Is Anarcho-Capitalism Immoral?

Anarcho-Capitalism is NOT immoral!

Sure it is.

Brokor is a boobie.

Other/Undecided

[BKO]

Claiming that all forms of force and all forms of government are immoral creates the fuel necessary to attempt to legitimize a radical belief in Anarchy. Is it wrong to take this course? Discuss.

When an Anarcho-Capitalist claims superior morality in justifying no use of force, what is their primary rebuttal and solution for creating a society without a government or "state"? Privatization, and the free market, right? The question which they have not considered, out of shear ignorance I can only assume, is "what happens when these private enterprises become too forceful and powerful?" additionally, what keeps these private enterprises in check? I see Anarchy as being self-destructive, and completely immoral for attempting to promote a far more volatile societal structure, one which actually has no real structure and is entirely dependent upon the supposition that all people will happily leave one another alone and function in a non forceful manner.

What are your thoughts?

[lordmetroid]

Then those power-mongerers will be outcompeted

[Sally]

Morality is subjective! but yeah it is certainly not unethical...

[BKO]

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.

[lordmetroid]

umm... those companies have government backing them up!

[theghostofbj]

umm... those companies have government backing them up!

So you're saying nobody can make a better product and get ahead of them?

[voodoo]

Why can't we vote twice?   

You assumption of sheer ignorance ignores the problem of large numbers.  A cooperative unit cannot grow beyond the size where the nice strategy of tit-for-tat with forgiveness no longer dominates in an iterated series of prisoners' dilemma (PD) of indefinite length.  As soon as it does the incentives for defection split the cooperative unit into at least two smaller cooperative units, both of which, then, will be guided by the dominate strategy of tit-for-tat with forgiveness (with each other and all other smaller cooperative units).

A large cooperative unit will use force to try to use force to prevent defection which, of course, is itself a defection (how can it be a cooperative unit if it forces cooperation?).  It will also use force to prevent the formation of cooperating units that do not cooperate with it.  Both these defections lead to a lose-lose string of games, which is why the "forgiveness" part of tit-for-tat with forgiveness is so important; it breaks the string of defections.  It also increases the incentives of smaller cooperative units to cooperate with each other (even if they have to do it clandestinely).

The effectiveness of the force used is related to geography.  Obviously, physical force is useless against someone you can not reach physically.  As a large cooperative unit transforms to a defective unit with force, the smaller cooperative units which defect tend to move away; therefore, one of the last death throws of a unit which has adopted the defective strategy of force is travel restrictions.  Once travel restrictions have been imposed, it becomes clear to cooperative units of all sizes (down to the individual) that the PD series of indefinite length has or will soon end.

As the dominate strategy for the Nth PD game is defect/defect, it is also the dominate strategy for N-1, and thus for N-2, and so on.  Therefore, the lifespan of a defective unit with force is inversely proportional to the degree of travel restrictions imposed and its ability to enforce those travel restrictions.

All of that boils down to the repeated observation throughout history that the rise of cooperative units (government or otherwise) which cease to be cooperative and start being forceful are inevitable but unstable - their days are numbered at the moment they employ the defective strategy of force.

[Non-Statist]

So what are we really talking about here in anarcho-capitalism?

I quote the great MC Hammer when I suggest for us to "break it down."

is it theft for one person to physically take or threaten to physically take another persons property?

Thats taxation.  What we call "government" is this on a grand scale.  (things seem to get cloudy when we talk about "government" for some reason but really its just individuals, and together they label themselves "government" as a concept.) 

I am not addressing practical questions so please dont talk about how anarchy wont work blah blah blah.  Thats a whole other issue.  One issue at a time. 

[Jason Orr]

The question which they have not considered, out of shear ignorance I can only assume, is "what happens when these private enterprises become too forceful and powerful?"

Oh wow, how insightful!  You're absolutely right-- NO ONE has ever asked that question!  How ignorant are we to think a stateless society could work!

