Anarcho-capitalism, Monopolies, Private dictatorships

[tomcollins]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

I've seen rational debate with the right people.  It may or may not be possible here, or all the time here.  But it certainly is possible.

[The Script]

While the pragmatic belief that we cannot convince people may be true, it won't stop me from trying.  The Koch brothers, lol, like they support anarchy.  They just want *their* version of the state.

Fought and died for the services the state now render us?  If someone was stupid enough to get themselves killed so I could get a monopoly of service from someone, let them roll in their graves.  I do support those who died to *keep* a monopoly of power from interfering in our lives, though.

But you do not need to convince everyone.  You just need to convince a few people.  They can convince a few more.  Eventually it will grow, or it will not.  Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

But there is no harm at all in teaching people that violence is wrong, even when its done by people with special uniforms.

(Emphasis mine)

Exactly!  I was just debating with a friend the other day whether or not taxes really are theft.  I had to start the argument by explaining to him why the State does not own all his possessions.  He was willing to admit they they owned all money and therefore all his possessions, but when I suggested that the State then owned him, he didn't like it.  The legitimacy of the State is so engrained in us that many people practically offer themselves up as voluntary serfs.

[djoot]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

There are a lot of people who, while not necessarily being big statists, just assume that the state is necessary and do not give it another thought. I sure didn't think about it before I found myself in discussions about the state with friends. After that it was just a question of knowing more economics and history before I was convinced that the state is not a public good but a public bad.

But yes, it is hard to convince anybody, especially if they believe that they owe something to the state because it gives them free 'education' or healthcare or whatever, and think that without the state people could not afford these things. I strongly believe that this is false and that everybody would be better off if we stopped believing in violence as a means to our ends.

[tomcollins]

While I am sympathetic to the voluntaryist ideology, I just don't think rational debate is possible.


Hence, "Politics is the mindkiller".

There are a lot of people who, while not necessarily being big statists, just assume that the state is necessary and do not give it another thought. I sure didn't think about it before I found myself in discussions about the state with friends. After that it was just a question of knowing more economics and history before I was convinced that the state is not a public good but a public bad.

But yes, it is hard to convince anybody, especially if they believe that they owe something to the state because it gives them free 'education' or healthcare or whatever, and think that without the state people could not afford these things. I strongly believe that this is false and that everybody would be better off if we stopped believing in violence as a means to our ends.

The biggest gap I think there is is that people think that people who hate the state don't care about poor people.  People who hate the state generally do so BECAUSE they care about the little guy.

[no to the gold cult]

These debates are a waste of time.

Arguments are soldiers in political argument. Politics is the mindkiller, etc.

Beats watching the royal wedding.

[no to the gold cult]

But you will get states anyway. Anarcho-Capitalists have a revolution or something, and society is delivered into a perfect competition of violence.

Perhaps people will get states.  If you destroyed every church, would religion go away?  Of course not.  You need to actually convince people not to be religious for it to be meaningful.  The state is just another religion.  Can you convince enough people?  Maybe, maybe not.

Though Anarcho-Capitalists are peace loving and think everyone should avoid violence, some people out there don't give a fuck.

And if those people are in the minority, life will not be pleasant for them.  If they are in the majority, then they will get away with it.

Weeks past, bands form, after a few months or years an oligopoly of violence forms. After a few decades... a vast monopoly of violence has formed, and makes sure everyone plays nice. It is essentially a state.

Again, tear down churches, new churches will be built.  Convince people to abandon religion, and they will not.

What's the difference from this state that has arisen after an anarcho-capitalist revolution and a subsequently perfectly competitive period of violent turmoil, and the states of today? (at least in the West, many parts of the world are still dealing with unrepresentative state power)

The states today are subject to a long history of mistakes and struggles where state power went massively wrong, had to be grappled with by the people, revolutionized and laws amended, made war for and made war against... movements raised and imperialisms rolled back, workers empowered and sections given the vote... until finally today we have.... Liberal Democracy. Oh well, a long way to go yet.

And the post anarcho-revolutionary state? Well, it gets to start from scratch, starting with the rise of some guy whose second name may as well be Caesar or Charlemagne or something and ending with some guy who may as well be called Mao, or Adolf, or Nixon. All the mistakes and horrors of centuries from scratch.

Again, see above.  Yes, if people reject violence on the whole, everyone will laugh at the next Caesar or Charlemagne.  If people support violence, then of course they will return.

