- 16 Aug 2006 21:17
#943382
I notice many threads for and against anarcho-capitalism. I now point out why anarco-capitalism would lead to possible the worst form of society ever invented (and no it doesn't have anything to do with warlords).
Private Property with no state
In the abscence of goverment, nobody in fact owns anything, other than what they can defend by force of arms. Without force, anarcho-capitalist society cannot survive, why would one trade or work for something they can simply steal from someone foolish enough to work.
In order to defend private property against criminals, there would necceserily have to be a class of mercenery soldiers who hire themselves out to inviduals or groups to protect their property property. If groups hiring merceneries became the norm, then goverment would necceserily restore itself, or some kind of anarcho-collectivism. A permant force of merceneries would have to answer to someone in the group, or some kind of council, so they state would be reborn.
In order to be anarcho-capitalism, rather than anarcho-collectivism, the merceneries must primerily work for individuals, rather than groups. Likely this would be the case, for anarcho-collectivist wouldn't not need merceneries except temporerily in an extreme crisis (such as a war against another group), as they can usually appoint members of their own to protect the community and obtain/make their own weapons.
In anarcho-capitalism there is no inheritance tax
In a truly 'free' market, some people would do well and others badly. Those who do well would accumilate advantage, in the form of more buisnesses and more importantly the ability to hire a larger force of merceneries, indeed such would be neccesery, as larger enterprises obviously need more protection.
Now accumalative advantages would be passed on 100% of the wealth would be passed on to children, there would be no inheritance tax.
Those doing badly would either become merceneries, or become workers, both hiring themselves out to the rich. They would be likely paid a subsistance wage in most cases, but this wage would most likely include protection by the employers merceneries. Beacause of this, the poor would effectively cease to carry any weight at all, being bound to their employers by the need to obtain protection from them, in exchange for work. This utter depedance, ensures they will never be able to negotiate high wages, the rich would have their hands full protecting them. There would be only two ways out of this predicament, crime and hiring yourself out as a mercenery. Crime would be a poor career choice, except for preying on the unemployed and those without mercenery protection, criminals would not threaten the rich, only the poor. The other option is becoming a mercenery, this would be the most attractive option for most and this would ensure the collective bargaining power of merceneries was low (thus ensuring that warlords would not establish).
No power on earth could defeat a billionare, the end of liberty
With wealth controlled by a hereditery class of rich people, who hold all others in dependancy, while acting purely in their own economic self-interest, liberty as such would be more or less abolished for all but a small minority of the population.
The first liberties to go with be things like the ability to strike, we would see any strike put down rapidly by force of arms. Beacause strikes threaten wealth, and ultimately the very security of the rich, there would be a general consensus on stike squashing among the rich.
There is also the possibility of the rich person making himself into a dictator and re-establishing goverment. This is very unlikely, for the rich are more powerful in anarchy, than in goverment. Goverment as such requires some sort of legitimacy and formal law, in the present system the whim of the rich is law, no one can bring a rich person to justice, for he has wealth enough to hire hundreds or even thousands of merceneries to kill anyone who would dare arrest him. He would become an absolute ruler, with power to kill or to protect those he employs.
Beacause wealth is inheritable, there is no check on the integrity or intentions of those holding it. Let's assume for a moment that a billionare has died and left his inheritance to his only son Stephen. Say Stephen is a deep rooted racist, and despises everyone who is not white. In his hands, in wealth enough to hire thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of mercenery soldiers. He decides to spend his vast wealth on dealing with every non-white he can get his hands on. He orders his merceneries to execute every non-white that is under his protection, or under no protection.
Who would check Stephens power, firstly his merceneries might. However Stephen can afford to pay his merceneries, 10 times what other merceneries recieve and still have enough merceneries to carry out his plans. The sheer lucrativeness of bieng one of Stephens merceneries, would silence the moral quandries, those who didn't like it could leave or could try and fight Stephen, at which point Stephen would legitimately have them killed.
The common people could try and defeat Stephen. The common people pool their limited wealth into hiring a rival group of merceneries, or take up arms themselves. Now Stephen's merceneries are the best money can buy and there morale is high for they are promised great rewards. The enemies of Stephen are not only killed, but their wealth is siezed and actually funds Stephen and his merceneries.
So the best check on Stephens power would be another, more decent billionare. The mercenery armies of both billionares clash, this epic conflict would create the same kind of devastation usual in war. In the end there are two outcomes.
If Stephen defeats Jack (the hypothetical other billionare), then everyone under Jacks protection is at his mercy and worse all the billions of Jack go to Stephen, allowing him to build up his mercenery army stll more. If Jack defeats Stephen, then yes justice of sorts is served, but Stephens wealth now belongs to Jack. The combining of two billionares wealth, would create an unassailable position of wealth, which would allow someone like Stephen, if he were to inherit Jack, increased power to carry out his ambitions.
Anarcho-capitalism thus ultimate allows complete power without responsability to exist
Beacause the nature of wealth in a free market with no inheritance taxes, is to accumalate into fewer and fewer hands, the possibility of an absolute despotism, as rule of a single individual who is responsable to no-one, can be created. In a statist system, the rulers base their position on abstract ideas, ideas which they can perhaps be judged and held responsable for and people follow them beacause they accept their legitimacy and ideas which might guide their conduct. In anarcho-capitalism, the right to obtain wealth is universally accepted and since wealth directly is power in such a system, there can be no criticism of the aquisition of yet more power as there can be no wealth, FOR THE TWO ARE ONE AND THE SAME IN THIS SYSTEM. Just as the aquisition of more wealth than another is permitted, indeed even lauded, the aquisition of more power over another is permitted and lauded. Thus there is no liberty in anarcho-capitalism, only absolute power for anyone with more wealth than anyone else.
