And how they will enforce this contract? If it involves the threat of violence, how is it better than government? If it doesn't, how does it enforce your contract against the threat of violence?

>It's logically impossible, because for a politician the economic incentives are always in the wrong place.

Can you elaborate on this? I would say democracy is the only structure we know of which has shown itself able to limit concentration of power.

I would recommend, again, watching David Friedman's talk on the "Machinery Of Freedom", it's on Youtube. He's got excellent examples and explanations. It's 20 mins and totally worth it. In short. on the difference on it from government violence: when a contract is signed with by me and some entity, we both agree that out conflicts are going to be solved in such and such manner and in such and such courts. That is, if there is going to be some violence involved, we both know it from the beginning. With government, neither me, nor the company signed any contract with the government. The government just comes and starts interfering when it pleases.

>Can you elaborate on this? I would say democracy is the only structure we know of which has shown itself able to limit concentration of power.

You cannot know whether a politician is truly a good guy or if he's lying to you. The only way to know that is to give him power first. Notice how different the situation is with a businessman: a businessman should first produce something and convince you his product is good before you give him your money. If the product gets worse over time, everybody stops buying it and he goes out of business the next moment. Not so with a politician, who knows he's going to keep getting his salary at the very least, and hopefully bribes, for the next 4 years. A politician knows very well that his voters will keep paying taxes, whether or not they like what he does. That is because if they stop paying, they risk getting in trouble and will possibly go to jail. A businessman doesn't have that luxury. He cannot force you to pay, he can only convince you by offering something you genuinely want to buy. Of course a businessman can also lie to you, but unlike a politician, his lies is more easily discovered and you have the option to stop paying him immediately.

And so, the incentives for a politician are in the wrong place. If you can show me an exact mechanism how to reliably elect politicians who would ignore those incentives and do good instead of those incentives offering them a much more profitable thing to do, then I would gladly accept that. But simply saying “we should elect good people” is not a mechanism. It is an intention, and intentions are not results.

What's the alternative? Having no politicians and having only the market. On the market, you can decide to buy or stop buying things immediately with your own money.

I will try and watch this when I get chance.

>on the difference on it from government violence: when a contract is signed with by me and some entity, we both agree that out conflicts are going to be solved in such and such manner and in such and such courts. That is, if there is going to be some violence involved, we both know it from the beginning.

So you have some entity with the power to enforce contracts by violence? What incentive do they have to do that instead of simply mugging you? A democratic government has to care about elections. A private company has no such concerns.

>If you can show me an exact mechanism how to reliably elect politicians who would ignore those incentives and do good instead of those incentives offering them a much more profitable thing to do, then I would gladly accept that.

Well first of all, you're assuming that I mean representative democracy, rather than direct democracy. The system I've been thinking of recently tries to combine the best of both: Ostensibly direct democracy, where people can delegate their voting privileges to a representative, and change that delegation at any time.

> On the market, you can decide to buy or stop buying things immediately with your own money.

Indeed, so in a completely capitalist system, your freedom is contingent on the amount of capital you have. Personally, I think some freedoms should be guaranteed regardless of wealth.

Of course, it's the first reaction to say "but your private protection agencies are going to turn into de-facto governments". If you think long enough about it, you understand that they won't. Violence is never profitable unless somebody else pays for it (as with the government). Private protection agencies are in the business to make money long term, just like every other business. And that is only possible if you produce something people truly want.

So, two things as incentives to not rob you. 1. Your future business - if they rob you they, obviously, aren't going to get your business in the future. 2. Competition. Those two things government doesn't have to worry about! You always pay and there's no competition.

>Ostensibly direct democracy, where people can delegate their voting privileges to a representative, and change that delegation at any time

It's better, but it's still worse than the free market with no government, because you still have to pay taxes. You cannot just say "no, no, thank you, but I prefer to keep my money and not use these and these services or fund these wars". You still have to give politicians power first. And you still use government power to make other people pay for what the majority considers a good idea. I think this principle of majority is rather insane. A simple test: if tomorrow the majority decided to shoot all redheads, if you followed your principle, you'd have to agree.

