PDA

View Full Version : If not Aristocracy, Anarchism.


Vlerchan
October 30th, 2016, 01:11 PM
In the last thread I created I argued that a greater acceptance of aristocracy (or - more properly - anti-populism) in our decision-making would result in a superior set of long-run outcomes. I didn't seem to persuade a significant amount of people and in reflection I have decided to swing to the other end of the pendulum, anarchism*.

There's a number of forms of anarchism spanning the political spectrum so let it be clear that I mean anarcho-capitalism. Under such conditions, there are two forms of 'governance' that might emerge. Let us call these neo-cameralism and propertarianism.

The former refers to a situation where private-business men become landlords of large spaces and allows people to rent a spot of the land in return for a fee (a tax, in effect). The landlord would set the rules and this would result in - one might imagine - a multitude of zones operating on different political-systems, each competing with each other for citizens (sometimes called, panarchism). In the long-run one would expect convergence around the outcome that most ensures resident prosperity. There are inherent bounds on these spaces being too large, as I will discuss in a moment, ensuring that competition remains relatively perfect.

The latter refers to a situation where there is no centralized authority and thus our anarchism remains that bit purer. Rather than citizenship in one zone, like under neo-cameralism, people would purchase individual services and individualize their own living experience. That means there would be radical changes, like a privatized police force and a privatized judiciary, yes. But in a schema of free-market competition, one can expect such service-providers to compete to offer the optimal service.

B- b- but, Vlerchan, whats to stop McDonalds getting too big and using their chemical weapons divisions to force individuals to purchase their meals (which just happen to have also been produced in their chemical weapons division). Good question! The answer is, the annulment of corporate personhood, or separate legal personality. The most consequential difference under anarcho-capitalism is that there won't be a separation between individual investors and the losses a firm makes. In other words, investors would have an unlimited exposure to corporate debt and one expect the result of this to them exposing themselves less to corporate behemoths that can incur this sort of debt.

All likelihood, firms would drastically decrease in size.

There is also an end to fractional-reserve banking. This would constrain money-growth to the rate at which the stock of commodity-cash is growing (gold, or bitcoin, for example) and thus constrain the rate at which the expansion of corporations can occur at. Thus, the liquidity available for investment, before we even consider an end to corporate personhood, has been reduced.

One can of course begin to imagine the positive consequence that would emerge from such a shift. Greater control over life returned to individuals and like-minded groups of individuals to engage with the world at will. I would also imagine a greater centrality of responsibility, where you as the free individual are constrained in your excesses by the wrath of the free-market. I would also expect a de-scaling in the size of firms risk and a return of commercial activity to the community - as people are forced to reduce themselves to the considerable risk involved in operating a global company.

It would also, as relevant to the aristocracy thread, reduce your risk to overbearing government and the human-stupidities typically associated with it.

The question I ask is,
What's your opinion on anarcho-capitalism, in general?
What's your opinion on neo-cameralism?
What's your opinion on propertarianism?
Is there any industries that shouldn't be privatised - if so, why?
Is there any specific issues you have with the anarcho-capitalist plan?
I will take any questions people might have.

---

* Or, as one might also prefer to refer to it, neither Clinton nor Trump nor election debate, period.

Porpoise101
October 30th, 2016, 07:08 PM
What's your opinion on anarcho-capitalism, in general?

It's a bit loose. Marxists like to go on about those with the means of coersion and the means of production. Anarcho-capitalism just gives the bourgeoisie the reins to both.

If we aren't going to be Marxists, I'd say it's a bad idea because there is no way to correct negative externalities and promote positive ones. It's the ultimate system of selfishness; no one cares about the oil spill that they created because it is not in their rational self-interest to clean it up. Even if this situation wouldn't occur as a result of firms shrinking down, what's to stop small-town plant nurseries from using polluting fertilizers? Or a mom & pop restaurant to have unclean health standards?

What's your opinion on neo-cameralism?

Like modern day feudalism. I guess it's probably the better of the two considering that the landlord/worker system was how much of the world has lived for thousands of years.

What's your opinion on propertarianism?

