Comment: Re: Cannot Work...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Cannot Work... (see in situ)

Re: Cannot Work...

@LB: "Anarcho-capitalism" (unregulated) cannot work,"

The fact that government wouldn't provide law, oversight, and regulation in anarcho-capitalism doesn't mean that they would not exist in a free society. On the contrary, a free society is regulated and overseen by something much more robust than supposedly benevolent (yet fallible, and definitely self-interested) human bureaucrats: human self-interest.

If government regulation and oversight are necessary because humans are self-interested and greedy, who then regulates and oversees the equally self-interested and greedy regulators? It's turtles all the way.

Government regulation does NOT make goodies (wages, safety, quality) suddenly appear out of thin air WITHOUT COST. Regulations simply raise the minimum cost to whatever a bureaucrat deems to be a "proper" standard. If we regulated that all cars must have Mercedes Benz quality standards we would NOT suddenly make all cars acquire MB quality. We would simply force people who could not afford a MB to use a bike or walk or take the bus.

Let me give you an example of how regulation would work in a free society. Let's say you were to buy a gallon of gas at the pump. How would you know it's a gallon?

If confidence/trust in transactions becomes an issue, then information about counterparties' reputations would be in high demand by the market. This in turn becomes a business/profit opportunity for information providers (consumer report,, product/service reviews, etc.) to provide that information to the market that demands it. It would be in the best interest of every honest business and customer to sign themselves up with the most widely followed reputation/review agency and -- after undergoing a few inspections -- get a stamp of their approval which they can proudly stick on their shop-window. Customers would prefer to frequent certifiably reputable businesses. That's how you reliably get a gallon of gas without ANY government regulation.

There are a few competing private regulatory bodies that already exist: Zagat, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Kosher, Underwriters Laboratories, but the state generally prohibits them in most areas. Kosher has a food safety record that is thousands of times better than the FDA.

@LB: "because it leaves in-place the rich with unlimited and unchecked power/influence, and therefore assures that the rich make all the rules"

How does money = power, though? In a free society, money/wealth can only come to agents who exhibit extremely PRO-social behaviors, such as millions of voluntary transactions (sales) to customers who are made better off by the purchase. ANTI-social behavior (theft, sociopathy, parasitism, etc.) would be an extremely difficult way of amassing wealth. Does Walmart have the power to start poisoning its chocolates or putting 1 lb. labels on products weighing 0.5 lb. simply because it has lots of money? Is Honda not selling cars with a missing wheel because government regulation prevents them from doing so? No. They do it because because outraged customers would spit on them going forward.

Money may equal power in the status quo, but only because unquestioned power has been delegated to the (fallible, self-interested, corruptible) humans in government by the people like yourself. I propose that NO ONE entity should have such power.

@LB: "the poor get shafted (and have no voice)."

The poor get a better service in a stateless society. The amounts of wealth, productivity, and progress that would be unleashed in a free society compared to the fenced-in farm we have today, would be like comparing the present markets in the US to USSR in the 50's. How would you explain to a comrade in Stalin's USSR that letting go of Stalin and his GUARANTEED state-produced bread (for all) would most likely lead to a society where the POOR receive FREE cell phones from greedy capitalists and suffer from TOO MUCH FOOD (obesity)?! He'll look at you as if you've gone completely mad, no? I hope you understand my predicament with you better now.

Murray Rothbard in For A New Liberty, p. 215:

But how could a poor person afford private protection he would have to pay for instead of getting free protection, as he does now? There are several answers to this question, one of the most common criticisms of the idea of totally private police protection. One is: that this problem of course applies to any commodity or service in the libertarian society, not just the police. But isn’t protection necessary? Perhaps, but then so is food of many different kinds, clothing, shelter, etc. Surely these are at least as vital if not more so than police protection, and yet almost nobody says that therefore the government must nationalize food, clothing, shelter, etc., and supply these free as a compulsory monopoly.

Very poor people would be supplied, in general, by private charity, as we saw in our chapter on welfare. Furthermore, in the specific case of police there would undoubtedly be ways of voluntarily supplying free police protection to the indigent — either by the police companies themselves for goodwill (as hospitals and doctors do now) or by special “police aid” societies that would do work similar to “legal aid” societies [p. 220] today. (Legal aid societies voluntarily supply free legal counsel to the indigent in trouble with the authorities).

@LB: "And nobody really owns any property anyway, there are only renters. Even if you pay-off the Mortgage, you still have to pay Property-Taxes"

I agree that under the status-quo everyone is on the government plantation. It would not be so in a free society, where individuals are sovereign and actually own their own land forever. Unfortunately people don't understand that taxation is theft:

"I hate government as much as government hates freedom, and that's a lot." - Mike Malin

Check out my PowerPoint:

And my Ron Paul vs. Lincoln video: