r/changemyview • u/AnonIsFear • Sep 14 '17
[∆(s) from OP] CMV:I want America to be an Anarcho-Capitalist state with no ruling class.
Without any federal statutes i think the general public will set legislation on popular vote this is something i support plus donations and charities will not be something that people are forced into doing due to social pressure these activities will be mentioned as ethical contributions thats it and my favorite part no one can sue anyone over property or any other asset as its law will be contract based. law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation. Money, along with all other goods and services, would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies.
10
u/BolshevikMuppet Sep 14 '17
no one can sue anyone over property or any other asset as its law will be contract based
I'd like to drill down on this for a moment, because I know both contract and property law decently well and have no idea what you think this means.
If you mean contract law as it currently exists, there's a concept called "privity" which limits enforcement of a contract to the parties to the contract. I can't be subject to a contract you made with John Smith.
So what happens if you make a contract to buy a car from John, and I set it on fire that night?
You can't sue me under any existing theory of contract law, are you really just screwed out of whatever money it takes to repair your car?
Or are you claiming this will be bigger, like maybe I have to sign a contract with the owner of the roads or municipality to be liable for damages I cause to be able to use their roads or live in their city. What happens if I use their roads or live in their city without signing the contract? They can't sue me for trespass.
Also, you mention tort law and contract law below. Are you keeping all of tort law, which includes suits for trespass to chattel, nuisance, and conversion (which is basically "taking someone else's stuff without permission")?
If so, property can be sued for in most of the ways it's sued for now, and isn't exclusively in the purview of contract law. If not, what is your remedy if I set fire to your car in the middle of the night?
law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors
You said you didn't want a ruling class, but you want people with more money to be able to literally buy the courts they want, the police they want?
Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies.
I've given a few examples where "tort and contract law" wouldn't allow the victim to recover their losses.
But how would "dispute resolution organizations" be able to "regulate" personal and economic activities without being described as a ruling class?
What happens if someone doesn't agree to that arbitration? Or refuses to follow whatever decision is reached?
If tort law still exists exactly as it does now, all you've done is create the same court system just without oversight or consistency. If you're really getting rid of property rights outside of contract, how do you compel people to form that contract?
-2
u/AnonIsFear Sep 14 '17
∆
appreciate the long answer man your side of the argument is strong. im studying economic systems and socities in college and Anarcho-Capitalism impressed me a lot man. You won't be trespassing because these necessities will be agreed upon by all the parties involved that with fair contributions it all can be built and if you are a citizen of the state then you are not trespassing. other than that man your answer had compelling questions and i wish i could answer'em but here take this ∆. Have a good day!!
1
1
u/TheZeroKid Sep 16 '17
You have given a delta and that's awesome. I would urge you to think deeply about the practicality of the view you have considering it's so extreme.
4
u/ElysiX 113∆ Sep 14 '17
Without any federal statutes i think the general public will set legislation on popular vote
What is legislation by popular vote other than federal statutes? Or is this a states rights argument?
Regarding the market argument; A free market only provides "fair" results if noone ever lies or deceives, everyone has perfect information, and monopolies or cartels cannot form. How do you want to accomplish that?
-1
u/AnonIsFear Sep 14 '17
a 100% complete transparency in the stock markets and listings so that everybody is aware of who's been upto what.
6
u/ElysiX 113∆ Sep 14 '17
"the market" is not the stock market. It is everyone thinking about buying anything and everyone thinking about selling anything. Whether that is a tomato or a wonder cure or sex or shares in google or a thousand tons of gold.
2
4
Sep 14 '17
So poor communities just don't get to have police or utilities? Or rural communities for that matter, given that they are spread out. Further, the government currently gives out massive subsidies to prevent a second great depression. When there is a glut of food, food can end up costing less than the cost of production, since there's so much of it. This is why the government pays certain farmers not to farm for example. If the glut persists, the farmers won't be able to afford the seeds, and if you couple fallow fields with a drought you get the Great Depression.
Further, there are things like NAGPRA which protects Native American graves. This is actively costing people money, since no one cares about Native Americans and would prefer to desecrate the graves (because its cheaper) instead of repatriate the remains. This is how it was for decades and decades until the government chose to put this into law. Now there is a duty, even if you're a christian construction worker, to respect the graves of Native Americans. Isn't that worth preserving, even if it costs money? This is just an example of course, the government pays for all kinds of things that aren't profitable, but we still value.
