Anarcho-capitalists, I'm calling you out.... (1 Viewer)

[ComingUpForAir]

Actually, the objection I prefer to leap to is the natural tendency of markets to develop into a monopoly. This isn't a theory, it's a fact

haha...
Yes it's true that firms like to collude and raise prices, they do this by reducing their collective output below the profit maximizing quantity that would exist in a perfectely competitive market (i.e. if firms increase or decrease output, their profits fall).
What you fail to realise is that if each firm in the cartel is rational (i.e profit maximizing), it has an incentive to quietly increase it's individual output (as this will increase their profits), thus output on the whole rises, and the cartel will distergrate very quickly.

It's true that a monopoly can exist in 'the free market', but such cases arise primarily due to control of natural resources. Most monopolies arise due to artificially created 'barries to entry', i.e. cartels get the goverment to 'regulate' (by law) quotas/trade laws/'permits', etc. This is know as 'croney' capitalism, and would of happened alot in those places you mentioned (and of course also necisarrily happens in bad market socialisms).
(the arguments/theory is more complicated than this, but it gets very mathimatical). But in most modern democracies, indepedent goverment agencies, i.e our own ACCC, do a good job stopping cartels.

Basically, your 'facts' amount to fairly unsophisicated simplifications. But this is too be expected when people have these bizarre, black-and-white, straw man debates.
Labels and words like 'anarcho-capitalism', 'goverment', 'capitalism' serve no worthwhile purpose when discussing social policy, they provoke entirely different meanings when said to different people, are not grounded in reality (which is dynamic) and should be discarded.

 

[copkiller]

Really? What about the factionalism in Afghanistan? There's no 'centralised' power, there are, in fact, small institutions with weapons. However, this system has proved extremely difficult for the people to overcome.

Lol what? Its hard to think of a place on earth that has been more adversely affected by statism that Afghanistan.

It has been invaded so many times by nation states. First the British, then the Soviets, now the Americans. Let's not forget that almost of the the weapons currently being used by the insurgents and the terrorists were directly supplied the the USA when it was arming insurgents to fight the soviets.

Not to mention that the main source of revenue for the worst criminal elements in Afghanistan today is opium production, which is only profitable as an underground industry due to the misguided war on drugs. Once again, the culprit is governments, in particular, a democratic government with a constitution limiting its power.

 

[copkiller]

Pre-New Deal America was only shit when it was also post-central bank America.

Pinochet did too much too quickly, that's well acknowledged by anyone with any sense on the right of the spectrum. This is why you'll find almost no an-caps advocating immediate violent revolution, preferring a slow undermining of the government's authority and gradual erosion of its powers.

Russia is still a fascist police state, and the fact that you're talking about a society based on IMF loans indicates you know absolutely nothing about free market economies. It also suffered from the problems of changing too much too quickly.

Finally, anarchism means 'no government' and your definition of 'subjugation' is not broadly accepted by anybody outside the socialist alternative.

Great points. The statists love to assume the immediate collapse of governments, which would of course lead to problems, rather than a gradual transition towards anarcho-capitalism which is the only way it could work and what almost all anarcho capitalists argue for.

But most importantly, none of the historical examples were even close to examples of anarcho-capitalism.

All of them still involved big government.

Pinochet's Chile was a particularly ridiculous example. Anarcho-capitalism is very different to conservatism, and just because Pinochet implemented some free market reforms doesn't make him anything close to anarcho-capitalist. He still maintained a huge military and many oppressive laws against free speech and political dissent.

In fact, a dictatorship where power is centralized in th hands of one man is the opposite of what anarcho-capitalists advocate.

 

[Hobbit90]

I'm sorry, but this is simply impractical and impossible. Humans are innately hierarchical and will always seek to 'dominate' in some form or another. Your definition of 'oppression' is ridiculously broad.

I hardly see why this is an established fact; you'd need to support this. There are plenty of examples where cooperation is the prevailing sentiment- indeed, it is largely up to the social environment and infrastructure that causes people to as, you said, "dominate".

For example; suppose we had two people on a boat, and the only way to get to shore was to cooperate. Who would dominate then? I challenge you.

Anarchism (all forms) is less of a product than it is a process. You'd be completely justified in saying that if we abolished the state presently, it would lead to all kinds of social upheaval. However, that is only because you're applying anarchism to a capitalist model. Anarchism is a process, and the gradual undermining of the state would lead to anarcho-capitalism, not any kind of violent revolution. I do not know of any anarcho-capitalists that advocate immediate overthrow of the state.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

I hardly see why this is an established fact; you'd need to support this. There are plenty of examples where cooperation is the prevailing sentiment- indeed, it is largely up to the social environment and infrastructure that causes people to as, you said, "dominate".

