[Eran]

And British Petroleum, I am sure, enjoyed the protection of the military might of the British Empire.

My point, for I believe we are not really at odds, is that in a Rothbardian society and under realistic circumstances, no monopoly over natural resources (or otherwise) would be expected to emerge, capable of making consumers worse-off than they would have been under a different ownership structure.

That is very different from stating that in our current mixed-economy world, governments cannot facilitate privately-owned monopolies. They can and they do.

[Voluntary]

And British Petroleum, I am sure, enjoyed the protection of the military might of the British Empire.

My point, for I believe we are not really at odds, is that in a Rothbardian society and under realistic circumstances, no monopoly over natural resources (or otherwise) would be expected to emerge, capable of making consumers worse-off than they would have been under a different ownership structure.

That is very different from stating that in our current mixed-economy world, governments cannot facilitate privately-owned monopolies. They can and they do.

I don't necessarily disagree with your starting points, but they are best left on the blackboard. Additionally, your outcomes from your original theoretically starting points is pure speculation.

What is the point? You are never going to have the starting points that you want.

[Eran]

What is the point? You are never going to have the starting points that you want.

I am trying to argue that a purely voluntary system can be stable. That governments are not required to protect us from evil monopolistic capitalists.

This is part of a broader attempt to show that governments are completely unnecessary in a society which broadly respects private property rights.

I am not by any means pessimistic about the possibility of achieving such a society, albeit possibly not in my lifetime. One perspective I find uplifting is to compare this debate today to similar debates that must have taken centuries ago - about the viability of representative democracy or the abolition of slavery for example. There must have been a time when either was considered just as remote and unlikely as does an-cap today.

[Voluntary]

I am trying to argue that a purely voluntary system can be stable. That governments are not required to protect us from evil monopolistic capitalists.

This is part of a broader attempt to show that governments are completely unnecessary in a society which broadly respects private property rights.

I am not by any means pessimistic about the possibility of achieving such a society, albeit possibly not in my lifetime. One perspective I find uplifting is to compare this debate today to similar debates that must have taken centuries ago - about the viability of representative democracy or the abolition of slavery for example. There must have been a time when either was considered just as remote and unlikely as does an-cap today.

I thought we were debating the inherent injustice of Ancap due their views on natural resource appropriation.

How do you privatize air? How do you compensate people for acid rain?

[Eran]

How do you privatize air? How do you compensate people for acid rain?

Every landlord "owns" the air in their land. A polluter would have to reach prior agreement or face a tort suit.

In addition, society has a range of non-violent, non-coercive means at its disposal to pressure people and corporation to comply with those values for which the members of society are actually willing to pay.

Education campaigns, consumer boycott, "safe" product advertising (e.g. "Dolphin Safe Tuna"), etc. could all be used.

Is the system perfect? No. But then which system is?

[ThePublicOpinions]

You don't 'privatize' air, air isn't a resource because it is unlimited, it is a natural condition of man. Pollution you handle though the court system and private property. WHat happened historically (in AMerica) was courts abandoned private property principles in favour of 'public policy' and allowed industry to pollute so long as they didn't pollute more than anyone else. This was wrong. And government loves to pollute. So absolutely pollution most be fought.

[lubbockjoe]

You don't 'privatize' air, air isn't a resource because it is unlimited, it is a natural condition of man.

I wouldn't put that past an ancap.

What part of ancap ideology would prevent air from being just as much a commodity as water?

Actually, air is not an unlimited resource. Air can and does become polluted. Humans may need it, but that would not stop capitalist attempts to create new sources of revenue for themselves.

[ThePublicOpinions]

Resources are scarce. Air is not scarce.

[lubbockjoe]

Resources are scarce. Air is not scarce.

Do you deny air pollution is real?

Oh yeah, you're the guy who believes capitalism is not authoritarian.

[Eran]

Pollution is real, and justifies tort action against the polluter by people whose property was directly harmed by the pollution.