I say let's evolve the states and fuck Year One, I say let's not smash it all down and start again, I say modify what we have. Improve it, it's worth fighting for and that's why it exists in the first place. There will always be a State, we should take responsibility for the things instead of pretending we owe nothing to history. We're products of history, sick and demented as it is.

The Koch Brothers et al are totally happy for you to throw your hands up in frustration and devote yourself to various solipsist delusions like children that have thrown their toys from the pram. Meanwhile untold millions that have fought and died for the services that the state now render us (where it's previous concerns were only for the welfare of kings and nobles) now roll in their graves. I'm against this.

While the pragmatic belief that we cannot convince people may be true, it won't stop me from trying.  The Koch brothers, lol, like they support anarchy.  They just want *their* version of the state.

Fought and died for the services the state now render us?  If someone was stupid enough to get themselves killed so I could get a monopoly of service from someone, let them roll in their graves.  I do support those who died to *keep* a monopoly of power from interfering in our lives, though.

But you do not need to convince everyone.  You just need to convince a few people.  They can convince a few more.  Eventually it will grow, or it will not.  Eventually it will hit a genius who will invent something to make it so it does not matter what other people think, and we can live our lives without interference.

But there is no harm at all in teaching people that violence is wrong, even when its done by people with special uniforms.

My point about the inevitable formation of states is not analogous to tearing down churches. Consider my earlier posts carefully as I have already explained the process. It's not a matter of some elaborate ideology imposed from on-high, it's a matter of practicality. Force, there are limited resources in the real world and violence can come about for all sorts of reasons, many of them irrational. Violence must be monopolized so that it can be minimized and removed from daily life. I define the monopolization of violence as the core function of the state, the role that defines a state as a state. You're deeply naive if you think violence can be a freely available resource for all and at the same time everyone will choose not to produce any in order to maximize their own utility.

The states central function is control of violence, you could say it levies a kind of surcharge on those that use violence, a charge heavy enough to ensure that few can see any profit by it, a monopoly enforced barrier to entry if you will. This control of violence is the core and definitive characteristic of state (and a role that will always be required in any human society of millions of individuals). The state is the mediator of last resort, therefore it accumulates a history of mediation and concession in the various quarrels and clashes of interest that occur within its borders that we may as well call laws and constitutions and so on. That's what a state is, a monopoly of violence and a mediator of last resort. To me it sounds silly for people to demand that violence should not be monopolized and there should be no such thing as a mediator of last resort.  Sure states can certainly go wrong, be corrupt and murderous, but all that (and who controls the state and to what end) is another issue entirely.

By the way I don't want to give the impression that I think people are all treacherous snakes or something, I'm just explaining specifically the role of the state. If I were to explain the role of a civic sewage system that would not be to say that I think the world is made of shit. If you want to talk about abolishing the state we should remind ourselves what these things essentially are. They are merely the fulfillment of a societal role.

Also you miss my point about the Koch Brothers and their like. I didn't say I think these billionaires are anarchists, it is precisely because they just want their version of the state that they'll happily throw money at the Tea Party all day. And if there was an Anarcho-Capitalist Party they'd probably shovel millions in that direction too, and with laughter in their eyes. That's precisely my point. Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist movements want to make a state where money alone rules and all former obligations painfully hewn from the stone of history by the common man and woman over generations can be abandoned so that the rich can expand and rule their private dictatorships unimpeded. This may not be what they think they're doing, the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind.

The popularity of Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism in America speaks to the political ignorance and class-unconsciousness that has so prevailed in that culture for decades. I blame corporate domination of the media and the two party system (The Party of Business Interests or the Business Interests Party).

Here in Europe where we were once literally ruled by kings and aristocrats (and still are forced to endure ridiculous amounts of media attention to their stupid royal weddings), even now centuries later very few people would be foolish enough to fall for the sort of nonsense ideas that seemed to have gained so much traction in the US. In the 'Land of the Free' they are basically calling for some sort of Absolute Market Theocracy, in classic Orwellian double-think language this is considered 'liberty', it's almost comical.

Anarchy by the way is a possible way of life, nomads for instance live that way, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a total oxymoron in a world where people do not live an ultra-mobile lifestyle as a matter of course..

