How Does Anarcho-Capitalism Work? 

Anarchism is just libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion. Any libertarian who thinks long and hard enough will one day be an anarchist, whether he chooses to admit it to others or not.

This sounds like the inverse of communism.

No one should initiate force against peaceful people!

Power and Market by Murray Rothbard

The difference in libertarians (anarchists) and statists is that libertarians look to find better and more just alternatives to serious problems and injustice. Statists on the other hand don't look for answers but instead defend and promote the status quo and pretend that one more election will solve world hunger .

So what would happen if arbitration fails and they can't have the third party "neutral" courts adjudicate? What happens when one group hires a huge number of mercenary private "police", and extorts or coerces others to do what they want? What if two groups gang up on another group to take their stuff or coerce them into doing what they want? It seems like anarcho capitalism is assuming that everyone will respect the rules of the game and play fair, failing to account for those who will completely disregard the rules to get what they want.

This just seems like capitalism without government regulation

The absence of official govt would mean the rise of unofficial govts. Competing organisations would duke it out, or take the money from others and become the defacto govt. This is similar to the evolution of states from roving bands of tribes to city-states and empires to nation-states and international organisations.

Go to 3:19 to hear him go full Elmer Fudd.

There are many criticisms to this ideology which I will list here. Competition isn’t guaranteed in a completely free market. Two companies that provide the same service and dominate the market can agree to not lower their prices if they are pressured to do so and both of the companies will make more money. The NAP is very vague and can be interpreted as enforcing many different things. It would be a lot easier to enforce it if we codified it into law. Almost all ideologies are based on preventing aggression, and the differences between ideologies are often based on what people consider aggression. Codifying these principles into law using a democratic process is the best way to determine law, as this created a lot of necessary regulations and laws on things that might not be considered obvious acts of aggression, such as zoning laws, environmental regulations, and labor laws. If something is privatized, that doesn’t always mean that it’s better. Just look at the dumpster fire that is private prisons, where people are kept in longer and are given harsher treatment (they also have a higher reoffending rate) because more prisoners give a prison value. This shows that privatizing things relating to the judicial process can lead to a lot of problems when the only incentive is profit. Naturally created monopolies can replace the job of governments, and this would lead to a lot of problems, because the structure of a traditional business isn’t democratic.

All the arguments from the naysayers boil down to "Privatized systems might eventually lead to the worst possible outcome, so we should stick with the worst possible outcome from the start like we're already doing."

As someone in private security, most of the people I work with are pretty incompetent compared to police. Its a 40 hour training course in California to be security...

this works for civil matters to a degree but criminal is another story. we cannot be equal under the law if the law isn't equal.

Bryan Caplan has the exact same cadence to his speech as David Friedman.

I like to hang out with ancaps, we disagree on very little, and they know what they are talking about.

However, all of these security guards, private police, private courts, arbitration occur under an umbrella of government protection. All these groups know that when push comes to shove, they have to play by a specific set of external rules, or they will be fighting an entire country. So trying to compare how companies behave within a country vs how they will behave within anarchy will not give you a realistic hypothesis as to what Anarcho-capitalism will look like.

Sounds very similar to how it operated pre and in the middle ages just with more complexity. What happens when one private sector gets large enough and owns or influences everything again. People complain so they get given a level of percieved control through a vote on who is at the top representing their needs and wants and it would slowly revert to something similar to now just with different people owning everything. If you want to limit how much someone or a group can own in an attempt to stop it, who controls that.

He's wrong about arbitration. Arbitration started to allow the parties to resolve the disputes to avoid the courts where the process is lengthy and costly. However the presiding arbitrator are typically retired adjudicators (i.e. judges) who have training in the law and have adjudicated actually cases in a court of law. Arbitration is much less adversarial and the hope is that by reducing the adversarial nature of the dispute, the parties can reach an agreement.

Please make a video about arachno-capitalism!

