How exactly would you get the roads built when you have a thousand competing private governmental organizations running around?

@warsprite again: The people will prevent them from taking over. There are a lot more Civilians than PDA officers, and they will prevent them from taking over. Easily.

Four things to consider with your anarcho-capitalistic society.

1. WMDs. Like it or not they exist. No governing body driven by the people and not greed means he who has the nukes makes the rules.

2. You mention juries. Who is gonna setup these juries? There is no government to oversee it. Jury rigging would run rampant and the PDA with the most money would get the "jury" they want. To paraphrase the tagline to a recent movie... Who watches the watchmen?

3. The PDAs and their greed. This would turn into a gang war and gang wars have innocent victims all the time. The heads of your PDAs would have so much power they would give a fuck about the little guy. They'd only be concerned about the big guys who were part of their organization and we'd soon see protection rackets like prohibition era Chicago and New York.

4. Money. Money is printed by governments. Without governments nothing is organized to print money so manufactured goods and the barter system would become the order of the day. The inter-region commerce would be run by the PDAs. See #3 and figure out how well that would turn out. (hint: truck and train hijackings).

And a bonus issue: Advancement of the human race through technological advancements. The only advancements in technology would be those that helped the PDAs grow their influence base and strengthen their hold on their subjects, and have no doubt they would be subjects at the whim of the local PDA "colonel". Advancements in medicine and sciences to improve the plight of mankind would only occur if the PDAs saw a way to grow wealth (not make money as it won't exist) from them, so all cancer and AIDs and muscular dystrophy and... All of it would stop as there is no profit in it.

@dexter: don't even get me started about roads. Companies can build roads! No government needed. And there would be no competing governmental organizations, just competing Police organizations. Thay don't make laws for everybody, just for the people that choose them. So in essence, people are choosing their own laws.

@ Conservative Man, re: stealing.
In true anarchy, there is not stealing, because there is no property. Or, more specifically, you can only own that wich you use, wich means that the only propierty is personal propierty. Anything you don't use is not considered to be yours, and therefore, anyone is allowed to take it, and that is not considered stealing.

re: capitalism is the best, yay capitalism: I disagree, and you're not really making an argument as much as an empty statement, not that I want an argument on that matter, it's been discussed before here.

@Draugnar: the best argument I have heard yet, but there still are faults:
1.That makes sense, but multiple people could have nukes, and most people probably won't encourage nukes because of their destrucive power.Nukes probably won't play a big part in Anarchic society.
2. The juries would be set up by private courts, and I think people wantig justice will overwhelm any bribery. It is still possible, but it is also possible today.
3.Who says PDA's will turn into gangs? They will lose customers if they do(as you can see, it is all about the customers). All the people will rush to and defend any PDA that is not acting like a gang, and the cycle will continue (if any PDAs become gangs)
4. Electronic currency.

@Xapi: what is to stop people from stealing personal property, i.e. stuff that you use?

@Conservative Man - the people of China outnumber the army and the people in power. Did revolution come as a result of Tiananmen Square? One trained soldier with an M-60 can handle 100 regular joes and for every regular joe there is, on average, a regular jane and a regular bobby or suzie that is important to him; important enough that he will bow to the will of those who hold his loved ones hostage.

And those who don't care about anyone will be the PDAs recruits; the local enforcers. You are naive to think anarchy wouldn't dissolve into chaos with the people in power employing the most criminal element who have broken moral compasses to accomplish their means by any method necessary. The PDA execs will sit up in their penthouse towers while privatized martial law would rule the streets. Anyone who dared to stand up to this pseudo military would be put down like a dog.

Let me give you another example. It only took a fraction of the count od the nearly half million jews in the Warsaw Ghetto to cleanse it down to fewer than 80000 residents and to wall them in, letting disease and starvation slowly anbd tortuosly kill them off. Let one of these would be Hitlers or Pol Pots get in power and that region would move from Anarcho-Captialism to Despotism.

Ok, so I agree about the whole idea about privatizing roads; it could potentially work. however, we still have the problem with police and crime. Say I am part of one Police organization, and then the person living next door is part of a different, bigger, PDA. My neighbor comes and rapes and kills my daughter. My PDA goes to his PDA and says "Hey, Jon Doe did something wrong, he needs to be punished". Then they say "well to bad, he's a very valuable costumer". So then your PDA tries attacking the other PDA, but because the rapist/murderer's PDA is larger, yours is defeated. You're now basically stuck with a defeated PDA and a neighbor who just raped and killed your daughter. You say, "I'm going to take law into my own hands". So you go and kill the neighbor. Then the neighbor's PDA comes to your PDA and says, "hey, that guy needs to be shot because he murdered my client". Your PDA, being weaker, is forced to hand you over. You are then shot.