Anarcho-Capitalism is a sort of (altered)Marxist delusion where the state is believed to exist only to serve capitalists (bankers) who control the means of production (means of transaction) and steal the fruit of the workers (entrepreneurs). Therefore abolish the state and some sort of stateless communist(capitalist) utopia will set in and all will live in non-coercive brotherhood for evermore at the end of history. Cute.

[fabianhjr]

[no to the gold cult]

 

[tomcollins]

My point about the inevitable formation of states is not analogous to tearing down churches. Consider my earlier posts carefully as I have already explained the process. It's not a matter of some elaborate ideology imposed from on-high, it's a matter of practicality. Force, there are limited resources in the real world and violence can come about for all sorts of reasons, many of them irrational. Violence must be monopolized so that it can be minimized and removed from daily life. I define the monopolization of violence as the core function of the state, the role that defines a state as a state. You're deeply naive if you think violence can be a freely available resource for all and at the same time everyone will choose not to produce any in order to maximize their own utility.

I guess we can agree to disagree about this.  Historical evidence favors me tremendously.  If there was benevolent dictator that could fairly handle this, sure, you have a great argument.  But the trouble is, Who will watch the Watchmen?  As long as those we put in charge are humans and subject to all these horrible things you find in humans, giving a certain group of them a monopoly on force just invites even more trouble.  If all men were angels, we wouldn't need government is your philosophy it seems.  But if a lot of men are devils, isn't that even more reason to NOT have a government and monopoly of violence?

Now there are not just two extremes (everyone does whatever they want vs. monopoly of violence).  Even today there is no monopoly of violence ( no world government).  There can be an "optimal" number of violent operators that is greater than 1 and less than 7 billion.  Specialization, division of labor and all that.

The states central function is control of violence, you could say it levies a kind of surcharge on those that use violence, a charge heavy enough to ensure that few can see any profit by it, a monopoly enforced barrier to entry if you will. This control of violence is the core and definitive characteristic of state (and a role that will always be required in any human society of millions of individuals). The state is the mediator of last resort, therefore it accumulates a history of mediation and concession in the various quarrels and clashes of interest that occur within its borders that we may as well call laws and constitutions and so on. That's what a state is, a monopoly of violence and a mediator of last resort. To me it sounds silly for people to demand that violence should not be monopolized and there should be no such thing as a mediator of last resort.  Sure states can certainly go wrong, be corrupt and murderous, but all that (and who controls the state and to what end) is another issue entirely.

Except a few DO see a profit from it, and a very large one.  Namely those who are the most politically connected.  Having a monopoly of violence means that they can do whatever they want, charge it to whoever they want, and reap the benefits.

By the way I don't want to give the impression that I think people are all treacherous snakes or something, I'm just explaining specifically the role of the state. If I were to explain the role of a civic sewage system that would not be to say that I think the world is made of shit. If you want to talk about abolishing the state we should remind ourselves what these things essentially are. They are merely the fulfillment of a societal role.

I agree.  Most people are generally decent, but will cheat if they can get away with it.  Sure, people like to be led, which is why government are successful.  They also like to boss other people around, so that's another benefit they provide to some people.

Also you miss my point about the Koch Brothers and their like. I didn't say I think these billionaires are anarchists, it is precisely because they just want their version of the state that they'll happily throw money at the Tea Party all day. And if there was an Anarcho-Capitalist Party they'd probably shovel millions in that direction too, and with laughter in their eyes. That's precisely my point. Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist movements want to make a state where money alone rules and all former obligations painfully hewn from the stone of history by the common man and woman over generations can be abandoned so that the rich can expand and rule their private dictatorships unimpeded. This may not be what they think they're doing, the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind.

No way the Koch brothers would go after a non-state.  They love the state.  They just want it to put money in their pockets rather than the other way around.  It's my belief that they try to lure Libertarians away from useful endeavors and either put them in a rubber room doing useless things or trying to trick them into siding with Republicans.

The popularity of Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism in America speaks to the political ignorance and class-unconsciousness that has so prevailed in that culture for decades. I blame corporate domination of the media and the two party system (The Party of Business Interests or the Business Interests Party).

Here in Europe where we were once literally ruled by kings and aristocrats (and still are forced to endure ridiculous amounts of media attention to their stupid royal weddings), even now centuries later very few people would be foolish enough to fall for the sort of nonsense ideas that seemed to have gained so much traction in the US. In the 'Land of the Free' they are basically calling for some sort of Absolute Market Theocracy, in classic Orwellian double-think language this is considered 'liberty', it's almost comical.

