Rothbardian wrote:A) No, there is no difference at all. A free market means all interactions are voluntary. Nothing a government does is ever voluntary.
A free market is only "voluntary" if you ignore context. Human beings use cooperative economics as a survival strategy--in a free market, the means of production by which that economic activity occurs is privately controlled. That means that the owners of the means of production have an implicit ability to coerce those who do not simply by threatening to deny those workers access to the means of production to which a worker requires access in order to provide for himself. Or, in other words, the owners of the means of production can threaten to starve a person merely by denying that person access to the means of production.
The gatekeepers in a completely propertarian environment will always
have coercive power over workers. This is something people forget when they talk about the role of commons or public "property".
B) Actually I can support things the government does without supporting a government. Sort of like even though some of the roads that exist today were originally built by slaves, I can support the building of roads without supporting slavery. See how that works?
You are engaging in an equivocation fallacy (confusing the government's products for its activities). If you support the government building roads, you support the government. If you were consistent, and you want to profess a lack of support for governments, you ought to oppose governments building roads. By the same token, if you were consistent, you would oppose a universal public court system by which the victims of corporate aggression can seek redress. You cannot consistently argue that such a court ought to exist while insisting that the institutions which make it possible ought not to exist.
C) Blatant lie. Any courts in a free society would exist voluntarily.
Because of course a giant multinational corporation would not insist that you use only its favored arbitration service. You know what they already require you to do
. Voluntary arbitration exists only because there is
a universal backup; if a person fails to adhere to a binding arbitration, you can force compliance through the public courts. That implied threat of forced compliance is what drives individuals and organizations into arbitration and it's what lets people trust that the arbitration will hold. In a fully private system, the more powerful party can tell the weaker party to go fuck themselves and get away with it without any real consequence.
The point, again, is that all interactions be voluntary. It's not that hard to understand,
Kind of like the rocket equation; it's easy to understand, but not at all easy to make it work in practice. You can understand everything there is to know about the rocket equation, but you'll still have to blow some rockets up on the launch pad before you can figure out how to use it. Seeing as you favor rocket science metaphors, it seems apt.
We don't really care what you call it. Free market, anarchy, supercalfragalisticexpialadocous, whatever. So long as it's voluntary. That's the point. I can't find any smaller words, and I am at a loss as to why that is so difficult to grasp.
The part that's difficult to grasp is how you think that would actually work. The flaws in your position are wide enough to drive a bus through; blatantly obvious logical failures. They're littered through the entirety of anarcho-capitalist thought, without any recognition by anarcho-capitalists that they even exist. Anarcho-capitalists have absolutely no adequate answer to the problem of excessively powerful private organizations imposing their will by force. No answer to that which would actually work, other than weak protests that maybe the people wouldn't stand for it.
Anarcho-capitalism would work only if everyone was honorable and everyone was an anarcho-capitalist. Here in real life people aren't universally honorable, and most people think anarcho-capitalism is crazy.
I actually used a private, voluntary court last week. A business I frequent charged me twice for a transaction. So I called the credit card company to dispute it.
You're only able to dispute the charge because the government forces the credit card company to allow you to dispute the charge! Your right to dispute a charge is outlined in the FCBA, a federal law backed up by the force of government. You're literally talking about a "private, voluntary court" that only exists because the federal government forces credit card companies to allow customers to dispute fraudulent charges.
I honestly don't understand how people like you can believe this sort of nonsense unless you're living as a hermit.
You an-caps must live life with some serious blinders on.