4 ms·

I know a few anarcho-capitalists and they have explanations for everything you mentioned. Since, instead of elaborating on your problems with their explanations

I know a few anarcho-capitalists and they have explanations for everything you mentioned. Since, instead of elaborating on your problems with their explanations, you've simply implied they don't have any, I wonder how much you really know about their views.

aristus 17y ago
There are many answers to them, which is kind of the point, no? :) I didn't mean to imply that their system is broken, just that those questions are a good starting point to probe the A-C worldview, just as you'd ask a socialist about innovation versus personal reward. My general objection is that absolute hostility to any coercive social structure is inefficient in the face of an external authoritarian or natural threat. It's not bad, not wrong, but possibly inefficient enough to be detrimental to the survival of the society as a unit. To put it another way: Thoreau is compelling but he had the luxury of civil peace, plenty of land, good crops, and natural barriers to invasion. Where you stand depends largely on where you sit.
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  Thanks for the response. Maybe you're already aware of this, but ironically they would tell you that efficiency (including in the face of an external or natural threat) is one of the most important reasons for their views.
  - aristus 17y ago
    Of course they world, just as a Frenchman talks up the benefits of national champions as a way to compete in the global market. :) I would point out that historical societies that A-C theory studies, like medieval Iceland, the Celts, or the Wild West, tended to have few external threats and eventually lost out to other models of governance. Historical performance has to count for something.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      From what I understand, those societies are never held up as proper examples of anarcho-capitalism. (I know how that sounds.) And if the historical performance of a model of governance has to count for something, there are some more common models that don't look very promising!

aristus 17y ago

There are many answers to them, which is kind of the point, no? :) I didn't mean to imply that their system is broken, just that those questions are a good starting point to probe the A-C worldview, just as you'd ask a socialist about innovation versus personal reward. My general objection is that absolute hostility to any coercive social structure is inefficient in the face of an external authoritarian or natural threat. It's not bad, not wrong, but possibly inefficient enough to be detrimental to the survival of the society as a unit. To put it another way: Thoreau is compelling but he had the luxury of civil peace, plenty of land, good crops, and natural barriers to invasion. Where you stand depends largely on where you sit.

johnnybgoode 17y ago
Thanks for the response. Maybe you're already aware of this, but ironically they would tell you that efficiency (including in the face of an external or natural threat) is one of the most important reasons for their views.
- aristus 17y ago
  Of course they world, just as a Frenchman talks up the benefits of national champions as a way to compete in the global market. :) I would point out that historical societies that A-C theory studies, like medieval Iceland, the Celts, or the Wild West, tended to have few external threats and eventually lost out to other models of governance. Historical performance has to count for something.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    From what I understand, those societies are never held up as proper examples of anarcho-capitalism. (I know how that sounds.) And if the historical performance of a model of governance has to count for something, there are some more common models that don't look very promising!