Shockingly, this makes no sense, even as a sarcastic snark.

Yes, a state=monopoly on violence. Only they are allowed to steal while they (theoretically) prevent others from stealing. Without a state their would be multiple potential thieves.

The consequences of the taking.

If you steal from my store, one consequence might be that my private security firm hunts you down, captures you, tries you and then punishes you for for your crime.

One potential consequence could be that I'm sitting in my store with a gun and I shoot you for trespassing.

in an attempt, probably futile, to get this back on topic, i would guess that the biggest problem with ac-land would be that people who grow up in extreme poverty would have a more difficult time getting access to education and clean food/water.

Why would that be, with no minimum wage laws and no artificial barriers to entry anywhere?

Based upon what evidence? Because the government provides these now, so without government they will not be provided? Seems to me that the market would be much better at providing basic necessities.

You're gonna need to back this up because this doesn't seem obvious IMO.

lol, slow ponies.

I'll try and give a straightfoward answer to the OP.

I believe there would be a very high propensity for vigilante justice in AC-land...although probably for only the very worst crimes (rape, murder). With prisons being unlikely in a free market, I just see many scenarios occuring where people take matters into their own hands.

Now whether this would be the "biggest downside", I don't know. In general, I think the justice system would look a lot different than what we have now. It's not like the system of justice we have now doesn't convict and kill innocent men, or let powerful men walk free from a crime. I just think the uncertainty of the whole criminal justice system is what scares a lot of people (particularly minarchist libertarians) away from AC.

How is a 5 year old whose dirt poor parents decide they can't afford his tuition going to go to kindergarden without public schools? Go get a job at McDonalds?

The bold is why I was confused. Once again, I didn't say will be...

Because perhaps without public funding of education the cost of private schools would decrease? Perhaps there would exist a charity to pay? Did you even consider an actual answer or just post your knee-jerk response?

also, just because he receives a public education doesn't mean he was educated very well.

Scholarships just like we have now for higher education.

This doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of people who are just unwilling to sell their land for any price. They like where they live and they don't want it to change and they don't need money. All it takes is very few of these stubborn land holders to completely ruin a desired route for a road. Given a densely populated area, the probability becomes very high that the most efficient routes will be unbuildable without eminent domain or some such method.



Bah, I've gotten sucked in. I knew this would happen and yet I posted anyway. Perhaps I will start a thread on this sometime soon, I would like to know if there are any tennable solutions to this problem and a few others that it could cause.

Maybe there will be, maybe there won't...

I mean, no one has the right to their land except the land owner, so I'm not sure where the problem lies. So what if the road system is less efficient? I could make my life more efficient a number of ways that infringe on others rights, but it wouldn't be morally acceptable. Why is it acceptable when the entity is a state and not a person?

And if it's simply decreed by government it's a guarantee to be great?

Somehow when I go to the supermarket there's almost always the cereal I want and the milk I need to make my breakfast for the next day despite the lack of specific government regulations requiring the commodities to be there. Why do you suppose that is?

In an AC society people will get the wool pulled over their eyes by fly by night businesses with no permanent stake in anything and they will lose a lot of money to them with limited recourse if all contracts are upheld. Pyramid schemes, ponzie schemes would be perfectly legal and I am sure a lot of people would fall victim to them. They would not even have to lie to people to get them to waste their money. It will be like our society except that those who are too lazy to protect themselves will be hurt a lot more in AC land.

m2b,

fwiw I agree with you

sorry, bad typo on my part.

Better than nothing, imo.

Because you're paying for them, unlike the poor 5 year old?

Makes sense to me. Justin asked about the natural state of man, which is presumably what existed before there were states. You said in this natural state incentives prevent theft. Therefore they should prevent the establishment of states, which (according to your definition) are simply monopolies on theft.

You're painting too rosy a picture. Sure there may be some scholarships, but it is unlikely there would be scholarships for all.

The way I look at things, the biggest reason government has been a necessity has been imperfect information causing market failure. In the information age however (esp consider like 10-20 years from now), you can instantly research these Ponzi schemes and whatnot, and avoid getting shafted.

So while the less well off might not have as many informational resources at their disposal (and thus might still suffer), over time it becomes harder and harder to hide things from consumers, and thus harder to exploit them, regardless of socioeconomic background. Think back to feudal times when the avg person's farthest contacts were probably in the order of like 100 miles away. Now I can instantly communicate with someone on the other side of the world, practically for free. This freedom of information is only going to increase barring some kind of world holocaust.

I personally believe that so long as humans continue building our informational infrastructure (internet->Wikipedia/etc), AC-land is inevitable.

i think you mean, as long as you can voluntarily opt in, go ahead. i mean, people should be allowed to enter into contracts without the option to opt out, yes?

Excellent point. The Information Age has banished the Ponzi scheme.