There is less authority, which makes it worse in my view.

Is there any industries that shouldn't be privatised - if so, why?

Defense, for one. It doesn't make sense to neglect the guy who doesn't pay his militia subscription, as that would potentially give the invaders a tactical advantage.

Is there any specific issues you have with the anarcho-capitalist plan?

Yes, I like authority and power

* Or, as one might also prefer to refer to it, neither Clinton nor Trump nor election debate, period.

9 more days

Edit: This thread reminded me of 'Fortress World' from a Popular Science article I read six years ago. They deleted it from the site, but I found it in a waybackmachine here (http://archive.is/yARdJ)

Arkansasguy
October 30th, 2016, 10:08 PM
In the last thread I created I argued that a greater acceptance of aristocracy (or - more properly - anti-populism) in our decision-making would result in a superior set of long-run outcomes. I didn't seem to persuade a significant amount of people and in reflection I have decided to swing to the other end of the pendulum, anarchism*.

There's a number of forms of anarchism spanning the political spectrum so let it be clear that I mean anarcho-capitalism. Under such conditions, there are two forms of 'governance' that might emerge. Let us call these neo-cameralism and propertarianism.

The former refers to a situation where private-business men become landlords of large spaces and allows people to rent a spot of the land in return for a fee (a tax, in effect). The landlord would set the rules and this would result in - one might imagine - a multitude of zones operating on different political-systems, each competing with each other for citizens (sometimes called, panarchism). In the long-run one would expect convergence around the outcome that most ensures resident prosperity. There are inherent bounds on these spaces being too large, as I will discuss in a moment, ensuring that competition remains relatively perfect.

The latter refers to a situation where there is no centralized authority and thus our anarchism remains that bit purer. Rather than citizenship in one zone, like under neo-cameralism, people would purchase individual services and individualize their own living experience. That means there would be radical changes, like a privatized police force and a privatized judiciary, yes. But in a schema of free-market competition, one can expect such service-providers to compete to offer the optimal service.

B- b- but, Vlerchan, whats to stop McDonalds getting too big and using their chemical weapons divisions to force individuals to purchase their meals (which just happen to have also been produced in their chemical weapons division). Good question! The answer is, the annulment of corporate personhood, or separate legal personality. The most consequential difference under anarcho-capitalism is that there won't be a separation between individual investors and the losses a firm makes. In other words, investors would have an unlimited exposure to corporate debt and one expect the result of this to them exposing themselves less to corporate behemoths that can incur this sort of debt.

All likelihood, firms would drastically decrease in size.

There is also an end to fractional-reserve banking. This would constrain money-growth to the rate at which the stock of commodity-cash is growing (gold, or bitcoin, for example) and thus constrain the rate at which the expansion of corporations can occur at. Thus, the liquidity available for investment, before we even consider an end to corporate personhood, has been reduced.

One can of course begin to imagine the positive consequence that would emerge from such a shift. Greater control over life returned to individuals and like-minded groups of individuals to engage with the world at will. I would also imagine a greater centrality of responsibility, where you as the free individual are constrained in your excesses by the wrath of the free-market. I would also expect a de-scaling in the size of firms risk and a return of commercial activity to the community - as people are forced to reduce themselves to the considerable risk involved in operating a global company.

It would also, as relevant to the aristocracy thread, reduce your risk to overbearing government and the human-stupidities typically associated with it.

The question I ask is,
What's your opinion on anarcho-capitalism, in general?
What's your opinion on neo-cameralism?
What's your opinion on propertarianism?
Is there any industries that shouldn't be privatised - if so, why?
Is there any specific issues you have with the anarcho-capitalist plan?
I will take any questions people might have.

---

* Or, as one might also prefer to refer to it, neither Clinton nor Trump nor election debate, period.

And what's to stop McDonald's from nuking debt collectors who bother their investors?