Government is never FREE (of charge), it costs us taxes.

Society would just burn in flames. Only the part of society that can't afford it.

This seems more like a "How could Anarcho-Capitalism come to be" rather than what it IS. There was no discussion of the foundation or philosophy behind it.

It sounds like a great goal. My main concern is whether such a society can be stable, or continue to maintain maximal freedom, without some force (however minimal) keeping it there.

that is a spook

Policing and government arbitration are not analogous with private security and private arbitration. Thankfully a security guard can't forcibly restrain a person, and a college, business etc..can not use arbitration to imprison a person. Privatizing these kinds of activities could be extremely bad. monetarily incentivising making people criminals is very dangerous, and would require extreme government regulation and oversite, blunting the entire concept.

Cyberpunk 2077 has entered the chat.

Notice how the professor only mentions these services that benefit *consumers* and *clients* but not the workers. God forbid the government intervene to give workers better wages, protect against discrimination, and protect against unjust working conditions. A company’s employees may get paid shitty salary and work in unjust conditions while its consumers or clients are happy with these third party (non-government) regulations. Personally, a non-government third party regulation can be beneficial, but it should not be the only form of regulation.

Great idea. Put the health and safety into the hands of corporations. Just look at the huge success of the prison industry.

This guy is either a lawyer for a big company, or a economics academic. It all makes sense on paper. Libertarianism is efficient and may create the most good, but it usually ignores the fact that it's a zero sum game and it causes a lot of harm too, especially on the lower stratum. It operates under the illusion of individualism, but paradoxically creates a situation where individualism and social mobility is afforded only to those already privileged, or lucky. Capitalism is efficient and that's great, as long as it serves the people. Without checks in place keeping private companies from becoming _too_ powerful we have oligopolies if not monopolies that suppress innovation, maximize profits and serve only themselves.

a common thing people are missing in the comments is that this so-called 'against your will' is literally how the current system works lol also the big difference is that whatever dominating entity at the time decides to be aggressive towards others simply because they have the bigger guns, is that they cannot pay for these wars as easily as a centralized govt, since they cant print the accepted money in which they do trade with also people would leave this entity far before they become like this since their track record would show signs that they are antagonistic (i.e. war wouldn't suddenly break out overnight)

3:45 > "Could we get rid of the last bit." ANCAPs consider that in a specific territory there must be a *monopoly of the violence* (state)?

a good book for people to read for anarcho capitalism, the machinery of freedom by david friedman

I am pro-private security guards and arbitrators, but they have limited power compared to the state and they operate in its shadow. The state is there if things go too far. Ultimate authority still needs to be democratically accountable.

1:21 to 1:29 Arbitration does indeed have better laws...for the companies that pay them.

What incentive is their to honour arbitration? Just go through the motions and tire out the other party or bribe them. If arbiters have police to enforce them the arbiters are the new govt, albeit unelected except by shareholders.

Simple. It doesn't.

Yeah right.The private sector looks after it’s own interests.I am against big inneffective govt,but as bad and flaed as it can be,the govt is elected and accountable.WCB is an example of what happen when the private sector police itself.One of the role of the govt is to protect the citizens against the greed and ruthlessness of the powerfull.privatize the military,and you have Blackwater.

So if there is no federal government to regulate and enforce laws in the labor markets and corporations, then those corporations will not have those arbitration entities to begin with. Who's going to force them to take care of business for the employee? To take care of what needs to be done to protect the employee? What entity is going is going to make sure that every corporation has an arbitration entity that is doing the right thing for the employee at all times? Please tell me.

He just pointed that private services are better than state driven ones... but it doesn't prove the unnecessity of a state

I dont know how to get out of jury duty. How do you do that?

“How does Anarcho-Capitalism work?” Simple. It doesn’t.

