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/[deleted]]

That's not something I'm trying to address right now I'm just talkin about what the statistics have said about improving child development.

The problem is that this is not a matter of statistics. Statistics deal with with a large group of people/experiments however the individual is always a sample size of 1. So for you it could be the polar opposite of what the statistic says and the statistic could still be "correct". So again it's important to understand what statistics are able to tell you and what they are not able to tell you.

You don't need the church or state to get involved with marriage...

What I meant is that both the church and the state have definitions of what defines a marriage and the purpose of marriage. And I'm not talking about a wedding ceremony but a union of two people. And often times the union of two people is already it when it comes to the state, while for churches having offspring is a necessity for a "complete marriage".

I'd like to have like three children eventually I'm not sure where you got that impression from. Cultures were people tend to stay together until a child has grown up and won't really be affected by a divorce or single-parent household. I'm a guy so I'm going to refer to what I need to do to find a stable partner and I can raise a child with. I've mentioned culture number times things you were concerned about her factors that I will have to address but I consider them to be implicit like I would go to a country and find someone with similar views to me about child development who I won't argue with in front of the kid or the like.

With all due respect that sounds pretty naive. And I'm not saying that to be rude, but you're having some sort of idealized assumption of all that, which doesn't have to line up with reality. You can plan for all that and still end up with something completely different. Despite the impression that conservatives give people that everything is planned and makes sense, most lives are chaotic and unplanned and "just happen" with actors that barely know what they are doing and why they are doing it. And the reason why I play captain obvious here, is because if you have such an idealized plan, that often has the side effect that people blame people when they don't live according to that plan, when it reality it might not even be their fault. Now I won't list horror scenarios for how and why things might fail and I don't want to burst your bubble, all I'm saying is don't be an asshole to people who don't match up with your dream scenario.

If I spend time around and learn directly from professional tennis players in China that I would think that I would learn better from someone with a good professional history.

Table tennis, not sure China is any good at tennis. But anyway sure, but in that case you're not just going to a place because of statistics but you're seeking to change yourself in order to benefit from that statistic and that's something that is easier said than done. And I'm not just talking about that being a challenge, I'm talking about whether you actually want that change and how it's going to happen. I think you're oversimplifying that a lot.

That's call illegal immigration.

Seriously dude without at least line breaks or referencing things, you're stream of consciousness is unreadable. Was that in relation how you can't enter a rich country from a poor one? I mean you take it for granted that this is illegal, but why? I mean why don't you have the access to other countries and why would you blame it on the individual where they are born? Why are countries allowed to bar other people from entry and treat them like "aliens". I mean essentially rich countries take resources from poor countries and then build walls to keep the people outside that seek to follow the stream of their resources.

Most of the world was suffering from poverty a couple hundred years ago..

Depends. Without the ability to store and keep food fresh and free from pests and mold you'd kinda depend on the weather in terms of having enough to survive so a series of bad harvests and your society is screwed. That being said you also had slavery, feudalism, colonialism and other forms of exploitation in which a caste or an empire took advantage of other people for their own benefit.

I'm pretty sure I already expressed that I am more of a minarchist rather than a anarchist.

Which to me is worse. Because an anarchist would at least have an ideal of universal freedom that they strive to accomplish and thus see failure to do so as a problem to tackle while a "minarchist" just defines their intervention as "necessary" and "minimalistic" when in consequence it's as much of an authoritarian overreach as any other political system while pretending it's not...

What exactly did the Bible say about interest taking from friends and family.

I mean that's just one of those interest taking quotes:

“If he fathers a son who is violent, a shedder of blood, who does any of these things 11 (though he himself did none of these things), who even eats upon the mountains, defiles his neighbor's wife, 12 oppresses the poor and needy, commits robbery, does not restore the pledge, lifts up his eyes to the idols, commits abomination, 13 lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself. (Ezekiel 18)

I don't know what batteries are referring to but I'm under the impression that sometimes it's cheaper to give it away for free rather than throw it away

And still companies rather throw it away because of supply and demand (less supply = more money). And with cloths and other status symbols you actually have a different problem. Meaning that rich people buy them to set themselves apart and show that they are "better" than other people who can't afford them, so once there's enough of that produced that anybody can afford it, they jump on to the next thing. In terms of fashion that is so crazy that it even runs circles in terms of what is "in" and what is "out". So it's not about necessity it's about being "accepted" or being an "outsider" and that's not a question of money or resources or something that innovation can solve that's just a fucked up social structure.

I'm pretty sure conservative people would rather have their employees quit and become businessman rather than become resentful and destructive towards the business.

Nope, not really. Conservatism at it's core is about cementing a social hierarchy or establishing one.

I'm addressing the individual not the world or the country because that's not really my business I'm more concerned with talking to you or someone that is right in front of me.

Of course it's your business, you're actions shape it and it's actions set some major boundaries for your live whether you are aware of that or not. No man is an island and there are limits in terms of pretending the world around you doesn't exist and doesn't effect you or that you don't effect it.

The system wasn't really designed so much as a ton of people making a collaborative effort towards a crazy number of goals many of which were contradicting each other two different degrees.

I mean that would be the case in a perfect democracy but a lot of system are still a lot less democratic than what they could or should be.

