Objectivist Criticisms of Anarcho-Capitalism

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #8.

See full discussion instead
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP, over 1 year ago·#1· Collapse

The anarcho-capitalist stance: competing governments in a single territory would not only work but be superior to having a single government, a monopoly on violence.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP, over 1 year ago·#2· Collapse

[I]t is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

In other words, having multiple governments in a single territory would not result in having objective laws.

Reddit user KodoKB explains why:

[T]here could be thousands of slight (or not so slight) variations between the different agencies. Because there are so many different definitions of what’s allowed, the law then would not be objective in the sense that it’s not practically possible for an individual to know what actions are permissible and which aren’t.

Criticism of #1Criticized1oustanding criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP, over 1 year ago·#8· Collapse

Since an objectivist government, by definition, cannot aggress upon its citizens, it cannot stop them from forming private arbitration services anyway. It has no way to enforce its monopoly. So an objectivist society would sooner or later turn into an ancap one anyway.

Criticism of #2