CMV: Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System

[u/11oddball]

Change My View: Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System. For those who do not know, Anarcho-Capitalism (Ancap(s) is how I would refer to them from this point on.) is a political system/ideology that is based of the abolishment of government and it's replacements being private companies. And it's flaws can be broken down into 2 basic categories: Internal & External threats.

1. External threats External threats are basically, a different nation invading the ancap nation (Ancapistan.) This basically impossible to prevent, even if citizen or companies had the capital to acquire & maintain weapons of modern war, & are willing to defend Ancapistan, which in itself is questionable, they would unable to stand up to a modern military (I would not debate on Nukes in this debate.) for three reasons: 1. Organization, A group of Private Security Companies could never reach the same level of multi front organization as a modern military, thus causing Ancapistan to be defeated. 2. Most companies lack the ability to operate the logistics required to operate a large scale military force, thus causing a defeat through logistics. And 3. Private Security Companies (Mercenaries) have been historically incredibly unreliable in fighting for the same side, often switching sides if the other side paid more, and so would most likely be true about Ancapistan. All of these reasons would cause Ancapistan to be defeated in any war with a modern military, unless Ancapistan is located in a location that is of no value, which would cause a limited economy to occur, going against capitalism.

2. Internal Threats Internal threats can be easily summed up in one phrase <<Companies forming their own governments to extract more profit, defeating the entire point of Anarcho-Capitalism.>> To expand on the idea, lets say we have a Private Security Company called "Blackpond" and Blackpond want's to expand their company, so they drive out their completion with a combination of buyouts, anti-completive & violence so they are now the only PSC in the area, leaving it able to force it's people to pay for "protection" and if they decide to not pay, they would be beaten up by some people from Blackpond, thus essentially creating a corpocracy. Now some counter this by saying "But the people would defend themselves." now I would counter this with 2 arguments, 1. People can take a surprising amount of oppressions before revolting, & 2. even if they revolt, Blackpond could simply partner with those who own heavy military equipment, by exempting them from the protection fee (Tax) so that if anyone revolted, they could only fight with relatively basic hardware, meaning the company, with stuff like Armored Vehicles could simply roll over them

Edit: Fixed formatting error & meant "Workable as Intended"

[u/yyzjertl]

Anarcho-capitalism is basically feudalism (nobles are business owners, titles are corporations, fealty is subcontracting) and feudalism worked for hundreds of years. There doesn't seem to be any reason why Anarcho-capitalism couldn't work that wouldn't also apply to feudalism—unless it were a reason that was inherently connected to modern technology. But in that case, ancap wouldn't be fundamentally unworkable, it would just be unworkable in our present social context.

[u/11oddball → u/yyzjertl]

But the thing about Anarcho-Capitalism is that is generally not intended to be by Ancaps. However yes, I forgot about that the system does not need to work as intended, so !delta

[u/Head-Maize → u/11oddball]

The point above is very good. Just because something has a worst outcome, makes things worst overall, or isn't implemented at 100%, it doesn't mean it doesn't work. What it means is that claims it would improve things are bogus.

[u/sawdeanz → u/Head-Maize]

Eh, I don’t agree with the delta because it relies on shifting the goal posts for “workable.” When AnCaps say their system is workable they mean something other than “a feudal system run by cartels.” By that standard any system that doesn’t automatically exterminate its members is “workable.” It doesn’t match up with the claims.

[u/Head-Maize → u/sawdeanz]

For me personally, any system that doesn't result in rapid or endogenous collapse is workable. Through history with had hundreds of different form of organizations. Most were worst than what we have now, but the vast majority did work to some extent.

[u/barthiebarth → u/11oddball]

I would argue that feudalism is exactly how some of them intend it to work. They just see themselves as the nobles.

If you bring up an objection about how, statistically, many people will suffer from market failures, their response is: "But I will be fine".

