Anarcho-capitalism VS Objectivism


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Replies 290
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead." Aristotle

Here are some condensed snips from a letter I received from Senator Rand Paul on October 3, 2014. Of interest is Rands espousal of tradition. Does tradition count for anything? I think it does.

Peter

quote:

America is in a full-blown crisis. Our leaders are failing us. Too often Congress ignores its own laws. And President Obama illegally legislates through executive orders and launches war without Congressional approval.

How should we respond? The answer is for Americans to embrace our values of freedom and tradition. Freedom does not cancel out tradition. The greatest achievement of the framers was providing a means for synthesizing freedom and tradition. When our movement is at its strongest, we reflect both of these values.

I will always defend life. And I will always defend the system that made us the freest, richest, and most humanitarian nation ever.

end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will always defend life.

Even in utero?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead." Aristotle

Here are some condensed snips from a letter I received from Senator Rand Paul on October 3, 2014. Of interest is Rands espousal of tradition. Does tradition count for anything? I think it does.

Peter

quote:

America is in a full-blown crisis. Our leaders are failing us. Too often Congress ignores its own laws. And President Obama illegally legislates through executive orders and launches war without Congressional approval.

How should we respond? The answer is for Americans to embrace our values of freedom and tradition. Freedom does not cancel out tradition. The greatest achievement of the framers was providing a means for synthesizing freedom and tradition. When our movement is at its strongest, we reflect both of these values.

I will always defend life. And I will always defend the system that made us the freest, richest, and most humanitarian nation ever.

end quote

Smarmy political gobledygook

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam asked wanna be President, Rand Paul, Even in utero?

end quote

And Brant responded, Smarmy political gobledygook

end quote

I think Rand Paul does denounce (almost all) abortions, just as his father did. I prefer the more rational approach of Roger Bissell.

Adam wrote some years ago about Ayn Rand on this subject:

And she got abortion wrong anyway.

end quote

Here are some excerpts from an old letter of mine. Rands original stance is expressed in, Of Living Death, The Voice of Reason, 5859:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

end quote

What many fail to acknowledge is that Ayn Rands stance DID BECOME MODIFIED CONTEXTUALLY. She later wrote in A Last Survey, The Ayn Rand Letter, IV, 2, 3:

One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. . . .

end quote

I truly think that with what we now know about the growth of a human inside its Mother, that Rand would hold a closer proximity to the position of the brilliant, philosopher and musician, Roger Bissell. Once again, this proves that true contextual change to Objectivism will come from outside The Ayn Rand Institute.

Here is a quote from Roger Bissell's article, "Thoughts on Abortion and Child Support," that appeared in the September 1981 issue of Reason Magazine:

Much earlier than previously suspected, according to recent findings, Neurophysiologists have made EEG measurements of developing fetuses and prematurely born babies and discovered that the patterns of electrical brain activity prior to the 28th week of development are radically and fundamentally different from those occurring *after* the 28th week.

In, "The Conscious Brain," Steven Rose, a British neurophysiologist, observes that before 28 weeks the patterns are very simple and lacking in any of the characteristic forms which go to make up the adult EEG pattern.' Then, between the 28th and 32nd weeks, the theta, delta, and alpha waves of the adult make their appearance - at first only periodically, occurring in brief, spasmodic bursts; but after 32 weeks the pattern of waves becomes more continuous, and characteristic differences begin to appear into the EEG pattern of the waking and sleeping infant.'

American neuroscientist Dominick P. Purpura concurs with Rose. In a recent interview, Purpura defined brain life' as the capacity of the cerebral cortex, or the thinking portion of the brain, to begin to develop consciousness, self-awareness and other genetically recognized cerebral functions as a consequence of the formation of nerve cell circuits.' Brain Life, said Purpura, begins between the 28th and 32nd weeks of pregnancy."

end quote

Adam and to all readers of what I now write, I think that in the contexts of Ayn Rands life at various times, her positions on abortion were *justified* though they were not *true belief* which is what we also call a *fact*. To this day pro-abortion proponents will argue that Consciousness in a baby that has gestated for 28 week is not a valid prerequisite for the imputation of rights; it must be born. I maintain that the moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique BRAIN is in existence inside its mother.

THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. The baby is thinking as evidenced by the brain wave patterns alpha, delta and theta that are also found in thinking adults.

A good measure of Aristotles and Rands law of identity is one that is based on the facts of reality as we observe them. After consciousness a fetus becomes a *person*. There are things in the universe that a person in the womb cannot know because it is not yet aware of them. For millennia humans did not know about the dark side of the moon. That does not affect Mr. Bissells argument. Omniscience is not required of a *person*.

A study of personal identity is not mysterious if you are talking about yourself. And it is still childs play if we are talking about someone else. To be a bit silly let me posit a case of uncertain identity: Mom? Is that you? Well, Mom, I can t be sure. What is the password?

How do we know a persons identity persists? And how do we re-identify ourselves in the morning after awakening, or another person if we have not seen them since last month? Human beings have the least trouble re-identifying themselves or someone else, yet once again, pro-abortion rights group say there is no rights bearing entity present until after birth.

If it looks like a baby human, and it thinks like a baby human, it is a baby human. If it can be demonstrated that many of the modes of thinking are present at the age of 28 weeks of gestation, that are also present in a mature, conceptually thinking adult, then it obviously is a human person at a younger age.

To reiterate: fMRIs show that a conscious fetus, sleeps, dreams and can redirect its attention. The fact of personal identity is primary: it is self-evident to you that you exist. You are conscious. You remember. Outside of Science Fiction, personal identity in yourself or others can be demonstrated, through brain wave patterns and physical presence.

Sound is present in the womb and the baby pays attention to the sounds it hears, and remembers them. When my daughter Sarah was born a tray was dropped by a nurse, over to baby Sarahs left. She instantly turned her head left to look at the source of the sound. The nurse assured me that was normal unless a baby was lethargic from pain shots given to the Mother.

The persistence of consciousness from its inception onwards, is self-evident. It exists at some point and does not cease to exist until death (which could also be complete and irreversible mental loss, though the body lives on.) A conscious baby in the womb is the same conscious baby out of the womb, and it will grow into the same conscious adult: this embodies the Law of Identity.

Oh, if I could speak to Ayn Rand today! SHE WOULD AGREE WITH ME! What a wondrous time it would be if Ayn revisited all of her works and within her PRESENT context she could make her writings *justified* and *true*.

Peter Taylor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position is a woman has a right to abortion but the deeper into the pregnancy the more problematic it becomes and late-stage abortions are justified to save the mother's life apropos a medical issue comparable to the separation conjoined twins after birth knowing one would live and one would die.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam asked wanna be President, Rand Paul, Even in utero?

end quote

And Brant responded, Smarmy political gobledygook

end quote

I think Rand Paul does denounce (almost all) abortions, just as his father did. I prefer the more rational approach of Roger Bissell.

Adam wrote some years ago about Ayn Rand on this subject:

And she got abortion wrong anyway.

end quote

Here are some excerpts from an old letter of mine. Rands original stance is expressed in, Of Living Death, The Voice of Reason, 5859:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

end quote

...

I truly think that with what we now know about the growth of a human inside its Mother, that Rand would hold a closer proximity to the position of the brilliant, philosopher and musician, Roger Bissell. Once again, this proves that true contextual change to Objectivism will come from outside The Ayn Rand Institute.

Here is a quote from Roger Bissell's article, "Thoughts on Abortion and Child Support," that appeared in the September 1981 issue of Reason Magazine:

Much earlier than previously suspected, according to recent findings, Neurophysiologists have made EEG measurements of developing fetuses and prematurely born babies and discovered that the patterns of electrical brain activity prior to the 28th week of development are radically and fundamentally different from those occurring *after* the 28th week.

