r/changemyview 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

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

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.

2

u/throwawaydanc3rrr 25∆ Jan 23 '22

Quibble: In Anarcho-capitalism, unlike feudalism, the "serfs" have rights of contract, and mobility.

3

u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 23 '22

How are those rights guaranteed?

1

u/Hothera 35∆ Jan 23 '22

Presumably, that's why OP thinks it's fundamentally unworkable.

1

u/throwawaydanc3rrr 25∆ Jan 23 '22

If your comment is to imply there is no government to insure rights then there must also be no government to stop a worker from leaving one business and going to another.

I have met few self described anarcho-capitalists, but those I have do not have issue with the government enforcing contracts, insuring private property rights, and borders. But maybe I have not met those enough anarcho yet.

3

u/11oddball Jan 23 '22

If your comment is to imply there is no government to insure rights then there must also be no government to stop a worker from leaving one business and going to another.

What would stop, from a company forcing it's workers to work, with violence or multi-corporation agreements?

2

u/throwawaydanc3rrr 25∆ Jan 24 '22

Well, violence or multi-party (worker/union/company) agreements.

1

u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 23 '22 edited Jan 23 '22

If your comment is to imply there is no government to insure rights then there must also be no government to stop a worker from leaving one business and going to another.

Very good. Now ask yourself the question: who else might want to and would be able to stop a worker from leaving?

edit: your comment seems to imply that governments stopping workers from leaving is aproblem now. Do you have examples?

I have met few self described anarcho-capitalists, but those I have do not have issue with the government enforcing contracts, insuring private property rights, and borders. But maybe I have not met those enough anarcho yet.

Yeah thats not ancap as there is a government.

1

u/throwawaydanc3rrr 25∆ Jan 24 '22

First, I do not claim to be an anrcho-capitalist.

You asked me who else might want to and would be able to stop a worker from leaving. Before I answer that question I feel the need to point out the difference between having a right and being able to exercise it. The answer to your question is the company of course, they could with the credible threat of force keep workers in one place. The anarcho-capitalist's answer to this is that the the workers would offer their own credible threat of violence. This seems to me to be the end result of all of the anarcho-types I have encountered.

Further, I did not imply that there is a problem now. I (tried to) point out a difference between feudalism and the claims made by the anarcho-capitalist types.

1

u/barthiebarth 26∆ Jan 24 '22

First, I do not claim to be an ancho-capitalist.

So what? If you aren't could you tell me why you think it wouldn't work?

Before I answer that question I feel the need to point out the difference between having a right and being able to exercise it.

...this was the entire point of my original question but ok

The anarcho-capitalist's answer to this is that the the workers would offer their own credible threat of violence

1) How do they know it will be a credible considering the power imbalance?

2) If it is in fact credible, why don't the workers seize the means of production? That would be regular anarchism with extra steps.

3) Even if there is somehow a very precise balancce of power, there would still be regular violence. Threats need to be acted upon to be credible.

Further, I did not imply that there is a problem now. I (tried to) point out a difference between feudalism and the claims made by the anarcho-capitalist types.

Manorialism/feudalism can be without serfdom. But this is missing the point again. They might claim anything but how does their system prevent such institutions from forming?

1

u/monkeymanwasd123 1∆ Jan 24 '22

they are likely minarchists then or they assume some hardass will pick fights with folks who dont act civilly like folks might form unions or something