Freedomain Radio

Ok so anarchism was brought up at dinner with my brother the other night and he brought up some points that I tried to answer to no avail but I'd love some feedback and responses on his major points. I'm no expert but so far I've read UPB and Practical Anarchy so I'm beginning to understand how voluntaryist society would work. My brother's major point, however, had to do with competition between businesses.

Essentially, let's say there is a Wal-Mart and a Target sitting next to each other, and there is no government whatsoever. Also these are the only two stores in the area so if Target is gone Wal-Mart has a monopoly in the town/city/etc. Originally my brother pointed out that Wal-Mart could just hire mercenaries to go shoot up Target and attack it's employees. I pointed out that

1. Acquiring the mercenaries and buying the weapons would be hard to do when private citizens and news agencies are always on the lookout for suspicious activity

2. Few people would keep buying from a store that is currently murdering people with armed mercenaries

So while he brought up rather cynical points (people will still buy from Wal-Mart, they don't care if people are being shot), overall he changed his approach a bit, even if he still believes the above would happen.

So scratching the previous arguments, his next argument was that instead of shooting up the Target, what would prevent Wal-Mart from putting up tons of billboards and advertisements saying "if you go to Target, you'll be killed!" or "200,000 people died just stepping inside a Target store!" Essentially scaring people into buying from Wal-Mart. Now even though Wal-Mart is lying and the news media might tell people Wal-Mart is lying, it's nearly undisputable that Target would still lose consumers, they may even go bankrupt. Any ideas on ways a free society would solve this?

He added the side note that tons of companies could do the same thing. People could sell poisons and advertise them as cures. Now that point is rather rediculous, people would quickly contract with companies that gave out product information or acted as middlemen that tested and labeled products, along with third parties that do random checks to make sure those companies aren't being bribed etc. etc.




One other thing that was argued later on was that if you had competing DRO's, what would prevent bribery to clear yourself of a crime? (Yes I do realize that kind of thing happens with government now)

Any responses would be greatly appreciated

lol, another argument from apocalypse. This time - insanity. Tell your brother, if shop starts shooting people how long does it take for the same people to blow up whole shop? Or just not buy from agressors? Does he think that people will surrender and keep buying from agressors?

So scratching the previous arguments, his next argument was that instead of shooting up the Target, what would prevent Wal-Mart from putting up tons of billboards and advertisements saying "if you go to Target, you'll be killed!" or "200,000 people died just stepping inside a Target store!"

The same thing that stops them from hiring mercenaries to kill Target employees. As a consumer, if I know that my best shot at survival and happiness is not to give my money to companies that exercise force or fraud, then I will act accordingly. Since those companies need money to commit force or fraud, they will quickly go out of business.


Now, it's possible that they will try to commit force or fraud in a clandestine fashion. As a consumer, I am concerned about this, so I would also be sure to only give my money to companies whose financial records are audited by reputable third-party auditors, or whose activities are investigated by third-party detectives, etc.


For every new thing that your brother can dream up that would make the free market not function, I can create a business whose product is to solve that problem in the free market. If it is a legitimate threat, then I should be able to successfully market my product to consumers and get their money.


Keep in mind that it is not the anarchist's responsibility to come up with a solution for every imaginable problem in the world. There are some problems that will not necessarily be "solved" by the free market, especially if they are not currently solved. When debating with people who keep throwing out problems with voluntarism, when appropriate ask them "well, is that problem currently addressed?"


Our roads are horribly inefficient, starvation is rampant throughout the world, and public school students know next to nothing other than state propaganda, so these kinds of objections are irrelevant if voluntarism can achieve only par for the course. (And I would argue that, typically, it can do far better.)


Also don't forget the power of arguments from morality like the "Against Me" argument.

MaikUniversum:

lol, another argument from apocalypse. This time - insanity. Tell your brother, if shop starts shooting people how long does it take for the same people to blow up whole shop? Or just not buy from agressors? Does he think that people will surrender and keep buying from agressors?

He probably would because he is a bit cynical. I probably shouldn't waste my time argueing with a cynic but he's my brother

I would stick with the argument from morality, the against me argument and the "so we cannot be free because" argument.

Nathan:

I would stick with the argument from morality, the against me argument and the "so we cannot be free because" argument.

 

BINGO, the argument from morality is almost always the way to go, you can go on to the argument from effect ONLY after the morality of the situation is addressed. People will do what they think is right, right now he thinks government is moral, so he is trying to use the argument from effect to confirm such and defend his assertion.

Nathan:

I would stick with the argument from morality, the against me argument and the "so we cannot be free because" argument.

 

I know what the first two are, but what is the "so we cannot be free because" argument exactly?