In, "The Conscious Brain," Steven Rose, a British neurophysiologist, observes that before 28 weeks the patterns are very simple and lacking in any of the characteristic forms which go to make up the adult EEG pattern.' Then, between the 28th and 32nd weeks, the theta, delta, and alpha waves of the adult make their appearance - at first only periodically, occurring in brief, spasmodic bursts; but after 32 weeks the pattern of waves becomes more continuous, and characteristic differences begin to appear into the EEG pattern of the waking and sleeping infant.'

American neuroscientist Dominick P. Purpura concurs with Rose. In a recent interview, Purpura defined brain life' as the capacity of the cerebral cortex, or the thinking portion of the brain, to begin to develop consciousness, self-awareness and other genetically recognized cerebral functions as a consequence of the formation of nerve cell circuits.' Brain Life, said Purpura, begins between the 28th and 32nd weeks of pregnancy."

end quote

Adam and to all readers of what I now write, I think that in the contexts of Ayn Rands life at various times, her positions on abortion were *justified* though they were not *true belief* which is what we also call a *fact*. To this day pro-abortion proponents will argue that Consciousness in a baby that has gestated for 28 week is not a valid prerequisite for the imputation of rights; it must be born. I maintain that the moment a baby becomes conscious is the moment that it becomes a person. From that first moment onward, sensations and perceptions in and out of the womb are experienced, memories are stored, and a unique BRAIN is in existence inside its mother.

THIS NEW PERSON HAS AN IDENTITY THAT WILL REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ITS LIFE. The baby is thinking as evidenced by the brain wave patterns alpha, delta and theta that are also found in thinking adults.

A good measure of Aristotles and Rands law of identity is one that is based on the facts of reality as we observe them. After consciousness a fetus becomes a *person*. There are things in the universe that a person in the womb cannot know because it is not yet aware of them. For millennia humans did not know about the dark side of the moon. That does not affect Mr. Bissells argument. Omniscience is not required of a *person*.

....

How do we know a persons identity persists? And how do we re-identify ourselves in the morning after awakening, or another person if we have not seen them since last month? Human beings have the least trouble re-identifying themselves or someone else, yet once again, pro-abortion rights group say there is no rights bearing entity present until after birth.

If it looks like a baby human, and it thinks like a baby human, it is a baby human. If it can be demonstrated that many of the modes of thinking are present at the age of 28 weeks of gestation, that are also present in a mature, conceptually thinking adult, then it obviously is a human person at a younger age.

To reiterate: fMRIs show that a conscious fetus, sleeps, dreams and can redirect its attention. The fact of personal identity is primary: it is self-evident to you that you exist. You are conscious. You remember. Outside of Science Fiction, personal identity in yourself or others can be demonstrated, through brain wave patterns and physical presence.

Sound is present in the womb and the baby pays attention to the sounds it hears, and remembers them. When my daughter Sarah was born a tray was dropped by a nurse, over to baby Sarahs left. She instantly turned her head left to look at the source of the sound. The nurse assured me that was normal unless a baby was lethargic from pain shots given to the Mother.

The persistence of consciousness from its inception onwards, is self-evident. It exists at some point and does not cease to exist until death (which could also be complete and irreversible mental loss, though the body lives on.) A conscious baby in the womb is the same conscious baby out of the womb, and it will grow into the same conscious adult: this embodies the Law of Identity.

Peter Taylor

Excellent post Peter.

I have struggled with this issue since the early 60's. Been on both sides of it.

Based on what you posted, do we all agtee that from the 28 week on, Constitutional protections flow to the sentient conscous individual in utero.

This does not reach the issue of "viability" of the "fetus."

However, it is a solid postiion to work from.

Therefore, based on the 28th week being the line drawn in the embrionic fluid, terminating the "baby's" life would be considered

_________________________ what, legally?"

Not arguing here, just asking for clarification.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where rights start--when they begin (they have to begin with the right to life)--is definitionally one thing and likely legally another. Rights in philosophy and in law is a two-step process and rights are a human invention justified by the nature of a thinking (free-willed and cognitive), acting, social animal. The unborn child only touches lightly on one or two of these. The right to abortion is actually the right to abort, not to be given one.