>Indeed, so in a completely capitalist system, your freedom is contingent on the amount of capital you have. Personally, I think some freedoms should be guaranteed regardless of wealth.

When you have a democracy, you're still paying for it. Nothing is free. When you say "some freedoms should be guaranteed" you probably mean "some services", which is different. Freedom is not the product of someone else's labor. It simply is inaction, when you don't tell other people how to live their lives and how to spend their money. I may or may not agree that healthcare should be available to everyone at no cost, but you have no moral right to come and take my money to pay for something you consider to be good. You may, however, convince me to give you money and I may do it.

Well yeah, your victims pay for it. My point is that there's no inherent incentive for a private entity capable of violent coercion to use it for the benefit of anyone but itself. A truly democratic government has an incentive to use it to benefit at least a majority of people.

>I think this principle of majority is rather insane.

It's not perfect, but I think it's the only way we can make fair decisions about how to share limited resources.

In theory Capitalism distributes the most to those who provide the most, which sounds great. In practice those with more resources are more able to provide utility in future, so the distribution ends up being very unequal.

(EDIT: One solution might be a free market + enforced wealth redistribution at a rate based on the level of inequality. I think this would actually be much better at encouraging people to actually produce new utility constantly, instead of rent-seeking.)

>A simple test: if tomorrow the majority decided to shoot all redheads, if you followed your principle, you'd have to agree.

And you think a society that would pass such a vote would be any kinder in a free market? If a majority of people actively want redheads to be killed, then your supposed protection agencies would be happy to oblige.

And even without violence, the majority needs only to deny them work and they would starve to death, or at best live in ghettos.

> When you say "some freedoms should be guaranteed" you probably mean "some services", which is different.

No, my whole point is that access to services is a form of freedom. The freedom to eat. The freedom to learn. The freedom to be healed. If these things are contingent on labour, then they are lesser freedoms.

In a world with limited resources, some freedoms will always be curtailed. The question is which ones are the most important? I think the freedom to eat is more important than the freedom to decide how a portion of the utility you provide is shared.

> Well yeah, your victims pay for it.

That's not what I meant. I meant that when a country starts a war, it's not politicians who pay for it. Citizens pay for wars with their taxes. Politicians simply sell them a war, while not investing any money of their own. In fact, what happens is, politicians make money, because there are companies who benefit from wars (oil, military equip and tech), so they lobby politicians. If politicians or companies had to pay for wars out of their own profits, there would be no wars.

> In theory Capitalism distributes the most to those who provide the most, which sounds great.

That's a misunderstanding. A rich person can only spend that much for himself (even then, by buying things, he actually creates jobs). He then has to invest into something he believes to be sustainable. Thus, I see businessmen as ultimate redistributors. They proved on the market they're good at handling money, thus they deserve to have more of them. Politicians only proved they can manipulate public opinion and you are entrusting them your own and someone else's tax money. I don't think it's a good idea at all.

> And you think a society that would pass such a vote would be any kinder in a free market

Yes, because in a free market the redheads would be able to legally invest money of their own to protect themselves from other people, who wish to kill them. With government, since it has the monopoly on protection and laws, no such thing would be possible. In other words, in a completely free market minorities are able to put a price tag on them being discriminated against, while when you have government, they would actually be paying for their own discrimination. Gay people have been paying taxes just like everyone else, yet until some point, it was even illegal to be gay, not even talking about marriage.

>No, my whole point is that access to services is a form of freedom

Very well. Even by your definition then, when government takes a portion of my money as tax for the services I don't use or disagree with (like wars) it takes away my freedom to use other services I consider good.

