>Steven wrote:
>>I suspect that anarcho-capitalism [...] relies upon some wrong assumptions
>>about human nature.
>
>Such as?
It's hard to say exactly. Perhaps that humans are infinitely adaptable, allowing them to switch PPFs or jobs or whatever in a completely rational manner. Whenever I hear descriptions of anarcho-capitalist systems its always in dribs and drabs, focusing on some particular issue like contracts or law enforcement. I'd have to at least see a large, integrated economic model operating in real-time before I could put a name to my doubts.
>>[W]e shouldn't be so quick to assume that the rest of the
>>world will readily incorporate the value system that makes capitalism
>work.
>
>The market doesn't "incorporate" any value system. It maximizes whatever
>(quantifiable) values the participants choose. Of course, the maintenance
>of market *freedom* does depend (from the outside, as it were) on freedom
>ranking high in (most) participants' value systems.
>>>Businesses have control over their employees for only as long as they
>>>work for the business. To me, the government is a very real and
>>>present danger to my freedom. Each day that I work having to pay
>>>taxes through the taxation of my company and through the taxes
>>>deducted from my paycheck without my approval are very real to me.
>
>>I understand this point of view.
>
>But you apparently don't "buy" it. Why not?
Depends on what you mean. I understand why you feel this way, and I don't think you're wrong. I just haven't internalized this viewpoint because my attitudes preferences differ somewhat from yours.
>>>Those productive dollars go to pay the salaries of people like you,
>>>who do not provide service based on the market. Your job exists
>>>because the government can arrest and punish those will not subscribe.
>
>>That seems a stretch. Customer service polls show that most people are
>very
>>satisfied with the products and services my agency produces, so I think
>>there's something more to it than coercion.
>
>Yes, for those who are satisfied. What about the rest?
If you don't want to give your money, yet you are forced to, then you are coerced. I don't think most people feel quite this way, however. At least not to this extreme.
>Are you saying it's ok to coerce people as long as they're in the minority?
No.
>>The particular product that my
>>division produces is most probably something that could not be produced by
>>the private sector.
>
>That's always the excuse, isn't it? But of course you're not willing to let
>the "private sector" try, are you? And if it is something that a free
>market wouldn't produce, what does that say about the actual value of your
>product? Valuable goods don't have to be forced on anyone, people eagerly
>pay for them.
Sure I'm willing to try. I don't really know how the value of the product we produce compares with the collective demand for it.
>>(I'd rather not get into specifics, however, since
>>there's always the chance that someone reading this is not quite in their
>>right mind. I've been rather surprised at how mean-spirited some of the
>>communication to this point has been.)
>
>The mean-spiritedness is an indication of the righteous indignation felt by
>those of us who dissent from the view that our lives and livelihoods are at
>the disposal of those in power.
>>I'm quite aware of how the government has expanded in size and scope this
>>century. For the most part, however, I think the government's activities
>>are fairly harmless.
>
>Harmless? Forcible meddling in peaceful people's lives is "harmless"?
>Taking half of our wealth under duress to support market-strangling
>regulation, persecution of "criminals" without victims, and war - that's
>"harmless"? What would you define as "harm", pray tell?