[KO_TKO]

I think that the free market is alot better at creating wealth than the government, but I’m not a Anarcho-capitalist, because I don’t think that will work.

Anarcho-capitalism to me is like science fiction, because it’s sound really advanced, but I don’t know if it will work. For example if somebody in an anarcho-capitalism society owns animals and is cruel against those animals. Those animals can not buy security. Also children can not buy security.

That’s why I’m at this moment for small government that provides security like law, police and army. And that people pay a small tax for that security. In that way people and animals have security, but their is also a big free market to create wealth.

The only thing with this small government I’m not sure about is infrastructure. Is there evidence of a society that has good infrastructure without a government infrastructure?

Also which economists agree with my ideas?

And if you think my ideas are wrong, can you please explain why they are wrong?

[swalsh81]

As far as infrastructure you can take a look at this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MseBlo-Sno0

Personally I think that infrastructure is far less of a problem than, for instance, security for children. Remember, that in an anarcho society there would not be NO LAW, law would be created through voluntary contracts. Towns may come together and build their roads socially but funds would not be taken through force. This type of situation would make it very attractive for businesses to help fund the roads to get people to their businesses.

As far as private police you can look here mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf

What to do about child abuse and the like you can see some correspondence between Walter Block and someone with similar questions here http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html

That all being said, I do partially agree with you. I have questions about the abilities of a stateless society to deal with the threat of a large scale or nuclear war and the like since, for one thing, should the world never have developed the state, things like nuclear weapons would be very unlikely to ever have existed. I also have questions about the ability of a new stateless society to remain just when men are corrupt and large businesses are likely to buy up their own police forces and enforce their will. Large forces beholden to an interest is what created the state. Again these types of large companies may not have been able to grow to the size they had without the protection of the state.

BUT, I cannot completely reconcile the ability of the state to use force to collect taxes to fund these things with the principles of individual rights.

Hope most of that made some sense.

[KO_TKO]

I now think that the free market can build an infrastructure, because there is alot of demand for it and entrepreneurs want to make a profit.

But I’m sceptical about anarcho-capitalism.

I think that minarchy makes the most sense.

I saw on wikipedia that Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman are also minarchists.

[maester_miller]

mmafan,

I would recommend Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy (how does Murphy not have a course on this website yet?) for some of the trickier cases involving anarcho-capitalism.

In fact, he recently taught a course on Mises Academy about it which I took and found greatly informative. Needless to say, animal cruelty and other such acts could in fact be prevented in an AnCap society.

[swalsh81]

well the 4 of them are very different scales of minarchists. Friedman, for instance, believes in a central bank. Hayek and Friedman and Rand? (not sure) believe in at least a minor welfare state/minimal public social safety net funded through taxation. Yes neither Mises or Friedman are full on anarchists, but they are far from side by side on the size of government.

[KO_TKO]

SmartMuffin,

I just read Chaos Theory – Robert P. Murphy at mises.org . http://mises.org/document/3088

I think Robert P. Murphy makes a good case for defense in an anarcho-capitalism society, but I’m still sceptical, because I haven’t seen in history or today a real life example of it.

I have regret that I haven’t taken Robert P. Murphy course on this subject on Mises Academy. Because in my opinion he’s a good teacher and a very good economist. I have taken his courses Anatomy of the Fed, The State of the Economy and I just finished his course The Economics of the Great Depression on Mises Academy.

I also have read Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, Study Guide – Robert P Murphy and Theory of money and credit study guide – Robert P Murphy.

[msickmeier]

mmafan,

I have to say, I’m in the same boat. His book is a fun theoretical thought experiment,, but the real world applications are tough to swallow. Now, ideally, it would seem this is the best system, but the practicalities are tough to explain in full by one person. This reminds me of a passage in “For a New Liberty” (pg. 242) where Rothbard explains that it’s not the individual’s jobs to explain every facet of this society to the minute detail, but rather to lay the foundation for the rest of society to use its power of cooperation and innovation to expand upon it.

[maester_miller]

mmafan,

You seem fairly well read so perhaps you’ve seen these before, but in his AnCap course, Dr. Murphy provided various readings, some of which have covered historical instances in which anarchy has happened and has worked out fairly well.

The Not So Wild West
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Private Law in Iceland
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Anarchy in the Aachen
http://mises.org/daily/6145/Anarchy-in-the-Aachen

[msickmeier]

Oh private law. That looks interesting.