Vlerchan
November 1st, 2016, 04:12 PM
[...] no one cares about the oil spill that they created because it is not in their rational self-interest to clean it up.
Oil spills depress land values - to zero, in a significant number of cases. If an oil spill occurs and it affects your land, it is in your right to sue for damages - and, there is an argument for damages to once ability to make a livelihood, too. It's worth noting that investors will be unable to remove themselves from the liabilities of their firms, so one can expect heightened incentives to not pollute (reminder, Deepwater Horizon caused billions in losses to land valuation).

Like with the rest of these, it comes down to stronger property rights.

[...] what's to stop small-town plant nurseries from using polluting fertilizers?
If you possesses the portion of the river that is polluted as a result of pollution upstream, it is within your rights to sue the original polluters for damages.

One can imagine the strict conception of nuisance returning to environmental law and greatly expanding the abilities of land-owners to protect their land values, in general, to these questions.

Or a mom & pop restaurant to have unclean health standards?
If a firm sells bad food, it will have a difficult time attracting customers. In particular, when that firm exists in a competitive market environment. It also doesn't seem implausible that a firm which knowingly flouts common health and safety standards could be sued for assault on customers who come down ill.

Like modern day feudalism.
Except profoundly more meritocratic - which makes all the difference.

It doesn't make sense to neglect the guy who doesn't pay his militia subscription, as that would potentially give the invaders a tactical advantage.
What this seems to indicate is that in the long-run the Propetarian model will be out-competed by the neo-Cameralist model - where people subscribe to an area and at the same time find themselves under the guard of a common defense network.

Yes, I like authority and power
You're an odd liberal:P

Though, this surely exists within this model. You just seem to have a preference for centralised authority ahead of decentralised authority - no?

---

And what's to stop McDonald's from nuking debt collectors who bother their investors?
Such investors would find themselves unable to engage in market transactions ever again, in a society where everything is a market transaction. The elimination of government stops them earning the economic rents that grant them the ability to grow large enough to run an army to secure any sort of position - and, in the case they did, they would instantly become the enemy of all men who value their status as free individuals (i.e. everyone). The position that would develop from this for them is just entirely untenable.

Bonds can be inherited nonetheless so this would never eliminate the debt, just that specific creditor. Thus, there isn't a huge amount of gain in engaging in this - other than inviting a contract be put out on you.

Nonetheless, nothing stops them from doing this, just like nothing stops someone from heading down to the bank and shooting up the lobby, ineffective as that might equally be.

Porpoise101
November 1st, 2016, 04:42 PM
Oil spills depress land values - to zero, in a significant number of cases. If an oil spill occurs and it affects your land, it is in your right to sue for damages - and, there is an argument for damages to once ability to make a livelihood, too. It's worth noting that investors will be unable to remove themselves from the liabilities of their firms, so one can expect heightened incentives to not pollute (reminder, Deepwater Horizon caused billions in losses to land valuation).

Like with the rest of these, it comes down to stronger property rights.

If you possesses the portion of the river that is polluted as a result of pollution upstream, it is within your rights to sue the original polluters for damages.

One can imagine the strict conception of nuisance returning to environmental law and greatly expanding the abilities of land-owners to protect their land values, in general, to these questions.

Alright, but how can you sue someone without a court to be an arbiter? If it is a for-profit court, I feel as if that would be not exactly fair in settling disputes.

If a firm sells bad food, it will have a difficult time attracting customers. In particular, when that firm exists in a competitive market environment. It also doesn't seem implausible that a firm which knowingly flouts common health and safety standards could be sued for assault on customers who come down ill.

Eventually. If people don't know about these things ahead of time, then they will pay the price of food-borne illness. Sure, eventually a restaurant in ill repute will shut down. But not before it actually hurts people. In this situation, a trustworthy agency is needed because the potential costs of bad food (mass disease) are too much for a non-centralized society.

Except profoundly more meritocratic - which makes all the difference.

I mean, feudalism was fairly meritocratic in the early days. The best war chiefs made the best landed nobles.

What this seems to indicate is that in the long-run the Propetarian model will be out-competed by the neo-Cameralist model - where people subscribe to an area and at the same time find themselves under the guard of a common defense network.

