Anarcho-Capitalism and human nature, real life discussion

[Christian Liberty]

So my dad and I were discussing politics this morning on my way to school, and we were both interested in the conversation so we're going to pick it up later.

My dad would be probably be pretty close to what you'd call a "Constitutional Conservative". He's more social conservative than libertarian, but believes pretty much everything should be done state level, and he is rapidly waking up with regards to foreign policy (He's not quite Ron Paul level there, but he's probably Rand Paul level, and he's gotten used to the fact that I do NOT approve of the military, even though he doesn't 100% agree.)

We happened to be listening to Glenn Beck (Spare any comments about Glenn Beck's agenda from this forum, yeah, I know he's not a real libertarian but that's irrelevant to this thread) on my way to school and Glenn said something about term limits. I pointed out that though as an ancap this isn't really an issue of principle to me, I don't really agree with term limits because it would just lead to principled people like Justin Amash being voted out of their positions and corrupt people taking their place (Maybe I'm wrong about this, its not something I'm settled on, but this is really just background.)

My dad disagreed with me, to which I replied "Well, this isn't really an issue of principle for me since ultimately I think the offices should be abolished anyway." Which led to a discussion on human nature.

My dad wasn't deliberately trolling when he said this, but he compared anarcho-capitalism to communism, saying that it sounded good in theory but couldn't be applied in practice due to human nature. We didn't really get to finish the discussion, but my position is that while anarcho-capitalism will likely never be applied, this has everything to do with insufficient support and nothing to do with human nature.

We're planning on finishing the discussion this afternoon, so I'm curious if any of you guys could help me here... how can I prove that market anarchism is not a violation of human nature? (Or, if you think it is, feel free to throw in your arguments for his side in here too)

 

[Romulus]

Well, psychopaths will exist without a government, they just wont have power centers to infiltrate. But they will wind up somewhere.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Well, psychopaths will exist without a government, they just wont have power centers to infiltrate. But they will wind up somewhere.

His belief is that government's forming is inevitable. I don't think that's the case, at least defining "government" the way he (and most people) define it.

 

[Romulus]

If history is an indicator he has a solid point. Has a society existed where a govt has not formed?

 

[Contumacious]

... how can I prove that market anarchism is not a violation of human nature? (Or, if you think it is, feel free to throw in your arguments for his side in here too)

1- The Free Market, or its cousin , the black market, are the most democratic of all entities because people vote using their money.

2- It was never intended that suffrage would guarantee rights - rights are only provided by Nature's god and are Unalienable. so in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC term limits are irrelevant.

.

 

[Acala]

If history is an indicator he has a solid point. Has a society existed where a govt has not formed?

Prior to the advent of agriculture it is likely that there was never a coercive state because people could just walk away.

 

[Tod]

Prior to the advent of agriculture it is likely that there was never a coercive state because people could just walk away.

Never underestimate the power that "fear of the unknown" and other related issues hold over people. Just look at battered spouses.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Thanks guys. I'll let you all know how the conversation goes.

 

[Romulus]

Never underestimate the power that "fear of the unknown" and other related issues hold over people. Just look at battered spouses.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Reposting from another thread.

 

[Christian Liberty]

That was awesome

+rep.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

That was awesome

+rep.

Tell your dad that most decisions he makes in life are anarchic in nature. Nobody told him he had to enter into a relationship with his wife. It was done voluntarily. Tell him you want to extend that process to every facet of life. You're not much of a fan of Molyneux, but his 'Everyday Anarchy' is a good (and quick and simple) read.

 

[Romulus]

Step just posted a vid how your kids are everyone's responsibility. Even stating that "no man is an island".

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Step just posted a vid how your kids are everyone's responsibility. Even stating that "no man is an island".

The only people who are islands are remote, jungle populations. And their standard of living is nearly incomprehensibly poor. Relying on the productive efforts of others is a vital aspect of capitalism, free markets, and voluntary trade. Even with my jungle population example, they still rely on each other for increased productive capacity, so even there, they still aren't islands.

If children are abused, mistreated, and raised with improper morals, that will affect the world when those children grow up. The US government built schools in Afghanistan in the 80s and provided curriculum taught children to strap bombs to themselves and kill others, to view occupiers as infidels, etc. Guess what? Those children grew up.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Reposting from another thread.

Tucker is a BAMF.

 

[Christian Liberty]

We had the conversation. It was civil, as usual (At least he's a logical enough person not to resort to personal attacks or attacks based on age) but ultimately, it didn't really go anywhere. I honestly don't think I'm the right person to try to talk to him about this stuff. I kept having to tell him to actually watch the "Law without government" videos, because frankly, I don't know enough about my own philosophy to defend it against each and every theoretical argument against it. I try to stick to moral arguments and the fact that the government already does what people fear the most about "anarchy" but when people have the idea that literal protection rackets would rise up in the absence of government, its really hard to get anywhere beyond saying that government already does the same thing. Maybe you guys are smart enough to prove logically that that wouldn't happen, but all I've got are rough guesses.

Specific stuff that came up (My dad's arguments, although possibly reworded, in bold. My attempts at answering in non-bold italics)

So say two houses on one street are subscribing to Police Company A, in order to protect them from potential aggression. One house in between is subscribing to police company B. A police officer from company A is patrolling between the two houses. The person in the middle is on his front lawn being beaten up, but the police officer from Company A does nothing because this person is not paying for the services of said company.

My attempt at answering was something along the lines of the fact that it might end up being like tipping. The police officer might be socially, although not legally, expected to help this person, who in turn might socially, although not legally, be expected to pay some sum to the officer who stepped in. But, although nothing in this scenario would involve legalized aggression, I don't know whether or not it would actually work this way.

