Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT immoral!

Sure it is.

Brokor is a boobie.

Other/Undecided

[digitalfour]

Not really, Nozik developped a few solid scenarios of the free market developing government, which then expands to behemoth levels once more.

I'm still rereading the articles [1, 2, 3] written against Nozick's ideas, but even cursory examination reveals his scenarios have absolutely no basis in actual history and are actually not 'solid' at all.

What is 'the free market'?

The sum of freely interacting individuals.

What is 'government'?

The territorial monopoly on force.

There is no 'force' except the force that originally emerged to let those people be able to associate in the manner they do.

Yes, and that is applicable only to government.

[Taors]

Not really, Nozik developped a few solid scenarios of the free market developing government, which then expands to behemoth levels once more.

I'm still rereading the articles [1, 2, 3] written against Nozick's ideas, but even cursory examination reveals his scenarios have absolutely no basis in actual history and are actually not 'solid' at all.

What is 'the free market'?

The sum of freely interacting individuals.

What is 'government'?

The territorial monopoly on force.

There is no 'force' except the force that originally emerged to let those people be able to associate in the manner they do.

Yes, and that is applicable only to government.

And when it comes right down to it...they're both just a group of people that have a different way of interacting within society.

And you misunderstood the last part of my post. That's okay though.

[mikehz]

Even under a libertarian "government," you can be pretty much as anarcho-capitalist as you want. So long as you don't use force/fraud on anyone, you'll be fine.

[digitalfour]

Even under a libertarian "government," you can be pretty much as anarcho-capitalist as you want. So long as you don't use force/fraud on anyone, you'll be fine.

Are there taxes?

[mikehz]

Even under a libertarian "government," you can be pretty much as anarcho-capitalist as you want. So long as you don't use force/fraud on anyone, you'll be fine.

Are there taxes?

No. Fees for services. You don't pay; you don't get the police or court protection. At least, not from the government. You can still make other arrangements, and so long as you don't use force or fraud on a citizen, you're good to go.

Of course, competing governments can be set up, to the extent they don't engage in violence. If enough dissatisfied citizens leave one for another, then it's just a matter of one general government ceasing to be and another taking its place. Sort of a peaceful revolution.

Really, just replace the term "government" with the term "DRO" and you have pretty much the same thing.

[MacFall]

I've always favored using the term "polycentric law" instead of "anarchy".

[mikehz]

I've always favored using the term "polycentric law" instead of "anarchy".

I like it. At least, it has none of the negative connotations of "anarchy." But then, I believe libertarians prefer the term "anarchism" to describe a stateless society, since anarchy means chaos, and a government-less society does not need to be chaotic.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

"Anarchy" has come to mean chaos in the flock's minds, but that doesn't mean that is what it means.

[MacFall]

I've always favored using the term "polycentric law" instead of "anarchy".

No.

Yes. It's a perfectly accurate way to describe it.

[HOO-HAA]

Then those power-mongers will be outcompeted.

Just like Microsoft gets "outcompeted"? Or Coca-Cola, GE, Disney, and Time Warner?

Good job. You have just strengthened my point even more. Exchanging one form of force for another is a bit hypocritical, and it is also immoral on some level.

I think a large proportion of cola drinkers would rather drink coca-cola than fascist-I-killed-your-brother-because-he-worked-for-Pepsi-cola.

In my opinion, the market is (generally) particularly image conscious when it comes to ethics - albeit from a business perspective.

[Cyro]

I've always favored using the term "polycentric law" instead of "anarchy".

No.

Yes. It's a perfectly accurate way to describe it.

And every other system.

[MacFall]

And every other system.

No, that's exactly the opposite of the truth. Polycentric law means you get to choose which code of law you will follow, without being penalized for neglecting others (which includes not having to move to the next country, state, county, city, or municipality). It would exist if, say, insurance companies formed their own codes of conduct (legal orders, effectively) to which people could subscribe and unsubscribe at will. All states are, by definition, not polycentric. Even if they have multiple legal orders within the same geographic area, their jurisdictions are fixed exclusively to their respective areas. States are monocentric legal institutions.

[Level 20 Anklebiter]

It means taking the same truism about software: heterogeneity leads to 'better' code. In as much as it leads to considering different solutions to problems that are not exactly the same. The same follows (at least to me) for legal situations.

[Cyro]

And every other system.

No, that's exactly the opposite of the truth. Polycentric law means you get to choose which code of law you will follow, without being penalized for neglecting others (which includes not having to move to the next country, state, county, city, or municipality). It would exist if, say, insurance companies formed their own codes of conduct (legal orders, effectively) to which people could subscribe and unsubscribe at will. All states are, by definition, not polycentric. Even if they have multiple legal orders within the same geographic area, their jurisdictions are fixed exclusively to their respective areas. States are monocentric legal institutions.

A state may be monocentric but a multitude of states that exist today is polycentric. Your caveat for free movement between varies types of law is panarchy, not polycentric.