addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

Texas Liberty Campaign - DFW Message Board › Flawed: Anarcho–Capitalism

Flawed: Anarcho–Capitalism

Vincent C.
user 4673685
Austin, TX
Post #: 249
Since I’ve been involved in the Liberty movement I have ran across people who believe that the answer to all of our problems is to privatize everything.

Although that statement may seem attractive to many LIBERTY lovers it is actually a deception. Hearing the word privatization may sound good because it is a direction toward less government however, what we as LIBERTY people must understand is that privatization means that corporations will rule and own everything. It’s bad enough that corporations put GMOs in the foods some of us eat, or provide arms to the military in the name of profit, or how about dumping pollution in the water we drink or on a person’s private property.

There are many examples of what can happen when corporations take ownership of infrastructure like, the city of Atlanta privatizing the water which lead to an uproar by the people of Atlanta because the corporations had a monopoly on the water supply, or the same situation in South America when many of the countries there privatize there water which resulted in the people rising up to resist because many of the people in these countries could not afford the water, of which caused many to die of dehydration. Privatizing everything is exactly what Alexander Hamilton dream of. He wanted a society where there was a ruling class of people which managed corporate entities along with the help of a Central Bank (a private corporate entity).

So even though Anarcho-Capitalist may not realizes it, what they advocate is pure 100% HAMILTONISM Compared to the Free-Market Common Law society that was envisioned by Thomas Jefferson.

So now I will explain how Anarcho-Capitalism is a deception. The first thing we must understand about the market is the three different types of businesses. The first is a sole-proprietorship, the second a partnership, and the third a corporation. A sole-proprietor is a business with one owner which has 100% liability on his property and business. A partnership is the same but with more than one owner. A corporation is a business which has LIMITED LIABILITY which separates the liability of the natural person (human being) and an artificial person (corporate entity). So now the question that arises is, where does Limited Liability come from? You guessed it the government.

So this is why Anarcho-Capitalism is flawed as well as being deceptive because when Anarhco-Capitalist say that everything should be privatize what they are really saying is that government created entities (corporations) should own everything. It just does not make sense.

So inclosing if there is one statement to why Anarcho-capitalism does not work, it’s because the ideology disregards LIMITED LIABILITY.


Scott B.
Scott_Barber
Mount Pleasant, AR
Post #: 17
One question that comes to my mind is this: If the only way a Corporation can come into existence is by Government sanction, how could a Corporation be sanctioned if "We the People" did away with Government?
Thomas G.
BrownThumb
Dallas, TX
Post #: 4
To those who think that we must have a government, I encourage you to consider the argument posed by Stefan Molyneux in the following video:

https://www.youtube.c...­

Note: This video begins at a specific time, but the entire video is well worth watching.

The point is that "evil people" (or psychopaths) naturally gravitate to positions of control over other people (ie: government). Arguments for any form of government provide for positions which these "evil people" to fill, with control over others. The "grand experiment" of the United States of America proves this point, as it began with a minimal government (ie: Articles of Confederation) and ended up with the mess we have today, as mentioned in the following article:

http://www.paulcraigr...­

It is easy to compose arguments against anarchy, but they don't solve the issues of preventing the psychopaths from getting in positions of control of others - an issue that I think is paramount when considering social organization.

Societal control of big business is a big issue in any statist or non-statist (ie: anarchy) model. One idea is that corporations should not have any part of the political process. They should not have lobbyists or contribute money or ideas to the political process. The people should be in control of government (if any), not the corporations.
Vincent C.
user 4673685
Austin, TX
Post #: 261
NO, corporation should not exist, they are government created entities its quite simple. Anarco-Capitalism would allow for corporations to control everything. That's not free-market.
Thomas G.
BrownThumb
Dallas, TX
Post #: 5
We need some entities to do the big things, like airline operations, building locomotives, semiconductor fabrication and telecom operation. If corporations don't do these, then it would be up to very rich individuals or the government. There's little difference between very rich individuals and corporations and the government can't do innovation or manufacturing efficiently.

The problem as I see it is that corporations have influence over the government and they naturally craft laws in their favor.

The role of government should be to improve the lives of the people, but history has shown that with time, all forms of government are subverted.

I don't subscribe to specific names like "anarcho-capitalism", "minarchy" or "anarchy", but I have heard some interesting arguments in their favor. The basic idea is individualism rather than collectivism, self responsibility rather than herd mentality.

The architecture of the U.S. government was crafted to allow for delays in communications, but the Internet provides a new means for organizing people as never before.

I don't know the final organizational structure - I think must evolve, with the overall goal to improve the lives of individuals.
Vincent C.
user 4673685
Austin, TX
Post #: 264
Here is a essay that I fully advocate to why Anarcho-Capitalism does not work.

