4 ms·

> Imagine a society in which the state doesn't feel the urge to "structure society" at all... Sounds great! So, who is going to build the roads, schools, hospi

• Lambdanaut 13y ago
  Everything you listed already exists in the private sector. (Private roads, schools, hospitals, power plants, buses, and water sanitation). They do quite well for themselves. As for crime control(such as hiring a violent army, or shoplifting), companies could form unions that will turn down the business of "convicted" criminals. If you steal from a Walmart and you get caught by their union, then Walmart and every other retailer in that union isn't going to sell to you in the future. It's against the personal interests of a company to hire their own private army.
  • Retric 13y ago
    Looks like you skipped over his argument ensure their upkeep and performance without conflicts of interest. Look at the history of coal mining, the US has already seen private companies running company towns and using their own private army to kill people. That's what unfettered capitalism leads to and most people don't want it.
    • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      "the US has already seen private companies running company towns and using their own private army to kill people." Sounds pretty tame to the actions of the US state, doesn't it?
      • mpyne 13y ago
        No, it doesn't, if you actually look at the history (though to be fair, the state was sometimes complicit back then as well).
        • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
          I'm looking at the history... Do not any US corporations doing anything near as bad as enslaving tens of thousands of Americans - then sending them off to die in muddy European trenches.
    • Turing_Machine 13y ago
      Marxist states have killed a hundred million people and counting.
      • deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
  • patrickambron 13y ago
    I like imagining the other end of this. Walmart notices guy starting to gain some traction with a competitor. They use their private army to "convict" him and hold him prisoner. Which private army fights to get him free?
    • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      In order for Walmart to do business within a jurisdiction and/or with a certain party, it would have to agree a priori to certain requirements: to use certain courts or arbitrators, and for the rulings reached by said parties to be enforceable by certain armed groups. Thus the private army which fights to free him would be agreed to beforehand. And presumably Walmart would lose access to some of their markets as a result, and be fined, and/or and/or etc.
      • patrickambron 13y ago
        That sounds exactly like a government to me
        • alexeisadeski3 13y ago
          Can't recall a government ever asking my opinion which court I use. Nor the ability to opt out entirely.
      • mpyne 13y ago
        > In order for Walmart to do business within a jurisdiction and/or with a certain party, it would have to agree a priori to certain requirements Agree with who exactly about those requirements? The term "jurisdiction" itself implies some governing entity from which to exercise jurisdiction. I'll assume you mean "the local commune", and when Wal-Mart ignores the rulings of the local commune and opens a shop anyways, what is the commune going to do about it? Eject them by force you say from the local commune's militia? Wal-Mart will have a bigger army, because they can pay for it. Eject them by force with a coalition of regional militias perhaps? That might work, but a regional coalition of actors with the right to use force isn't an anarchist commune, it's a government.