The advantage of anarcho-capitalism would be that people who were around, would be fairly or highly prosperous for the most part. The disadvantage is that those with no acquired marketable skills/knowledge, and/or no marketable social connections, would starve to death. The advantage of anarcho-communism is that at first, people would form tribes and get along somewhat ok and work together as a group towards their common goals, but eventually, people would probably want to protect things that required their own labor to produce, and call it their own personal/private property. Then fight over things.
I don't care what you have to say about this summarization. It explains the entire reasons behind all these "private vs public property" debates; people who support socialism/communism are afraid that capitalism would weed them out due to it's socially Darwinistic nature, and people who support capitalism, think that it's socially Darwinistic nature would award them.
Your scenario does not account for at what point you are looking at a society. For instance, anarcho-capitalism, if seen after thousands of years, would probably have no one with unmarketable skills. Private ownership of everything would prevail causing excellent steward-ship. I am assuming law and order is maintained. Anarcho-communism seen from the same vantage point would probably see a distinct degradation of the 'commons' just like today where communal land (for instance) is typically trashed as folks defer theire because it is always 'some-else's job.
I think it'd end up with the rich (1-5% of people) owning everything and the poor (95-99% of people) becoming indentured servants or starving to death, one or the other. Or both. Which, would be fine, because I really don't like people. I think it'd result in people realizing that they have to work in order to even attain basic necessities like food water and shelter, and if other people tried to take/destroy these things, fights would result and a form of capitalism would ultimately result, assuming chaos didn't engulf everything.
How so? The Businesses/Factories still require a Workforce and through their employment get skills from the job(s) they work at. So in the end of all things every person who enters the Workforce will have skills given to them and if they wish they could go to a University to study for a Field while receiving hands on experience. It's not as if people come out of their mothers at the age of 18 and have nothing at all rattling in their brains.
I would not say its horrifyingly innacurate by any stretch, but I still voted for the first option. I think the real disadvantage of Anarcho-capitalism is not that it is socially darwinistic, but that it becomes an inherently unbalanced system after the first generation, and continues to unbalance further every generation. Once rich kids have too much money to bother working, and poor kids can't afford an education to pull themselves up, anarcho-capitalism would stagnate, yes?
Capitalism is all about making a profit not creating classes of people. After thousands of years of unbridled capitalism, every person would have been raised in a profit-oriented climate and therefore every person would know how and have the ability to make and save revenue. Since everything would be privately owned, stewardship would be excellent. If you 'don't like people' why are you here? OK example time...You are a farmer growing corn. Your harvest goes into a communal stockpile from which everyone gets an equal share. (even non-farmers). You have discovered a technique to double your harvest. Why should you even apply this technique?
I don't think it would be that simple. The poor kids would probably grow up smarter and stronger than the rich kids, not having been pampered in life. This would give them a distinct advantage. I've even seen this myself to some extent between the lower and middle classes today.
We are not talking about some kind of caste system, that is a social order created by minorities. Capitalists see no permanent over/under class, they are only concerned with gathering capital. If a 'rich kid' decides not to work then they must SPEND to retain that lifestyle. When they SPEND for goods and services, the capitalistic providers of those goods and services gain more capital and are stimulated to gather more 'rich kid' clients. This could mean spending money on promotion, buying better equipment in order to provide a better product or service to the 'rich kid.' etc. Those who supply promotional material and better equipment will gather more capital from the providers of the 'rich kid.' Since promotional material and better equipment has to be procured, those who manufacture those items will benefit and realize more capital. Those folks who supply promotional material and better equipment will spend their capital on raw materials, the providers of the raw materials need the where-with-all to obtain those raw materials from (you guessed it) other suppliers. In a complete unbridled capitalist economy, the closer you get to raw materials the more you see excellent stewardship of the land because it would all be privately owned and to deplete these resources would be a loss of capital.
