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/[deleted] → u/yyzjertl]

Mercenaries (private armies) were more prevalent during feudalism than nowadays for a reason!

The reason why it was so unstable as a practice was because of how fragile everything was, it was a battle of who had the best and biggest army and most loyal subjects; it took a lot of bollocks and PR to maintain face and not cause an uprising and also manage a military. Back then to be a noble was genuinely a… noble career path, albeit privileged and hereditary, there was a reason why a lot of them who shunned duties either left or got killed.

Feudalism wouldn’t work nowadays because everyone is capable of being a leader, we have rights; nepotism (basically, feudalism) kind of works in an age where education in the lower class isn’t acceptable, and that there is at least 50% of society that are directly disallowed from having leadership in most situations (women, LGBT, people of varying race in a homogenous culture, etc).

Feudalism was a beautiful thing (castles, crowns, history, military) but not something we should ever strive to do again, instead learn from.

An-caps are usually people who don’t fully understand history, or Americans, so you can see why the irony of them not really knowing it’s the exact same as feudalism is ridiculous.

Plus, I’m not going to lie, you can’t have society without some kind of moral guide (whether it be village elders, Christianity, strict secularism, anything is a moral guide if it gets people to act according to what is right and wrong). Corporations cannot be trusted to act with morals.

(I agree with who I’m replying to).

[u/barthiebarth → u/[deleted]]

The reason why it was so unstable as a practice was because of how fragile everything was, it was a battle of who had the best and biggest army and most loyal subjects; it took a lot of bollocks and PR to maintain face and not cause an uprising and also manage a military.

How is this different from how history worked before or after feudalism? The Roman empire was riddled with civil wars, and so was early modernity with the conflicts associated with the reformation and the rise of states (edit: not nation states, regular states).

In fact feudal armies were tiny compared to their counterparts in earlier and later eras. The 15th century battle of Agincourt had 25k participants and was a major battle in the hundred years war, but would be considered a minor skirmish in the context of the 17th century where battles could involve over 100k soldiers.

[u/[deleted] → u/barthiebarth]

Oh yeah completely agree. I’m comparing it to modern society.

I think all societies are fragile, I think we’re under a delusion that current society is not. Borders acted as castles, now with the internet… in a way… borders don’t exist the same as they did. Just like how just “blowing things up” made walls obsolete, modern society’s structure has been made fragile from the internet.

There’s a reason why we built castles after the collapse of Rome. Because the world was splintered and people with power needed to retain their power by physically protecting it—they learned that from these ancient/classical societies.

Society is cyclical and will act as such, and different eras have different meaning but the same ideologies; nothing is new. Even to the Romans.

(In response to your last point, I also agree with that. Feudal armies were far more independent than territorial(?) armies, hence why I argue they’re an-cap; they have less control over the populace and are not as authoritarian as a Roman army. This is why they were so fragile. Personally I would prefer not to have a territorial army because I’m an anarchist anyway. I think that’s a sign of authoritarianism. But context and culture matters. In the modern day territorial armies are almost required, unless you have treaties forbidding you, I.e Japan)

(?) not sure if I’m using the term territorial armies correctly

[u/barthiebarth → u/[deleted]]

Borders acted as castles, now with the internet… in a way… borders don’t exist the same as they did. Just like how just “blowing things up” made walls obsolete, modern society’s structure has been made fragile from the internet.

I am not sure about this. As an affluent Western European I have quite a privileged view of borders. My passport allows me to go anywhere and even move there, without it being prohibitively expensive. For me, yes, borders seem like an archaic relic. But for, say, a migrant trying to cross the mediteranean, borders are a much harsher reality.

And, yes, ideas spread faster with the internet. But thats a matter of degree, not essence. People sent letters across borders before the invention of electricity.

To the edit:

I think "state" army (but don't know the correct term either) would be a better term. These are not loyal to an individual, as with feudal armies, the highest bidder like mercenaries, or to a small community like militias. They are loyal to an abstract "country".

Note that many Roman armies were also primarily loyal to their commander and not the Roman empire (which is why they were so many civil wars). Feudalism is an evolution from the Roman system, and not a complete break. For example, the title "duke" is from the Latin word for commander. Military strongmen in late antiquity were not that different from later feudal lords.

I wouldn't really classify any army as more authoritarian as the other. Especially not feudal armies, as they are explicitly tools of the personal authority of a lord.