I wonder what a person who cannot contribute much would do in this situation. What would happen to disabled people, for example, if the neo-Cameralist society prevails? I feel as if they will get cast aside to homelessness, death, or towards the poorer areas of society.

You're an odd liberal:P

Though, this surely exists within this model. You just seem to have a preference for centralised authority ahead of decentralised authority - no?

Yes, I would say so. Societies must be streamlined, efficient, and stable, while being adaptive. A liberal government can achieve this. I am not so certain that an anarcho capitalist world could be stable or streamlined, even though I do recognize that people would be more receptive to change.

Vlerchan
November 1st, 2016, 05:18 PM
Alright, but how can you sue someone without a court to be an arbiter? If it is a for-profit court, I feel as if that would be not exactly fair in settling disputes.
There would be for-profit courts and these courts would have an incentive to remain impartial as to attract customers - i.e. no individual is going to agree to have their case heard in a biased court.

It is possible that neither party might agree on the same court - both choosing something that is biased to their interests. In such a case one can expect the cases to be heard in absence. I imagine the situation arising would, thus, be where neither court - like solicitors - gets paid until the conclusion of the case and this would compel a structure where in the case of deadlock courts can come together and have the situation mediated by a higher court.

(Because having to go to the higher court would increase costs - that would probably be passed down to losers, one can imagine biased courts being pushed out of the market.)

---

You'll find, there is a number of more intelligent elaborations of this structure outlined throughout the polycentric legal order literature. I haven't read a huge amount but I find the thought experiment fun.

In this situation, a trustworthy agency is needed because the potential costs of bad food (mass disease) are too much for a non-centralized society.
There's two alternative solutions,

1. Individuals that flout commonly accepted health and safety rules can be held liable for assault.
2. There would be the emergence of ratings agencies and firms would compete for the approval of these before their business becomes palatable to the general public - or an even simpler solution is the proliferation of operations such as Yelp.

I feel as if they will get cast aside to homelessness, death, or towards the poorer areas of society.
One would hope that charities would come to their aid.

But I do agree with this as being an actual problem and one that I can't actually defend in any competent manner - the uncertainty about what will have to the worst-off is one of the biggest issues I see with anarcho-capitalism.

I am not so certain that an anarcho capitalist world could be stable or streamlined, even though I do recognize that people would be more receptive to change.
It would certainly be more streamlined.

Stable, perhaps, if one believes that large-scale war as we know it would be eliminated.

phuckphace
November 1st, 2016, 08:28 PM
if the government vanished tomorrow (by which I mean the US government, for the purpose of this discussion) I'm certain that the subsequent anarchy would stand for maybe a week before fracturing into various autonomous states, each under their own respective forms of government. several reasons for this, but I think the most obvious is that almost nobody wants anarchy or finds it the least bit desirable - so you'd quickly end up with a balkanized patchwork such as the Minarchist State of Texas, bordered by the National Socialist States of Appalachia and maybe the Western Democratic Republic (Pacific coast), etc. I don't think there are enough an-caps in existence to make anything like Galt's Gulch workable, to say nothing about the plausibility of anarcho-capitalism itself.

that, and also in much the same way that most Internet Nazis wouldn't last a single day in Nazi Germany, I tend to find that the same people who proselytize on the Internet for anarchy are bizarre, stunted nerds of a particular archetype that lack the prerequisite traits and personality to engage with other individuals in the interactions necessary to function in an anarcho-capitalist society (or any society for that matter). another way to put it would be to say that any functioning society, especially in the private business sphere, requires a large number of normies with various skills and traits, and 99% of normies would immediately move the fuck out of there the instant they woke up in the morning to find they're in the Gulch. conservatives are gone with the wind and even most liberals won't be far behind. we're talking serious brain-drain here, obviously the exact opposite of what you want.

so that leaves us with a small handful of fedoras who can barely make eye contact with one another, much less start and maintain a business - or if they did so literally 100% of businesses would end up being speculative trading in Magic The Gathering cards and loli hentai. the idea of anarcho-capitalists actually going outside and tilling the soil for their next meal is really quite laughable in itself - moreso when you realize that these types of people can only be kept alive within The System that they hate so much.

all that is why I'm of the opinion that anarcho-capitalism is a meme, and like most memes it lives mostly on the Internet, where it will have to remain by necessity.

also, recreational nukes.