See, it just doesn't work. In the end, Anarchy becomes a "Whoever has the biggest gun has the most power" type of thing.

By the way, have any of you read the links I gave?

What would be the motivation for a thousand person company to build a interstate highway? What would be the motivation for a ten person company to do it? What would be the motivation for a 100 million person company to build a highway if a thousand other companies are going to ride on it for free. Are you going to have a hundred different roads going to the same place because no one can use each other's roads? I guess they could police it... but then you've added to your overhead enormously. ...oh - and who the heck owns that land that the road is built on? No eminent domain to make things easier and more economical... each company with holdings in the way of the road would hold veto power. Nothing would get done. It would be the middle ages all over again. How many roads were built between cities in those days? Far less than in Roman times, I'm sure. ...and far lower quality as well, I'd bet.

@jman: Everyone keeps ignoring the fact that PDAs would lose customers if they let a murderer go free. I have yet to see a good argument stating how PDAs would not lose customers by doing bad things, and take into account the other things I have.
@Draugnar: If you say PDAs will do these bad things, why do most governments not do those things, i.e. the U.S. Government.

@Dexter: The motivation would be money! Simple. They charge you money to drive on their roads, so then they can make money and more roads.

@Conservative Man - I don't think you should be getting anybody else started about roads! Your view is ridiculous.

The problem with Anarchism in general (nothing wrong with Capitalism ;-) lol) is that large groups of people need collective infrastructure in order to live in humane conditions, and for society to function in general. For example, roads, water services, electricity etc. etc. Now, it is possible for those services to be both built and operated by private entities, but the premeditated conception of the services needs to be from a single central agency so that everything works together.

The easiest example for where this would go wrong is in road and rail networks. Other problems would include national/international air traffic controlling etc.

But beyond this, the stupidest part of Anarchism is the lack of human rights. What I mean by that is from a basic standpoint the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. A good justice system is the foundation for healthy societies.

@CM - In response to your points on mine...

1. One man with one nuke can hold a region hostage. They may not make more, but these are already out there. There is no cat in Schrodenger's box because he already escaped and is powerful enought to destroy the world several times over. And you are underestimating what a madman is willing to do.

2. Who sets up the private courts? Private governments? You just said there is no government. There would be no organization to organize the courts. And remember, we already have collusion by big business (the oil industry, the music industry, any other industry that have been convicted of price fixing) so deals would be made and the most powerful PDAs would work together to maintain their grip, even to the point of destroying the would be benevolent PDA. And I will point out that a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

3. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The money flow wouldn't be from the individuals, but from the corporations whose interest and investments were being protected. This happened in the US before the formation of unions began protecting the blue collar workers and started towards providing a little more equality, not that it exists between the working and ruling classes now, but it is better than it was before the unions.

4. The internet (your electronic currency medium) is currently overseen by government entities. sometimes this is for the good, othertimes not. But without those entities, the information superhighway and access to it would be controlled by those PDAs with the power. Again, absolute power corrupts absolutely. What you would end up with is an OCP like organization made up of a few large corporations that controlled all but the most remote locals and those locals would be run by warlord like fiefdoms.

Also how could you regulate ownership? How could a private company own and operate a road if there was no government?

Scenario:

-Company builds road.
-People go to road to drive on road.
-Company says "Pay up... this is our road!".
-People say "you have nothing to indicate ownership!"
-Company says nothing... company doesn't have a deed to the land. Company can't prove ownership. Company is screwed, and people drive on road for free.

@Xapi: what is to stop people from stealing personal property, i.e. stuff that you use?

I'm not advocating anarchy, so I'm probably not the best fit to answer, but my guess is that the social contract prevents it, and people who break the social contract are dealt with in an anarchic manner.


"@Draugnar: If you say PDAs will do these bad things, why do most governments not do those things, i.e. the U.S. Government. "

For one, it does, and for two, it doesn't turn into such a bad thing because in the long run governments have to account to the people voting them. PDA's only have to account to their costumers.

@Conservative Man - "most" governments must mean the governments of the civilized world. And most of them have some sort of government of/by/for the people where the police and military are for the people they represent, not for the private interests that pay their paycheck. If you look at the current nations that are ruled by the almighty buck, you'll see rape, murder, and ethnic cleansing running rampant. Get on the wrong side of a Columbian drug lord and see if you get any justice after he tortures and rapes your entire family right in front of you then kills you and anyone in your family who might come after him in revenge in front of the weaker, powerless members of your family. Look to the Godfather Part II for an example of how "privatized" government (for lack of a better term) would work out.