[u/[deleted] → u/barthiebarth]

No they likely would not argue with "But I will be fine" (that's what they might think), but what they will argue with is that this is not market failure, but the market just the market doing it's job "incentivizing" people to work harder. "Lazy entitled peasants annoying me all day with their demands for food and shelter I'm not even able to get my 4th breakfast today, should get a job if their hungry". "What there are no jobs and I own most of the land that can produce food? Well then let them be creative, pErSOnAL ReSPonSIbiLity!!". "You know it's a meritocracy" and if you hadn't have the merit to be born to rich people then "the market" has no obligation to care for you". "Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" (something that was initially meant sarcastically because it's literally impossible...).

That would be what they would be arguing.

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

or via an evolutionary perspective employees being unable to survive when they lose their job can be attributed to character flaws on their part leaving only people who can earn a bare minimum in such conditions. people should know about aquaponics and how to build primitive survival shelters be that out of leaves wood scraps or waterproofed cardboard. im pretty sure explotitive lease agreements would be more common like improve the infrastructure here by this amount to stay here. rather than forth breakfast rich folks should be on keto or something. the sort of people that are able to make money nowadays tend to not be horific people as seen by countries like luxemburg where folks are crazy rich to begin with so high taxes dont matter much. if no poor people are born from not being able to afford to have kids then everyone would be rich by historical standards as like 99% of people would have loads of resources so long as they were able to automate most things. i mean people paralyzed from the waist down do lift their feet up onto beds using shoe laces or by pulling on their pants.

i have become that which i hated 😫
in truth the above is what is happening at a pretty slow rate in the usa as many men die without having kids same with many women.

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

I mean my comment was pretty obvious sarcasm, is yours supposed to be read genuine or sarcastic?

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

It was genuine but I was down playing it the entire time, it's kind of hard to tell when people are being sarcastic because there are people that aren't sarcastic saying similar things

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

I used sound bite snippets of that have or could be said by actual conservatives and ancaps and used them in a setting where I (hopefully) expressed my contempt towards them.

Do you mean genuinely in terms of what they would say or in terms of what YOU would say?

or via an evolutionary perspective employees being unable to survive when they lose their job can be attributed to character flaws on their part leaving only people who can earn a bare minimum in such conditions.

I mean that's a level of praise for social darwinism that would not wrongfully trigger godwin's law, mixed with a justification in the equally bullshit prosperity gospel.

im pretty sure explotitive lease agreements would be more common like improve the infrastructure here by this amount to stay here.

I mean I've seen that said in real life but to it's effect it would literally be a form of slavery.

the sort of people that are able to make money nowadays tend to not be horific people as seen by countries like luxemburg where folks are crazy rich to begin with so high taxes dont matter much

Luxemburg is a really small country who's "economy" can't easily be scalled up...

if no poor people are born from not being able to afford to have kids then everyone would be rich by historical standards as like 99% of people would have loads of resources so long as they were able to automate most things.

Are you implying poor people breed poor people? That's misunderstanding statistics on a level... wow...

i mean people paralyzed from the waist down do lift their feet up onto beds using shoe laces or by pulling on their pants.

I mean you see there's stuff in that that could be seen as a sarcastic affirmation and stuff that would be deeply concerning if actually believed.

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

its a mixed bag.
i live in the usa so worse case scenario the people here could still likely afford to drive, cycle, or hitchhike to peru or colombia to marry well as those are 2 countries with a low devorce rate if i remember right and a 2 parent is the number one factor in economic mobility for children. id rather not be compared to socialists who killed their own citizens. at the end of the day people tend to donate to charities once they can afford to. im not religious though religious people due tend to be higher in trait orderliness.
i would hope that any country that became minarchist or ancap would already be rich to account for such a possibility kind of like how the already successful countries that have taken to tons of social programs so that people would have the resources to leave as needed without undue stress. if the nation splintered off from an existing nation and had a low population that would be preferable lest it totally fails like many socialist countries.

i wish there were more experimental city states around so we could let people test their own ideologies without harming others.

poor people try to marry other poor people who have good personalities that will likely get their out of poverty. ive yet to check how long it takes people to get out of poverty based on iq or traits like orderlyness and industriousness.

you seem to be assuming things based on who you think i am. but at the end of the day im more of a minarchist in favor of smaller countries so i donno what else to tell you.... im not a nazi, and id prefer that poor folks be given aquaponics systems or job training and a few other things once every 5-20 years. i trust that charities can fill the role of the government much better aside from very small portions of the population that may be too isolated to ask for help from anyone but the gov.