Corporations and the Free Market
______________________________________­__


by Gene DeNardo

Friday, November 14, 2008
The Corporation is concept that has evolved over the last few centuries to become the single most important factor and dominant force in our modern lives. There is hardly a human activity that doesn’t involve or isn’t controlled or at least monitored by a corporation. We work for them in their buildings, we walk their streets, our kids play on their fields, we eat their food, we breathe the air they pollute, we sleep in their beds, we watch their TV programs and we send our taxes to a government that makes possible their very existence.
There is a common status quo cliché that goes something like, "we could start all over from scratch and things would turn out exactly the same as they are now". This infers that the same people would be rich, the same poor and subsequently life with the mega nationals would be just like it is today. We would all be the same big, happy corporate family.
By definition, a Corporation is a group or "body" as opposed to an individual. Individuals consensually organize into larger groups when it is of some advantage to individual members. A Corporation is body organized to achieve an advantage, usually economic, over individuals or over individuals organized as a group in a non-corporate manner.
By legal definition, the corporation is much more. While the individual is a product of nature and laws are a product of collective groups backed by collective force, corporations can only exist through laws. Our laws, of course, have not only given birth to the concept of incorporation, but have brought the concept into full maturity with much of our legal system devoted to maintaining the power and even the "rights" of the corporation.
The biggest legal advantage is that of "limited liability". Limited liability laws have privileged corporation by limiting their liability. Corporations, by law, are only liable for the value of their assets, no matter the amount of liability that they incur through their actions.
Regardless of limited liability law, risk itself does not disappear. When corporations evade their liabilities, someone else must experience the risk and pay the tab it might be a creditor who will never receive payment, an individual or the government.
This spreading of risk is a common thread of Socialism or more precisely, Corporatism. A true free market, a market in which all are free to engage in consensual exchange without force, can never be attained with state franchised incorporation. The force of the state has been used to advantage one form of association over all others. Freedom of the marketplace has been compromised.
Incorporation has always been a franchised privilege, but it was originally constructed to achieve specific goals. When kings or states were challenged with projects that seemed to overwhelm the capacity of normal economic enterprise, a corporation might be formed. The corporation would be allotted the task, whether it is sailing to distant ports to trade or an infrastructure project such as a bridge or harbor, and along with the task allowed exemptions for liabilities or responsibilities that restricted others from accomplishing the goal. These "privileges" were recognized and because of that recognition, incorporation was traditionally limited to a specified time span.
Early Americans were greatly suspicious of the corporations. Many laws were enacted to protect individuals and limit their powers. The American Revolution took place in part as a revolt against the monopolies of the incorporated trading companies. Early corporations required a state approved charter to come into existence.
No founding American could ever conceive that our future laws would consider giving corporations the rights of a person. Yet, that is exactly what has occurred. Over time, through court decisions and copious legal budgets corporations have gained many rights of "personhood". This is significant when considering they have evaded many of the "responsibilities" of an individual. They have sought and attained the best of both worlds.
We have completely dispensed with the corporate time limitation, but have retained all the original privileges and added many more. One of those fundamental privileges is what is known as the "corporate shield".




Vincent C.
user 4673685
Austin, TX
Post #: 265

The corporate shield protects corporate officers and investors from the mistakes and wrongdoings they would be responsible for if they were acting as individuals rather than under the protection of incorporation. Instead, the corporation itself may experience the liability but retains the protection of limited liability. Shareholder/investors can lose their investment, but cannot be held liable beyond that. Officers, even when harm and injury have been proven, are seldom held liable criminally or even civilly.
Investment in ownership requires risk assessment. Once you become an owner, you have a vested interest in your enterprise and you assume the natural liabilities of the marketplace. When you’re able to remove this natural liability legally, you are able to remove much of the risk of investment. This legal advantage opens the causeway for a flood of funding that finds its way to Corporations. This concentration of wealth can only further distort the marketplace.
Corporations, originally formulated under time restrictions, now have the ability to live forever. While a corporation can die a natural death due to poor management decisions, our government works to prevent this possibility with constant bailouts. The combination of liability protected subsidized investment and infinite lifespan has helped foster the unprecedented growth of the corporate business form.
The corporate tax advantages are plentiful. The corporation has the freedom to locate its operations in whatever state or country provides the most advantageous tax structure. New Hampshire is a favorite as half of all American corporations are centrally located there.
Double books, which are illegal for an individual, are common for corporations. One book is kept for tax purposes and another to present a better light to investors Paper transfers to subsidiaries to defer gain or hide profit are commonplace. Accounting has become more of an art than science.
Corporate subsidies consume an enormous part of government budgets. Bailouts have become commonplace. We are experiencing an era when it is more important to save the existing status quo corporate structures than to give any credence to the notion that the semblance of a free marketplace actually exists. Even the "guise" of a market governed by supply and demand has been forgotten.
An argument that is often heard from apologists of state franchised incorporation is that for a small fee anyone can incorporate. The idea is that without great financial burden, we all have the "opportunity" to incorporate, therefore the legal fiction created by state franchised incorporation is justified. Why would we want to create an incredibly complex legal structure in order to require everyone to jump through a reasonably easy hoop to get everyone to the exact same place on the same playing field? If the playing field is level to start with, why tilt it one direction and then justify the tilt by allowing everyone to get the advantage of the tilt?
And, what if we all did incorporate? Is it even possible for everyone to be privileged with limited liability at the same time? Is it possible for liability to disappear simply because we declare everyone to possess limited liability?
In a free world, in a truly free market, there would be no restrictions to cooperation. Free association would permit any and all combinations of individuals to attempt to attain whatever goals it is they hold in common, whether economic or otherwise. But, true freedom does allow power and force to favor or subsidize one form over the other, for any reason.
In our world, the line between Big Government and the multinational corporation is disappearing. Elected officials seem to serve corporate interests, who enable their election through contributions, more than the people who voted them into office. This should not be surprising. The entity that legally created incorporation with all its privileges and advantages, the government, certainly shouldn’t be counted on to keep the result of corporate law, the corporation, in check. It will not be until we revert to the natural state of free economics, where all parties stand on equal footing and bear the liability according to the market they act in, that we will see a return to economic justice. It is only then that we will be able to determine if the corporate form can actually survive within a truly free market. Until then, the jury is out.