--Brant

this is not to say I couldn't say a lot more about possible right and wrong here from several perspectives, but no one has the right to force a woman to have an abortion (which is not being argued--that's for China)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess who said the following?

Peter

1997 Congressional Record directory Project FREEDOM Opening Page

The Congressional Record (House)

March 19, 1997

Partial Birth Abortion

Mr. Speaker, I have practiced obstetrics and gynecology for more than 30 years and have delivered thousands of babies. I have never needed to, nor have I known of any circumstance where the partial birth abortion procedure was necessary for the health of the mother. Quite to the contrary, it is my most sincere conviction that the procedure itself is quite dangerous to the mother.

When it was first said by the right-to-life advocates that this procedure was frequently done, I was reluctant to believe this possible, considering its danger and its grotesque nature. It was only after the admission by the proponents of abortion that, indeed, it was done frequently, and on healthy babies, that I was willing to consider that we had slipped to the point where this operation is promoted as an acceptable medical procedure.

The notion that this procedure should be available for the protection of the health of the mother is disingenuous to say the least. As a physician who encountered inter-uterine fetal death in the second and third trimester, I never entertained the thought of performing this procedure because of the risk to the mother. Using the mother's health as an excuse for abortion reminds me of what I witnessed in the 1960's as an obstetrical resident. Physicians defying the law were using a legal loophole saying that if an individual threatened suicide, it was a justification for abortion. It was a matter of course to make a phone call and get a commitment from a sympathetic psychiatrists to say, yes, he would sign the papers -- and that's all that it took.

It is one thing to defend abortion because one sincerely believes it should be legal, but it is another thing to distort the truth, fudge the statistics, and pretend that its done for the health of the pregnant women. This should be exposed for the falsehood that it is.

I am convinced abortion is the most important issue of the 20th century. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt will determine the outcome of that civilization. Supporters for legalization of abortion in the 1960's never dreamed it would come to the debate that we face today over this grotesque procedure -- the partial birth abortion.

Determining whether or not this country endorses this procedure or not makes a moral statement of the utmost importance regarding the value of human life.

The legislative approach to abortion is of lesser consequence than the issue itself. Abortion regulation, like all acts of violence, traditionally and under the Constitution, were dealt with locally until 1973 when the courts chose to legalize nationally the procedure. Removing the issue from the jurisdiction of the federal courts so states could deal with all the problems surrounding abortion would be more in line with the traditional constitutional approach to government. Obviously, all funding by any government ought to be prohibited in a society that pretends to protect human life and defend individual liberty.

It is now a worn out cliche that abortion is defended in the name of women's right and freedom of choice. But claiming to protect the freedom of one individual can never be an excuse to take the life of another. Life and liberty are never in conflict; life and convenience may well be. The inconvenience and responsibility of caring for a hungry, crying baby at 3 a.m. never justifies baby killing. Nor is a inconvenient baby in the womb a justification for its elimination.

For those who cry out for choice, let me point out that someone must speak out for the small, the weak, and the disenfranchised so their choice for life is heard.

No one in this body can challenge me on my defense of personal choice in all social, personal, and economic matters, but I do not accept the notion that choice means the right to take the life of a human being. That's a mockery of the English language and truth.

Those so bold who today would argue that choice means not only the killing of the unborn but the partially born as well, I say to you: Where are you when it comes to real choice in economic transactions, hiring practices, gun ownership, use of private property, confiscatory taxing policies, taking personal risks, picking schools for our children, medications and medical procedures not yet approved by the FDA? Let me hear no more about choice as the excuse to kill. Please, with due respect, pick another less offensive word.

This great debate over life has lasted now for over 30 years. And it took the partial birth abortion procedure to crystallize, vividly, exactly what the debate is all about.

The deliberate killing of a half born infant, with heart beating, arms and legs flailing, and a chest struggling for a first breath by aspirating the infant's brain is, to many of us, an uncivilized, abhorrent and unacceptable procedure.