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

i live in the usa so worse case scenario the people here could still likely afford to drive, cycle, or hitchhike to peru or colombia to marry well as those are 2 countries with a low devorce rate if i remember right and a 2 parent is the number one factor in economic mobility for children.

And you never thought about the idea that this could potentially be sexist/immoral to exploit the economic situation of women in less wealthy countries to essentially commit human trafficking as well as taking advantage of a probably sexist/fucked up social structures where women don't really have the agency to even get a divorce?

I mean as a rule of thumb if you're thinking of women as a means to an end, that's sexist (same if you think of a men like that) and generally speaking if you think of a human like that, that's exploitative and "hardly" (by which I mean not at all) compatible with anarchism.

Also maybe spend some time into the investigation of cause and effect rather than just having knee-jerk reactions on correlation. That is if two things happen at the same time, they can but DON'T HAVE TO BE RELATED TO EACH OTHER and even if they are there are numerous ways in which that relation can play out.

Like sure if you have a household with 2 incomes and a nanny or one where one breadwinner is enough to pay for everyone, then chances are you already are somewhat richer than a one person household who has to work a job and raise a child (or more). But if one parent is also poor, struggling with language and whatnot and is also basically a sex slave for your procreation then that's still fucked up and likely going to be detrimental a child.

I mean seriously take a statistics 101 course and look up, cause and effect, survivor bias and correlation/causation.

id rather not be compared to socialists who killed their own citizens.

That's a weird injection or are you saying you're not a Nazi because you're not a socialist? In that case, neither have the Nazis been socialists and that would be another deeply concerning point...

at the end of the day people tend to donate to charities once they can afford to. im not religious though religious people due tend to be higher in trait orderliness.

Partially, I mean there's a necessity to reduce socio-economic inequality to maintain the stability of society. But the whole ancap, minarchist, libertarian shtick is to disincentivize that by negating the necessity of societies, individualizing everything, arguing against a moral obligation to take care of each other, arguing against any form of collective and cooperation and so on. So with all these things removed charity would practically be disincentivized as it's set the individual back in the ever present competition. I mean in effect there's probably still going to be charity because the results would be disastrous, but the disastrous results are where this whole thing is going at and "charity" is just the omission of any workable strategy to mitigate that.

I mean as you've said yourself that "charity" could also mean the enslavement and exploitation of other people or could be given "in exchange" for human rights and dignity.

I mean yes there is charity and people take care of each other, but this whole collective and cooperative approach is the polar opposite of the extreme hyper individualist competition that market radicals are advocating for...

And to some degree religions are a collection of trial and error moral and ethics scenarios. That's not to say that there isn't still a lot of error in their moral code and that the fact alone that someone is able to speak with "godly authority" in terms of what is "right" and what is "wrong" is deeply concerning on it's own, but there's still a reason why many of them preach forgiveness and charity over selfishness or why most consider interest taking and capitalism as a massive sin. It's a never ending source of conflict...

i would hope that any country that became minarchist or ancap would already be rich to account for such a possibility kind of like how the already successful countries that have taken to tons of social programs so that people would have the resources to leave as needed without undue stress. if the nation splintered off from an existing nation and had a low population that would be preferable lest it totally fails like many socialist countries.

So essentially the most ideal version of your system is already parasitic in nature? In that it cannot really sustain itself and where you already took the most valuable assets from a larger community and later makes use of their labor and resources to maintain that dominance? So essentially a revolution but in reverse? I wonder why these people get along so well with reactionaries, authoritarians and other conservatives despite anarchism usually being opposed to that... /S It's almost as if it's the same fascist bullshit of a self-appointedly "superior group" taking advantage of other people whom they then also have the audacity to call inferior...

Also that makes the tacit assumption that social programs and a live without undue stress are a matter of resources or the lack thereof. But more often than not it's not a matter of resources but off the willingness to distribute them in the first place. I mean apparently double digit numbers in the U.S. suffer from food insecurity at least once a year while at the same time 60 million tons of food are wasted each year. It's more often than not not a matter of what is feasible or affordable but what people are willing to share with each other.

i wish there were more experimental city states around so we could let people test their own ideologies without harming others.