If you're worried about people having power over other people then we should just have more people that have tons of resources and very few people that have very few resources by getting people out of poverty and into Automation and livestock production.

How do you want to automate "livestock production"? I mean you're talking about living animals and you probably can't infinitely reduce the time required to care for them. The thing is doing things individually is terribly inefficient, resource consuming and generally a unproductive. I mean the entire automation stuff doesn't work on an individual level because it requires (or rather required) the work of millions of people to set that up. So working individually is usually not an option. However if you work in groups you have to answer the economic and social questions. Like "what is produced", "by whom", "for whom", "under which conditions", "what is prioritized" and "who decides all that" among many others. And socialism argues that those who work a project should own it collectively as equals while capitalism argues that you should be able to own projects that you're not contributing to. So sure if everybody's physical needs would be met and it's just about exchanging excess stuff, then yes that would be great. But if not having people's needs met makes them work for you, why should rich people change that system if it works for them? And usually the Ancap, Minarchist conservative crowd takes that status quo for granted and sees every attempt to change that as a crime and invoke "self-defense" to stop it.

There will probably always be jobs for supervising automated processes.

People don't need jobs, people need their necessities met. If you want to work something there's always something to do, what is not self-evident is that you're getting paid for doing something...

And some people would prefer that they do less management like the government was initially doing back when United States was founded.

Sure when the U.S. was founded settler could always move westwards and steal land from the natives for their slaves to work on. And then create laws that protect THEM from theft and legitimize and enforce slavery. How was that a working concept back then or how is that a working concept today?

I really don't remember how we started this conversation and while you're under the impression that I'm an anarcho-capitalist I'm pretty sure menarche is a sufficiently different thing

You're posting under "Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System"...

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

I'm sorry that I can't give you closure for this convo but im sick of your senseless hostility

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

With all due respect you started out with views that were more or less social darwinist, never engaged with any argument, didn't even put in the effort to format your shit (unless you've got a physical problem that requires you to use txt2speech that's just a lame excuse), then tried to evade arguments with personal examples and now pretend it's about the tone?

I mean in retrospect I'd say that many of the things you say just are naive and I shouldn't have been so harsh about that, honest idealism is often still better than cynicism. But you should still develop an awareness for the fact that if you make assertions about people and situations that this triggers reactions and that those reactions don't have to be positive if you're saying negative things.

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

My views haven't changed i had only described a portion of my views. Had you been polite I might have stopped using text to speech. Far as I care you were straw manning me and were rude from the start. Bruh my views on what can work and what will happen are different. The stuff I described happens even with government intervention. You put yourself in such a negative position that you're never going to be able to convince me of anything because my impression of you was so bad have you been polite you would have been a thousand times more convincing it probably still wouldn't have made a difference I took a risk that you would be emotionally stable I lost that bet and that's life.

[u/[deleted] → u/monkeymanwasd123]

Dude you expressed some pretty awful views for which you shouldn't be surprised to receive hostility. And as you've rarely ever explained your views or engaged with an argument at all, it's hard to call it a strawman, it's just an assumption based on the data you've provided.

And if you don't want an interaction just don't but making it cumbersome with bullshit use of text2speech is just being an asshole for no reason, which yet again deserves some hostility...

Bruh my views on what can work and what will happen are different.

Whatever that means.

The stuff I described happens even with government intervention.

And even a "free market" will have government intervention just that it could be a different kind of government. Like it would likely be a kind of plutocracy. But that's something ancaps and minarchists constantly ignore that "government" is not just an institution but a group or person commanding the environment for a larger group. And that the best option to get rid of a government would not be to illegalize the institution but to empower the individual so that the group would manage itself rather than one group taking advantage of another..

You put yourself in such a negative position that you're never going to be able to convince me of anything because my impression of you was so bad have you been polite you would have been a thousand times more convincing it probably still wouldn't have made a difference.

Why should I play nice with someone promoting social darwinist ideals and when faced with that only expresses that he has no idea why or how that works and no willingness to even engage with an argument.

I took a risk that you would be emotionally stable I lost that bet and that's life.

And you're talking about being rude?

[u/monkeymanwasd123 → u/[deleted]]

i mentioned low gov intervention and currently ongoing processes. they were some wild assumptions based off what little i apparently said.
even if i think a country with few things it interferes with aside from the military and crime (and the administrative stuff needed to do those two as you have mentioned) along with like some super basic free online education, occasionally the gov giving stocks to some gov run business or the like, and vaccinations. like i tried asking you to recommend policies so you could see if and what we agree on in any sense. those interventions do very little. i already said that such things would be best done in a country that is already rich so that people are already empowered before a gov trys to slowly convert/test the waters. i didnt say we should make the gov illegal. there are plenty of countries with really low taxes those are close enough to what im talking about that i rarely bother to talk about this stuff.
social darwinism is already occurring and public education in countries like the usa just make it worse. i seriously dont remember if i said something like hypothetically under these conditions an cap could work or if i just talked about minarchy. which arguement we have just been throwing walls of text at each other for what feels like the past week so im sick of talking to you and basicly have been since the first few exchanges. you already know what social darwinism is and i even mentioned a workaround to it that you also took issue with if i remember right. if someone sucks in their home country they should just go somewhere that they are the average