Thomas G.
BrownThumb
Dallas, TX
Post #: 6
This article provides a good discussion of the evils of corporations, but I fail to see how it addresses Anarcho–Capitalism.

It does point out one key flaw in that the law views corporations as people. This gives corporations a means for influencing the law in their favor - which is a fundamental problem, as their goals are often at odds with the well-being of people.

All this is good discussion, but it doesn't address the viability of Anarchy. By definition, it means the absence of government - making the people responsible for their own well being. The reason it keeps popping up is the nature of people: Most just want to work & be creative while some seek to control others. These psychopathic "controllers" naturally gravitate to government and eventually subvert all forms of government into totalitarianism.

While most people are not ready to be fully self-responsible, I think they can adapt in time. These are the goals of a truly fee society.
Vincent C.
user 4673685
Austin, TX
Post #: 266
There is a difference between Anarcho-Capitalism and regular Anarchy I oppose both but I primary and adamantly oppose Anarcho-Capitalism because its a flawed and dangerous system.

Anarcho-Capitalism is flawed because its a belief of the absence of a state and complete control of all things by corporations this is flawed as well as being a oxymoron because corporations cannot exist if there is no state to create them therefore its a impossibility.
Noah F.
eggmunkee
Fort Worth, TX
Post #: 18
I enjoyed the discussion begun here, but I wanted to point out a source of confusion for me in the initial post and elsewhere by Vincent. I want to start by saying I don't believe privatization of government functions is a good thing, and I believe that is almost the opposite anarcho-capitalism. There may be some claiming this is the way to anarcho-capitalism, but I have most often seen privatization mentioned as a creative way to fix state budget issues, so forgive me if I'm mistaken on who is calling for privatization.

Vincent appears to define Anarcho-Capitalism this way: "a belief of the absence of a state and complete control of all things by corporations." Yet, I have never heard it described this way by any dictionary or any proponent. The anarchy half of the word means "without rulers." The capitalism half of the definition I would understand to mean un-coerced, voluntary exchange of goods and services (notably this is not what exists in today's corporate world.) What should mean a combination of no rulers and free exchange, you have equated with everything is controlled by corporations and I am not sure why.

I will try to step through my thinking. First, as I think you have acknowledged, corporations are a government created and enforced entity, meaning it is given "rights" it doesn't naturally have as a group of people otherwise. This tells me that it is probably not equivalent with free exchange. Free exchange doesn't require government force, but the absence of it. So what is a corporation in an anarchic society? It is really a contradiction. The only possible meaning it can have within such a society is a foreign corporation that is practicing business locally--albeit voluntary business.

Tying this back with the idea of privatization, what does the privatization of government services mean? It is usually the idea of public-private partnerships. The state entity takes up tax revenue or borrows money to pay to a corporation which performs some service. Is this free market really? No, the "customer" is being forced to pay for and use a service of a company that the state contracted, which is also a monopoly within some area.

This idea is equivalent to the system of Fascism. The state didn't own all corporations, it just "partnered" with them and they became a facet of the state's power. They are dependent on the state to exist, and they therefore are easily controlled by the state. When they are the state's lifeline to weapons systems and other technology, these two groups can become very closely merged. In our system, we have an additional layer where the corporations lobby and perhaps buy legislators or bureaucrats, so the corporations also exercise control on the state. The revolving door of corporations and government bureaucracies further integrates these people who are exercising real power from within and without the state. I think today we are seeing the build up of a global corporate fascist state which works with most states, global governance institutions and NGOs around the world, and privatization is a tool being used to grow that conglomerate.

Anarcho-Capitalism as I understand it states that all interactions should be voluntary, and than anyone in the situation where they are being coerced is within their rights to defend their life or their property against someone aggressing against them. If we were to define this term along these lines for sake of discussion, how would that change your thoughts, Victor? Please correct me if I misunderstood your position. Thanks.
Powered by mvnForum

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy