Throughout my life, people have often wondered why I’m an anarcho capitalist. Often asking questions like “Why?” and “How about roads?” and “Why is private property not theft?” and a million other questions. This is a series of essays on the subject so that I can refer people to them, just to make my life slightly easier. So let’s start out with a small description of what Anarcho-Capitalism is.
Anarcho-Capitalism is not a system of government–it’s a system of society, one which allows for the existence of whatever subsystems you want: Anarcho-Communism, Socialism, free market communes, whatever you want. The whole point is that people engage in free association and don’t aggress against each other. In fact the central tenet is the NAP, or the Non Aggression Pact, which stipulates that someone can’t attack someone else unless previously attacked or trespassed upon beforehand. There is of course a simple problem however, how does one avoid a “tit for tat” situation? Well that ends quite simply in that although others cannot punish the infractor normally, they may instead enact an effective ban on interaction with the aggressive actor. Because of this, one can’t force people to follow certain rules, unless they’re on your land or property, and you may peacefully eject people who are on your property, assuming that you can persuade them to do so.
So now that that’s out of the way, time to answer the meat and potatoes of this essay, “Why is private property not theft? If people are laboring and the factory owner sits in his office, why does he deserve the money and profits that they make?”
Products rely on a few simple things, the actual labor going into them, and the organization of that labor. 20 men digging randomly with spoons is a lot of labor, but in fact very little is made, whereas if 3 men are using shovels to dig a trench with 1 man organizing it to lay a pipeline, there is far less labor but the actual product is worth far more. The private property is organized by the owner while the laborers enact the labor. The point is that the business is an agreement between the workers and the owner, the owner organizes their labor and adds most of the value to their work, thus the owner is entitled to most of the profit. Especially in situations where a single owner has accrued massive wealth by the virtue of their company, if an owner can manage to make it so profitable then they are still entitled to all of the profits. One ought to notice that playboys themselves often have very lackluster lifestyles.
I’m on a bit of a roll, so how about another question, “How would people be protected against bank failure without insurance on their deposits?”
Well the answer to that is simple, the banks will be organized slightly differently, or insurance companies will ensure the customers just like any other product is entitled to. But how is everything organized you might be asking? Well, allow me to explain. The insurance company will be entitled to a fee, a fee which is determined based on your choice of bank and the practices from that bank, as well as how much you are insuring under them. The worse the bank’s practices, the higher fee they charge and the lower the percentage they will return to you is. But what about the new organization of bank? Well that’s even more exciting, the bank is organized so that it may not fail, it must be organized so that in case of a severe series of withdrawals, that it may force all people who have taken loans to return those loans to them.
Let’s throw down one more before I have to leave before this turns into a novel, “How would people be protected from attacks without an organized military or even a police force?”
For this single question I have two answers, the first is protection without the police. Private police forces, these police forces are actually better than the current system, because if you don’t like the way your police force is handling your protection, you can easily fire them and instead hire a different force or even start your own. In fact a private police force will have far more accountability, after all if an officer shoots your dog, he can’t say “I feared for my life” and the company he works for will fire his ass to make sure that it doesn’t get out that they hired a psychopath and lose many more prospective customers. But what about the second component: protection without a military? For this I must use a small part of Machiavelli’s one book, The Prince. He states that republics and other freer states are more difficult to dominate, because the people will not submit to an outside force. So there is no reason for another state to be able to move in and expect to retain that land. But what about someone who wants to kill everyone in the area? Quite simply it’s harder to execute an entire population without encountering extreme resistance, especially if the natives are armed with high grade weaponry. There’s not even a reason to fear a nuclear attack, because nuclear weapons are only useful in destroying a state’s will to fight.
Anyway, those are my answers to those questions, if there are any other questions about the answers of an AnCap, don’t hesitate to ask! I love answering questions about this.