How about resources? I'm part of company X who wants to damn a river... company Y is downstream of company X and doesn't like the idea... company Z wants to fish-out the river for profit - after all, it's some distance from where most of them live - they don't care if there are any fish left. Company Q wants to build a factory on the river and dump untreated waste killing everything (including those who drink the water... from other companies - so they don't care). How does your wonderful system handle this? Customers are attracted to each of these companies as they all will treat their members well... at the expense of other companies... and ultimately at the expense of everyone (as there would be no one looking out for the common good of the entire area). It would be tragedy of the commons on steroids.

Oh - and another thing. People like safety. So how much will "protection" cost them? The biggest most powerful company will be the most protected... and they can make sure of that by terrorizing the other company's members from time to time. So - they drum up business by making it unpleasant/unhealthy to be a member of a rival company. ...soon there is only one viable company in an area... who then, without competition, can really do whatever they want to the "members".

Also... what stops companies from forming trusts? ...wherein they leave their members with no real choice because competition has effectively been eliminated.

@Draug
1. Excellent point, but one that would come up rarely.
2. People set up the private courts. The Courts don't make laws, and so have limited power. They would almost always try to do what is right (which is Human nature most of the time).
3. That doesn't even address the second part of my response. The first part makes sense, but the logical outcome of that is adressed in the second part.
4. How would PDA's control the Internet? And the Internet is not the only means of electronic currency. Cards(such as credit cards) that hold electronic dollars in them would work just fine.

@Conservative man - how could a private court enforce any rulings?

" They would almost always try to do what is right (which is Human nature most of the time)."

I love it how everyone always assumes that the true good human nature would naturally arise from their preffered utopic form of society, but the true horrible human nature would show it's ugly face in some else's utopia.

Okay, I'm getting tired, but before I leave, let's shift the topic of the debate to the opposite of Anarchy (well not exact opposite), Authoritarianism. I, of course will speak against it. Any of you can speak for it.

P.S. Have any of you read my links?

Weakest government in the Western Hemisphere? Haiti. Ever look at a satellite photo of Hispaniola (the island)? Haiti is completely deforested. Their neighbor, The Dominican Republic, is not. It's quite dramatic. No one is looking after Haiti's resources... so they've been exhausted because it is in each person and each company's interest to take as much as they can. Result? Everyone in Haiti eventually (like about now) loses.

@Conservative Man - you seem to think that the world can't exist with a medium somewhere between Anarchism and Authoritarianism.

It can't. There is either Government i.e. Authoritarianism, or no government. They might not call it Authoritarianism, but it is.

Xapi said: "I love it how everyone always assumes that the true good human nature would naturally arise from their preffered utopic form of society, but the true horrible human nature would show it's ugly face in some else's utopia."

I just figured that beared repeating.

@CM
1. It only takes one...
2. Are these the same people forced to work in the factory for the wealthy company that rules? The PDAs real costumors will be the stockholders and John Doe is a nuisance to be dealt with. You keep attributing power to the people where history has shown it does not reside. The American Revolution only succeeded because it was too costly to try to control the colonies so the king said "Fuck it, come back home."
3. The customers are *not* the people. The Customers are the big organizations that are protected by the PDA. As long as they are happy, the PDA will make money and as long as the real customer is making money, they are happy. The little guy would get fucked and the private enterpises would become gang lords with the PDAs as their enforcers.
4. You don't have a clue how all that works... The internet requires routers and relays and other hardwaire and wiring. It isn't just a magical ether that seems to work. It has to be maintained and registrations controlled. As far as cards with money on them... They don't have money on them. Their numbers provide information to a company's servers where the registration and balances are kept. So the internet is required everytime one of those cards are used. That is why you can call the number or go to the website on the back and check the balance without ever swiping the card. It's also why you can use those cards on company websites and the reason VISA/MC/Amex are willing to issue a form of gift card as well. They make money off the interest that the balances earn as well as the fact that many of the cards are never fully cashed in. Don't take my word for it, ask any developer who has ever worked with a credit card clearing house or a POS system (yes, I'm one of those developers).

@Conservative Man, you do not know the definition of Authoritarianism:

Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of state in a republic or union. It is a political system controlled by typically non-elected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom.

Now that you are informed, I will note "form of government" not government in general. Get it straight. I am a Libertarian Conservative, but I definitely believe in a national identity and a well defined government system (just small).