Okay, you want examples? What about looking at other great apes? Gorillas, chimps, etc...they have complex social structures in which they function...humans have apparently inherited this tendency as well. It's evident in countless social situations, think about how, if you get a group of people together in any circumstance, certain people will naturally take the lead, others will be willing to take advice and others will be in between. This is seen in interactions between kids on the playground and within sporting teams, debating teams...etc.

For example; suppose we had two people on a boat, and the only way to get to shore was to cooperate. Who would dominate then? I challenge you.

Fair enough, I didn't specifcy...I would consider any group large enough (such as the population of a country) to become naturally hierarchical. Also, I don't think a hierarchy *necessarily* always brings about 'oppression' as it were...for example, I'm quite happy to accept my teachers at school as having more power than me, in fact I benefit from their advice etc, even though the school system is hierarchical. And even in a situation between two people, one person would be more likely to come up with the ideas, even when there is a co-operation. People have personalities which naturally predispose them to certain positions within social groups.

You'd be completely justified in saying that if we abolished the state presently, it would lead to all kinds of social upheaval.

This *is* essentially what I'm saying. Imo, even a gradual undermining of the state would do more harm than good.

 

[Hobbit90]

Okay, you want examples? What about looking at other great apes? Gorillas, chimps, etc...they have complex social structures in which they function...humans have apparently inherited this tendency as well. It's evident in countless social situations, think about how, if you get a group of people together in any circumstance, certain people will naturally take the lead, others will be willing to take advice and others will be in between. This is seen in interactions between kids on the playground and within sporting teams, debating teams...etc.

I never asked for examples- I asked you to support it. By your earlier argument, humans will always dominate. As I've outlined, situations could arise where there is no domination, therefore your argument is largely redundant. The fact that there are situations where domination is non-existant highlights the potential for an anarchist society to work.

Just because some people tend to lead and others tend to follow doesn't necessarily imply domination. It's a subjective matter- if neither individual or group perceives domination, than it simply ceases to exist.

For example, I do not believe I am dominated by my teachers. I believe we work on a mutual understanding and respect. Therefore, where is the domination? It ceases to exist.

However, I know of many similar students who believe they are dominated by their teachers. It's not my place to say whether they are or not- the fact is, domination only exists where it is perceived.

I would consider any group large enough (such as the population of a country) to become naturally hierarchical. .

Why? Because of what you've observed with monkeys? I don't think it's justified to completely disregard the potential of a society without a heirarchy, just because history and human nature seems to dictate otherwise. Human nature is malleable- it is not an objective substance that follows a set pattern. Besides, who's to judge whether a society has a heirarchy or not? I suppose there is a heirarchy in my family, but- call me arrogant- I honestly think I'm on an equal footing with my parents. Therefore, who do you believe? The people on the inside or the person looking in?

This *is* essentially what I'm saying. Imo, even a gradual undermining of the state would do more harm than good.

Fair enough- I won't ask why because I do believe you've already said it.

 

[murphyad]

But in most modern democracies, indepedent goverment agencies, i.e our own ACCC, do a good job stopping cartels.

Exactly, which is why I think that this regulation should be praised. When it is functioning properly, the ACCC does a good job of preventing anti-competitive behaviour. Without it, things are altogether more uncertain.

But most importantly, none of the historical examples were even close to examples of anarcho-capitalism.

All of them still involved big government.

Pinochet's Chile was a particularly ridiculous example. Anarcho-capitalism is very different to conservatism, and just because Pinochet implemented some free market reforms doesn't make him anything close to anarcho-capitalist. He still maintained a huge military and many oppressive laws against free speech and political dissent.

In fact, a dictatorship where power is centralized in th hands of one man is the opposite of what anarcho-capitalists advocate.

Ah yes, I though that you would follow up with something like that eventually.....

Pinochet was a dicator, of course, which makes some ancaps, like you, feel that they have nothing to learn from this case. Somehow Chile's experiences in privatising social security (for example) can tell us nothing about privatising social security here or anywhere else, because Pinochet was a dictator. Presumably if you set up a business in Chile, the laws of supply and demand and perhaps those of gravity wouldn't apply, because Pinochet was a dictator.