Porpoise101
November 2nd, 2016, 04:52 PM
It would certainly be more streamlined.

Stable, perhaps, if one believes that large-scale war as we know it would be eliminated.
I disagree. If you have many broken-up firms all competing with different standards, the society will be extremely diverse and disjointed systematically. If there are for-profit courts as you mentioned, then there would be even different legal doctrines for each court. The world would have a lot of choice, too much of it perhaps.

Destructive war, that will probably go away. But if there is a way to take over swaths of productive territory without destroying that territory, then people will buy up the weapons to do so.

Vlerchan
November 2nd, 2016, 07:15 PM
If you have many broken-up firms all competing with different standards, the society will be extremely diverse and disjointed systematically.
Firm's wouldn't all be operating on different standards. There would be convergence towards the most efficient.

Branding might persist - but that's no big deal, in particular when you consider that with an end to intellectual property product differentiation in and of itself, is more difficult.

If there are for-profit courts as you mentioned, then there would be even different legal doctrines for each court.
Likelihood is we would see a convergence towards a common standard inside limited legal jurisdictions. The vast majority of the law would be stable, and then there might be dispute, from time-to-time, over certain aspects, just like there is at current.

Firms will all operate inside supply-chains, there will be a demand for some normalization of contractual relationships, so intra-chain exchange and bargaining can become more efficient. And given the tendency for the law to converge towards impartiality - as described - one can expect a rather centered reading of such legal norms.

Flapjack
November 3rd, 2016, 02:22 PM
The question I ask is,

What's your opinion on anarcho-capitalism, in general? I think it is a terrible terrible idea
What's your opinion on neo-cameralism? I honestly have no idea what these are sowwy xD
What's your opinion on propertarianism? I honestly have no idea what these are sowwy xD
Is there any industries that shouldn't be privatised - if so, why? Yeahhh loads!! I will make a list of the ones on the top of my head but I imagine there are soo many more.



Defence (Including both military force ie soldiers and air force and the companies that develop weapons)- Obviously companies want to maximise profits, that is their first priority. They will cut corners in training and equipment and care for wounded solders.
Healthcare (NHS for example) - Again stops companies cutting corners and exploiting the vulnerable and destroying them financially and often it is not exactly like they can refuse medical treatment. For example hospitals in the US charging $50 for a pain of glove.
Education- I don't want corners cut and I don't want them brainwashing the next generation to be pro corporation or whatever an education company would lobby for.
Oil companies- Pretty obvious, don't want corners cut and environmental disasters.


[LIST]
Is there any specific issues you have with the anarcho-capitalist plan?
Yeahhh monopolies being the main one. If there are truly no regulations then I would worry about child labour, low wages, companies not looking after the environment and products produced being unsafe.
[/QUOTE]

Porpoise101
November 3rd, 2016, 05:33 PM
we would see a convergence
How long would that take though? With government, standards happen when the government says so or if people adopt them. In anarcho-capitalist systems, they have to be adopted by the industry and that could take generations even.

My last complaint is that anarcho capitalist systems are man-made, so they will fail when human decision-making fails. Computer-communism for the win :metal:

Vlerchan
November 5th, 2016, 09:44 AM
Defence (Including both military force ie soldiers and air force and the companies that develop weapons)- Obviously companies want to maximise profits, that is their first priority. They will cut corners in training and equipment and care for wounded solders.
This would be an environment where companies, in particular, will need to engage in stiff competition for labor. Where anarcho-capitalism allows the defence sector to flourish we can expect the proliferation of private defense contractors, who will bid up the compensation for workers.

Currently - under conditions where there is a deficit in competition - mercenaries typically earn about 90,000 - 250,000 a year.