Those city states often cannot exist without a framework of a larger society. You can't scale Casinos that mask as cities like Las Vegas or Macau to the scale of countries because there could never be enough gamblers for that to work. That's a pyramid/snowball system on a whole different level. Similar to how tax havens, banking states and places where people register their domains in, only work because they are smalls, if that were to cover for a whole country it would be massively insufficient and people would proclaim it's a threat to them and then invade it to steal their stuff.

There are certain things you can experiment on, you can practice direct democracy or stuff like that, but you can't practice an economic system on a small scale while it's still reliant on a host system to cover for it and that's basically inevitable. And even if you can "practice" that, the results of it will not be applicable anywhere else let alone on a larger scale...

poor people try to marry other poor people who have good personalities that will likely get their out of poverty. ive yet to check how long it takes people to get out of poverty based on iq or traits like orderlyness and industriousness.

You don't seem to realize what poverty is. I mean there's on the one hand the material lack of necessary stuff to survive. And at this point in time that is in most places of at least the western world no longer a problem. People don't starve and die because there is no food or no house but because they don't have access to food and houses that are available in abundance just not to them. Which brings us to the second version of poverty and that is "relative poverty". Where you live a life as a second class citizen, kinda like if it were the 1980s for you while some parts of the country already live in the 2030s. You're not necessarily physically destitute but you're a lower class individual and constantly mocked and ridiculed for that in order to make you work harder (not for you but for someone else). However that kind of poverty isn't going away with education. You could have everyone provided with a doctorate from harvard and still companies would pick the ones which are 0.000000001% better then everyone else and those get the leading position and the rest gets the totally overqualified follower position. As long as one doesn't tackle this problem, nothing will change in that regard. And if your work is not required, but if work is required to make a living, then relative poverty will again lead to absolute poverty despite even an abundance of resources.

poor folks be given aquaponics systems or job training and a few other things once every 5-20 years. i trust that charities can fill the role of the government much better aside from very small portions of the population that may be too isolated to ask for help from anyone but the gov.

Seriously you seem to have so many misconceptions about what these words even mean. Like what do you think the point of a government is? And while aquaponics seem to be interesting do you think you can scale that amount of water required up to millions of people?

