Anarcho-Capitalism: Possibilities and Limitations

About the burden of proof thing: the burden of proof is most definitely on the shoulders of the statist, who must prove both legitimacy and that state involvement is a solution. In some cases the anarchist might not think there truly is a comprehensive and absolute solution to a particular problem, and it is the statist who is being utopian by believing in a solution to an inevitable inequity. The anarchist is not necessarily making a positive assertion, they are deconstructing the positive assertions of authoritarianism and drawing conclusions from the result of the negation of such assertions.

The anarchist does not have to prove that anarchism will solve every concievable problem because no system, no state, can do so either. It is erroneous and nonsensical to critisize anarchism as if it is proposing a singular system. It would be more accurate to describe it as a process (otherwise known as "the free market") by which systems and associations with them are freely chosen. All the anarchist is really saying is that we should let people try to come up with their own solutions in a plural and dynamic process rather than arbitrarily imposing one onto them through a central coercive system called "the state".

On putting anarcho-capitalism into practice... 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Why does one need to when one does not have the burden of proof? I see no reason to do it.

Because it's not about proving something, but about living ones dream.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Why should we?

Because you anarcho-capitalists say that their model is better then any statist model.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And look at where their ideas have gotten us, especially when they claim it is empirical evidence that a state makes life better, etc.

Well, obviously the state doesn't make live miserable enough otherwise people would establish a territory with an alternative idea, like anarcho capitalism, being practiced.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And yet it's precisely the same from  burden-of-proof standpoint. I hope you're not verging on a special pleading fallacy.

your comparison was a category mistake.

Question to all the armchair anarchists here:

If you don't want to start such an anarcho capitalist society yourself, would you at least move into territory once anarcho-capitalism would be established in it?

 

 

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Why does one need to when one does not have the burden of proof? I see no reason to do it.

Torsten:

Because it's not about proving something, but about living once dream.

No, it's not. It's about the statist having to demonstrate that only a government can handle such things.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Why should we?

Torsten:

Because you anarcho-capitalists say that their model is better then any statis model.

Rather, it is the statists who say their way is better and moral. We remain unconvinced, just as I, as an atheist, am unconvinced by the blatant assertions of the theists.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And look at where their ideas have gotten us, especially when they claim it is empirical evidence that a state makes life better, etc.

Torsten:

Well, obviously the state doesn't make live miserable enough otherwise people would establish a territory with an alternative idea, like anarcho capitalism,  being practiced.

And yet there have been revolutions and the like. Further, your claim is equivalent to "If there is no god, why isn't everyone an atheist". It's a distraction tactic, and has been exposed as such.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

And yet it's precisely the same from  burden-of-proof standpoint. I hope you're not verging on a special pleading fallacy.

Torsten:

your comparison was a category mistake.

No, it wasn't. It was precisely the same from burden-of-proof standpoint. I

Because you anarcho-capitalists say that their model is better then any statis model.

The fundamental error in your thinking here is the treatment of anarchism as a singular "model" for everyone within a huge territory per se. It isn't. The entire point is precisely the opposite, to remove all central plans from the picture. To remove the monopoly on force and ultimate decision-making. To be rid of the state's land monopoly and money monopoly and all around large-scale protection racket.

Well, obviously the state doesn't make live miserable enough otherwise people would establish a territory with an alternative idea, like anarcho capitalism,  being practiced.

This is intellectually dishonest because you very well know that this is illegal and would require multiple large-scale secessions. It's just a cleverly phrased "love it or leave it" argument. The state threatens us with force and its interventions tend to curb the scope of our options. You assume precisely what you need to prove, I.E. the legitimacy of the state's territorial dominion as such. In either case, agorism is a subset of market anarchism that is the only comprehensive strategy for doing just that - mass economic secession and civil disobedience as such as a tranisatory stage to anarchism.

your comparison was a category mistake.

I find the comparison to be sound. The theist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of a deity and the statist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of the state. In the eyes of the anarchist, the state is just a particular collection of men, an institutionalized criminal organization, who claim special rights over everyone else and partial ownership over everyone else. The state is something to be demystified. In the eyes of the statist, the state is legitimized and is not seen as criminal in its essential nature. It is something more than mere flawed men in statist mythos.

Please note that I made some changes to the post that Brainpolice was replying to.

Brainpolice:

The fundamental error in your thinking here is the treatment of anarchism as a singular "model" for everyone within a huge territory per se. It isn't. The entire point is precisely the opposite, to remove all central plans from the picture.

I don't see how removal of any statist central plans would be required to make an anarcho capitalist society outside of territories work. The question is: Does one really want to live in any thinkable anarcho capitalist model? I agree that there is more then one singular anarchistic model of a society thinkable.