What some are forgetting about in this thread is human nature. In any anarchist society, small tightly knit groups where everyone knows everyone would do quite well. The larger population you have the more ruthless people will become to protect what they have. Some people will always lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead, especially when they are hurting those they don't know. In fact, in a large anarcho-capitalist group, you could argue that victims of theft were simply unprepared. They didn't hire a large enough security force, didn't properly secure their intellectual property, or were too slow or not innovative enough to eliminate their opponents with the same actions first.
Human nature is to elevate/advance oneself and those in their close-knit group. Communal living and sharing of the 'commons' works best in a clan type group because, although resources are shared, one will not escape scrutiny from other clan members for shirking or stealing and personal advancement is readily recognized. When one tries to apply that type of (communal) societal structure on a nation-wide basis, human nature causes shirking and stealing because each individual will use the 'commons' to their own benefit and many will not be good stewards because their actions are not readily recognized. And that is easier in a nation-wide communal society. (See Above) Capitalists would have private ownership and would naturally be prepared. In rural areas of America where City services are spotty, most folks are fully prepared to protect their privately-owned assets. In total communal society we would see the farmer harvesting the best for his clan OR harvesting early in order to escape giving his total harvest to the commune. There would be no incentive to plant more crops for the commune because more work would be involved and why should one work more when one can access national communal products? Land not associated with the clans would go unkempt because of shirking...(somebody else will take care of it). In a capitalist economy, there is an economic stream that one has access to and one can move up or down within the economic model. In the case of a communal economy, there is no economic stream only largesse from the commune that has to be shared. This thwarts competition and creativity as there is no reason for personal advancement..
That's what all societies become, eventually. Clever/power-hungry people will always find ways to, either forcefully or through the free market or both, take advantage of everyone else (since most people suck at life).
Well you should probably not use the term anarcho-capitalist as capitalism is a system of economics and government not being involved in the market but fulfilling other tasks such as using violence to preserve the rights of others. The terms anarcho-voluntarist or anarcho-libertarian creates a much more accurate picture of their beliefs. They belief in trading labor for personal profit and that everyone has an interest in personal profit. They adhere to a strong sense of individual identity and strength not a survival of the fittest ideology. They value the individual before the group and are taught to make their own decisions regarding their interests first be it for themselves or others. However i believe realistically they don't have the power to sustain themselves against foreign threats or threats of consolidation from within the way anarcho-syndicalists do. Many people have a pack mentality and many will see survival of the whole more important than their own individual safety. Well i think anarcho-communism has it's merits i think organization and cooperation is better met through syndicalism.
You mean, they have a "I want the group to keep me alive and comfortable and sacrifice themselves for me" mentality. That's actually quite different from a true pack mentality.
Do you mean how I feel is how everyone feels? Sounds like you're just a young narcissist with no experience projecting your feelings onto others. That or you're incapable of doing it.
I'm just saying that humans are natural free-loaders, which helps them at the expense of everyone else. If we have a collectivist society, most people will end up trying to be free-loaders and overall productivity will suck and material wealth will be very scarce. I, by the way, am a recovering ex-socialist.
Do you mean people are naturally freeloaders until their personal standard of living is met? Do you not think some people try maintain the standard of living for their children? Why do think this is a natural phenomenon? Do you mean it is common? Common where? In the western world? All over? Have you done studies to determine it is a natural human trait that most people are freeloaders all over the planet? How have you come up with such a consensus? I would agree with you that the last few generations raised in the west are very selfish and commercialized by the market and politicains for maximizing profits. After all it's easier to make money off of the uneducated freeloader than the intelligent individual. So perhaps it is the free market which is a danger to production as well as the tyrannical overlords. The biggest danger to production is psychopathy the idea that personal benefit is more important than everything else, it can never lead to a better future until it is overturned. Experience is more than just testing ideological theories it's about experiencing the world and people around you.
An 'uneducated freeloader' will have no $$$. Psychopathy is a medical disorder unrelated to 'production.'
I'll concede on the freeloaders not having enough money, i was thinking in relationship to people i know my age and my interpretation of the terms. Psychopathy is often misunderstood and it is thought it has many relationships to business which in turn would affect industry and production. http://hbr.org/2004/10/executive-psychopaths/ar/1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/01/psychopath-workplace-jobs-study
