Interesting read on Classical Liberalism Versus Anarchocapitalism.
I am not a convert just yet to this theory. My concern is if you get rid of the government institution because the free market will do a better job, then would it also be beneficial to get rid of the other institutions: religion, education, family and economy? Seems to me human nature would show its barbaric roots pretty quick. Where would the incentives be to act in ways beyond our nature?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/desoto3.1.1.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow - I am not completely finished with the article yet (I went to the full article on Mises), but the idea is so, so compelling and thought-provoking.
ReplyDeleteI found you mentioning anarchism today so interesting because just yesterday I began to read on it. It's rather odd that it happened, really.
It seems human nature would be able to fully evolve here.
Relgion and family, surely, would still be involved. The both of them bring happiness and have value to the individual, so there would be nothing to stop it from occuring.
A completely free market would be in effect, so it would follow that the economy would actually be functioning at it's highest potential.
Education has two points: A) Out of self-interst, people would get an education because 1) They would like to be informed or 2) Because they would like to earn a certificate of performance.
B) By becoming private, it would most likely become much more efficent because of competition and all of the economic gauge.
The basic principle behind anarchocapitalism is that all the functions of govt can be done privately, through voluntary transactions.
ReplyDeleteTo be a completely anarchic society, we would have to privatize courts, the fire dept, a force that has the legal monopoly on force to enforce contracts - basically, all the true government functions would need to be done by individuals.
Imagine this: A community (modern form of a village) decides to reject the federal government and establish its own rules via a voluntary court system each person agreed to use. It alone would have the power to pass verdict and adjudicate disputes between citizens. Simply the fact that all law-followers agree to not toe the line does not make a "voluntary" court system any more legitimate than a government created one. Both wield special powers. Both work to the advantage of the law-followers. Both wield a monopoly on the legal use of force. Where is the difference?
This is the fundamental problem with complete privatization: All the governmental functions that we reject (e.g., monopoly on force, for instance) must be embraced if the institution is to have any power at all. There is no escape from granting special privileges to those who protect us.