4 ms·

I mean, it's not like anarcho-capitalism is any less useless. The underlying issue is that both anarcho-capitalism and "anarchism" (whatever that might mean) h

I mean, it's not like anarcho-capitalism is any less useless. The underlying issue is that both anarcho-capitalism and "anarchism" (whatever that might mean) have no satisfactory answer to the basic problem of "so, how exactly are we supposed to resolve disputes without a state?" Any suggestion that dispute resolution can be "privatized" is ultimately meaningless, as the private entity in charge of resolving disputes becomes equivalent to a government - and a rather tyrannical government at that, since it would not come with anything like a written constitution-- or even a widely-understood commitment to rule of law and such basic principles.

ralusek 8y ago
Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it. Sure our ability to mitigate things like physical violence tends to benefit greatly from collectivizing interests, and at that point a distinction from a state is a blurry concept, but that is a problem that simply exists in any system. Consensual transactions between individuals, however, are enough to provide an unbelievably stable society, without any need for central authority. Enforcement of the integrity of contracts can be enforced by the integrity and reputation of the individuals involved in a transaction. The fact that I continue to be employable, for example, is on the basis of my capabilities and reputation, and the degree to which I engage in behaviors contrary to my own positive perception would negatively impact my ability to continue transacting in good faith with others. At no point is a central authority or mandate a necessary component in the primary dynamics of these relations.
- cardiffspaceman 8y ago
  > Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it. This is not the entire scope of the disputes that will arise nor the remedies that would apply nor the extent of the problem with this idea of yours. For example, if a patient engages a doctor for a health remedy, and that remedy does harm to the patient, what is the remedy? If the remedy is that the doctor must compensate the patient for the harm, how does the patient prevent the doctor from reneging on the compensation? How is it decided whether compensation is due?

ralusek 8y ago

Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it. Sure our ability to mitigate things like physical violence tends to benefit greatly from collectivizing interests, and at that point a distinction from a state is a blurry concept, but that is a problem that simply exists in any system. Consensual transactions between individuals, however, are enough to provide an unbelievably stable society, without any need for central authority. Enforcement of the integrity of contracts can be enforced by the integrity and reputation of the individuals involved in a transaction. The fact that I continue to be employable, for example, is on the basis of my capabilities and reputation, and the degree to which I engage in behaviors contrary to my own positive perception would negatively impact my ability to continue transacting in good faith with others. At no point is a central authority or mandate a necessary component in the primary dynamics of these relations.

cardiffspaceman 8y ago
> Disputes within anarcho-capitalism are easily resolved. Don't pay me what I'm worth? I won't work for you. Don't have what I want? I won't trade you for it. This is not the entire scope of the disputes that will arise nor the remedies that would apply nor the extent of the problem with this idea of yours. For example, if a patient engages a doctor for a health remedy, and that remedy does harm to the patient, what is the remedy? If the remedy is that the doctor must compensate the patient for the harm, how does the patient prevent the doctor from reneging on the compensation? How is it decided whether compensation is due?