Anarcho Capitalism

Since con has relented her opening argument, I will take this round to attempt to convery how certain services currently run by the state could be provided by the market. I will attempt to cover roads/transportation, Police and military in this round. The ideas which I will be talking about will mainly be borrowing from people such as murray rothbard, Walter block, robert murphy and David Friedman. Who will build the roads? Any anarchist will tell you that, when discussing anarchy one of the first objections that comes up is the issue of the building of the roads. Firstly, I would like to point out that this question is somewhat of a fallacy. It goes something like this: The state does x. X is important. Therefore of the state doesn't to x, x won't get done. When you put it in these terms, the ridiculousness of that statement becomes obvious. To use another analogy, suppose that it's the 1850s, and you are an abolishonist. You are in a debate with someone over the issue of slavery. The pro-slavery person says that slaves pick cotton. We need cotton. Therefore, if we don't force black people to pick cotton, the cotton won't get picked. The fallacy is obvious. Keep in mind, the only reason the question of without government, who will build the roads gets asked is because we've been stuck in this paradigm for quite a long time. If te government had been involved in the production of paper clips or nail polish, that would be a primary objection to anarcho capitalism. But nevertheless, how would roads get built without the state? Well one of the first things one must do is look at incentives. Who has the incentive to build roads? One obvious answer is car companies. Car companies could partake in the funding/maintaining of roads. Another possibility is just companies in general, because if you are a company people obviously need to be able to get to where your location is. Or, people could simply get together and build them. The state is unnecessary for roads. Now, the other common objection is the issue of police/law enforcement. Now in the system which I am imagining is a system where the job of protection and rights enforcement is delegated various firms and arbitration agencies. Like insurance, customers would pay a yearly/monthly/whateverly bill to their company. Now, an obvious problem arises, which is what happens if one day I find that my computer has been stolen. I look at my surveillance camera, and it appears that someone who looks exactly like Hugh Jackman has stole my computer. I call my security agency, and they call Hugh to tell him to give my computer back. He says he didn't steal it. My company says that if he doesn't return it, they'll send over big strong guys to retrieve my computer. But Hugh has a security agency as well. What happens? Do the organizations Go to war? The fact is, economically speaking that is a horrendous idea. So, the companies have every reason to resolve this peacefully. They could decide on an arbitration agency,which has a reputation for being fair which will review the case and give a decision. An advantage of this system is that companies will actually have to provide a good service in order to get customers.This is in contrast to the government, which has an incentive for government to do the bare minimum. For example, the government is in charge of police and the justice system. And to an extent, it works. The police capture and put in prison some bad people. Murderer's, rapists, etc. But they also incarcerate a large number of non-violent offenders, there is a huge bureaucracy, many violent people get off early on plea bargains, they often go to the wrong house during raids, then there's the drug war, a lot of corruption, and these godawful trials that take years, often longer than the sentence itself. In other words, it's far from the ideal system. In his book, "the machinery of freedom" David Friedman talks about what he refers to as the law of constant dealings. Meaning that, companies like the ones I am describing will run into conflicts like the one I mentioned earlier very often. So they will ahead of time decide on an arbitration agency to mediate their disputes. I will not have time to talk about military in this round, so I will next time.