The crucial distinction is force. Government is force that is abused because it's so centralized. Government is telling other people what they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot spend their money and what services they can or cannot use. It doesn't matter what you consider freedom to be. With government some may indeed get a little more "freedom", but always at the expense of someone else and always with people in the government benefiting most from their position. I'm simply against this redistribution, because it is based on a system that is inherently unfair and broken. No, it cannot be fixed.

I think you've misunderstood my question then. I never mentioned wars. I'm asking why these entities with the power to violently coerce others would operate friendly protection agencies, instead of simply stealing from everyone around them?

I consider this a pretty obvious and fundamental flaw with anarcho-capitalism, and I've never heard a coherent argument against it, so I'd really appreciate an answer here.

> He then has to invest into something he believes to be sustainable.

Which works pretty well in our current situation where you have a bunch of regulations in place to stop them abusing that power. They can't use violence. They can't lie to consumers. They can't make dangerous products. They can't abuse their workers. You only have to look at developing countries to see how companies operate outside these restrictions.

> Thus, I see businessmen as ultimate redistributors.

Except nothing gets redistributed. They invest, and unless they fail, they get even more money back. And after a certain point, they can even leave the investment to other people. Then you have a bunch of rich people doing nothing, but enjoying the majority of the wealth. Their investments may slowly improve life for the poor, but the massive inequalities remain.

> Yes, because in a free market the redheads would be able to legally invest money of their own to protect themselves from other people, who wish to kill them.

Yet again, assuming they have any money. If your hypothetical society hates redheads to the point of wanting them dead, then I would expect them to be incredibly poor, since their ability to participate in the market would be extremely limited.

> With government some may indeed get a little more "freedom", but always at the expense of someone else

Freedoms always come at the expense of other freedoms. Freedom from slavery means limiting the freedom to keep slaves, but I think most people are happy with that. There will always be trade-offs, the question is how we decide which freedoms are more important than others.

Can you explain why you think the freedom to decide how the last 10% of your income gets spent is more important than the freedom to eat?

> No, it cannot be fixed.

Why not? I have already suggested the solution (direct democracy) and your only objection is that it allows the majority to abuse the minority, but you haven't explained how capitalism fixes that.

So the first thing to understand here is that monopolies and cartels can't exist without government protection for a long time (if you look at every case of a monopoly/cartel careful enough, you'll see some government involvement). When some company introduces a new, revolutionary technology (Microsoft or Apple both being examples) they may capture the market for a while, but not for long. Government didn't order Google to compete on the smartphone market. It happened because it was profitable to do so.

Now back to protection agencies. Suppose I'm an evil protection agency that wants to force everyone to pay, just like a government would. Alright. I send everyone an extortion notice and suggest that if they don't pay, we come and take money + fines (for our extra effort) by force and if they resist - we imprison them. People, being free and not brainwashed as they are, wouldn't see us as a protection agency anymore, but as an extortion agency. They wouldn't have any illusions about us being nice and kind. Therefore, there would arise a demand for another protection agency, that would offer protection from the evil agency. Naturally, people would rather pay the second protection agency, as it doesn't demand pay, but offers a service, therefore presenting itself like a legitimate business. The other protection agency would quickly lose its market share and wouldn't be able to finance its extortion, not even talking about any kind of war with the second agency. In the case in which the two agencies form an extortion cartel, it is not difficult to imagine a third firm emerging. And so on.

Therefore, competition is the key. Free market always serves the customer.

>Then you have a bunch of rich people doing nothing, but enjoying the majority of the wealth

You have to be precise here. What does enjoying the wealth mean? If they buy stuff, they create jobs. If they don't buy, but hoard, they are not enjoying the wealth in any way. Every time an evil businessman tries to enjoy his wealth, he creates jobs. And the more he enjoys, the more jobs are created. That's inevitable.

>Yet again, assuming they have any money. If your hypothetical society hates redheads to the point of wanting them dead, then I would expect them to be incredibly poor, since their ability to participate in the market would be extremely limited.