Anarcho-capitalism does not work IRL as force needs to have objective boundaries and cannot be left up to the whim of the free market. A proper government needs objective laws and a system that project these.

freedom at its maximum

As privatization goes up and government regulated goes down eg government police, there much more competition hence quality goes up

Sounds an awful lot like feudalism.

'........rubber stamp that is it....'. what a simplistic idea for a very complicated issue .

Anarcho-Capitalism means that the biggest capitalist make the rules that benefit them. This is anti competitive. A couple of of the biggest capitalist could form a cartel and suppress innovation that would threaten (perceived or otherwise) them.

I'd say, private police and judges exist today because it's not possible for a company to pay the government to have policemen or judges just work on the issues of that company. E.g., a mall can't pay two policeman so they pay two private security contractors. A credit card company can't pay for a judge only arbitrating their cases so they hire a private arbitrator. So thr conclusion is: let companies pay for exclusive government services.

he forgot about the NAP

0:40 "right now there are more private security guards than police" Yes, but they always end up relying on police man if they ought to take any legal actions, plus they don't get paid to have the same responsibilities a police man does have. 0:55 "So for courts there is a huge are of private adjudication there's arbitration there's any time you have a problem with your credit card you sue the company that's involved you call the credit card company and they have their own internal adjudication system for handling things like these" I would think that if companies have these sorts of things they only do so that the matter doesn't escalate into an actual court case, see the only reason they try to "talk it out with the customer" is so that the customer doesn't eventually sue them against a more powerful administration that can actually prosecute these actions, the state. If there was no law to break against a higher power (in the case of anarcho-capitalism), there wouldn't be anyone they could go to in order to get the company sued (if it needed to be). So to summarize, the only reason they have these adjudication systems themselves is to see whether the customer's argument could lead onto an eventual court case against a higher power, if there's no higher power, there is no need to check whether they could be sued or not, because they couldn't. He then goes onto saying "this stuff is just better" not actually making any real statments one can discuss because of how general they are, he literally says "there's very good reasons why people are using these private alternatives right now which is they're better", you can't really say no to that, because he doesn't state what things *are better*, so I can't really make any more arguments as he literally starts saying nothing afterwards.

Ehhh, too rich for my blood.

How to get slav... uhm... unpayed lifelong employees: 1. Get a monopoly on healthcare (in an area) 2. When someone is about to die, you will only save him if he signs your "lifelong labour contract" 3. You now own a slave

God this is a dangerous and bad idea

Mad Max times when?

So trade one supreme entity for another preferably with you at the top okay

It’s not anarchy you have it obey a monopoly. The power obtained and centralized trough capitalism makes it not anarchy anymore, so in the end it’s a social contract where we all agree to stay decentralized.

Politics is Poison!

3:44 Yes you can get rid of the last bit but at that point, there would be no universal consequence to doing bad things.

We will always need a form of government no matter what people think, Anarchy is one of the things that sounds good on paper but not in practice.

What if I just... reply 'ok liberal' to every comment for the lulz?

This guy thinks he's so bloody smart

Competition protects the consumer.

Why not just make a Mad-Max world and cannibalize each other ?

This is interesting, let me take notes This applies to more than just an anarcho capitalist society but this applies right now

"Prof. Bryan Caplan admits it 'sounds really crazy.' "

Thank you for this channel!

East India company did goverment work... Look up how good that worked out

this will only help the richest among us. what happens to people who can't afford private police protection?

This could work. With a population of about 100 people or so. Or actually more practically amongst tens of thousands of people. But not a collective of hundreds of millions. It would be terrible for global competition. But locally, amongst small cummunities it could work so well because the smaller your community the greater incentive you have to be honest and give actual value to that community because being a liar or greedy person would back fire on you to much in the community you live in to survive.

So is there a substantial way of regular people holding these privatised systems accountable for doing bad stuff?

ancaps when jeff bezos buys their mom:😥

Is it wrong that I can identify both bottles of alcohol tactfully turned around in the background?