When it's convenient, some libertarians even trumpet their association with Chile's "free market" policies; self-gov.org includes a page celebrating Milton Friedman, self-proclaimed libertarian, who helped form and advise the group of University of Chicago professors and graduates who implemented Pinochet's policies.

While you claim that Chile's economic reform was implemented quickly, the truth is that the key reforms were brought in over a 15-year period, with economic reform continuing today, 25 years later, which is a fairly long time when you consider the speed at which neoliberal reform was implemented in the US, for example. And guess what? Chile still ranks higher than almost all Latin American countries in terms of economic inequality.

Furthermore, you object to my examples because they are not Spotless Instances of the Free [as close to Utopia as we can come]; but nothing is proved by science fiction. If complete economic freedom and absence of government is a cure-all, partial economic freedom and limited government should be a cure-some. But when I point out examples of nations partially following views you claim to support, I'm told that they don't count: only Pure Real Anarcho-Capitalism Of My Own Camp can be tested.

All-or-nothing thinking generally goes with intellectual fraud. If a system is untestable, it's because its proponents fear testing.

The fact that you're talking about a society based on IMF loans indicates you know absolutely nothing about free market economies.

An absurd rationalisation. Russia did receive IMF loans for quite a while, and they were unable to compensate for the capital flight (or whatever its called) from that country. Thats all I said. Not that the economy was based upon these IMF loans.

 

[yoddle]

Can I firstly begin this post by calling for a length cap on copkiller and murphyad's posts? Oh my God, yes they are interesting and you make good points, but I find it really off-putting having to read War & Peace every time I want to join an NCAP discussion.

Have any of you read No Logo by Naomi Klein? I'm currently doing so, and she makes alot of good points.

In a potential anarcho-capitalist society, I believe that, contradict to copkiller's assertion that no one group would be in power, than in fact profit and the corporation would have the power.

In my opinion, money is more of a threat to liberty than ideology.

Obviously, money currently determines much, but not to the extreme extent it would in an anarcho-capitalist society.

A random example to illustrate this would be copyright and self-censorship. Comapnies currently have the power, through copyright laws that are overwhelmingly in favour of the corporation, to stifle any intellectual discussion or artistic portrayal of a company or brand. Corporations currently have the right to sponsor everything to death and spread their advertising (which is, in itself, a whole other negative phenomenon in terms of sociology and psychology), and this would not be resolved by anarcho-capitalism, and I think it does need to be, when it gets to the point where huge issues go ignored due to media ownership synergies and self-censorship in the interest of financial survival.

The state and capitalism go hand in hand. Remember when we go to work at nine and come home at five and sit in front of the television and watch porn and reinforce gender roles we are in the service of profit, not state.

Purporting anarcho-capitalism is an affront to the idea of anarchy. It's just choosing to be controlled by money and the need for money for survival, instead of "government" (that is, the phenomenon of being governed).

lol

 

[yoddle]

necisarrily

Cringe.

Also, I just realised my post was really long. Sorry for being a hypocrite.

 

[copkiller]

Pinochet was a dicator, of course, which makes some ancaps, like you, feel that they have nothing to learn from this case. Somehow Chile's experiences in privatising social security (for example) can tell us nothing about privatising social security here or anywhere else, because Pinochet was a dictator. Presumably if you set up a business in Chile, the laws of supply and demand and perhaps those of gravity wouldn't apply, because Pinochet was a dictator.

You can't just isolate one aspect of what he did and divorce it from everything else he did. I haven't studied it in detail, but I'd bet that like every other dictator he appropriated lots of wealth and resources and gave them to his friends and family and those in the military who helped him gain and maintain power. Obviously this is very much connected to income inequality and poverty in the country. How can you separate the corruption and tyranny of a dictatorship from specific policies you wish to study like privatization of social security?

When it's convenient, some libertarians even trumpet their association with Chile's "free market" policies;

I have never done this. I can only speak for myself. Other libertarians who may have made this comparison do not speak for me.

self-gov.org includes a page celebrating Milton Friedman, self-proclaimed libertarian, who helped form and advise the group of University of Chicago professors and graduates who implemented Pinochet's policies.

Friedman is not an anarcho-capitalist, nor is he well liked by most anarcho-capitalists.

Furthermore, you object to my examples because they are not Spotless Instances of the Free [as close to Utopia as we can come]

No I object to them because they are not even in the same fucking ballpark. A dictator who comes to power through violence and arbitrarily kills dissenters is much further from anarcho-capitalism than a more moderate government like the Australian government.

Also, can you read? This is the 4th time in this thread I have reiterated that I don't believe anarcho-capitalism will lead to uptopia, or that it will even be close to perfect.

All-or-nothing thinking generally goes with intellectual fraud. If a system is untestable, it's because its proponents fear testing.

Well I agree with you there. That's why governments have never allowed anarcho-capitalism to be tested.

We're not even asking for the overthrow of the state. We just want to be able to buy a small territory and try it out. Many groups of libertarians have tried to buy land or claim unused land and secede from the control of nation states and every time nation states have intervened and stopped them

 

[copkiller]

A random example to illustrate this would be copyright and self-censorship. Comapnies currently have the power, through copyright laws that are overwhelmingly in favour of the corporation, to stifle any intellectual discussion or artistic portrayal of a company or brand.

Ummm yeah, corporations have this enormous power which they abuse because of laws created by the government, and enforced by the government at the expense of the taxpayer.

Most anarcho-capitalists do not support intellectual property, and all anarcho-capitalists oppose the sweeping, pro-corporation, tax payer funded crusade against "piracy" that is currently being fought.

Corporations currently have the right to sponsor everything to death and spread their advertising (which is, in itself, a whole other negative phenomenon in terms of sociology and psychology), and this would not be resolved by anarcho-capitalism, and I think it does need to be, when it gets to the point where huge issues go ignored due to media ownership synergies and self-censorship in the interest of financial survival.

What the fuck are you talking about? You haven't demonstrated anything bad happening because of anarcho-capitalism, you've just pointed out that advertising would still exist.

No shit Shirlock.

 

[John McCain]

Most anarcho-capitalists do not support intellectual property, and all anarcho-capitalists oppose the sweeping, pro-corporation, tax payer funded crusade against "piracy" that is currently being fought.

Why shouldn't individuals be able to profit and protect the output of their intellectual labour to the same extent as their physical labour? Why does intellectual labour and product have no value, while physical product is an absolute good of which theft is the only absolute moral indiscretion?

Also, from a practical perspective, there are problems with abolishing IP in that it removes incentives for innovation. Without IP, it's economically rational to piggyback on others innovation, or to invest in corporate espionage.

I think yoddle is correct, there needs to be a balance between allowing free artistic expression, and protecting IP. This works well in Australia, with laws protecting producers of satire etc...

 

[Planck]

Have any of you read No Logo by Naomi Klein? I'm currently doing so, and she makes alot of good points.

Klein's major argument is that Companies collude with GOVERNMENTS to fuck the people in those countries.

Were people able to freely travel between countries, you would see the division of labour work in a more equitable and free fashion with better outcomes for all involved.

In a potential anarcho-capitalist society, I believe that, contradict to copkiller's assertion that no one group would be in power, than in fact profit and the corporation would have the power.

Depends on the role of corporate personhood in that nation. Companies do not move to maximise profit in and of itself, they move to maximise profit through efficiencies in order to compete in the marketplace. 7/10 Business ventures fail within the first 5 years.

In my opinion, money is more of a threat to liberty than ideology.

Obviously, money currently determines much, but not to the extreme extent it would in an anarcho-capitalist society.

A random example to illustrate this would be copyright and self-censorship. Comapnies currently have the power, through copyright laws that are overwhelmingly in favour of the corporation, to stifle any intellectual discussion or artistic portrayal of a company or brand.

They use the state to enforce their hold on a particular brand by threatening people? So what you're effectively arguing is that corporations collude with the state to quash freedom of speech?

How is this anything other than a reaffirmation of the points that have been raised?

Corporations currently have the right to sponsor everything to death and spread their advertising (which is, in itself, a whole other negative phenomenon in terms of sociology and psychology), and this would not be resolved by anarcho-capitalism, and I think it does need to be, when it gets to the point where huge issues go ignored due to media ownership synergies and self-censorship in the interest of financial survival.

These giant monopolies are for the most part enabled by government subsidies. What is important to understand is that there is a market for everything. Were we to only hear one propagandised side to the story, alternate forms of media would arise. We're already seeing this with the internet, with multiple sources of information on every story. We end up with a culture that relies on consumer intelligence rather than source intelligence, which I feel is a net positive.

The state and capitalism go hand in hand. Remember when we go to work at nine and come home at five and sit in front of the television and watch porn and reinforce gender roles we are in the service of profit, not state.