Yet, we as a nation, now without a moral barring, appear frozen as to what to do. The debate has boiled down to this: should the police be called or should the abortionist be paid a handsome fee?

For now, the best we can do is make a statement that there is a limit -- and we have reached it. Hopefully, someday, there will be enough respect for local government to handle problems like this, but we must forcefully acknowledge that the defense of all liberty requires the utmost respect for all life.

end quote

Too easy? Ron Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam asked:

Therefore, based on the 28th week being the line drawn in the embryonic fluid, terminating the "baby's" life would be considered _________________________ what, legally?"

end quote

That is a question with ramifications. When Roger was first discussing this issue he somewhat reluctantly asserted, after a few weeks (or was it months?) Mikees answer: *infanticide*.

What must be taken into consideration? The babys mental state. Someone must be home for a person to exist . . . the babys life, viability, and (gulp,) lack of defects. The mothers life . . . the mothers mental state. The doctors choice . . . the doctors obligation or lack of obligation. Laws. And isnt this question also about the cost of freedom? To be free are we not required to grant a sentient being rights?

Roger Bissell assumed a number of names NRoark is one of them and he wrote the following:

From: NRoarkofConn@cs.com

To: Atlantis@wetheliving.com

Subject: Re: ATL: Does a fetus "think"? (Was Re: Abortion: To Doris et al)

Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:14:59 EDT

I don't have the information at hand, thought I posted it to Atlantis previously -- newborn babies have displayed the ability to recognize a tune that was played for them over and over while they were still in the womb, and to distinguish that tune from others they didn't have played for them (they responded differentially, with heightened attention to the previously played tune). Given Rand's own discussion of the integration going on in the perception of music, it is clear that fetuses (once their auditory perceptual ability is present) are able to integrate and identify a simple musical tune at some point during the final trimester of their development in the womb.

The relevance of brain waves is that the ~absence~ of such is the accepted criterion for "brain death" in cases of irreversible coma victims (as far back as the mid-1970s) and Drs. Dominic Purpura (NYC neurosurgeon) and Stephen Rose (neuroscientist and author of ~The Conscious Brain~) proposed that it ~also~ be used as the criterion for brain ~birth~. The 28th week or so (some say earlier) is when these brain waves first manifest in fetuses, and when premature babies are first able to show perceptual abilities -- and the first point at which either fetuses or preemies show brain waves essentially the same in pattern as adult human beings. The presumption is that a human rational faculty has begun to function in a measurable (via EEG readings) and demonstrable (via perceptual and memory behaviors) way.

Although I cannot find the material on prenatal auditory perception and memory, here is something more recent I found on the "brain death" criterion. I hope that you can see that it provides a very compelling "bridge" between making legal decisions relating to the ~end~ of human awareness and the ~beginning~ of human awareness. It is from a discussion on the "Journal of Consciousness Studies Online" list: . . .

end quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kinda like the control your fucking sperm approach...

It is the man's rational responsibility.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Another government structure to exercise control over the definition of what constitutes "child support."

The statutory structure and the studies that went into formulating the child support standards laws are, frankly, unconstitutional as well as unconnected to reality.

Additionally, the regulatory state that exponentially grew out of those laws is oppressive and anti child.

The definition of support is purely monetary and based on the enslavement of the individual.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the wake of the 2015 C-PAC gathering this last weekend, I found this blog quite interesting.

With all the Cheers and Jeers of C-PAC 2015 fading into Yesterday’s News, let us carpe the diem to add to the growing list of oxymoronic fantasies in desperate need of extinction, a term heard early and often whenever conservatives and libertarians congregate: “Limited Government”. Like “settled science”, the Tooth Fairy and Honest Politicians, not only is there no such thing, there never has been.

Sadly, I am forced to agree.

Brian Wilson notes that the concept of "limited government" is "a tragedy being acted out in the daily news to an audience that only craves bread and circuses. And cute Budweiser commercials."

Pretty close to spot on truth.