"Every anarchist is a baffled dictator" -Benito Mussolini

it doesn't.

Anarcho-Capitalists don’t really seem to grasp that what’s profitable is rarely ever what’s moral

Why is there a need to privatise everything? Why not have these government services available while still having a lot of these private companies?

so... can anyone tell me how this system would work with national defense? A military capable of defending the United States from invasion from say, Russia, or China, still costs billions of dollars. Who would pay for that? Everyone being defended by said military right? Sounds like taxes. Also... this guy talks about how much is privatized, like so many private security companies being used... but guess who uses those. Companies and organizations with LOTS of money. What about the lower class citizens who work hard to make enough just to eat and keep a roof over their families heads.. do you think they can hire a security company to keep them safe? Whats stopping organized gangs from sweeping through lower income neighborhoods and crushing any resistance, taking what they want, doing as they will? Sounds like paying some taxes and having a police force keeping the gangs at bay is a good idea then. Then what about roads? Who owns the roads? Who stops them from exacting excessive tolls? Another company building roads for cheaper? How are you supposed to do that if a company already built all the roads in a city? Seems like having a governing body to manage all roadways under a set of rules decided by elected lawmakers would be a good solution.

And how easy would be access to capital?

Oh wow, more Dave Rubin replays. Awesome new content.

Watched an entire video and I still dont know what the hell it is

Until we have a good way of dealing with positive externalities (free loader effect) in that type of system we will always need the public sector with taxing authority. Many transactions that are possible and necessary now will cease to exist in anarcho capitalist society due to positive externalities.

"12 people who were too dumb to get out of jury duty" BOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone that thinks anarcho capitalism has never been tried should read the voluntary city. Police, city planning, healthcare, roads lol, and even the justice system have all been privatized in the past

libright happy

The banks really enjoy private arbitration I think they're the only ones you like

It's interesting...not many people nowadays are into this kind of philosophical overall-views!!

Too dumb to get out of jury duty lol🤣🤣🤣

ancaps are not libertarians libertarians want to keep the government

This guy is super high. I agree with both being super high and what he is saying.

ELI5, if you are arested by private police. do you even have to go? like if there is a warrant for your arrest for police hired my one company, do you even have to go?

