Anarcho-capitalism, why can't it work? - Page 32

On September 01 2010 10:42 Biochemist wrote:
I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.

I'll make you a table:

Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme

Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food
Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids
Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism

On September 01 2010 09:59 Yurebis wrote:

Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?

It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.

On September 01 2010 11:08 Yurebis wrote:

#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.

On September 01 2010 11:17 Yurebis wrote:

Extremes are arbitrary, ad-hoc argument
And I can make them too.

Slavery -------- State ------------- Freedom
War ---------- some war ----------- Peace
Bad -------- Average ----------- Good

Meaningless.

On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote:


Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?

On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote:
Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.

At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.

Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.

I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.

The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.

On September 01 2010 11:21 Biochemist wrote:


Why is it irrelevant? It's the best course of action for me, an amoral individual, if I want to acquire someone else's stuff. Anarcho-capitalism has no solution for this when applied on a large scale, and every time it's brought up you either totally dodge the issue (like this) or don't even reply (like when I brought it up a few hours ago).

On September 01 2010 11:08 Yurebis wrote:

#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.

#2 You'd have to define what can be considered wealth, as that is entirely subjective; and how much wealth one has to have for it to be justifiably redistributed. If I evaluate one's ass to be worth one trillion dollars, do I have the right to smack it?
It can be consistent, but ridiculously inefficient, as you'd have to rely on a central authority to define those things, and starting at that point, intellectual constraints limit how well society could otherwise organize. And that central authority itself would probably be inconsistent, because in its powers are invested the whole wealth of the world, so the central planning itself, should be redistributed.

#3 By how much? How can you quantify coercion to be beneficial? And how is that not subjective on your part? I think you'd need another central authority to figure that one out...

On September 01 2010 10:52 Yurebis wrote:

Uh, how much is a missile worth, and how much crime does it deter? Even if it's cost-beneficial for having one missile, then how much benefit does the second missile give? The third? The fourth?

Diseconomies of scale are much more relevant than economies of scale, because there exists such a thing as diminishing returns. Economies of scale are almost always wrong, because resources aren't infinite, even if demand could arguiably be deemed infinite, so efficiency will always be capped on how many resources are available, and at what cost they come for.

On September 01 2010 11:22 Biochemist wrote:


It's not meaningless. This whole idea is simply taking the idea of free market capitalism and taking it to it's total and complete extreme. I was making some analogies to help illustrate how taking good ideas to these extremes are usually bad, but apparently the meaning was lost on you.

On September 01 2010 11:46 Yurebis wrote:

And you can make the argument against anything else as long as you put them on the extreme side. It's completely ad-hoc, and doesn't address the merits of the action or product themselves.

On September 01 2010 11:43 TanGeng wrote:


Serious how about this since you still can't seem to get it.

People don't believe in the Non-aggression principle.

On September 01 2010 11:43 Yurebis wrote:


Then do it, I don't care.
I'm talking to cooperative human beings who do care.

On September 01 2010 11:45 geometryb wrote:



i think you're going off on a tangent with what ifs and focusing too much on scale and ignoring the essence of what i'm saying.
i'm saying that monopolies can exist (and based on what i read anarchocapitalist say they have no problem with natural) and there's no inherent mechanism to prevent them from forming. Diseconomies of scale is not an anti-monopoly or anti-very few very big company measure. And if monopolies can exist, then monopolies in Defense exist. why would markets call for a big energy (or whatever) company (that can create a defence company) and not a big defence company?

again, saying there are diseconomies of scale does not limit the size of the company. especially since you can't say when diseconomies start happening.

On September 01 2010 11:42 Yurebis wrote:

I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.

Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.

Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).

Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery".
Search Walter Block on roads...


Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.

If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.

On September 01 2010 11:50 Biochemist wrote:


Yes it is ad hoc, but that doesn't make the analogy irrelevant or incorrect. See many other posts in this thread, for example the point about civil war that you are becoming very astute at ignoring.

On September 01 2010 11:54 Biochemist wrote:


Wow, way to miss the whole point..

Good luck finding a society filled with "cooperative human beings who do care." The very merits of capitalism are based on the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish individuals. By giving individuals the ability to advance themselves in society, you raise the level of society as a whole.

In an anarcho-capitalist society, these same greedy people are going to destroy each other, and competing PDAs will be in on the action from both sides, not stopping it like a responsible government would.

I hate socialism, and I'm all for the minimization of government, but doing away with it completely is just stupid.

On September 01 2010 11:51 Yurebis wrote:

It's inconsistent to cry wolf if you're being aggressed then. It is inconsistent to both rape, and plead not to be raped. Kill, yet plead not to be killed. Read Kinsella on Estoppel

Also I'd make the argument that people do generally agree with the NAP, but I'm not in the mood of making empirical arguments for now. Just that, if they did not, then society could not sustain itself from all the killing. Humans could not evolve, social beings, etc., etc.

On September 01 2010 12:09 Yurebis wrote:

Greedy and selfish doesn't mean they're sociopaths, and certainly doesn't mean they can't cooperate.
Read up on egoism.

On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:


There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?

On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote:
You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.

On September 01 2010 12:14 TanGeng wrote:


Ugh.

It doesn't matter if you can make the argument that people do generally agree. It's rather that people don't wholly agree. Basically people in general will take advantage of others to certain degrees if given the chance and will form organizations that allow them to do so. They will do so freely even if they are the ones being conned because they are hopeful that they can out game the system. That's how the government combination of governance and pillaging formed in the first place. The anarcho-capitalist society is unstable because it will devolve into one that has government.

I wish I lived in a society that people wholly agreed with the non-aggression principle. All of them would be a whole lot nicer people.

On September 01 2010 12:14 TanGeng wrote:
"cry wolf" - Do you know what that means?