Infirmity in anarchocapitalism

Reply

Sean Allen Posted: Sun, Mar 21 2010 7:55 AM

rated by 0 users

It seems that whenever I bring up a stateless society with my friends—who are intelligent, reasonable people—our discussion never progresses past "what happens to people who are not able to pay for protective services?" They actually phrase it a bit simpler than that, but that's what they mean, anyway.

It is apparent to me that these people who were mentally mature enough would negotiate contracts with those who can defend them, to provide for their defence, in exchange for non-monetary compensation. I think, though, that they are also thinking of people who aren't mentally mature—children, and adult children (or whatever the current politically-correct terminology is these days), and I can't articulate how they would also be protected without everyone else being coerced to help them. I'm no Hobbesian, but I don't put my faith in the goodness of man, either.

Are there any thoughts on this subject? I think if I can get past this obstacle, I can finally bring them on board with anarchocapitalism.

As well, I can tell they think I'm a bomb-throwing hooded hooligan when I mention "anarchy". I know they know me better than that, but it's unfortunately a trigger word. Is there a way to break past this?

Reply

Nielsio replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 7:59 AM

rated by 0 users

Are you talking about pre-teen orphans?

Reply

LibertarianfromGermany replied on Sun, Mar 21 2010 8:02 AM

rated by 0 users

Well, why are they (disabled, people too poor to pay for protection) protected in our society? Because the people in our society care about them. There's a lot of charity going on already even though we have high taxes and people are mainly protected by government. If people got to keep their money and see poor people in need for protection, charity will most certainly increase dramatically.

Reply

kalinz replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 12:01 PM

rated by 0 users

The following is not hypothetical- it is a fact of history.

An agricultural community in Mesopatamia. The time period is the Bronze Age. From an area some distance away, arrive a migrating people with arms and the skill to use them. The new arrivals seize the entire community, kill, pillage, enslave, and finally take possession of all community resources public and private. This new group does not respect the private property of the peaceful inhabitants- they seize whatever they desire and they represent now the elite ruling clase of this Mesopatamian community. Will someone please call the police?

kind regards,

kalinz

Reply

macsnafu replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 1:50 PM

rated by 0 users

And this is relevant to the thread in what way?  

Reply

Southern replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 2:52 PM

rated by 0 users

Sean Allen:

It seems that whenever I bring up a stateless society with my friends—who are intelligent, reasonable people—our discussion never progresses past "what happens to people who are not able to pay for protective services?" They actually phrase it a bit simpler than that, but that's what they mean, anyway.

It is apparent to me that these people who were mentally mature enough would negotiate contracts with those who can defend them, to provide for their defence, in exchange for non-monetary compensation. I think, though, that they are also thinking of people who aren't mentally mature—children, and adult children (or whatever the current politically-correct terminology is these days), and I can't articulate how they would also be protected without everyone else being coerced to help them. I'm no Hobbesian, but I don't put my faith in the goodness of man, either.

Are there any thoughts on this subject? I think if I can get past this obstacle, I can finally bring them on board with anarchocapitalism.

As well, I can tell they think I'm a bomb-throwing hooded hooligan when I mention "anarchy". I know they know me better than that, but it's unfortunately a trigger word. Is there a way to break past this?

The same way those who are unable to care for themselves in our current society.  If an individual is unable to care for themselves how do they claim the benefits that are entitled to currently.  The answer is people who care.  Those who care get them up in the morings, get them dressed, feed them, take them down to the DSS office, sign them up for whatever program, take them to the bank, open an account to deposit the money, take them home, feed them, wash them, put them to bed.  Without these people the helpless would starve with all the government money just waiting for someone to claim it.

Without govenment assistance these would be the same people taking care of the helpless.  The only difference is they would not have to compete with able bodied leeches who game the welfare system and divert money from those who need it.  Taxes would be lower making it easier for the families to care for their loved ones and making it easier to donate to charity.

Of course if these people you talk with believe the world is full of horrible people, the helpless are doomed either way.

Reply

Sage replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 4:03 PM

rated by 0 users

Sean Allen:

"what happens to people who are not able to pay for protective services?"

People will help them.

Your friends seem to think that one group of people (calling themselves the government) can do things that other groups of people cannot. Why? The government is just made up of ordinary people; they don't have superpowers. Presumably the answer is that the people in the government have the power of legal coercion. But as Boétie's Law shows, it is not by their personal might that people in the government rule everyone else. Rather, they depend on the acquiescence and support of the ruled. Hence public opinion is the ultimate source of political power.

So the statist position boils down to this: the government can do things other people cannot because government is supported by public opinion. But other groups of people can be supported by public opinion as well. Thus if government can protect the poor, the infirm, etc., then so too can other groups of people under anarchy.

Reply

Benjamin replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 4:11 PM

rated by 0 users

Isn't that a system in which being uncaring is rewarded?  If the 'people who care' have to pay out of their own pocket to help the infirm, and the uncaring invest only in themselves or their businesses, won't the uncaring have a competitive advantage over the caring?

Doesn't that imply that over time, the most uncaring individuals will become the most dominant members of society?

It's just a thought. 

Reply

Sage replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 4:11 PM

rated by 0 users

And another thing: libertarians need to stop letting these "what about the poor" issues be raised as objections to anarchism. We need to be the ones bringing up these issues as arguments for anarchism. Libertarians are the only people who can rightfully use "what about the poor" rhetoric. These are our arguments; we need to take them back.

Reply

Southern replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 4:42 PM

rated by 0 users

Benjamin:

Isn't that a system in which being uncaring is rewarded?  If the 'people who care' have to pay out of their own pocket to help the infirm, and the uncaring invest only in themselves or their businesses, won't the uncaring have a competitive advantage over the caring?

Doesn't that imply that over time, the most uncaring individuals will become the most dominant members of society?

It's just a thought. 

Maybe. Depends on what society values.  If they value charity, kindness, and giving, then being greedy will be bad for business.  I dont do business with people or companies that I dont like or trust.  So if you think people are horrible, selfish, and all around disgusting , then I wont be able to convince you.

Reply

kalinz replied on Tue, Mar 23 2010 6:08 PM

rated by 0 users

macsnafu-  please accept my apology for being obscure.

Let us ask ourselves- why did the state come into being?

Is the state something natural or un-natural?

Is it possible that the state can do some things better than private individuals and groups?

Are private groups and individual completely free of the moral and inefficient flaws we continually ascribe to the state?

In what way would a anarchic society defend itself from a hostile state which had not yet achieved such a utopian eden?

thanks everyone who reads and thinks about these questions-

and thanks in advance to any and all who might shoot one or more of them down and show they present no obstacles to enlightened anarchism.

with sincere affection for you all,

kalinz