mabel_pines
15:39 01-10-2015
Debunking one of the most often used criticisms of stateless free market economy
Thesis: the anarcho-capitalist type of industry will eventually lead to the rising of the state which will basically be selected through a free market competition therefore anarcho-capitalism is unable to sustain itself on a fundamental level.

First of all one needs to define "state". State is an institution that forbids competition against its services. Say there are two different insurance agencies in town and you can choose between them and one of them is trying to price the other one out of the market (there is any number of things that can happen in a matter of that competition).

You can just opt not to buy the service thinking to yourself "well these guys are expensive and they have a habit of killing their customers so fuck that, I ain't hiring them". A scenario where such a company will be able to stay in business is practically impossible. Take another example of car insurance agencies. In the New York people are obliged to buy car insurance therefore the prices are stably hight where as in New Hampshire, where the federal state does not oblige people to buy car insurance, it is incomparably cheap. Why? Because when your service is not mandatory required then you are competing with people not buying it. Therefore out of pure economic reasons companies will have enough incentive to create "good" services.

Second point: there is a possibility of a certain monopoly using force against it's competitors up to and including physical force however declaring that unregulated free market economy will inevitably lead to this scenario is wrong headed. You have a situation where people are paying for a protection service and then this company decides "hey, we are gonna wage aggressive warfare against other protection agencies". One crucial factor that has to be kept in mind is that violence is expensive. The reason why we are taxed to death is because violence is really fucking expensive. We are talking about someone organizing a cruise of assassins who you have to pay and these people would most likely demand (through contracts and what not) that if they die then you would have to support their families and so on. The point is: it is not easy to just wage an aggressive war. You need a great deal of propaganda bullshit and money.

And so of if a certain monopoly decides to go into an entirely new business model of murdering the innocent, well it is most definitely going to increase the price of it's services and if there are competitors in the market (who there will be in a free market economy) then it would stand to reason that people would want to go somewhere else. Somewhere cheaper. The marker would simply regulate itself.

On top of everything the presumption of one company strongly dominating over it's competitors in a market economy is an unlikely scenario. We are talking about the provision of security and dispute resolutions which is not one the most specialized fields. Like anybody could have armed guards, anybody could install security cameras, anybody could keep spreadsheets and manage security policies and contracts. So in the absence of government regulation it would be impossible for one company of this field to become so monolithically large that it dominates and keeps other companies small due to the reason that protection is something that will always be in high demand for everybody will want and need certain kinds of protection.
Группы [ laissez faire ]
Закрыть