Private Property with no state
In the abscence of goverment, nobody in fact owns anything, other than what they can defend by force of arms. Without force, anarcho-capitalist society cannot survive, why would one trade or work for something they can simply steal from someone foolish enough to work.
In order to defend private property against criminals, there would necceserily have to be a class of mercenery soldiers who hire themselves out to inviduals or groups to protect their property property. If groups hiring merceneries became the norm, then goverment would necceserily restore itself, or some kind of anarcho-collectivism. A permant force of merceneries would have to answer to someone in the group, or some kind of council, so they state would be reborn.
In order to be anarcho-capitalism, rather than anarcho-collectivism, the merceneries must primerily work for individuals, rather than groups. Likely this would be the case, for anarcho-collectivist wouldn't not need merceneries except temporerily in an extreme crisis (such as a war against another group), as they can usually appoint members of their own to protect the community and obtain/make their own weapons.
In anarcho-capitalism there is no inheritance tax
In a truly 'free' market, some people would do well and others badly. Those who do well would accumilate advantage, in the form of more buisnesses and more importantly the ability to hire a larger force of merceneries, indeed such would be neccesery, as larger enterprises obviously need more protection.
Now accumalative advantages would be passed on 100% of the wealth would be passed on to children, there would be no inheritance tax.
Those doing badly would either become merceneries, or become workers, both hiring themselves out to the rich. They would be likely paid a subsistance wage in most cases, but this wage would most likely include protection by the employers merceneries. Beacause of this, the poor would effectively cease to carry any weight at all, being bound to their employers by the need to obtain protection from them, in exchange for work. This utter depedance, ensures they will never be able to negotiate high wages, the rich would have their hands full protecting them. There would be only two ways out of this predicament, crime and hiring yourself out as a mercenery. Crime would be a poor career choice, except for preying on the unemployed and those without mercenery protection, criminals would not threaten the rich, only the poor. The other option is becoming a mercenery, this would be the most attractive option for most and this would ensure the collective bargaining power of merceneries was low (thus ensuring that warlords would not establish).
No power on earth could defeat a billionare, the end of liberty
With wealth controlled by a hereditery class of rich people, who hold all others in dependancy, while acting purely in their own economic self-interest, liberty as such would be more or less abolished for all but a small minority of the population.
The first liberties to go with be things like the ability to strike, we would see any strike put down rapidly by force of arms. Beacause strikes threaten wealth, and ultimately the very security of the rich, there would be a general consensus on stike squashing among the rich.
There is also the possibility of the rich person making himself into a dictator and re-establishing goverment. This is very unlikely, for the rich are more powerful in anarchy, than in goverment. Goverment as such requires some sort of legitimacy and formal law, in the present system the whim of the rich is law, no one can bring a rich person to justice, for he has wealth enough to hire hundreds or even thousands of merceneries to kill anyone who would dare arrest him. He would become an absolute ruler, with power to kill or to protect those he employs.
Beacause wealth is inheritable, there is no check on the integrity or intentions of those holding it. Let's assume for a moment that a billionare has died and left his inheritance to his only son Stephen. Say Stephen is a deep rooted racist, and despises everyone who is not white. In his hands, in wealth enough to hire thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of mercenery soldiers. He decides to spend his vast wealth on dealing with every non-white he can get his hands on. He orders his merceneries to execute every non-white that is under his protection, or under no protection.
Who would check Stephens power, firstly his merceneries might. However Stephen can afford to pay his merceneries, 10 times what other merceneries recieve and still have enough merceneries to carry out his plans. The sheer lucrativeness of bieng one of Stephens merceneries, would silence the moral quandries, those who didn't like it could leave or could try and fight Stephen, at which point Stephen would legitimately have them killed.
The common people could try and defeat Stephen. The common people pool their limited wealth into hiring a rival group of merceneries, or take up arms themselves. Now Stephen's merceneries are the best money can buy and there morale is high for they are promised great rewards. The enemies of Stephen are not only killed, but their wealth is siezed and actually funds Stephen and his merceneries.
So the best check on Stephens power would be another, more decent billionare. The mercenery armies of both billionares clash, this epic conflict would create the same kind of devastation usual in war. In the end there are two outcomes.
If Stephen defeats Jack (the hypothetical other billionare), then everyone under Jacks protection is at his mercy and worse all the billions of Jack go to Stephen, allowing him to build up his mercenery army stll more. If Jack defeats Stephen, then yes justice of sorts is served, but Stephens wealth now belongs to Jack. The combining of two billionares wealth, would create an unassailable position of wealth, which would allow someone like Stephen, if he were to inherit Jack, increased power to carry out his ambitions.
Anarcho-capitalism thus ultimate allows complete power without responsability to exist
Beacause the nature of wealth in a free market with no inheritance taxes, is to accumalate into fewer and fewer hands, the possibility of an absolute despotism, as rule of a single individual who is responsable to no-one, can be created. In a statist system, the rulers base their position on abstract ideas, ideas which they can perhaps be judged and held responsable for and people follow them beacause they accept their legitimacy and ideas which might guide their conduct. In anarcho-capitalism, the right to obtain wealth is universally accepted and since wealth directly is power in such a system, there can be no criticism of the aquisition of yet more power as there can be no wealth, FOR THE TWO ARE ONE AND THE SAME IN THIS SYSTEM. Just as the aquisition of more wealth than another is permitted, indeed even lauded, the aquisition of more power over another is permitted and lauded. Thus there is no liberty in anarcho-capitalism, only absolute power for anyone with more wealth than anyone else.
- By wat0n
- By Negotiator
- By litwin