I've been aware of anarcho capitalism for a while but I'm still learning and trying to fully understand it. To me it seems that the main issue is that of subverters in a society and how to deal with them. For example let's say that the state of Oklahoma became it's own anarcho capitalist nation. If that happened now then every immoral corporatist would be falling all over themselves to setup shop there and then soon we would probably end up with them colluding, similar to how they have done with covid, to create all kinds of mischief for regular people living there. It seems to me that this type of collusion where corporations could essentially collude and effectively "become" a government is the main danger. With strong borders though you could set rules that, yes we are anarcho capitalist but certain actions taken at large scale to collude would result in expulsion from the territory?
Comments (6)
sorted by:
Ancap is not so fragile. Local businesses are capitalists too. I presume you believe they are small because they are not greedy enough and therefore they would not form a government. I had to deprogram this out of myself. Collusion is possible in a free market as far as I understand but strong borders would only prevent people from joining. Also where is the free market in lack of movement?
The answer to collusion may be more capitalism.
Well to me it seems like there couldn't be an ancap country with open borders unless the whole world was ancap because otherwise you would have people coming in attempting to overthrow the country and change to a different form of government, that's the main hangup I keep coming back to when I think about it. Basically to me the biggest danger with ancap seems to be the constant fear / threat of a government somehow managing to take hold, however it happens.
how could the country be overthrown if there is no structure to overthrow? Also people are at a greater liberty to defend themselves arguably. I think ancap is slightly more robust than that.
Ok right I think that's what it comes down to, being able to defend the area by any means necessary and have people willing to do it
Isn't that a constant fear now, that big government would somehow legislate basic rights away. Something by definition they can not do, for basic rights can only be claimed by a human being and any laws that take them away are fraudulent and should be ignored by the people. So I would assume in an ancap society the walls are built by the people for the people according to the needs of the people as they decide to allocate resources towards a 'wall'. (Assuming disputes over contracts and common law violations are handled through 'dispute resolution agents', like insurance agents but for contract violations and provided through private means or by philanthropy.) Everyone would decide for themselves what kind of 'wall' they require to live. House walls, property fences, security cameras, private security guards, dogs, personal armaments, excetra. They could also decide to build a community where everyone is veted before they are allowed in and strict rules must by followed inside, like everyone needs to help man the wall 4 hours per week and cut off their penis's. Must of us already live lives based on the tenants of anarchy, besides what would an invading country seize if there is no public property, no tax base, no way to assess accurately the means of defense and therefore the cost of invasion. Then even if a hostile government does takeover and seizes all the gold, cars and computers, all they do is destroy the value of gold, used cars and computers back home. This kind of invasion is only possible if another people are being exploited by their government to foot the bill. Something that could not happen if all the world had no exploitation by government. Anyone at that point who would suggest something as evil as a government would be ridiculed and shunned from society. Remember actions have consequences even in an ancap society.
What would prevent them from setting up shop? Nothing, but the answer is In your question. "Falling all over themselves” —there would be so much competition that creating a monopoly would be exceedingly difficult, since regulatory capture would be impossible. So you’d have competitors cropping up left and right. And with no police force and politicians to simply bribe, it wouldn’t turn into an illegal cartel monopoly situation either. Bribing the police is different than setting up your own police, which is much more expensive and In that situation, your “police” don’t have any automatic superiority to a gang of regular armed citizens.
There could be towns owned by corporations, but they would have a tenuous grip on their citizens because nearby, there would be other communes and towns owned by other businesses which would create a competitive environment. Overly draconian conditions would lead to ghost towns.
Private property would probably often feature mines in an ancap situation to keep people out. I doubt that aside from main thoroughways that travel, at least by tresspass, would be all that safe. Trade routes would need to be established and honored between communities to prevent injury. Closed borders would kill trade and kill the economy.