The Nevada Sagebrush

I think you need a better understanding of the ideas of anarcho-capitalism or other forms of stateless society. It in no way is “based upon an unwavering faith in individuals and a desire to uphold their freedom to make their own decisions in all areas of life.” Please have a look at the writings of Murray Rothbard and the Tannehill’s The Market for Liberty for examples as to how a voluntarist society could function. There are also countless works at Mises.org.

You may disagree that some of their ideas will work but you here have not addressed them. You also make economic assumptions (natural monopolies, entrepreneurs) which are not backed up by theory or historical evidence.

bile,
I’m curious about the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, but has it ever been implemented on a large scale?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpukyeF0IGQ

Nuff said.

Please see this youtube video response to your approach. I think you dont understand liberty my friend. Please tune in for some deprogramming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpukyeF0IGQ

Nice article. A comment:

“Individual entrepreneurs would, for generations, be hard pressed to find capital, financing and support for their endeavors.”

Higher, market-derived interest rates would merely align the rate of investment with people’s actual time preferences. Among other effects, this would largely do away with the business cycle (I know it’s a bit late for that now, but market-derived interest rates are always necessary for a sustainable economy).

In any case: credit growth (whether for consumption or investment) does not add to the wealth of any society. It simply enables those who receive it to better outbid those who don’t receive it for real goods and services in the marketplace. We don’t need inflation of the money supply to spur production, and the act of inflation serves only to redistribute wealth.

I hope you will do some reading, particularly on mises.org. You should find that the libertarian case for non-intervention after a boom rests on solid economic truths.

This statement is assumed: “Unfortunately, markets do not naturally allow entrepreneurs to thrive. Instead, most markets gravitate toward natural monopolies,”

Paradoxically it seems that some % of monopolies are the result of intervention into the market by government ?

from wiki:

Rent seeking generally implies the extraction of uncompensated value from others without making any contribution to productivity, such as by gaining control of land and other pre-existing natural resources, or by imposing burdensome regulations or other government decisions that may affect consumers or businesses. While there may be few people in modern industrialized countries who do not gain something, directly or indirectly, through some form or another of rent seeking, rent seeking in the aggregate imposes substantial losses on society.

Most studies of rent seeking focus on efforts to capture special monopoly privileges, such as government regulation of free enterprise competition, though the term itself is derived from the far older and more established practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land. The term “monopoly privilege rent seeking” is an often-used label for the former type of rent seeking. Often-cited examples include a farm lobby that seeks tariff protection or an entertainment lobby that seeks expansion of the scope of copyright. Other rent seeking is held to be associated with efforts to cause a redistribution of wealth by, for example, shifting the government tax burden or government spending allocation. A temp agency can also become a rent-seeking entity for longer-term position placements, continuing to take a portion of an employee’s paycheck months or even years after providing the initial job placement service, often providing no insurance benefits or anything that might otherwise justify taking cuts of employees’ wages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

You might want to address concerns of political rent seeking activity when you make claims about the incipience of monopolies. Otherwise you expose yourself to deliberate omission or political naivety.

Unhampered markets decentralize economic power. The monopolies which arose in the 19th and 20th centuries and continue to this day were a consequence of various licensing laws, government control over land sales and grants, patenting, tariffs, artificial restrictions on the availability of capital from central banking institutions, etc. Read Kevin Carson’s “The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand” for an in depth understanding of how economic monopolies are created through privileged “regulations”.

Minor correction: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed” comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Quote:
“Government exists to bring accountability – accountability to criminals, accountability to those in positions of power (economic, political or otherwise) and accountability to citizens in general when their actions are intolerably detrimental to other individuals.”

It may be clarifying to take a moment to define “those in positions of power”. This may shed light on later statements like “Unfortunately, markets do not naturally allow entrepreneurs to thrive. Instead, most markets gravitate toward natural monopolies, large businesses that are complacent, not innovative and inefficient.”

What is a “position of power”? Is “economic power” the same as governmental power? McDonald’s is the largest fast food chain in the world. Can McDonald’s jail you for refusing to buy their product? Can a government jail you for refusing to pay taxes?

Perhaps a definition of “power” which would be less fraught with contradiction might be: “initiated physical force”.

When viewed through that prism, truly free markets – protected from initiated force – can only gravitate to enduring monopolies under limited conditions. Companies can use the initiated force of law to forbid consumers from buying competing goods and services (licensing, minimum and maximum service levels, price fixing, etc). Companies can also hold temporary “monopolies” while providing best-of-class products and services (Google, Microsoft, McDonalds). While these companies will never be all things to all people, they are leaders for a time because of some perceived value. None of these leaders endure forever – unless they partner with government to force the case.

Offering better products and services, or having larger resources, are not – in themselves – the same thing as initiated force. Assuming that they are can lead to bad conclusions.

@Grigory Lukin

Simply because an idea has been squashed in practice by the violence of others does not in and of itself negate the possibility of it working. The possible anarcho-capitalist society is being suppressed by a State which existed before it and desires to keep control. Early Pennsylvania was anarchistic. The examples of being closer to anarcho-capitalism resulting in greater wealth per person are plentiful and few who attempt to argue against the system have an actual grasp of the topic from a deontological or consequentialist perspective.

If we are going to argue from a consequentialist perspective… I’ll turn the question around. When has statism of any kind ever worked as described? When has it not degenerated into tyranny or some kind or another? Statism has been implemented on a large scale uncountable times. In what way does that fact alone make it correct, moral, legitimate or the most efficient social structure? Even if anarcho-capitalism is not reachable in what way would advocating and working toward anything less be better?

Before the 19th century, few large-scale societies functioned without relying heavily on slavery. All of the most successful ones were built on the backs of slaves. Those with little imagination couldn’t envision a society that ran without it—who would do the grunt work?

Well, we didn’t need slavery, and we don’t need States. Both are immoral and prey upon the most vulnerable. The sooner we realize this, the better.

Wow… the UNR Students for Liberty club members are coming out in DROVES…

Why are libertarians villified for the benefit of the Republican altar? Democrats who put our civil liberties last, make me sick!

Ummm…did Bary Belmont even ever mention Thomas Jefferson? It seems like you just agreed with Mr. Belmont and his article in its entirety and then started arguing with someone else.

This is nitpicking, but I’m doing it anyways.

Entrepreneurism is not a word. American Heritage suggests it as a possible alternative, but that is the only dictionary that has entrepreneurism in it. The OED does not. Webster’s does not. And most important of all, Google does not recognize it.