People would just enforce whatever laws they wanted to enforce. It would be chaos and you can't have that.

My point here was even though yes, you could enforce any laws you wanted to, I guess, the bottom line is that aggression is not really profitable. I pointed out that my dad still supports drug laws (state level, but still) but I doubted he'd personally be willing to pay extra to have his personal police company enforce this law.

My dad responded by suggesting that aggression is profitable for the winner
I didn't really get a chance to reply along these lines. If I got a chance I would have said the following:

Ultimately, if the company could obtain a monopoly this is somewhat true. The US government certainly profits over war. However, in that case, you'd really just have another State, which is what I'm opposing to begin with. On the other hand, if the companies were actually free market companies, they would actually have to charge more if they wanted to "shoot it out" with other companies, so they would most likely not do so.



...

I'm going to make my dad watch those "law without government" videos before I do this conversation again, because they present the free market position with more detail than I could. I sent him them before, but he didn't get around to watching them. I'm almost certain this was accidental neglect and not a deliberate attempt to refuse to respect my position, but nonetheless I probably shouldn't humor the conversation until he's seen them.

With that said, any help you ancaps here can give me would be appreciated.

Tell your dad that most decisions he makes in life are anarchic in nature. Nobody told him he had to enter into a relationship with his wife. It was done voluntarily. Tell him you want to extend that process to every facet of life. You're not much of a fan of Molyneux, but his 'Everyday Anarchy' is a good (and quick and simple) read.

I've matured a little bit in this area, I can take the good from somebody and dismiss the bad. That said, I wouldn't feel comfortable recommending a raging anti-theist to my dad to read. Maybe an atheist who was respectful, or at least indifferent, to religion. But I do NOT want to get any conservatives who I'm engaging on this stuff to confuse root and branch opposition to governmental authority with root and branch opposition to God or Biblical morality. I don't remember what you yourself have said about religion, but even if you yourself are an agnostic or an atheist, I'm sure you could see the danger in giving a Christian conservative the idea that giving up the conservative part means giving up the Christian part

The only people who are islands are remote, jungle populations. And their standard of living is nearly incomprehensibly poor. Relying on the productive efforts of others is a vital aspect of capitalism, free markets, and voluntary trade.

If children are abused, mistreated, and raised with improper morals, that will affect the world when those children grow up. The US government built schools in Afghanistan in the 80s and provided curriculum taught children to strap bombs to themselves and kill others, to view occupiers as infidels, etc. Guess what? Those children grew up.

Yep, very true. I'd argue that free markets actually HELP children in a number of ways...

1. Drugs being legalized would make those who are unfortunate enough to have drug addicts as parents nonetheless have a higher standard of living, because the parents could get their "fix" more easily.

2. Private schools are inevitably better than public schools. The average parent may not be great, but I think they care more about their child's future than the government does. At least if "caring about the child's future" means anything other than turning the child into a statist drone.

3. As Eric Peters pointed out one time in a conversation I was having with him, if the government wasn't stealing half of what everyone earns, middle class families might be able to function on one income. I don't think I really need to explain why this would be better for kids, I think its pretty obvious.

4. Children wouldn't be harassed because of lemonade stands or other small scale private enterprises they decide to develop because of technicalities.

All that said... while I think child neglect would be all but extinct in a free society, child abuse is still going to be a problem, again, because some people are just psychopaths who don't give a crap about morality, or pedophiles. I honestly don't know how a free society would solve that problem. What I do know is that government really isn't solving it.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Great thread, the subject is at the center of my own inner struggle. I wish I could help, but I am perplexed.

 

[July]

So, is his position that, human nature being what it is, governments (and by "governments" in this context I mean "states") are inevitable, and therefore anarchism is impossible? No matter what we do, the free market will always be overwhelmed by states?

Or that, human nature being what it is, governments are inevitable and therefore ought to exist? Whether as a moral good, necessarily evil, or counterweight to other states, etc?

The distinction is crucial, I think. To put it another way, you could say that, given human nature, violence is inevitable. Things like murder or theft are inevitable, and there will always be crime and corrupt individuals in any given society. But does that necessarily mean we ought to institutionalize crime? Take slavery for example. As a society we no longer accept slavery as a legitimate social institution. Though slavery in various forms does still exist in parts of the world, and many through history would have thought it inevitable and a fact of human nature. So this is not just a question of whether it's inevitable or not (it may very well be), but whether as a society we want to accept or tolerate the state as an institution, or recognize it for what it is.

Maybe it would be easier to start with the difference between goverments and states? This is just a generalization of course, but a lot of conservatives I know will tend to view society as a struggle between order versus chaos, civilization versus barbarism, virtue versus immorality, law versus lawlessness, etc, etc... so your goal then should be to show how the state is not actually an agent of order or of civilization.

 

[Romulus]

Just know that MOST parents will NEVER listen to their kids, even with solid, logical arguments.

 

[jllundqu]

All I know is that human nature is a bitch. We are capable of good and evil, both with and without governments. I think the endgame is to try and prevent the centralization of power both in terms of government, industry, banking, etc. In order to prevent the centralization of power without force, one must put faith and trust in human nature to accomplish this. My experience with humanity has led me to question that faith. I don't feel that stateless society would necessarily be a better one simply because power would centralize in other ways... it's in our DNA. So unless and until the very fabric of human nature changes, we must simply follow our moral compasses and work to prevent the centralization of power in all its forms. The constitution was a nice try, but human nature kicked the constitutions ass.