Healthcare (NHS for example) - Again stops companies cutting corners and exploiting the vulnerable and destroying them financially and often it is not exactly like they can refuse medical treatment. For example hospitals in the US charging $50 for a pain of glove.
The authors analyzed Medicare data for about 3,000 acute care hospitals, of which 59 percent were nonprofit, 25 percent were for-profit and 16 percent were public. After adjusting for cost of living and the types of patients served, they found that more than half of all facilities lost money on patient-care services. Rural hospitals, small hospitals and major teaching hospitals tended to lose more money than urban hospitals and larger ones.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/02/these-hospitals-make-the-most-money-off-patients-and-theyre-mostly-nonprofits/

This article is about certain hospitals making outrageous levels of profit but that being far from the norm.

The broader issue is in medical insurance plans and that's a result of a distinct lack of competition - arising from government intervention - and the inability to accrue economies of scale in processing - again, arising from government intervention.

It does seem unreasonable to me to denounce free-market initiatives that have never been free-market.

Education- I don't want corners cut and I don't want them brainwashing the next generation to be pro corporation or whatever an education company would lobby for.
Please note that universities operate on a privately-devised curricula - all the top schools in the U.S., for example - without this issue. It would of course - at the level of early education - be up to parents to decide what sort of ideological environment they want their children to be brought up in.

Oil companies- Pretty obvious, don't want corners cut and environmental disasters.
Please note I addressed this issue above. The problem is a lack of private-property right enforcement.

Yeahhh monopolies being the main one.
Can you give one example of a monopoly that didn't form as a result of government intervention in that market?

I am also going to exclude separate legal personality which I declared above as being complicit in a significant amount of corporate concentration.

[...] child labour [...]
How does it help poor families who need to eat to stop their children working?

[...] low wages [...]
I hope no idea what 'low wages' means but if needs be we can revisit the arguments I have made against the minimum wage in the past: i.e. the it hurts the lowest-skilled workers and that any gains accrued are only ever extracted from the worst off. Though, increased competition between firms can be seen to increase any natural minimum wage.

companies not looking after the environment and products produced being unsafe.
Please note that these are addressed above.

How long would that take though? With government, standards happen when the government says so or if people adopt them. In anarcho-capitalist systems, they have to be adopted by the industry and that could take generations even.
I guess a good example to look at is the market for smartphones - how long does it take for the market to adapt to new and popular innovations? In anarcho-capitalism, no one is going to want to operate on an noncompetitive product either.

My last complaint is that anarcho capitalist systems are man-made, so they will fail when human decision-making fails. Computer-communism for the win
Where are the mods? This thread is finished.

phuckphace
November 16th, 2016, 03:56 PM
I'm interested about the anarchist's response to the question of free speech. most anarchists and libertarians are supportive of free speech in principle, but then some, like Jack Schafer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Shafer), make claims like this:

Traditionally, the state censors and marginalizes voices while private businesses tend to remain tolerant.

this is a very bizarre claim for several reasons, the main one being that in the United States at least, free speech is broadly protected by the first Amendment, and secondly that corporations have and do repeatedly abuse their monopoly power to fire employees and censor their users for holding doubleplusungood opinions. a very prominent example of this occurred during this very election cycle, when Twitter's Jack Dorsey personally mass-banned a number of pro-Trump accounts that triggered him, while simultaneously ignoring the use of Twitter by militant Islamists who use the service to recruit more militants (likewise, there was also a flood of celebratory Tweets from Islamists following the Orlando nightclub shootings which were also ignored). further undermining Shafer's claim is the fact that most pro-Trump accounts are under pseudonyms out of necessity, not out of fear of being jailed by the government (USG doesn't care if you tweet a picture of Pepe the Frog shoving Ben Shapiro into an oven) but fear of losing your job if your boss sees it and links it to you.

Twitter holds monopoly power in its niche because there is no comparative platform for disgruntled users to defect to, so the template lolbertarian response "just go somewhere else" obviously isn't possible. you can either re-register under a different account and tone down your free speech to suit the sensitivity of Twitter's Orwellian speech codes, or stop using it entirely and thus become "a marginalized voice."

basically, lolbertarians are truly ignorant if they think megacorps wouldn't shell your house with 30-inch artillery for dissing them if they could get away with it.