Oh wait-- maybe if the private enterprises become too forceful and powerful, the customers will switch to another private enterprise.  You know, sort of like how if a restaurant started serving bad food, you could just go to another one that served better food.  Seems like that would keep the companies in check; if companies are profit maximizers, they would want to cater to the demands of their customers.  Coca Cola didn't get so big by offering a product no one likes.

Ass.

Most people don't use force in their daily lives.  The few who do can be dealt with without creating a supreme authority that commits acts of violence against EVERYONE.  The state is self-destructive-- all governments fail.  Any talk about how a stateless society could operate is irrelevant because what is clear is that the state is fundamentally immoral.

I would venture to say that it's ignorant of you to assume companies would or could operate in the same way in a stateless society with a truly free market as they do now under a politicized system of corporatism.  Any power businesses have over their consumers is derived from the corrupt state power they purchased for themselves.  Disney has never threatened my life.  Microsoft doesn't force me to buy their software.  GE doesn't hold a gun to my head and demand that I pay for their products.  Time Warner doesn't bomb villages overseas and capture and torture its competitors.

It's one thing to criticize anarchism, but don't patronize us and don't mock us when you haven't honestly thought about these issues for more than five minutes.  Anarchy is better than states BECAUSE it has no one "real structure".  It has any structure people want it to have.  It can have an infinite variety of structures, whereas governments force an entire population into a one-size-fits-all coercive monopoly.  You say anarchy is immoral because you THINK it COULD lead to a more volatile social structure, but compare that to the state, which openly uses violence and intimidation to exact cruel and irrational policy measures that killed over 200 million people in the 20th century alone.  How many people has the free market executed?

[lordmetroid]

As I said above in one line 
Although I would argue that Coca cola, Microsoft and a few others are using government regulation and violence due to the intellectual product's nature.

[ladyattis]

Morality is subjective! but yeah it is certainly not unethical...

Morality is ethics, so please stop trying to talk like you know anything about philosophy. *throws book at Sally's head* kk?

-- Brede

[gibson042]

+1 Brock.  This board needs more game theory.

To answer the question, though: anarcho-capitalism is not immoral.

Claiming that all forms of force and all forms of government are immoral creates the fuel necessary to attempt to legitimize a radical belief in Anarchy.

That is a strawman.  The proper claim is that "aggressive forms of force and coercive forms of government are immoral".

When an Anarcho-Capitalist claims superior morality in justifying no use of force, what is their primary rebuttal and solution for creating a society without a government or "state"? Privatization, and the free market, right? The question which they have not considered, out of shear ignorance I can only assume, is "what happens when these private enterprises become too forceful and powerful?" additionally, what keeps these private enterprises in check?

The question has been endlessly considered; it is the principal argument used against anarcho-capitalism.  Competition keeps them in check, and desire to stay in business keeps them from becoming forceful.  Taking the conversation up a level, you are arguing against anarchism by bringing up the horrors of some organization attempting to install a state where none previously existed.  If you agree that aggression is so bad, then why not advocate its abolishment?

I see Anarchy as being self-destructive, and completely immoral for attempting to promote a far more volatile societal structure, one which actually has no real structure and is entirely dependent upon the supposition that all people will happily leave one another alone and function in a non forceful manner.

There are two possibilities.  Either people generally get along (in which anarchy will obviously work), or they don't.  The things keeping everyone in check would still exist in anarchy... they would just be voluntarily supported.  If you disagree, please give one example of a service that requires the state (and explain how it is morally permissible for you to point guns at people in order to fund it).

[ladyattis]

Is morality voluntary? That's the only question I have have to offer on this one, and I consider it the most important.

-- Brede

[gibson042]

Is morality voluntary? That's the only question I have have to offer on this one, and I consider it the most important.

Please be more specific.

Also, isn't your only question necessarily the one you consider most important?

[Taors]

I just want less government.