Anarchy by the way is a possible way of life, nomads for instance live that way, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a total oxymoron in a world where people do not live an ultra-mobile lifestyle as a matter of course..

Anarcho-Capitalism is a sort of (altered)Marxist delusion where the state is believed to exist only to serve capitalists (bankers) who control the means of production (means of transaction) and steal the fruit of the workers (entrepreneurs). Therefore abolish the state and some sort of stateless communist(capitalist) utopia will set in and all will live in non-coercive brotherhood for evermore at the end of history. Cute.

That's where there is a big difference.  Marxism assumes people are angels and won't cheat.  Anarcho-Capitalism assumes people are self-interested and will do things in their own interest.  Without a central authority to cheaply interfere with others, those who wish to enact violence must pay the full cost (no one is profiting from the Iraq war if they had to pay for it themselves, for example), and it becomes unprofitable.  If you have suckers to pay the cost and get none of the benefit (taxpayers), you can get away with that kind of stuff, and profit very well (see Xe).

[luv2drnkbr]

So in the video posted, Friedman admitted that he had no clue how the NYSE and DeBeers worked out so well.  Let's say they're flukes.  Even if they have a formula, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the free-marketers and say that those two are a statistical fluke, and will happen rarely.  (And if they aren't a fluke, then more like them will pop up SOONER, hence calling the fluke a "benefit of the doubt".)  But then, given enough time, monopolies will form to cover any and all industry.  Then, as monopolies, they make the cost of entering that market much higher, effectively shutting out new competition, because it's just cheaper to continue to use them.  Of course the cost to use them won't be too high, because they want to maintain monopoly, but it will still be artificially higher than it should be, and not because of the value of the goods to the consumer.  This point has never been addressed to my knowledge, and it is a perfect reason why certain areas need to be socialized, like police and roads and education (and health care).

[tomcollins]

So in the video posted, Friedman admitted that he had no clue how the NYSE and DeBeers worked out so well.  Let's say they're flukes.  Even if they have a formula, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to the free-marketers and say that those two are a statistical fluke, and will happen rarely.  (And if they aren't a fluke, then more like them will pop up SOONER, hence calling the fluke a "benefit of the doubt".)  But then, given enough time, monopolies will form to cover any and all industry.  Then, as monopolies, they make the cost of entering that market much higher, effectively shutting out new competition, because it's just cheaper to continue to use them.  Of course the cost to use them won't be too high, because they want to maintain monopoly, but it will still be artificially higher than it should be, and not because of the value of the goods to the consumer.  This point has never been addressed to my knowledge, and it is a perfect reason why certain areas need to be socialized, like police and roads and education (and health care).

DeBeers had people break the cartel and is no more.  Plus, synthetic diamonds.

NYSE has several competitors.

Seems like they aren't very good examples.  You can make a monopoly for a short period of time, but as soon as you start charging too much, competitors can creep in.  How can they make the cost of entering any higher without using force?

Why aren't we seeing more monopolies?  Is it because of Sherman?

Strange that roads, police, and health care are all areas that have some of the least competitive prices.  Let's make everything a monopoly so we don't have to pay high monopoly prices!


If you want to have police and roads and education subsidized for the poor, I can at least understand the justification.  But making a monopoly to make things cheaper never works out as planned.  Competition is beautiful.

[kiba]

Schools suck/stagnate.

I mean, why do we have to listen teachers yammer in lecture? Just record the lecture of the best teacher and use it to teach everybody about topics. Plus, that mean no rushing to write down notes.

[tomcollins]

Schools suck/stagnate.

I mean, why do we have to listen teachers yammer in lecture? Just record the lecture of the best teacher and use it to teach everybody about topics. Plus, that mean no rushing to write down notes.

I never got much out of lectures anyway.  But there is some value in tutoring IMO and personal interaction.  Watch a lecture, then have less skilled tutors around to help out.

[no to the gold cult]

My point about the inevitable formation of states is not analogous to tearing down churches. Consider my earlier posts carefully as I have already explained the process. It's not a matter of some elaborate ideology imposed from on-high, it's a matter of practicality. Force, there are limited resources in the real world and violence can come about for all sorts of reasons, many of them irrational. Violence must be monopolized so that it can be minimized and removed from daily life. I define the monopolization of violence as the core function of the state, the role that defines a state as a state. You're deeply naive if you think violence can be a freely available resource for all and at the same time everyone will choose not to produce any in order to maximize their own utility.