PlasmaHam
November 17th, 2016, 02:20 AM
I generally have a more libertarian approach, so I agree with some facets of anarchism. Of course complete anarchy is very unlikely to be of any affect, there is a legitimate role of government, that's why they exist after all. But certain forms of anarchy may be applicable.

I am not at all near your level of economic understanding, but I'll try to give my opinionsWhat's your opinion on anarcho-capitalism, in general?I feel that it has the potential for encouraging competition and thus advancement between companies. More often than not, monopolies and market stagnation results from government interference in business, not from natural growth and competition.

Is there any industries that shouldn't be privatised - if so, why?
I'm not honestly sure, but I do feel that the government shouldn't have a monopoly on any industry. Most of the advancement in the USA's various government owned "businesses" like public schools and the Postal service come about from competition from the private sector.


[LIST=1]
Defence (Including both military force ie soldiers and air force and the companies that develop weapons)- Obviously companies want to maximise profits, that is their first priority. They will cut corners in training and equipment and care for wounded solders.
I assume we are talking about the hypothetical situation in which the government hires private contractors for military forces. Your argument would hold true if we were just talking about a singular company, but more than likely the defense industry would involve several different companies constantly trying to beat the others for government bids through competitive wages, raising quality, and employee benefits
Healthcare (NHS for example) - Again stops companies cutting corners and exploiting the vulnerable and destroying them financially and often it is not exactly like they can refuse medical treatment. For example hospitals in the US charging $50 for a pain of glove.A big facet when it comes to the rising prices in the medical field is not the natural or capitalist growth of the company, but instead by forced health insurance regulations that stifle out smaller companies unable to meet those lofty standards. I have heard of numerous doctor offices going out of business because of the financial burden of just Obamacare, but it has been happening long before that. We could say that hospitals have never been truly free-market, so to blame the rising medical expenses on free-market capitalism is unfounded in reality.
Education- I don't want corners cut and I don't want them brainwashing the next generation to be pro corporation or whatever an education company would lobby for. There are plenty of successful private schools and I have never heard of corporation indoctrination at any of them. And government programs like Common Core or No Child left Behind have actually made American educational standards lower. I'm not sure if it is like this across the pond, but there is actually a big movement across America of kids being pulled out of public schools because most people feel that the public schools are inferior to private schools or homeschooling. And of course colleges have been doing this for hundreds of years.
Oil companies- Pretty obvious, don't want corners cut and environmental disasters. This seems like less of an issue with privation of a company and more with property and rights, which would be a legit role of government in this system.
Yeahhh monopolies being the main one.Nearly all monopolies are formed from government intervention or intense government regulations. There are those rare instances where a company does get a strong foothold on an industry, but I do not see the real problem in that.

If a company is supplying goods at a cheaper cost than it's competitors, then I don't see why we should punish them for that. Take Standard Oil for example. Owned nearly 90% of oil production in the USA by innovating drilling and refinement of oil during the late 1800s. Often regarded as the biggest monopoly in American history. The US government tried and broke up the company in the 1910s because it apparently broke anti-trust laws. Most people end the story there, but by the time of the break-up, Standard Oil only controlled 20% of oil production in the US, due to becoming too bloated and lack of innovation. The company was doomed by capitalism long before the government went and broke it apart.

Stronk Serb
November 17th, 2016, 03:28 AM
The question I ask is,

What's your opinion on anarcho-capitalism, in general? I think it is a terrible terrible idea
What's your opinion on neo-cameralism? I honestly have no idea what these are sowwy xD
What's your opinion on propertarianism? I honestly have no idea what these are sowwy xD
Is there any industries that shouldn't be privatised - if so, why? Yeahhh loads!! I will make a list of the ones on the top of my head but I imagine there are soo many more.



