Anarcho Capitalism

Thank you for the debate. I will start with rebuttals. "The state does x. X is important. Therefore of the state doesn't do x, x won't get done." "Who has the incentive to build roads?" I see the fallacy that you"re pointing out with your argument regarding roads. However, there are other things that the state does that no company or citizen has the incentive or power to handle. Who will handle foreign affairs? Who will help children get an education if they can"t afford a private school? Who will help make sure everyone has access to affordable healthcare? There are things that the government covers with the taxes we pay that are necessary but too expensive for companies to handle. "Or, people could simply get together and build them." Citizens would have the incentive to do this. But, they likely don"t have the time, money, energy, or resources. Highways are another problem. They"re longer, heavier, and busier. It would be really difficult to maintain all the highways we have now. "If the government had been involved in the production of paper clips or nail polish, that would be a primary objection to anarcho capitalism." The difference between highways, laws, and other things the government makes and paperclips and nail polish is clear. The government makes necessities for keeping its citizens safe, and that does not include nail polish. 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. "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." What rights are they enforcing, and who decides if something is a right? If we left it up to businesses to enforce our rights, there arises a problem if that very same business denies you some rights (remember Hobby Lobby, anyone?).Who is to say the "rights" a company enforces don"t only favor their customers? Will someone who can"t afford this protection have any rights? I understand you say delegated firms, but that in itself is a form of government[1]. "Like insurance, customers would pay a yearly/monthly/whateverly bill to their company." If you can"t afford a good healthcare company, they have no incentive to insure you. With a government that does a good job of caring for its citizens, it will make sure there are at least cheaper options available to the poor. "I look at my surveillance camera, and it appears that someone who looks exactly like Hugh Jackman has stole my computer." "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." There are seemingly no solutions if you don"t have a security camera. If it was someone wearing a mask, or just happened to look like Hugh Jackman, the system is less likely to be fair to the innocent Hugh. If Hugh has the same security agency as you, they will be less willing to get involved in the case, or will have to favor one consumer over the other. "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." This does not necessarily mean the company has to provide good service, just that it has to be powerful enough to beat other companies in legal wars (based on no laws). On the other hand, the government does not have the incentive to do the bare minimum. Many officials are elected, and are highly unlikely to get re-elected if they don"t do a good job. During their term, they could have to deal with annoying protesters as well. "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." If the government messes up sometimes, the arbitration agencies probably will to. At the least, the government will be more publicly shamed for accepting bribes. I have more, however I"m in a rush and will continue next round. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...