation, as described above, where the incentives, risks and rewards are all placed in the correct area (which shouldn't be difficult to figure out if we start with the premise that all humans have a right to self-ownership and proceed logically from that point) it would make logical sense that the best way to improve ones lot in life is to interact "fairly" with other human beings.

That is sort of the theory behind that site I mentioned and my reasoning may have some holes in it, but I hope you get the point. Free markets are they only thing that is compatible with human nature. Government destroys our moral compass or doesn't ever let it get much use (only superficially, like when we vote). Thus we never are the final decision makers and never weight the risks and rewards of each action. Logically, there has got to be a way for humans to interact wihtout government of any kind. It is just a matter of figuring out how that works (which is wicked hard if you happened to be one of the millions of lucky people to be herded through government indoctrination camps, oops, I mean schools!). Don't lose faith!

But if that is wrong and all human kind has to look forward to is government of some kind it is going to make me really depressed. Haha, I would hope that is not the case!

 

Yes most answers have been thoroughly answered and yes most of my concerns are with social justice. Thank you for your post! It was easy to read and very informative. I will visit the site you recommended. I wish we could all live without government but how we could do that and then practcally implament such a transition remains to be seen.

banned:

1. How would anarchists build roads?

By laying asphalt using various vehicular machines. How does anyone build roads?

It seems to me he doesn't understand central planning is more costly and severely more inefficient.

First off he says the government can say land is theirs and it magically becomes theirs (not really) or at least is under their control, which makes building roads cheaper. Yeah, I don't know what society he's living in, but the government isn't made up of magical creatures. It doesn't posess some magical essence, but it does posess guns, which cost money. And It does pay the salary of those who dictate that the road is under their control, It pays them hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope he's not supposing things would cost more in a society not ruled by the government because there's no one there to assert magical ownership of things without exchanging wealth.

Second off, he counters the notion that euntrapeneurs seek to profit off demand (everyone loves roads so therefore businesses will seek to generate/create them) by saying "you're a f*cking idiot". He has an interesting way of displaying intellectual superiority.

 

2. How would anarchists enforce laws?

Laws? How could he confuse a singular policy of non aggression with a statist, plural prohibition on action? I think the only response is to mimic his overused cliche statement that composed the majority of his argument.

Does he think people can't protect themselves from aggression? Does he think they are therefore justified in seizing their neighbors property to create a system that will supposedly protect them? And this STATE will protect him and his neighbor beyond what they could have voluntarily done? For a man with little "hope in human nature",  he's certainly endowing the concept with his faith and trust.

the first part of your post has nothing to do with what I was talking about and I most certainly would not state nor imply that someone is a "f*cking idiot".

The second part also has nothing to do with what I was saying. I do believe you are speaking not of me but of someone else.

 

 

the first part of your post has nothing to do with what I was talking about and I most certainly would not state nor imply that someone is a "f*cking idiot".

The second part also has nothing to do with what I was saying. I do believe you are speaking not of me but of someone else.

 

psst.  Watch the youtube video in the first post.