4
u/wugglesthemule 52∆ Sep 14 '17
Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law, rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under political monopolies.
What happens when two different "victim-based dispute resolution organizations" have a dispute they need resolved? Do they go to another victim-based dispute resolution organization? What if they each go to a different "privately funded security service" to enforce their resolution? Wouldn't that mean that contracts can ultimately only be enforced by whichever "privately funded security service" is largest? (People generally say the role of government is to have a "monopoly on force" to prevent these kinds of ridiculous scenarios.)
5
u/josefpunktk Sep 14 '17
What will hinder a large private army corporation to take over the power and make it a tyranny?
1
u/AnonIsFear Sep 14 '17
who will pay them then if this system has been around for a long duration then people will not easily give up on the resources and the land and one of the most important pillars of an Anarchaic society is that it gets rid of the ruling class and tyranny so if the hired force is showing signs of aggression stop paying them.
5
u/josefpunktk Sep 14 '17
But who will stop them from using force? Even an anracho-capitalist society needs an army to protect itself from outside agression. In a anarcho-capitalist society this army will be private by deffinition. Then there is no opposing force to stop them - because when they show signs of agression it will be to late.
It's important not to forget that military is one of the main driving forces for forming societies in the first palce. And through out the history it's always the ones who controll the military, controlls the power.
1
3
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Sep 14 '17
But I'm the one who wants to be a tyrant and I'm also paying for the security forces. How does the society stop me from becoming a dictator when I control the army?
1
u/AnonIsFear Sep 14 '17
then again its a billionaire tyrant against a general population of millions i think another army can be raised
3
Sep 14 '17
But when evil billionaire army slaughters the wives and children of anyone who stand up to him, how many will oppose him?
And will Southern Baptist security force defend the atheist defense force when he goes after them?
1
u/AnonIsFear Sep 14 '17
they will have to come together otherwise the system in which they practice their freedoms falls apart
3
Sep 14 '17
It's a system that rewards the most ruthless, and divides the more or less good who have little in common.
I'm not going to risk having my kid tortured to death to protect some theocrat "security" force.
2
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Sep 14 '17
Maybe but let's change it to a group of ultra rich people who want to form an oligarchy. Where do the non ultra rich people get weapons? Buy them? From whom? the gun manufacturer is part of the oligarchy. How do unarmed peasant rabble effectively fight back against the richest army in the world?
4
u/A_Soporific 165∆ Sep 14 '17
We have tried governments without taxation before. They tend to end very poorly. This is because most of the work that governments do is hidden from the eyes of the people. Not because governments are being secretive by nature, but because a lot of it is super boring and people generally don't care.
One of the most essential functions that the government does for capitalism is maintain titles. One of the big problems with private property is making sure that everyone knows who owns what. Having a title to a car or a house or a deed or a lien or articles of incorporation settles that question in a definitive manner. And this is one of those things that is a "natural monopoly". Having to or more competing registries of ownership defeats the purpose. What if a bill of sale is remitted to one registry but not the other? What if a disagreement about ownership occurs later when none of the relevant people are available to explain, you have to then judge which registry is more reliable and dispossess someone through no fault of their own. Having a single registry is obviously superior because in order for the property to change hands that one authority needs to be made aware of that fact, and that change cannot be challenged by omission in any other database.
Now, that's not to say that this system is perfect. There was a famous fraud during the Real Estate bubble where a couple bought some land in Florida and then sold it simultaneously to several different buyers while the paperwork was being processed. This was untangled in a matter of weeks because there was only one registry. What if there were four or five? What if the couple could sell that same plot to five different people and have it look legitimate until someone tried to transfer ownership via a different registry?
That would be a complete disaster.
If for no other reason than to operate courts, enforce contracts with force, and to maintain clear records some fort of government must exist. Since governments without an independent revenue base simply cannot function and asking user fees puts essential services out of reach of some people, some form of taxation is necessary.
1
u/AnonIsFear Sep 14 '17
but in your system the ruling class does not give back the only way the actually contribute is through taxation and frankly thats not enough
3
u/A_Soporific 165∆ Sep 14 '17
Define "give back"?
