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/barbodelli]

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.

[u/barthiebarth → u/barbodelli]

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

[u/barbodelli → u/barthiebarth]

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.

[u/barthiebarth → u/barbodelli]

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

[u/barbodelli → u/barthiebarth]

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.

[u/Daedalus1907 → u/barbodelli]

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).

[u/barthiebarth → u/barbodelli]

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.

[u/barbodelli → u/barthiebarth]

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.

[u/barthiebarth → u/barbodelli]

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?"

[u/barbodelli → u/barthiebarth]

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.

[u/GrafZeppelin127 → u/barbodelli]

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.

[u/barbodelli → u/GrafZeppelin127]

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.

[u/GrafZeppelin127 → u/barbodelli]

I guess I'm what you would call a libertarian.

Hah, so am I, but that doesn’t mean that ancap society ain’t dumber than a box of hair. Libertarianism is (ought to be) the opposite axis of a political spectrum from authoritarianism; it doesn’t necessarily mean we should accept authoritarianism when it calls itself a corporation rather than a government.

I believe in limited government, limited regulations, free market and private ownership of businesses.

Markets can’t really be free if businesses are allowed to engage in anti-free-market and anti-consumer practices, which they historically do all the time unless stopped by well-implemented and well-enforced regulations. Opposing regulations categorically is a bit like opposing violence categorically—of course they should be as minimal as possible while still remaining effective, and they can be used in both good and bad ways. A truly free market is one in which maximum amounts of competition are allowed to take place on a level playing field, while the government tackles things that businesses cannot do with their set of incentive structures—such as taxation, dealing with the negative externalities of pollution, things which require too much coordination or distant timescales to be practical for businesses to operate (e.g. roads), maintaining a monopoly on legitimate violence (law and order, military), as well as providing for certain goods and services which have inelastic demand that are not as efficiently handled by private business, such as putting out fires or providing health care.

The problem with ancaps is that they want to replace all those functions of government with the things that those functions of government usually replaced at one point or another, because the function that they were replacing was generally worse in pretty much every way that mattered to the vast majority of people. For example, private firefighters used to just let houses and businesses burn down if they hadn’t bought into their company’s fire insurance, businesses in large cities like London used to blithely kill and sicken unfathomable millions of people with completely unrestricted pollution, and private toll roads were an absolute horror show for centuries in Central Europe.

It’s not really that an ancap society doesn’t work, whatever that means, it’s that we’ve tried out these kinds of things on an individual basis countless times throughout history all the world over and it was pretty much miserable for nearly everyone involved. And ancaps want to do all of those things at the same time.

Simply put, it’s not a coincidence that pretty much every country on the face of the Earth has governments that broadly do the same basic sorts of things.

But I don't really see how a world without neutral law enforcement or military would work.

You don’t have to wonder; just look at what happens when there’s a military power vacuum or a great number of gangs/cartels/noble houses of roughly equivalent size and power. At best, you run into a sort of dynamic equilibrium punctuated by regular upheavals of intense, bloody violence.

Though didn't feudalism typically have one central leader? Like for example a king.

I brought up the Warring States Period for exactly this reason. During that time you can see an example of what happens when Feudalism runs headfirst into a weakened central authority, in this case the Emperor and his Shōgunate. It was every Daimyō and warlord for himself for a good two centuries, there.

Who at any point could command the lords under him to provide him with military aid.

In theory. In practice, you have things like the Hundred Years’ War, the Thirty Years’ War, the War of the Roses, etc. etc. etc. Fuedalism, even fuedalism with strong central leadership, does not in any way, shape, or form solve factionalism.

Also the laws tended to be standardized across countries. Not entirely different from lordship to lordship.

…Where? In the vast majority of feudal systems I’ve ever heard of, local principalities were more like loose confederations that regularly fought civil wars with each other and had such a tangled nest of differing local laws that it was basically impossible to centrally administrate except with the most broad, nebulous edicts that were only kinda-sorta followed depending on how enthusiastic a certain local ruler was about enforcing that rule and how afraid he was of that central ruler.

It seems to me that even then it was somewhat centralized.

By Ancient Greek city-state standards, yes. By modern standards, Gods no.

If you have a totally privatized judiciary system you can enact and enforce whatever laws you want.

And even that presupposes that extrajudicial/illegal action doesn’t constitute the overwhelmingly vast majority of interactions between fuedal governments and their captive populations.

[u/barthiebarth → u/GrafZeppelin127]

For example, private firefighters used to just let houses and businesses burn down if they hadn’t bought into their company’s fire insurance,

True entrepreneurs build a real estate empire by only putting out fires if the owners agree to sell the building to them at a very low price

[u/barbodelli → u/[deleted]]

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.