Quoting Murray Rothbard who stated that:

The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now?” - For A New Liberty – Murray Rothbard

Continuing to cite Rothbard, who explains

If “Limited Government” could actually be achieved, it would necessarily have to come with “Limited Freedom”, “Limited Liberty” and, most importantly, “Limited Success”. As Government is Force and Force is Power, the veracity of Acton’s observation “Power corrupts…” is unassailable and incurable. “Limited Government” would only have Limited Time to achieve Limited Success before beginning its decent into Unlimited Corruption and tyranny.

The unique and pragmatic advantages of Anarcho-Capitalism over such quaint notions as “Limited Government” are revealed and discussed enthusiastically in Lew Rockwell’s “Against The State” which can be read in far less time than it took to endure C-PAC 2015. And way more productive.

"There is no government like no government."

"No Government; know Peace."

I like that one a lot as a button...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14521&page=14entry219031

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another government structure to exercise control over the definition of what constitutes "child support."

The statutory structure and the studies that went into formulating the child support standards laws are, frankly, unconstitutional as well as unconnected to reality.

Additionally, the regulatory state that exponentially grew out of those laws is oppressive and anti child.

The definition of support is purely monetary and based on the enslavement of the individual.

A...

"Child support" ("protection") is support of the child protection agency first; the child second. Sometimes there is no second, as was recently revealed in Arizona.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the wake of the 2015 C-PAC gathering this last weekend, I found this blog quite interesting.

With all the Cheers and Jeers of C-PAC 2015 fading into Yesterday’s News, let us carpe the diem to add to the growing list of oxymoronic fantasies in desperate need of extinction, a term heard early and often whenever conservatives and libertarians congregate: “Limited Government”. Like “settled science”, the Tooth Fairy and Honest Politicians, not only is there no such thing, there never has been.

Sadly, I am forced to agree.

Brian Wilson notes that the concept of "limited government" is "a tragedy being acted out in the daily news to an audience that only craves bread and circuses. And cute Budweiser commercials."

Pretty close to spot on truth.

Quoting Murray Rothbard who stated that:

The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experiment fare any better now?” - For A New Liberty – Murray Rothbard

Continuing to cite Rothbard, who explains

If “Limited Government” could actually be achieved, it would necessarily have to come with “Limited Freedom”, “Limited Liberty” and, most importantly, “Limited Success”. As Government is Force and Force is Power, the veracity of Acton’s observation “Power corrupts…” is unassailable and incurable. “Limited Government” would only have Limited Time to achieve Limited Success before beginning its decent into Unlimited Corruption and tyranny.

The unique and pragmatic advantages of Anarcho-Capitalism over such quaint notions as “Limited Government” are revealed and discussed enthusiastically in Lew Rockwell’s “Against The State” which can be read in far less time than it took to endure C-PAC 2015. And way more productive.

"There is no government like no government."

"No Government; know Peace."

I like that one a lot as a button...

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14521&page=14entry219031

A...

"Freedom" in all its facets is and always will be limited. Time, money, circumstances, ability--the list goes on and on. Government is limiting it too. Just as people fight time, money, circumstances, ability in this sense so too they fight government. Limits are there to be dealt with. If people had nothing to push against they would be sorry excuses even for flab.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Objectivism is a whole philosophy that makes claims about metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, politics. Anarcho-capitalism is a political and economic system. Objectivism advocates laissez-faire capitalism in politics. As you can see, they are different in kind. You cannot compare the two directly. Anarcho-capitalism is not a philosophical system, and Objectivism is not a political system. Laissez-faire capitalism (advocated by Objectivism) and Anarcho-capitalism can be compared as two different political systems, and they do indeed differ. The main way they differ is in the way arbitration is solved. Under capitalism, the state has monopoly control over arbitration and the use of force. Under anarcho-capitalism, there is no central monopoly of arbitration and no central monopoly over the use of force. In capitalism law courts, police and army are performed by the state. In anarcho-capitalism, law courts, police and army are all provided on the market. The details are complex and very involved, and so I can't explain them all here. You will have to read about laissez-faire capitalism and then compare it to anarcho-capitalism yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now