Brainpolice:

This is intellectually dishonest because you very well know that this is illegal and would require multiple large-scale secessions. The state threatens us with force and its interventions tend to curb the scope of our options. You assume precisely what you need to prove, I.E. the legitimacy of the state's territorial dominion as such.

What I proposed isn't illegal. It doesn't have to be the US, since one could go to any existing country and ask to purchase secession rights over a specific territory of it. In the case of Somalia one would basically have to pay some of the warlords there and then move in to take possession of that territory. Other options are possible. The difference from conventional property purchases is simply that one would ask the state for abstinance of legal dominion as well. Hence let us assume that gaining some islands in the indian ocean would be perfectly possible for the purpose of practicing anarcho capitalism. So it's more a matter of real preference and will to practice that preference.

Here is a candidate for the project: http://www.privateislandsonline.com/isla-san-pedro-chile.htm

Brainpolice:

I find the comparison to be sound. The theist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of a deity and the statist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of the state.

 As said previously, most religions are a matter of revelation and faith in it. Hence I don't consider the comparison sound.

The question is: Does one really want to live in any thinkable anarcho capitalist model?

Obviously, by the very least, anarcho-capitalists do. By what justification does one bar them from seceding?

What I proposed isn't illegal. It doesn't have to be the US, since one could go to any existing country and ask to purchase secession rights over a specific territory of it. In the case of Somalia one would basically have to pay some of the warlords there and then move in to take possession of that territory. Other options are possible. The difference from conventional property purchases is simply that one would ask the state for abstinance of legal dominion as well. Hence let us assume that gaining some islands in the indian ocean would be perfectly possible for the purpose of practicing anarcho capitalism. So it's more a matter of real preference and will to practice that preference.

It nonetheless reduces to the good ole' "love it or leave it" argument, which assumes the legitimacy of the state to begin with and doesn't truly present one with the option to secede as an individual, to stop paying taxes and everything else that would go along with that. It is disingenous to basically say that all anarchists must become expatriates - to other states basically - in order to be consistant or live their values.

Consistantly living one's values as a libertarian is illegal. That's the plain truth of the matter. It seems very victim-blaming to place the responsibility on the person who's values and their actualization are outlawed by force. The burden of proof is on those trying to justify this. You must rationally legitimize the authority in question and the initiatory use of force or compulsion in general.

 As said previously, most religions are a matter of revelation and faith in it. Hence I don't consider the comparison sound.

I consider the comparison to be sound because statist ideology works in precisely the same way. In various ways many people literally have faith in the ability of politicians and government agents to solve problems and that only those people are capable of doing certain things. They are effectively deified. And there is the strong convinction that without the state (or god), there can be no morality and the result would be absolute chaos. The notion of intelligent design can be compared to the notion that there must be a central planner of human activity. One faces a massive burden of proof for all of this.

The psychology of statism is fascinating.

Brainpolice:

The fundamental error in your thinking here is the treatment of anarchism as a singular "model" for everyone within a huge territory per se. It isn't. The entire point is precisely the opposite, to remove all central plans from the picture.

Torsten:

I don't see how removal of any statist central plans would be required to make an anarcho capitalist society outside of territories work.

Goes with the definition of anarchocapitalism. And anarchy.

 

Torsten:

The question is: Does one really want to live in any thinkable anarcho capitalist model?

I would think that, given the existence of anarchocapitalists, the answer would be yes. However: your question isn't the crux of the matter. The real question is: what is so special about certain goods that only a state can provide them, i.e. mandate that no one else can, or at least only those so licensed by the state can do so.

 

Brainpolice:

This is intellectually dishonest because you very well know that this is illegal and would require multiple large-scale secessions. The state threatens us with force and its interventions tend to curb the scope of our options. You assume precisely what you need to prove, I.E. the legitimacy of the state's territorial dominion as such.

Torsten:

What I proposed isn't illegal. It doesn't have to be the US, since one could go to any existing country and ask to purchase secession rights over a specific territory of it.

And watch how that doesn't work out, since Leviathan never wants to give up power.

 

Brainpolice:

I find the comparison to be sound. The theist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of a deity and the statist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of the state.

Torsten:

As said previously, most religions are a matter of revelation and faith in it.

That's irrelevant, though. An existentially positive claim is made on the part of the theists, requiring them to back it. And on the part of the statists, an exclusive provision claim is made, requiring them to back it. What you're complaining about is wallpaper-and-curtain-color differences.

