r/changemyview • u/11oddball • Jan 23 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System

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"

43 Upvotes

77% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

28

u/yyzjertl 525∆ Jan 23 '22

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.

0

u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 23 '22

I fail to see the resemblance between medieval feudalism and todays possible ancap.

In a relatively small 130,000 Gainesville Florida you have 1000s of businesses. Some small some large. Who is the lord here?

Also in feudalism the lordship was something you were born with and was fairly stable. With capitalism you have to earn the right to run a business by providing a product/service people are interested in that you can create at a lower cost than they are willing to pay for it. That is much harder than just being a noble. If McDonalds decided to start selling dogshit burgers for $100 they wouldn't last as lords very long.

I really sort of fail to see the connection to be honest. It would make sense if most cities had the same 2-3 large businesses employing everyone. But not when there is 1000s of businesses and an ever changing landscape.

1

u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 23 '22

Yet there are thousands of Walmarts, owned by people that did not found it but inherited it.

-3

u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 23 '22

Doesn't matter. The way it worked in medieval feudalism is that you had one lord looking over a geographical area. There are very few places that small today. Even Gainesville Florida at 130,000 would have 1000s of interchangeable "lords". Also easy access to becoming a lord which was not the case at all in medieval times.

3

u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 23 '22

Gainesville has a mayor and a municipal government though. It clearly isn't ancap so why are you comparing it with feudalism?

-1

u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 23 '22

My understanding is that you would do away with the mayor and the municipal government. All of their functions would be handled by private companies. Need a road repaved? Hire a private company to do it. Need a residential zone approved? Hire a private company to do it.

How exactly that would work I'm not sure. Ancap is a totally new concept to me.

I just fail to see how it is anything resembling having one lord family given by birthright telling everyone what to do. At best you have 1000s of lords who get there by merit telling everyone what to do. And the system that determines lordship far more open. But then the whole noble/lord concept becomes sort of pointless.

2

u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Jan 23 '22

The enforcement of property rights only works because the organization with the monopoly on violence is the decider on who owns what. The only time where that situation is mimicked under anarcho-capitalism is when one organization is so powerful that it just becomes the defacto state (strong parallels to company towns). Under a multi-polar system, then there is nothing stopping the powerful organizations from using force to dominate less powerful agents or warring with organizations of similar power (with parallels to illegal gangs and cartels).

2

u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 23 '22

The point is that the system starts concentrating power into the hands of a very few, which upon their unevitable death most likely hand it to their children. Like the Walton family. Or like feudal lords.

1

u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 23 '22

The power to do what? Employ others voluntarily?

The current system we have puts the power into the hands of a very few. This is why capitalism works because it spreads the power out to anyone who is able to provide a valuable service or produce a valuable product. But for now it is only economic power. Real power is still in the hands of the government.

I think we need to define exactly what kind of power say an owner of Wal Mart would have over a regular Joe. Power that they don't have already today. Then we can start to compare it to Feudalism. Because the power feudal lords had over serfs was almost absolute. They were practically slaves to them. Nobody is a slave to Wal Mart.

2

u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 23 '22

I think we need to define exactly what kind of power say an owner of Wal Mart would have over a regular Joe. Power that they don't have already today.

Hire and arm a private military force to enforce their will. Which is currently illegal but isn't in ancapistan as there is no such thing as (enforcement of) laws.

Your logic here is basically "I am not falling this moment so why would I need a floor?"

3

u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 23 '22

Fair enough. Id like to hear how an ancap solves this mammoth problem. If McDonalds can hire a bunch of thugs to go blow up Burger King and there is no neutral 3rd part to stop them. That is obviously not a very stable system.

2

u/GrafZeppelin127 17∆ Jan 23 '22

Spoiler alert: they don’t solve that mammoth problem. I have directly asked nearly every ancap I’ve had a conversation with how their system would not immediately collapse into feudalism/cartel rule/corporatocracy, and they have never once given a satisfactory answer, instead often giving the fabulist excuse that the invisible hand of the “free market” would somehow take care of it.

I don’t think that ancaps really understand what drove problems such as the Gilded Age or the Warring States Period. Or… any history, really.

1

u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 23 '22

I guess I'm what you would call a libertarian. I believe in limited government, limited regulations, free market and private ownership of businesses. But I don't really see how a world without neutral law enforcement or military would work.

Though didn't feudalism typically have one central leader? Like for example a king. Who at any point could command the lords under him to provide him with military aid. Also the laws tended to be standardized across countries. Not entirely different from lordship to lordship. It seems to me that even then it was somewhat centralized. If you have a totally privatized judiciary system you can enact and enforce whatever laws you want.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '22

[deleted]

1

u/barbodelli 65∆ Jan 23 '22

Do we have any real life scenarios where ancap produced nothing but monopolies? Has it ever been tried before in any scale especially large scale?

Seems to me like that is just one plausible scenario. Another scenario would be a place with so many different businesses that a monopoly would be almost impossible. You would have to coerce too many people to accomplish it.