I guess we can agree to disagree about this.  Historical evidence favors me tremendously.  If there was benevolent dictator that could fairly handle this, sure, you have a great argument.  But the trouble is, Who will watch the Watchmen?  As long as those we put in charge are humans and subject to all these horrible things you find in humans, giving a certain group of them a monopoly on force just invites even more trouble.  If all men were angels, we wouldn't need government is your philosophy it seems.  But if a lot of men are devils, isn't that even more reason to NOT have a government and monopoly of violence?

Now there are not just two extremes (everyone does whatever they want vs. monopoly of violence).  Even today there is no monopoly of violence ( no world government).  There can be an "optimal" number of violent operators that is greater than 1 and less than 7 billion.  Specialization, division of labor and all that.

The states central function is control of violence, you could say it levies a kind of surcharge on those that use violence, a charge heavy enough to ensure that few can see any profit by it, a monopoly enforced barrier to entry if you will. This control of violence is the core and definitive characteristic of state (and a role that will always be required in any human society of millions of individuals). The state is the mediator of last resort, therefore it accumulates a history of mediation and concession in the various quarrels and clashes of interest that occur within its borders that we may as well call laws and constitutions and so on. That's what a state is, a monopoly of violence and a mediator of last resort. To me it sounds silly for people to demand that violence should not be monopolized and there should be no such thing as a mediator of last resort.  Sure states can certainly go wrong, be corrupt and murderous, but all that (and who controls the state and to what end) is another issue entirely.

Except a few DO see a profit from it, and a very large one.  Namely those who are the most politically connected.  Having a monopoly of violence means that they can do whatever they want, charge it to whoever they want, and reap the benefits.

By the way I don't want to give the impression that I think people are all treacherous snakes or something, I'm just explaining specifically the role of the state. If I were to explain the role of a civic sewage system that would not be to say that I think the world is made of shit. If you want to talk about abolishing the state we should remind ourselves what these things essentially are. They are merely the fulfillment of a societal role.

I agree.  Most people are generally decent, but will cheat if they can get away with it.  Sure, people like to be led, which is why government are successful.  They also like to boss other people around, so that's another benefit they provide to some people.

Also you miss my point about the Koch Brothers and their like. I didn't say I think these billionaires are anarchists, it is precisely because they just want their version of the state that they'll happily throw money at the Tea Party all day. And if there was an Anarcho-Capitalist Party they'd probably shovel millions in that direction too, and with laughter in their eyes. That's precisely my point. Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist movements want to make a state where money alone rules and all former obligations painfully hewn from the stone of history by the common man and woman over generations can be abandoned so that the rich can expand and rule their private dictatorships unimpeded. This may not be what they think they're doing, the term 'useful idiot' comes to mind.

No way the Koch brothers would go after a non-state.  They love the state.  They just want it to put money in their pockets rather than the other way around.  It's my belief that they try to lure Libertarians away from useful endeavors and either put them in a rubber room doing useless things or trying to trick them into siding with Republicans.

The popularity of Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism in America speaks to the political ignorance and class-unconsciousness that has so prevailed in that culture for decades. I blame corporate domination of the media and the two party system (The Party of Business Interests or the Business Interests Party).

Here in Europe where we were once literally ruled by kings and aristocrats (and still are forced to endure ridiculous amounts of media attention to their stupid royal weddings), even now centuries later very few people would be foolish enough to fall for the sort of nonsense ideas that seemed to have gained so much traction in the US. In the 'Land of the Free' they are basically calling for some sort of Absolute Market Theocracy, in classic Orwellian double-think language this is considered 'liberty', it's almost comical.

Anarchy by the way is a possible way of life, nomads for instance live that way, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a total oxymoron in a world where people do not live an ultra-mobile lifestyle as a matter of course..

Anarcho-Capitalism is a sort of (altered)Marxist delusion where the state is believed to exist only to serve capitalists (bankers) who control the means of production (means of transaction) and steal the fruit of the workers (entrepreneurs). Therefore abolish the state and some sort of stateless communist(capitalist) utopia will set in and all will live in non-coercive brotherhood for evermore at the end of history. Cute.

