How could you possibly obtain a monopoly on the water supply? That seems like the hardest thing to ever obtain a monopoly on. Water is everywhere.

there's a lot of infrastructure which goes into getting clean water from reservoir to tap

So I assume you are referring to local monopolies not some widespread one?

In absolute worst case scenarios, you probably would see co-ops form in response to it. Hell, co-ops might be what happens even before a company serves there, at least on some scale. A neighborhood association might own the infrastructure within it, and might be capable of coming to several different suppliers. It may look very state-like, but with competition from suppliers to supply water. Getting from reservoir or supply to a larger infrastructure is much easier than getting to the tap. And like electric lines today, it may be possible to choose from a number of suppliers, but collectively own local transmission lines.

Why is a widespread one not possible/likely?

Because there are nearly infinite number of water sources in the world, especially when you consider doomsday situations of Dr. Evil taking the water supply over, and add in desalination and other methods of getting water back.

So in the event someone did do this, and could jack up the prices, there would be a lot of ways to compete with them. There's only so much you could exploit on water prices. People would bring drinking water in by truck, use rainwater for toilets or store it themselves and filter it, or dig wells. There might be a few spots where it's a little easier to do it, but a Dr. Evil type "take over the nations water supply" type scenarios can only be done by force. There's just too much damn water around.

But on a local scale, you are right, and you might see a solution that isn't terribly different from today, with the exception of being able to hook up to multiple suppliers, and probably more split of the "grid".

Glad you started this. I've got a few genuine questions. I think that I'd like to be an ACist, but I'm probably a minarchist, because there a few things that I can't figure out good AC solutions for.

So, here's the first question. How do you handle child abuse in AC land? In most crimes, the victim complains and that (in whatever system of justice you are using) initiates investigation and possibly punishment against the perpetrator.

However, what do you do with children who are abused, but because of the very nature of the abuse they don't/won't complain to anyone. For example, in the US right now, even if a child says they aren't being abused, the abuse is still a crime against the state, and if there is sufficient evidence, it can be prosecuted (even if the child doesn't cooperate...of course if the child doesn't cooperate, it makes conviction harder, but at least it can still happen).

It seems fundamental to AC that if two parties (in this case the parent and child) consent, then one can do whatever they want to the other. How does AC solve this, when the child is in no position to give true consent?

Can you give a gauge of how different you think society really would be?

I ask this (admittedly vague) question for the following reasons. When talking between a statist and an ACist often the conversation is essentially "how would ____ work without a state". Maybe it is fire fighting or building roads or certifications or whatever. And the AC answer usually is that there would be private fire fighting companies and road building companies and certification companies etc. So there is sort of a sense that in ACism, things would be much the same only it would all be better or more efficient. So I don't quite know how one would measure or answer this, but I am curious if you have a sense on just how different the world really be or would it look more or less the same only with, say, x% more prosperity as a result of the greater efficiency?

The question is important because if the answer is that it is not much difference, the case for ACism is not that huge. Perhaps slightly better but okay not that big an imperative. If the answer that is that it really would make pretty huge differences to society, then we have to worry and make a strong case that this vastly different society would indeed be a vastly better society, a claim that is made difficult due to the fact that the more different it is the harder it really is to predict and say what it would look like.

You've mentioned social norms/society. Do you think that the current social norms/society would be able to abide or be able to function in an AC society? I sure don't, not w/ the characters I see even in positions of authority. People are so different I don't know how you expect to get everybody on the same page. What about the mentally challenged? What about the ppl that think checking so deeply into who they do business w/ is impossibly arduous?

If you could wave a magic wand and usher in the perfect AC society I'd expect ppl to start to organize politically w/i a half hour, elect leaders and try to bend it to their benefit. Do you expect the populace to behave?

etc, etc.

1. How do you have due process without a government.

2. What if social norms dictate capital punishment w/o trial, guilty until proven innocent, etc. ?

Do you guys really use spiders as currency???

So wait derp. So let's say you own some land, and since you're an ACist, you adhere to the non aggression principle, and morally respect others rights, and voluntarily interact peacefully derp. So now let's say you use your land to grow **** and sell it, and you have people voluntarily working for you peacefully derp. Let's say some crazy ****er who hates your farm comes in and kills five of your workers. Now let's say you either kill him right there on the spot, or maybe since it's ACland, you have some private jackbooted thugs derp and they come up and kill the guy.

YOU KILLED HIM. OMG YOU VIOLATED THE NAP DERP, DID YOU NOT??? I thought you couldn't violate other people's rights?

He was guilty. It was actually stated in the OP that he was guilty, but that wasn't accepted by some people. But via transparent poll, most people think he's guilty.

Try me? There is no government Tom. Someone had to punish the guy.

You might not have heard, but I also gave the four victims 5% each stake in my firearms company ...

What it comes down to is you are supposed to win or lose based on the morality of your actions. With the free market, if you're immoral, you're supposed to lose. It costs YOU. However, with the government, if they act immorally, the cost is not on them. It is on the people they stole the money from.

That just means that there's a market there for someone who is good at investigating and exposing truth to make money.

Company A is evil and propagandizes
someone starts company B because he can make money exposing company A


that is the natural regulation of Anarcho Capitalism.

No, Joe Schmo's don't take chemistry sets out to dinner with them.

There is a need for a certain type of business and other people will come up with ways to provide that type of business because they want to make money.