Are you making a point here or reading from the "Socialist Alternative Guide to Idiocy"? State and capitalism hand in hand is known as Corporatism, it's also known as the Liberal party of Australia.

Purporting anarcho-capitalism is an affront to the idea of anarchy. It's just choosing to be controlled by money and the need for money for survival, instead of "government" (that is, the phenomenon of being governed).
lol

Pray tell how this naive anti-evolutionary and intellectually-devoid form of 'anarchism' that you propose actually works?

It's all well and good to criticise, but it's generally a good idea to provide your own thinking on these issues.

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

One thing I would love to see is a world full of democracies, or there-abouts (e.g. Singapore or some fictitious corporatist/anarchist states) where everyone is free to come and go from one country to another as they choose.

The attitude against immigrants from the vocal bogan element in this country really shits me off.

 

[Planck]

One thing I would love to see is a world full of democracies, or there-abouts (e.g. Singapore or some fictitious corporatist/anarchist states) where everyone is free to come and go from one country to another as they choose.

The attitude against immigrants from the vocal bogan element in this country really shits me off.

Aren't we all meant to be global citizens by now?

 

[murphyad]

You can't just isolate one aspect of what he did and divorce it from everything else he did. I haven't studied it in detail, but I'd bet that like every other dictator he appropriated lots of wealth and resources and gave them to his friends and family and those in the military who helped him gain and maintain power. Obviously this is very much connected to income inequality and poverty in the country. How can you separate the corruption and tyranny of a dictatorship from specific policies you wish to study like privatization of social security?

In fact, Pinochet did not directly implement this policy nor did he pioneer it's conception. The ideas had already been fleshed out before he came to power, and he was simply informed of them and agreed to introduce them. The actual implementation of these reforms was carried out by the 'Chicago Boys,' not Pinochet or other Chileans. If you want to make claims to the contrary, then the burden of proof is on you to back them up.

No I object to them because they are not even in the same fucking ballpark.

You're missing, or evading, the point at hand here. I'm not talking about the nature of the government those reforms were implemented under, but about the reforms themselves. I have already explained this position above.

Also, can you read? I did not say it would in this instance. I merely said that it would lead us closer to this utopian ideal, not that it would be utopia, or close to utopia.

Well I agree with you there. That's why governments have never allowed anarcho-capitalism to be tested.

I think you may have misunderstood. You disregard partial implementations of ancap policy (see above) because you claim that they do not 'truly' represent your ideal. This in itself is a retreat from the realities of your ideology; a fear of testing.

Also, I have read the ebook you referred me to, and while I thank you for providing me with that reference, I have to say it is far too axiomatic and very poorly-written. The author can do nothing but embark on long-winded and unwieldy analogies or allusions and totally fails to make a conclusive case. It reminds me of one of those phoney '1=2' maths proofs: every step seems logical but in fact there is a subtle (or not-so-subtle) flaw somewhere within the deduction (for example the assertion that European countries developed central banks post-Congress of Vienna, which is a barefaced lie). Basically, I would be wary of anything written by a narcissist who is monitored by a Cult Information Centre.

 

[copkiller]

In fact, Pinochet did not directly implement this policy nor did he pioneer it's conception. The ideas had already been fleshed out before he came to power, and he was simply informed of them and agreed to introduce them. The actual implementation of these reforms was carried out by the 'Chicago Boys,' not Pinochet or other Chileans. If you want to make claims to the contrary, then the burden of proof is on you to back them up.

The reforms happened at the same time Pinochet was in power and doing lots of other terrible stuff that is the exact opposite of what anarcho-capitalists would advocate.

How do we isolate the ceteris paribus effect of his free market forms, and conclude that they, and not the many other terrible things he did were the cause of the problems you mention for Chileans?

Also, the method of implementation of any policy is crucial. We are not conservatives that are obsessed purely with economic liberalization. The central principle of anarcho-capitalism is the non-aggression axiom which states that "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

Clearly a dictatorship like Pinochet's caused more violations of this principle than it removed by introducing some free market reforms, so on balance, an anarcho-capitalist would expect Chile to be worse of under such a regime.

You disregard partial implementations of ancap policy (see above) because you claim that they do not 'truly' represent your ideal. This in itself is a retreat from the realities of your ideology; a fear of testing.

