Freedomain Radio

  link:

http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/2010/08/29/anarcho-capitalism-will-not-work/

What I thought was interesting was this point.

-How big business would WANT a state again since they get to control it.

And the empirical observation that business in somalia WANT a state again. (although this I'm sure could be refuted. They most likely just want a government back to have stability and someone to enforce contracts. DRO's could easily do that)

But if huge business do profit from having a state. What exactly would stop most the capital of the stateless society from getting a state back?

Or just feel free to analyse and critique the entire short video!

Cedric Cobban:

But if huge businesses do profit from having a state. What exactly would stop most the capital of the stateless society from getting a state back?

You know about Stefs free book, Practical Anarchy? You can find the answers in there.

 the examples and theory have to do with societies that have simply rejected the previous form of government, not by accepting anarchy for the NAP.  This is why the business leaders that remain are still reaching for the gun. 

Morality is the reason for Anarcho-Capitalism, not utility.  As Stef and the Mises and Libertarians try to point out; the moral solution is also the most efficient solution as well.

Violence is not a reason for having a government, it is the reason to not have one.

 I've listened to it in audiobook when I first started getting into stateless capitalism. i should check it out again. But i don't remember him covering the subject of business actually WANTING a governement.

I'm not talking about DRO's becoming governments. That is highly improbable for many reasons that have been explained countless times.

I remember stef saying that once violence is out of the equations, life will work "however the hell people want them to work".

Now if big business "wants it to work" with a government that they set up. What's preventing them? DROs?

Those big businesses have customers that have used their services or purchased their products voluntarily.  Why do you think those same customers in a stateless society would just stand back watching as they plot to setup a new state?  It seems like a huge risk to their current business practices to start using profits to setup a state and risk losing it all. 

As someone who works with children it amazes me to watch how children will spot a cheater, for example, I recently showed some children how to play the card game UNO and of course before the children had learned all the rules they would often knowingly or unknowingly place a card incorrectly.  It didn't take long and these 5 year olds didn't need me to 'police' their game because the rules were internalized by everyone who would spot a deviation right away.  In the case where a new child joins in but does not know the rules they quickly learn them without even needing a detailed explaination of the rules in the abstract since the others quickly point out what they cannot do.

In a stateless society the NAP is internalized by the population to such an extent that deviation from it is spotted so quickly that it cannot manifest.  A big business would have a difficult time setting up a new state when such an aversion to the initiation of violence exists in the minds of the population.

I was making some comments on the video, I post there as magicbywest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C5mffzRjAk

and I observed a HUGE contradiction in the entire argument.

First off, yes, the corporations would want a state back, because they won't be able to have the control they do now without one.  Arguments being made there are that having no government shifts the power and money to the elite/corporate owners.

This seems to be the basis of the argument that with no state, there would be so much more inequality, and huge gaps in classes.  Part of the argument is that it is this money and power that would allow them to reinstate a state.

However, if this were true, then why the hell would the elite be trying to reinstate a state?  That would be giving UP the power and money they supposedly gain from not having one.

I made the point there that they clearly are NOT able to do this one their own, as shown by their use of outside governments to try to reinstate their own government.  So clearly having no state does NOT give all the power to the elite and corporations.  And again, if it DID, why the hell would they be the one's trying to get a state back?

It all just proves that having no state actually makes things MORE equal, and begins to eliminate desparity in classes, and does NOT give all the power to the corporations.

 LOL OMG, wanting is not having. Who comes up with this crap anyway?