“I’m almost looking forward to the scoffing responses from any Leftists who happen to read this one. Any “true” Anarchist surely knows that Capitalism cannot co-exist with Anarchism, right? For, Capitalism and their Overlords (capital O) are the ones the Anarchists are rebelling against! But I beg to differ. The reason being that true Anarchism needs to be based on Individualism rather than Collectivism. Why is this you ask? Because Collectivism automatically will lead to some kind of function of a State, and Anarchism by nature is a society without a State. Private Property owners are not a State. A Government is a State. A Government is unique in that it has a Monopoly on coercion through physical force. If they didn’t, then you could just choose to not pay your Taxes with no penalty. Wal Mart on the other hand, the biggest corporation in the world, has no Monopoly on coercing you through physical force to buy their products, or to work there. You can just choose to not have Wal Mart be a part of your life, with no punishment. That’s Voluntarism. In a Collectivist attempt or approach to Anarchism, you hypothetically have no State and everyone is just collectively working together in a unified Socialist/Communist community of harmony and bliss. That is, until someone steps out of line. Suddenly, someone comes along one day that doesn’t want to dance the Socialist dance anymore. Instead, he’s been reading Murray Rothbard and thinking, and has decided that he wants to start his own business. By himself. Without input from the community, and with his own resources and money. He decides to share this notion with one close friend to get a better sense if he wants to go solo or start a partnership, and in the meantime gets to work to get his small business running on the edge of town, using the funds of his basic income to do so. The friend decides to leak this news to others. Word of mouth spreads the news throughout the community. Outraged, a shadow overcomes the blissful harmonic Anarchist community. Nobody agrees with or likes this Outcast. This Traitor. Something will need to be done about this person. How selfish of him to think that he can have his own privately run business in this Collectivist community where we are all sharing and helping each other in this giant group-hug of harmony and bliss! How DARE this person be so selfish and want to strike out on his own venture, using public money for himself?! Not that it will matter. He will be shut down. Because in our community, there is no private property, or private profit. We are all in this together. And if he doesn’t shut down, then things will have to get physical. We will all make sure of that. Because Capitalism is not allowed here in any form. We are Anarchist. But, we assure you, this is a STATELESS society. Many miles away, there’s another town, known as Ancapistan, and they base their community on Individualism and Voluntarism. There is no Government here. Each person represents, governs and rules themselves and their own body, beliefs, and pursuits, and voluntarily trades with other individuals. Private property is honored here. Private businesses abound, and occasionally greedy Monopolies emerge which try to corner a specific market, but since there is so much competition, their greed puts them out of business unless they adapt to the prices and services of their competitors. Some people are overwhelmed by so much Capitalism, and so a handful of people start reading Karl Marx and decide they would rather start their own Communes on the edge of town. Their fellow Libertarians catch wind of this, shrug and say “have fun, just do not attempt to overthrow this town with your Commie crap! If you attempt to seize our private businesses, we will defend ourselves.” A few Libertarians even get intrigued enough to pop in and out of these Communes at their own will. Some decide to hang out there for good, while others get tired of the Collectivist approach and leave at their own leisure. Any Fascist authoritarian personalities who disapprove of this Communist attitude in an otherwise Libertarian society will just have to put up with it. If they attempt to shut down the Communes, they’re on their own, and the Commies have every right to defend themselves, and convince others to join in helping, although nobody has to. In this society, the Non-Aggression Principle is the only Law, which states that the only justified form of violence is self-defense. Otherwise, each person is free to live as they choose. ‘Do what thou wilt’. So what is the difference between these two societies? The difference is that if you go against the Collectivist/Socialist grain, you’re ganged up on, and will be forced to fall back in line or you will be thrown out, or worse. Physical force will ensue if necessary. If you go against the Individualist/Libertarian grain, you are free to do so, so long as you do not impose your way of life and beliefs on other individuals without their consent. If you do, then they have the right to defend themselves with physical force if necessary. The first society will gang up on you with physical force if necessary for practicing Capitalism. The second society will not gang up on those practicing Communism, but will defend themselves from aggression from the Communists if necessary. One society will violently overthrow Capitalists, while the other will merely self-defend from imposed violence from Communists. Therefore, Anarcho-Capitalism is the truly Stateless society, since it does not hold a Monopoly on coercion through physical force, also known as a State.“ chsmithe22.medium.com/anarcho-capitalism-is-real-anarchism-43f1b56337c0

Grifters gonna grift. 😂

I'm amazed by the incredible, astounding and utterly room temperature iq

I don't have the solution and I can't trust authorities on the subjects that this entails to base their conclusions on anything but ideology.

A R B I T R A T I O N

why would people use private arbitration in the first place? I'm right and you're wrong. If you disagree, try arguing with my weapons arsenal.

It doesn't

Let's say I commit a crime, like theft or arson. I'm fully aware that I'm the one who committed said crime, and since I've already committed it, I've already gotten what I wanted. Now let's say you're my victim. Now we look at the market for courts. I'd like to delay my judgment as long as physically possible, while also averting a sentence at all if possible. Every other criminal in a similar position has around the same goals. You, on the other hand, want me convicted as quickly as possible. We've both found courts that fit our interests. How do you break this stalemate?

Anarcho-cringism

Anarcho Capitalism needs others systems to pave a way for it step by step or it will not be possible to pull it off in one go. Starting with smaller government then moving to Libertarian Minarchy then slowly ahead to Ancap. A sudden shift won't be feasible both with system and people. Some neo-liberal policies can be used to achieve that goal too.