Well I didn't just disregard them. I explained exactly why they are irrelevant. They are only partial implementations of ancap policy to the extent that every government in the world has partially implemented ancap policy. I'd argue that Australia has actually implemented a lot more ancap policies than Chile or post communist Russia. We have free speech (mostly), and free markets for many goods and services, and a government that is much more restrained in terms of how it can use its power and for what purpose. Remember the most important thing we want to see is a lack of violence and coercion.

You seem like a smart guy, but those three examples you chose were all astonishingly weak. The best example of a modern society that resembles anarcho-capitalism is modern day Somalia.
Many measures of quality of life have improved since the collapse of the state in Somalia, but obviously it is still fraught with major problems so it provides a much better case study to look at and can be used to make interesting points for either side.

See, I am not scared of testing, I've even given you an example to help make your case.

Also, can you read? I did not say it would in this instance. I merely said that it would lead us closer to this utopian ideal, not that it would be utopia, or close to utopia.

We are not claiming it is a utopian ideal. Can you point to me one anarcho-capitalist in this thread, or indeed anywhere who has made such a claim?

 

[murphyad]

The central principle of anarcho-capitalism is the non-aggression axiom which states that "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

But under anarcho-capitalism everyone has inherently unequal freedom, due to the power differential caused by the huge emphasis on property ownership. Furthermore, this 'non-agression' axiom is really just a term of art in the sense that it is applied, and really means something more akin to, 'do something improper according to ancap philosophy'. It's fairly simple to get around, too: just call it 'retaliatory force' in order to justify it. Thus the person who does not pay his taxes is justified because he is 'retaliating' against the thieving statist scumbags, who are in fact enforcing an implicit social contract by punishing him: they are the ones 'retaliating' for his breach of a social contract. This logical inversion is a serious flaw in the anarcho-capitalist doctrine that renders it somewhat unfalsifiable and thus practically irrelevant.

You seem like a smart guy, but those three examples you chose were all astonishingly weak. The best example of a modern society that resembles anarcho-capitalism is modern day Somalia.
Many measures of quality of life have improved since the collapse of the state in Somalia, but obviously it is still fraught with major problems so it provides a much better case study to look at and can be used to make interesting points for either side.

Somalia is a failed communist/theocratic state that has a huge government, fragmented though it may be. The day-to-day reality of life in Somalia is characterised by violence, unrest and desperate factionalism, problems that have so far persisted despite the apparent pacifying influence of the free market, which many warlords and the like have actually used to further their goals in exactly the sort of coercive manner that I claimed would be an element of such a system. Although the private sector is strong, this has largely to do with firstly the foreign investments of the Somali diaspora who departed after the state collapsed (over $1 billion in a single year) and secondly the guidance of the European Commission and USAID on economic matters in Somalia in the absence of a properly functioning government. Judged on your own criteria of anarcho-capitalism (the basis of balance), it would seem that Somalia, to quote you directly, is "not even in the same fucking ballpark".

 

[copkiller]

But under anarcho-capitalism everyone has inherently unequal freedom, due to the power differential caused by the huge emphasis on property ownership.

I never claimed everyone would be equal. That is the unrealistic dream that the socialists strive for.

But I do think inequality would be minimized under anarco-capitalism (AC) if certain groups were unable to enforce laws and government contracts that are favorable to their interests through the state.

Furthermore, this 'non-agression' axiom is really just a term of art in the sense that it is applied, and really means something more akin to, 'do something improper according to ancap philosophy'. It's fairly simple to get around, too: just call it 'retaliatory force' in order to justify it.

That is not correct. AC philosophy says you can do anything you want as long as you don't harm anyone else. It is not susceptible to easy manipulation. AC holds that violence is unacceptable when used by anyone, including the government which actually represents the interests of the rich and powerful.

Thus the person who does not pay his taxes is justified because he is 'retaliating' against the thieving statist scumbags, who are in fact enforcing an implicit social contract by punishing him: they are the ones 'retaliating' for his breach of a social contract. This logical inversion is a serious flaw in the anarcho-capitalist doctrine that renders it somewhat unfalsifiable and thus practically irrelevant.

What implicit social contract? You could make up anything and say it is an implicit social contract.

I didn't sign that social contract and neither did you. The "social contract" in no way resembles a real contract where all parties agree to be bound by the contract.

***more on Somalia later***

 

[KFunk]

What implicit social contract? You could make up anything and say it is an implicit social contract.

I didn't sign that social contract and neither did you. The "social contract" in no way resembles a real contract where all parties agree to be bound by the contract

Sir, we regret to inform you that you have just breached your social contract.

Sincerely,
The Thought Police