 

Brainpolice:

Consistantly living one's values as a libertarian is illegal. That's the plain truth of the matter. It seems very victim-blaming to place the responsibility on the person who's values and their actualization are outlawed by force. The burden of proof is on those trying to justify this. You must rationally legitimize the authority in question and the initiatory use of force or compulsion in general.

Absolutely. It's like blaming me for being outside a grocery store at 9pm because some guy put a knife to my throat, rather than blaming the guy who held me up. It's not that I shouldn't have been there, it's that the guy shouldn't have assaulted me. Same with the state: it's not that we should have to leave; the state should stop violating our rights.

 

Torsten:

Question to all the armchair anarchists here:

If you don't want to start such an anarcho capitalist society yourself, would you at least move into territory once anarcho-capitalism would be established in it?

Question to the statist:  If Russia invaded your precious state would you fight to defend it or would you leave and go somewhere else?

I have a home and it's right here.  I have no plans to play the coward and leave my home simply because I have an oppressive tyrannical state that rules over me.  I prefer to instead stay in my home, where I was born and raised, and fight the tyranny I live under.  I prefer to educate everyone I meet and weaken the states power that way.  I prefer to make my home safe for my children and their children by making my stand for liberty here.  You can keep your "Love It or Leave It" attitude.  I'd rather stand up to the enemy and fight rather than cower and flee to the safety of a foreign land.

 

Torsten:

If you don't want to start such an anarcho capitalist society yourself,

Be careful in assuming that because the only thing you see people here doing is talking, that it's the only thing they're doing.  It only looks like everyone is only talking because that's all you get to see.

Torsten:

would you at least move into territory once anarcho-capitalism would be established in it?

You still misunderstand anarcho-capitalism if you think that it is something to be "established".  I would and will move to wherever is most conducive to my ability to defend my rights and engage in mutually beneficial economic exchange, within the limits of the resources I have available for such a move.  Somalia is not yet such a place. The absence of a strong interventionist state is one way to a place can be conducive, but it's not a sufficient condition in and of itself. 

And remember, market anarchy is not a geographically determined condition.  It doesn't need to be physically separate from an overweening state, only functionally isolated from it.

 

histhasthai:

Torsten:

If you don't want to start such an anarcho capitalist society yourself,

Be careful in assuming that because the only thing you see people here doing is talking, that it's the only thing they're doing.  It only looks like everyone is only talking because that's all you get to see.

Torsten:

would you at least move into territory once anarcho-capitalism would be established in it?

You still misunderstand anarcho-capitalism if you think that it is something to be "established".  I would and will move to wherever is most conducive to my ability to defend my rights and engage in mutually beneficial economic exchange, within the limits of the resources I have available for such a move.  Somalia is not yet such a place. The absence of a strong interventionist state is one way to a place can be conducive, but it's not a sufficient condition in and of itself. 

And remember, market anarchy is not a geographically determined condition.  It doesn't need to be physically separate from an overweening state, only functionally isolated from it.

 

Indeed.  Organizations such as Terra Libra, and many individual agorists are already in a state of market anarchy.

 

Jon Irenicus:

Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.

Another private agency. Big deal.

But that's my argument: it can't! Read again what I wrote in the OP: "Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of carrying out the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail." A protection agency can overpower any single human criminal. But it cannot overpower another protection agency, unless, perhaps, all of these agencies unite as one to make war on the outlaw agency. But such a union is equivalent to having the state and seems unlikely anyway.

dchernik:

Yes, I am advocating prohibition of competition in violence. The more competition there, the worse the situation is.

False. This assumes one or more of the following unsupported things: 1) that competitive legals services are competing to provide violence as a service rather than justice, or 2) that competition to provide justice necessarily will result in more violence than a lack of competition; 3) that a coercive monopoly in the provision of justice does not involve violence in the enforcement of this monopoly and/or 4) that this does not constitute rights violations, 5) states don't inevitably grow into Leviathan over time, 6) the inter-state violence involved in wars and the intra- and extra- state violence that results from statist policies (such as most terrorism, organized crime, unnecessary assaults and deaths resulting from the inefficacy and inefficiency of the state's judicial system) as well as all the other violence done by the state to its subjects all don't count in the comparison. I think all six of these assumptions are false.

dchernik:

Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail." A protection agency can overpower any single human criminal. But it cannot overpower another protection agency, unless, perhaps, all of these agencies unite as one to make war on the outlaw agency. But such a union is equivalent to having the state and seems unlikely anyway.

It's not equivalent to having the state at all. I don't know where you're getting that from. It's simply cooperation among companies to eliminate a rogue agency.

 

That runs counter to basic economic laws. More competition means more choices and better service.