Defence (Including both military force ie soldiers and air force and the companies that develop weapons)- Obviously companies want to maximise profits, that is their first priority. They will cut corners in training and equipment and care for wounded solders.
Healthcare (NHS for example) - Again stops companies cutting corners and exploiting the vulnerable and destroying them financially and often it is not exactly like they can refuse medical treatment. For example hospitals in the US charging $50 for a pain of glove.
Education- I don't want corners cut and I don't want them brainwashing the next generation to be pro corporation or whatever an education company would lobby for.
Oil companies- Pretty obvious, don't want corners cut and environmental disasters.


[LIST]
Is there any specific issues you have with the anarcho-capitalist plan?
Yeahhh monopolies being the main one. If there are truly no regulations then I would worry about child labour, low wages, companies not looking after the environment and products produced being unsafe.
[/QUOTE]

Well, of all these branches, you are wrong for defence. Historically, there were the Condottieri (Italian for contractors), mercanary armies for hire essentially. They were preferred troops of Italian city-states than noble feudal levies because the Condottieri were professional soldiers, more incentivised to fight, better armed and their leaders used dirty tactics, everything to win and to get a higher approval and monetary compensation among possible employers of their services. Private military contractors now hire guys with lots experience which saves for training. I mean if you would pitch your average US grunt platoon against a PMC platoon which before private service served in the French Foreign Legion or a decade under arms, the PMC would win. There is a lack of training because for now the states provide training. You should make a distinction between private military contractors and paramilitary organisations also.

Porpoise101
November 17th, 2016, 05:25 PM
Well, of all these branches, you are wrong for defence. Historically, there were the Condottieri (Italian for contractors), mercanary armies for hire essentially. They were preferred troops of Italian city-states than noble feudal levies because the Condottieri were professional soldiers, more incentivised to fight, better armed and their leaders used dirty tactics, everything to win and to get a higher approval and monetary compensation among possible employers of their services.
Well the condottiere were hired out by a government acting in the collective interest of the people (or the personal interest of a prince). If an Italian dodged taxes in Mantua for example, it's not like the petty prince who hired out those mercs are going to not protect his home, especially if he lived in an important defensible position. In this case, the dodger gets benefit from not paying anything, and it's partially why defense can be difficult to organize without a government or central authority.

Hyper
November 17th, 2016, 11:10 PM
Can you give one example of a monopoly that didn't form as a result of government intervention in that market?


What constitutes government intervention?

If it's the existance of modern day infrastructure or patent laws - then that is almost a rhetorical question :P

Porpoise101
November 18th, 2016, 07:12 PM
an you give one example of a monopoly that didn't form as a result of government intervention in that market?
Pretty much any landholder to what became our national parks in the US. Or someone that owns any cultural or historical property of significance. Since there is only one of these types of places, a monopoly is easy to create if you have ownership.

On a more practical level, perhaps certain springs for water bottling or mines for minerals.

Hermes
November 21st, 2016, 12:28 PM
The broader issue is in medical insurance plans and that's a result of a distinct lack of competition - arising from government intervention - and the inability to accrue economies of scale in processing - again, arising from government intervention.

So how does this work out for those who are long term sick and require much expensive treatment?

Surely in a free market in which the majority of people are healthy for the majority of the time the insurance companies will compete on providing a competitive premium for the heathy majority and that means finding as many ways to predict future heath issues as possible to make sure the healthy majority are not charged to support the unhealthy minority.

Even if a few specialist companies do concenrate on the niche market of insurance for the chronically sick they have segmented the market and the chronically sick will face very high premiums however competitive the companies that server them.

In the UK we have the NHS but the model for what I am talking about exists here where it comes to young drivers. Yes, there are some companies that run a mile from young drivers (i.e. offer ridiculous premiums no-one would dream of paying) while others make that part of the market a specilism but even with those premiums for young drivers are very high.

The difficulty if the same were to happen in heath is that eventually you regress to the law of the jungle where if you are too sick to keep up with the majority you simply perish.

I guess a good example to look at is the market for smartphones - how long does it take for the market to adapt to new and popular innovations? In anarcho-capitalism, no one is going to want to operate on an noncompetitive product either.

A luxury product where the pace of change is very fast is probably the best of example of how a market can beat any kind of beuracracy, but that does not mean a market is suiatble for everything.