[KO_TKO]

SmartMuffin,

I have now read Private Law in Iceland and Anarchy in the Aachen. I already read The Not So Wild West link inside Sterling link http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block167.html

About Private Law in Iceland. I think bad rich people then can do bad things and buy an private army to defend them. And also this is a qoute from that article

” A second objection is that the rich (or powerful) could commit crimes with impunity, since nobody would be able to enforce judgment against them. Where power is sufficiently concentrated this might be true; this was one of the problems which led to the eventual breakdown of the Icelandic legal system in the thirteenth century ”

And about Anarchy in the Aachen. I read in that article that it had at high piont only 2000 people. So it ‘s basically a small town. And usually there is not much crime in small towns.

[rt]

Regarding the group of rich people forcing their will on the rest through force. I’d ask how these people get wealthy in the first place. In the free market they’d have to provide goods and services that consumers desire and are ready to pay for. Thus they have to benefit society in order to get rich. Wouldn’t it be weird that those same people (after having helped society) would turn against the people whose lives they have improved? But let’s say they do. People would just stop buying their products and services and these rich people would lose lots of money and eventually it will be impossible to fund an army to oppress everyone. Moreover, in a free society there would be competing defense agencies, some of these would turn against these rich people if their costumers were ready to pay for this service. In addition, a great number of people would be armed and able to defend themselves in a guerilla way making it extremely difficult for a group of people to permanently force their will on the majority.

[KO_TKO]

Sons of Liberty,

I don’t talk about some rich people oppressing rest of society.

I mean more for example. A bad guy wants to get rich so he builds computer company, he then becomes rich, he has then ofcourse helped himself and society.

Then he builds a private army because he likes power and to defend himself.

He then hates this average guy for whatever reason. He than kills this average guy.

The family and friends of that average guy can do nothing back, because this bad rich man has an army and can kill all of them. Also this rich bad man has rich powerfull friends.

[porphyrogenitus]

mmafan – I’m in the same boat as you, though I recognize the problems with any state, including a limited, minarchist state (I pretty much agree with everything Tom Woods says in this video). However I haven’t been persuaded by, for example, Bob Murphy’s arguments to the effect that a stateless society could defend itself from predatory states (some time I’ll post my reasons for disagreeing), among other reasons.

As for economists who agree with your (mmafan) position, Mises himself was one, as was Hayek (I recommend most of Hayek’s writings, which first attracted me to all this years ago, even while accepting that yes, there are problems with it, especially from the Rothbardian-Hoppean PoV). Most non-Austro-libertarians support a minarchist state (Austrian economics does not logically compel statelessness, but if one follows its arguments the way, say, Rothbard did, then one can legitimately conclude that a stateless society would be the best society*); Milton Friedman for example was a sort of minarchist. Ayn Rand and nearly all Objectivists are minarchists. Robert Nozick, who was not an economist but whose thinking was heavily influenced by Murray Rothbard (for all that most Rothbardians don’t think much of Nozick’s ASU), was a minarchist.

I’m a minarchist but I align myself with the Austro-Libertarians because 1) I think Austrian Economics is much better than other economic theories and 2) I would prefer to live in a world where Austro-Libertarian anarcho-capitalism was possible. That is, I want them to be correct. I just do not think they are quite correct. But in the meantime, I’d much rather work towards their goals than those of other movements I could think of.

*I myself agree with Jefferson that a government is a necessary evil; not for economic reasons, or many of the reasons usually given. But I do also agree with Randall Holcombe’s argument here, though I would be remiss in not noting Walter Block’s article attempting to rebut Holcombe).

[rt]

mmafan,
Okay your argument is of course legitimate and it is theoretically possible for things to work out in such a horrible way. However, if these people existed in our society today, I think they’d immediately try to take control of the government and force their will on the rest of society through the state. I don’t think that a government represents a barrier to these people. On the contrary, they would use the government to achieve their ends. It is estimated that hundreds of millions of people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century alone. These governments did not protect their citizens but killed them. Today governments are not protecting the citizens either. They are constantly stealing wealth through taxation and inflation.

[KO_TKO]

I have thought about this topic and think violence change things.

In a minarchy companies competing against eachother to make better and/or cheaper products or services. And consumers choice voluntarily which product and/or service they buy.

But in an anarcho-capitalism it’s not only about who can make the best and/ or cheaper product or services that the consumer wants, but it’s then also about who can use violence in the best way.

[Author]

Posts