This objection is sometimes raised, that anarcho-capitalism might not work because someone (who is wealthy?) might just try to create their own State, and anarcho-capitalism won't be able to prevent this.
I don't think this is a problem unique to anarcho-capitalism though, currently States are subject to secession or becoming worse, so anarcho-capitalism can't prevent a State from forming much more than the State can prevent being dissolved. There's somewhat of an equal problem, it seems like.
What are your thoughts on this objection that anarcho-capitalism can't work because it will just form into a State or State(s) again?
Another common criticism of anarcho-capitalism that I've seen is that people think that if people have freedom to have the ability to defend themselves, for there to be private armies, than then this will lead to warlords taking over and ancapistan would be warlords constantly at war with each other.
I think ancaps in response have argued that states are kind of like "warlords" and they sometimes go to war with each other, and often are at peace because peace can be mutually beneficial. I guess there's no real guarantee of how much war ancapistan would or wouldn't have, any more than there's that guarantee with states.
What do you think of the "warlord" objection and how do you respond to it?
What are the different schools?
What are their views?
Which do you agree with?
Someone argued that private prisons have an incentive to enslave people and that it would be bad for there to be private prisons under anarcho-capitalism
Others have argued that private prisons would be rarer and crime might be more in fines or other ways of making restitution rather than prison times
What problems exist with the idea of private prisons and what solutions do you suggest to these objections?
Unlike many libertarians, I think that big-tech is indeed acting unconstitutionally. That's because, I don't think companies like Facebook are acting independently, but as an agent of the state. It's no different than if the deep-state hired private contractors to intimidate and silence me. The fact that they are private actors is irrelevant.
Also, the left tries to use the fact that they are private actors as a bludgeon instrument to shut us up. But the truth is, even if that is so, we still have a right to call them out as being assholes who deserve to get their ass kicked.
However, unlike many other people, I personally think big tech is doing us a favor. Alternative platforms, and decentralized technologies have sprung up everywhere. All of these entrenched tech companies have the unenviable task of shutting down the free flow of information just as the information age is blowing up out of control. It is not only unworkable, but as decentralized technology improves and the size of the network grows, the cost of trying to impose internet censorship grows exponentially.
I think the State Sucks.
On memorial day patriots win had stuff pinned all day about veterans who died due to the holiday. But mods also pinned an anti taxation post too which had great comments on it. What do you guys think of this contradiction of people being pro memorial day for those who died in war yet also anti taxation? Do you think there's a contradiction? (Sorry I'm a week late for this)
This is in response to a post in here I saw. Haven't checked here in awhile. Didn't want my response to be buried in a month old posts comment section, the people here really need to post more often.
Anyway for the guns against tyranny thing you need to draw a line in the sand that can't be crossed no matter what. Even if the boil the pot is used and the enemy only pushes a little bit we have that line in the sand to hold firm against. If the normies are too stupid and there is no widespread resistance then well "boating accidents" are a thing. Any one on here know on what the government requires to prove you lost your gun.
Most CEO's today, don't make their money by providing goods and services to the market, they make the bulk of their money from stock buybacks financed (indirectly) by the central bank. The minute they decided to do the 2008 bailout, this was inevitable. The central bank set interest rates to zero for 10 years to "save the system". But the thing is, if your corporation (for example) was earning 7% per year, and the Fed is loaning into the market at 0-1% per year, then this guarantees that an infinite amount of money is going to flood into buying your stock till that value gets maxed out.
None of these corporations are beholden to the market anymore, they are all beholden to the system. Every last one of them is sucking the tit of the government imposed central bank to get their milk. Of course, not even stock buybacks can make your company survive if you can't produce anything of value for the market. But the system has a solution to this too, have the government effectively print up money and bail everybody out all the time. Once again, they have become more beholden to the government than ever.
However, the market is not just about a bunch of assholes throwing around money. The market is also a tool for clearing out behavior and actions that are unproductive for society. When the market isn't allowed to perform that clearing function, then unproductive behavior tends to grow out of control like a cancer, create instability, and overrun society. And behold, now we have woke culture and political insanity everywhere.
Small buisness should. A small buisness should have the right to turn down a customer because its against their religion or creed.
However, once a buisness becomes international, once it becomes a board and something bigger than itself, it should become a public entity with certain obligations to service constitutional rights, not recive them.
Facebook claims Floridas new law censors their right to free speech, because Facebook sees itself as having the rights of a person. It doesnt, it shouldnt.
Walmart shouldn't have the right to turn away people who haven't been vaccinated.
Could a mom and pop shop? Sure. Its their right.
Yet some places would starve without access to mega corporate shoping centers. If Walmart, Target, and dollar stores banned together to deny service to a demographic, that would be catestrophic.
Idk. Im uncertain on how the law actually works, its just an observation I felt like sharing.