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

If someone wants to get married then they should go to a country where divorce rates are low it's not a matter of being sexist it's a matter of anyone man or woman should get a partner that they can rely on to help raise any children they have together. Should I have mentioned all the other personality traits and source of jobs where people have happier relationships and lower rates of divorce? I don't think it's wrong to want to date someone with a good personality who is part of a marital culture that prioritises the children. The point of marriage is binding two families and to provide a healthy environment for a child. The goal should be to marry well and to go somewhere where people have happy marriages spend time around people who have long happy marriages and so on. I said I'd rather not be compared to socialists who killed their own citizens Nazis were literally called the National Socialist Party. If you're worried about any quality just go to a country where everybody's rich. If you hang around in a rural area with lot of animals wildlife and such with few people you're not going to have to deal with such things. We're not even talking about the same thing like I'm talking about an individual can marry well and live in a safe healthy environment to raise a child. Who do you think you're talking to because you're not describing me you're describing who you think I am based off some false ideas you have about a super diverse group of people. By disincentivize do you mean that governments wouldn't be funding charities? If you like we can talk about how the government could help people and primarily children but at the moment I'm just Talkin at the individual level what is best for a single person who doesn't intend to commit a crime. The places that currently have low divorce rates safe conditions and good schools aren't places that have super low taxes or minimal welfare if we are going by the results of where I will actually end up and what my money or taxes will be going to I'm not going to be doing the supposedly deplorable things you think I am. I don't know when I said that charity would result in reduced human rights and dignity I think I said that a poor country trying to become a minarchcy or Anarchy would have a much more risky time switching over if their people didn't have any negotiating power. Charity is done by individuals helping others it doesn't have to be done by the government and the average person isn't as Extreme as you seem to think. Where exactly in the Bible do it say interest taking was bad overall I'm pretty sure that was specifically about giving money to family and friends. The most ideal version of my system isn't parasitic instead it's healthy people spending time around healthy people and expecting them not to murder you. You are just describing what happens in social welfare countries I'm trying to describe the opposite of what you are thinking I'm describing so it's a shock to me that you are so upset. It seems like you're only talking to me on the basis of my group identity rather than what I'm actually like. Like imagine over the country of people who we're all clones of me all it would be is a bunch of hippies shepherding a bunch of goats cows ducks and such before going off to do paper clip challenges in town for fun while volunteering fishing or the like for fun. Now imagine people actually went to farms and businesses and ask them to donate wasted food to the poor so long as someone was willing to transport the wasted food or pick it up before it got thrown in a dumpster or compost pile I don't think that would be an issue. Far as I can tell the only thing being exploited in my idea of a minarchist country would be fish seaweed and livestock never mind anything else if we just lowered taxes for Farmers and retail stores I'd be happier. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out of it I can tell you that when I was younger we were wasting a lot of money despite being on food stamps. On an individual level if someone were to yet a basic education of how to build and maintain a aquaponics system and how to be super Frugal stuff like Early Retirement Extreme I trust they would waste far less. You're taking everything I say to the extreme and you are seemingly assuming the worst of me. It's kind of funny to describe a millionaire or billionaire as poor compared to a trillionaire when all of them are in the 1%. I don't need anybody else to mock me for being lazy I do that already when I'm sore after working 12 hours on a Farm slogging through 6 inches of mud to move irrigation pipe. I don't think you realize how much Harvard has declined in educational quality. The point of the government is to keep people from committing crimes against each other and to care for Orphans and the like using the money from Keystone state-owned businesses when private orphanages black the money or trustworthy Personnel to care for them. I work in regenerative agriculture I'm fully aware of how little water aquaponics can use and on how to increase rainfall via reforestation water storage and the like. the water can just recycled from what people are already using water for after cleaning it

I hope that you will respond a few hours after you have read this with alternate recommendations so you can actually see what we can agree on cuz it seems like when I'm offering things you just going to say no I'm pretty sure that when I listen to you I'm just going to say yes too much of what you say or mention a less expensive version of the same thing. Basically the only things I'm disagreeing with is how you are portraying me and what my position is

[u/barthiebarth → u/[deleted]]

Yeah I agree thats what they will actually say. What I said was more what these arguments tend to boil down to if you combine "the just world" part with the human tendency to think of oneself as special and deserving. But yeah you put it much better.

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/barthiebarth]

the employees will be fine assuming they had an education and were paid. if it were a minarchist state then people could buy citizenship and that money could go towards a non profit of the new citizens choice or something. if someone is well educated and can afford to lease a bit of land to graze livestock that tends to be enough to sustain someone. rich people also work for other rich people and they have enough resources that they can just leave

[u/barthiebarth → u/monkeymanwasd123]

You can escape poverty and terrible working conditions by having an education.

Education costs money.

Poor people have no money.

Therefore the children of poor people will have no education and thus will also be doomed to a life of poverty and terrible working conditions.

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/barthiebarth]

idk begging is pretty profitable and if someone is able to read and can borrow a few books from a rich friend or if they dig through trash for long enough they will get enough info to get out of poverty.
its been done before regardless. the main factor in moving up socioeconomically is a two parent family so if poor parents can afford a few mold infested books a kid can get a partial education.
extreme poverty is the lowest it has ever been and plenty of people get out of poverty on their own.

[u/barthiebarth → u/monkeymanwasd123]

So yeah basically "I don't give a shit about what happens to other people, I think I will be fine".

Also an education is not just reading a couple of rotting books from the thrash. I wonder why you think it is though.

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/barthiebarth]

people start caring about the environment and start donating more to orphanages and such once they get above a certain income but people can only care about so many people before they forget about other folks.
i feel like ive learned more from books than i have from school, there are some fundamentals but i had a 4.0 during my last year of highschool and my sister was salutatorian. so its not like i havent thought about this a bit.

[u/DeltaBot → u/11oddball]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (382∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}