That's where there is a big difference.  Marxism assumes people are angels and won't cheat.  Anarcho-Capitalism assumes people are self-interested and will do things in their own interest.  Without a central authority to cheaply interfere with others, those who wish to enact violence must pay the full cost (no one is profiting from the Iraq war if they had to pay for it themselves, for example), and it becomes unprofitable.  If you have suckers to pay the cost and get none of the benefit (taxpayers), you can get away with that kind of stuff, and profit very well (see Xe).

You maintain this idea that government is a massive world-wide conspiracy and I maintain it is merely how large populations of human beings conduct ourselves. Every society in history has had some form of government. A cheif, a village elder, a council of elders, a king or queen, a ceaser or an emperor, a president, a chairman... your argument makes as much sense to me as saying "because some parents abuse their children, parenting must be banned". We are not children, that's why I personally believe in a democratic process, because the people must take control of and responsibility for their government.

Yes I know that the world is an oligopoly of violence, it used to be a monopolistic duopoly but then came Glasnost. Obviously I am talking here in basic terms at the local scale. Globally, yes it's more like an oligopoly.

And again, yes governments go wrong, yes we have a long way to go, I am still angry and bitter that a smiling asshole and a smirking cowboy were able to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people based on lies, and still are not in prison. You probably wouldn't like my solution though; a court where even the leaders of the US and the UK can be held to account for their actions. Long way to go.

A lot of what you say seems deeply embedded in your particular psychological make-up in relation to ideas about authority figures and is not for me to address.

However the Koch Brothers, I say again, I don't think of them as anarchists etc. They want the State that suits them, and Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists and Tea-Party types are precisely the people that can help them get it as they want to tear down all the things that impede the will of billionaires and oblige the government to even the pretense of serving anyone that could not afford their own private army.

[BitterTea]

Every society in history has had some form of government. A cheif, a village elder, a council of elders, a king or queen, a ceaser or an emperor, a president, a chairman...

There are two reasons why this is wrong.

1) A government (or state) is merely an entity that, in a given geographical area, has a perceived legitimate monopoly on the initiation of force.

2) There have been many stateless societies throughout history. Here are some examples, all of which fulfill the criteria of having no monopoly on the initiation of force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth#Go.C3.B0or.C3.B0_system

[Sjalq]

Name me some natural, state unsupported monopolies please "no to the gold cult"

History is littered with unsuccessful attempts to corner markets without the help of government coercion. Reading up on the "Robber Barons" should clear up this matter.

[no to the gold cult]

Every society in history has had some form of government. A cheif, a village elder, a council of elders, a king or queen, a ceaser or an emperor, a president, a chairman...

There are two reasons why this is wrong.

1) A government (or state) is merely an entity that, in a given geographical area, has a perceived legitimate monopoly on the initiation of force.

2) There have been many stateless societies throughout history. Here are some examples, all of which fulfill the criteria of having no monopoly on the initiation of force.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth#Go.C3.B0or.C3.B0_system

Actually I agree with this. I meant every society in history has some sort of means of 'governing' itself.

[BitterTea]

Actually I agree with this. I meant every society in history has some sort of means of 'governing' itself.

I have no problem with social structures that afford protection or facilitate dispute resolution. In fact these things are necessary and are what I think you refer to as "means of governing itself". Most people believe or assume that the state, which requires a monopoly on aggression, is the only way to provide those services. I believe this to be incorrect, and attempt to persuade people that it is possible to provision law and law enforcement in a manner that is not inherently violent.

[fabianhjr]

Schools suck/stagnate.

I mean, why do we have to listen teachers yammer in lecture? Just record the lecture of the best teacher and use it to teach everybody about topics. Plus, that mean no rushing to write down notes.

I never got much out of lectures anyway.  But there is some value in tutoring IMO and personal interaction.  Watch a lecture, then have less skilled tutors around to help out.

It exists, it is called Khan Academy. I use it for maths and occasionally other vids. I suggested them to accept Bitcoin donations, awol/no response after a month.

[dvigatel]

How would Anarcho-capitalists handle the emergence of monopolies?

I don't know, but most anarchists appear willing to counter monopolies with some mixture of autonomy from them, boycott of their products and services (including deliberately paying a higher price for a more balanced future), competition with them, and sabotage of their infrastructure.

Furthermore, it might be argued that if anything with an "anarcho" prefix ends up as the prevalent or widespread attitude... then by definition, protections of certain privileges (like highly indirect ownership of far-away assets) is likely to be poorly recognized, if recognized at all. Not the best ground for monopoly-building.