Now let's look at this comparison fairly. We talk about two societies, one with no state and one with a state, both hate redheads. Now if the majority in a society with a state hates redheads, wouldn't they pass laws that would restrict redheads from escaping the poverty? You'd think that. So redheads wouldn't have any money either. Worse even, in a society with a state if it's not the rest of the 90% that hate redheads, but say, only 70%, they can still pass a law that says "redheads cannot be hired for more than $1 an hour". Then, even those who have nothing against redheads will not be able to hire them, whereas in a stateless society they would.

>Can you explain why you think the freedom to decide how the last 10% of your income gets spent is more important than the freedom to eat?

I think it's very important to communicate one sound principle, with which I hope you might agree sometime: you can't do good by forcing other people to do it (that is, by using the money you stole from them). If I had nothing to eat tonight, do you think it's okay if I go and rob you? If you don't think it's ok, why do you believe it's okay for the government to do the same on my behalf? How is it more humane or fair to you? If anything, I'm not going to ask you to fill any forms, so it's gonna save you some time.

And what do you think a government is? They're monopolies on violence that have existed for a long time in an otherwise free market. If demand for an alternative was enough to defeat a protection racket monopoly, then surely the same argument would apply to governments? Is there any argument you can make for why governments haven't been out-competed, that couldn't equally well apply to a private protection agency?

> If they buy stuff, they create jobs.

In an increasingly post-labour society, this is not necessarily the case. You might buy a machine that eliminates many jobs, and creates far fewer.

> Now if the majority in a society with a state hates redheads, wouldn't they pass laws that would restrict redheads from escaping the poverty?

Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My point is that there are ways for the majority to hurt the minority in both cases, so it's not an argument against democracy.

> you can't do good by forcing other people to do it

Of course you can. If someone is about to kill someone else, and you stop them, in what way have you not done good? Why is the situation any different when it involves property? If someone is withholding surplus food from a starving man, they are just as much a murderer as if they stabbed them.

> If you don't think it's ok, why do you believe it's okay for the government to do the same on my behalf?

Because the government's actions are approved of by a majority of society.

> How is it more humane or fair to you?

Because in your society, if I have no money, I die. In my society, if I have no money, I survive.

It is a monopoly, of course. It clearly demonstrates that monopolies cannot exist without the threat of force, which isn't profitable to do in a free market, where you cannot force people to pay to sustain that force indefinitely.

>In an increasingly post-labour society, this is not necessarily the case. You might buy a machine that eliminates many jobs, and creates far fewer.

Did somebody build that machine? Doesn't that situation incentivize people to learn more sophisticated skills? And if a machine makes some product cheaper, wouldn't the poor benefit the most from it, since they would now be able to afford stuff they couldn't before? Would you like to be rich 200 years ago or lower middle class today?

>Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My point is that there are ways for the majority to hurt the minority in both cases, so it's not an argument against democracy.

It is an argument against democracy, because I clearly demonstrated to you how in a democracy the minority would be in a much worse situation if the majority of the society hated them. Please re-read it and I'd really like to hear your response to that.

>Because the government's actions are approved of by a majority of society.

So, if the government approved me robbing you directly, you'd be okay with it too?

>Because in your society, if I have no money, I die. In my society, if I have no money, I survive.

That's actually not true. In my society there are friends and relatives. Individuals have responsibility to help others, not some abstract government or society.

Private protection agencies do have the threat of force though, so they can force people to pay to sustain them. And clearly it must be sustainable, because governments exist.

Or do you think there some magical property of things called "governments" which protects them from the market forces you claim something called a "private protection agency" would be subject to? In what way are they different?

> Did somebody build that machine?

For now. My point is that as capital overtakes labour as the primary factor in production, using jobs as a means of wealth distribution will no longer be effective.

> Doesn't that situation incentivize people to learn more sophisticated skills?