So in one sense, the air I breath on my land is part of my property in the land. In theory, I'm welcome to bottle it (thereby homesteading it) and sell it on. In theory. In practice, there is very limited market to bottled air. To be precise, market prices for bottled air reflect the cost of the bottle and bottling, rather than the price of the air itself.

[grassroots1]

In a polluted world, bottled air could become quite valuable I think.

[lubbockjoe]

My assessment of anarcho-capitalism thus far:

1) Anarchism is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism.

2) Capitalism is compatible with anarcho-capitalism.

3) The defacto authority in an anarcho-capitalistic society would be the capitalist.

4) Ancaps are primarily capitalists who seek to profit from the lack of power of a minimalist state.

5) Ancaps are not anarchists in principle. They are anarchists because it is expedient for achieving their capitalistic goal of personal profits.

[Eran]

1) A semantic issue
2) Agreed
3) Wrong. The de-facto authority is the consumer
4) Internally contradictory. Ancaps reject even a minimalist state.
5) What shred of evidence do you have to back those assertions? Do you know any major capitalist who is an anarcho-capitalist? Do you know of any supporter of anarcho-capitalism who is himself a capitalist?

[lubbockjoe]

Anarchism is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism.
...A semantic issue

It’s semantic for you because you deny the authoritarian nature of capitalism. The relation between employee and employer is that of authority to subordinate. It is a hierarchical structure.

A true anarchist could not be a capitalist because he/she would be opposed to the capitalist authoritarian structure.

Capitalism is compatible with anarcho-capitalism.
...Agreed

The defacto authority in an anarcho-capitalistic society would be the capitalist.
...Wrong. The de-facto authority is the consumer

Authority - the power to enforce rules, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
Whatever authority the consumer has is miniscule compared to the authority the capitalist has over his/her employees.

Ancaps are primarily capitalists who seek to profit from the lack of power of a minimalist state.
...Internally contradictory. Ancaps reject even a minimalist state.

Ancaps are primarily capitalists who seek to profit from the lack of power of a minimalist state stateless-society.
Fixed

Anarcho-capitalism is internally contradictory. That is the anarcho-capitalist conundrum.

Ancaps are not anarchists in principle. They are anarchists because it is expedient for achieving their capitalistic goal of personal profits.
...What shred of evidence do you have to back those assertions?

I’m glad you asked...
A true anarchist could not be a capitalist because he/she would be opposed to the capitalist authoritarian structure. Therefore ancaps are not anarchists in principle; they accept the capitalistic form of authoritarianism.

The accumulation of wealth is not an issue for ancaps because they [again] sacrifice their anarchistic principals for their capitalism. I am not aware of ancaps sacrificing any capitalistic principals for their anarchism.

Do you know any major capitalist who is an anarcho-capitalist?

You and other posters in this thread.

Do you know of any supporter of anarcho-capitalism who is himself a capitalist?

You.

As an anarchist I deem the state a mainly negative factor, but a state established and ruled by capitalist wealth is an abomination...

Spoken like a true anarchist.

[ralfy]

1) A semantic issue
2) Agreed
3) Wrong. The de-facto authority is the consumer
4) Internally contradictory. Ancaps reject even a minimalist state.
5) What shred of evidence do you have to back those assertions? Do you know any major capitalist who is an anarcho-capitalist? Do you know of any supporter of anarcho-capitalism who is himself a capitalist?

1) Absolutely not. The first involves a threat to authority. The second leads to the formation of authority based on economic power.

2) Indeed. One starts with a "free market," and then some become stronger than others, then take over.

3) That's the ideal, but we know that that's not true.

4) Who will stop the capitalist from taking control? The consumer? Don't kid yourself.

5) So anarcho-capitalists are not capitalists? Then why call them "anarcho-capitalists"? Why not just say, "anarchists"?

[lubbockjoe]

The enforcement of justice will be done by private firms obeying legal rulings issued by respectable adjudication firms.

Would they be incorruptible?

Essentially, yes.

Essentially - used to emphasize the basic, fundamental, or intrinsic nature of a person, thing, or situation.

That question has only one right answer.
Do you really believe your answer is true?