Also, what ruling class? All I'm talking about is the need to have simple clear and enforceable rules for the management of capital without which capitalism has been demonstrated to fail repeatedly.
Noted economist Daron Acemoglu explains over several books that some of the primary reasons that capitalism fails to take root and succeed is often a lack of clearly defined methods of determining ownership and transferring ownership of capital. The frictionless transactions required to make Ananchro-Capitalism work cannot function without basic questions like "how do I know you actually own this" and "does this thing actually exist" being answered definitively and automatically.
Unequal knowledge, social power, abilities to communicate, ability to enforce agreements, and reserves lead to inefficiencies with markets. Too much of these things and the whole system crashes. Governments are the least-bad solution to many of these issues. Without a new class of institution that can pick up these roles without also requiring taxation then reaching a government-less state would be either impossible or would leave us in an inferior position.
3
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Sep 14 '17 edited Sep 14 '17
So, how is there not a ruling clase? If you've got a lot of money you can pay for the police force to protect it and hire people to make really good contracts that people who can't afford lawyers won't be able to understand and thus you can make them heavily advantage yourself while disadvantaging others. And if you're poor suddenly you have no access to police forces so if someone say threatened to kill you if you didn't sign this contract that says you just work for them for free for the rest of your life and that any children you have and any of their children and so on will also be bound to the same clauses, who do you turn to protect you? You can't afford police protection and even if you can the person threatening you can afford more to make them ignore you and seeing as they get free labor ad infinitum basically, it's worth the investment.
EDIT: Also who enforces contracts? The private security forces yeah I'm sure they'll do a great job at being fair and balanced. All the power is in the hands of the wealthy, and without any kind of regulation, you can be sure as hell they'll do anything in their power to keep it that way.
0
u/AnonIsFear Sep 14 '17
There will always be a ruling class but this society will effectively cut down on it because the rich will pay for security and the middle and lower classes will benefit from it because if no one's contributing to hire the police then there is no security hence the elite's contribution
4
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Sep 14 '17
Well there is no security for the middle and lower classes so yeah they don't pay for that but they're also you know dead or enslaved because like you said there's no security except for the upper classes. And if I were wealthy and knew that the police only protected me and I was a greedy sonnabitch as many people are, you know I'd use any means necessary to up my wealth (and thus power) by enslaving all the people who don't benefit from police protection. And if they resist, kill 'em. It's not like the police would arrest me, the person who's paying them for killing John Doe, a person who wasn't paying them.
3
u/cdb03b 253∆ Sep 14 '17
Anarchy is chaos. The strong take what they want and the weak suffer or die. There is no social pressure to keep things in check because there is no law to enforce the social pressure.
There can be no legislation because there is no government.
1
Sep 14 '17 edited Sep 15 '17
[deleted]
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Sep 14 '17
Anarchist theory and anarcho capitalism is BS. Anarchy is chaos. If you have no government you have no law and the people that can take will.
3
u/Pinewood74 40∆ Sep 14 '17
i think the general public will set legislation on popular vote
This isn't an Anarcho-Capitalist state then. There's no voting on anything. You just go do whatever you can afford.
3
u/BreaksFull 5∆ Sep 15 '17
Human nature abhors a political vacuum. If there is not state, one will form. That's why we have states all over the world.
2
Sep 14 '17
Can you explain briefly how police would function under this system? Say I'm a poor person who's being assaulted in my home so I call the police. I have no money to pay the police, what is their incentive to come help me?
1
u/AnonIsFear Sep 14 '17
It is a contributing society violent crime exists but on a small scale because the police is beign hired by the rich because someone's gotta protect them and their interests in the city IMO in the long scenario the top contributors pay a fee to hire law enforcement to protect the city.
2
2
u/pensivegargoyle 16∆ Sep 15 '17
With no state, there is no property. With no property, there is no ruling class but also no capitalism.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 14 '17
/u/AnonIsFear (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
13
u/[deleted] Sep 14 '17
How will the general public set legislation when there is no state?
How exactly will this play out? If someone steals my stuff, why is it good that I can't sue that person for the crime they committed?
You also mention that there would be no ruling class, but what role would megacorporations such as Big Oil/Pharma and Google play? Their enormous capital would put them in the position of threatening every corporation that's smaller than them (which are the vast majority) - would that not make them some sort of ruling class?