And how will they learn those skills if they have no money?

>Please re-read it and I'd really like to hear your response to that.

You threw out some arbitrary numbers with no real basis. Why does it take 90% of society to harm the minority in a free market but only 70% in state?

The actual difference is that in a democratic state, you need a majority of people to harm a minority. Whereas in a free market, you need a majority of capital. If capital is evenly distributed, then they will be roughly even, but if there is massive inequality, then genocide could easily be committed in a free market with support of only 1% of society.

>So, if the government approved me robbing you directly, you'd be okay with it too?

Why would they come to such a decision? Why would society at large care about you and me in particular? If you mean as part of some wider social program, and I happen to have more wealth than you, then I would be happy to share it.

>That's actually not true. In my society there are friends and relatives. Individuals have responsibility to help others, not some abstract government or society.

Right, and what if they don't have any money to spare either? Or simply don't want to help me? I still die.

That's not what I did. I gave you examples that with any distribution of opinions in a society, minorities would be worse off with a state. My examples, if you read them carefully, compared two situations with equal variables given. I first looked at what would happen in both societies if 90% hated a minority, then looked at what would happen if only 70% hated a minority, again, in both stateless and statists societies.

> The actual difference is that in a democratic state, you need a majority of people to harm a minority. Whereas in a free market, you need a majority of capital. If capital is evenly distributed, then they will be roughly even, but if there is massive inequality, then genocide could easily be committed in a free market with support of only 1% of society.

That is a misunderstanding of how state works. When there is a government, rich people still control it, not the voters. This is because they can buy election campaigns and control public opinion through the media they own. Then, when politicians are voted in with their help, they get the laws they wish to be passed. Suppose a billionaire wishes to commit a genocide. What do you think is going to be cheaper: directly finance the genocide or influence a public opinion and sponsor a politician who would do it for him using taxpayers money? Of course the former is the cheaper route!

You can say, "but other people would oppose genocide and another politician would try to beat the one who's evil". Well, same would happen in a free market, except with more certainty and less risk: everyone would be able to vote with their own dollars. If one businessman decides to kill 10% of the population who are redheads do you think other businesses, that redheads are customers of, are going to do nothing and allow their profits to be destroyed too? Do you honestly believe that other people, who clearly see this guy is nuts, are going to keep doing business with him knowing he goes and mass murders people using profits he gets?

I'd like to quote Leo Tolstoy once again who more than 100 years ago already understood a very simple and powerful thing: "without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions".

To condense my question: Doesn't the existence of stable governments demonstrate that monopolies on violence are a sustainable business model?

(Indeed, by your own argument, one could conclude that there must be market demand for the existence of current governments, otherwise they would be out-competed?)

>I first looked at what would happen in both societies if 90% hated a minority, then looked at what would happen if only 70% hated a minority, again, in both stateless and statists societies.

With no real basis for either conclusion. You just assert that a free market where 70% of people hate redheads would be totally fine, because they can still trade with the remaining 30%. Which says nothing about the far far more important factor of wealth distribution.

>This is because they can buy election campaigns and control public opinion through the media they own. Then, when politicians are voted in with their help, they get the laws they wish to be passed. Suppose a billionaire wishes to commit a genocide. What do you think is going to be cheaper: directly finance the genocide or influence a public opinion and sponsor a politician who would do it for him using taxpayers money? Of course the former is the cheaper route!

(I'm assuming you meant latter?)

If people are apparently so gullible in their political decisions, what makes you think they won't be equally gullible in their financial ones? If it's possible to convince people to vote for genocide, then surely it's equally possible to create market demand for genocide?

>"without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions".

To be honest, this kind of statement just highlights the naivety I see in anarcho-capitalist arguments: "If only there were no tyrants, everything would be better." But in a world with power imbalances, there will always be more tyrants.

Democracy is the only system we have seen which attempts to solve this fundamental problem of power imbalance.