Well upon realizing that governments are unjust and bad at everything they do, this changes one's attitude. If that happens in enough people, then governments will just evaporate, for no longer would they have any authority. The people in power would cease to have any power and would just be people barking orders that no one cares to enforce.

It doesn't need to happen all at once, but gradually - and anarchy would evolve. Nobody now thinks serfdom is a good idea. But they used to. Now we have democratic governments and virtually nobody under one wants to go back.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Where government butts out, things improve. We don't have state issued shoes. If we did, they'd be awful and the contract would go to cronies and a pair of shoes would cost tens of thousands despite being awful. And they'd all be the same.

So nobody now lobbies for state issued shoes. nobody argues that the poorest need shoes and therefore to protect the vulnerable all shoes should be state produced.

The more the government is pulled-back, the more apparent it will become that it is unnecessary and actually counter-productive: that it facilitates the very things we - the people - think it's needed to prevent.

Imagine there are two supermarkets near you, one is run by a really nasty piece of work. It pays its employees poorly and has a reputation for treating them badly and for treating customers badly as well. The other doesn't. Which one would you shop at? The nice one, of course. Most nice people would, anyway.

Nice people will even pay a bit of a premium if they think they're supporting niceness. Moral virtue is itself a selling point. In an anarchy virtue will be much better rewarded than it ever is with a government.

The more the government is pulled-back, the more apparent it will become that it is unnecessary and actually counter-productive: that it facilitates the very things we - the people - think it's needed to prevent. — Clearbury

If it's a gradual process then I think the 2008 financial crises is a hard event for you to reckon with. The 2008 financial crises occurred because of a gradual pulling-back of the government on financial regulation.

That's usually how this goes, in my experience.

And, regardless, you've ignored the point I've made about firms enforcing rights -- even if we "gradually" get there your reliance upon private property and contracts makes it such that the state will be reinvented. How else do you enforce contracts other than threatening jailtime?

Generally speaking: The minarchists constantly reinvent the state, but at an even higher price. And, given that the state still exists, are not anarchists.

And, regardless, you've ignored the point I've made about firms enforcing rights -- even if we "gradually" get there your reliance upon private property and contracts makes it such that the state will be reinvented. How else do you enforce contracts other than threatening jailtime? — Moliere

I am not really sure I understand the question. The private sector will provide all of those things. Anything a government provides, the private sector can provide. There is no invisible obstacle preventing private companies from building prisons. If enough people want to pay a company to imprison some people, a private company - private companies - will emerge that will bid for their business. Or, chances are, some much more efficient way of dealing with rights transgressors will be developed.

It's people who come up with solutions, not governments. And violence is something people are capable of using. The point is that it will be used more sparingly and justly in an anarchy than it will be if we all decide instead that just one tiny group of people get to determine when and where to use it.

When it comes to financial crises, governments stepped in. They gave gamblers giant amounts of other people's money. Was that a good thing?

Such crises are caused by, or at least amplified by governments. If I own a bank I am going to gamble much more recklessly if I know that if I'm reckless enough the government will bail me out.

When it comes to financial crises, governments stepped in. They gave gamblers giant amounts of other people's money. Was that a good thing? — Clearbury

You're ignoring what I said to point out a bad thing governments did. I'm fully on board with governments being bad. They suck.

I'm not fully on board with companies providing state services -- sounds like another state.

Yes. I 'hire' electricians. If an electrician just decides to change a lightbulb - without asking me - and then bills me and threatens me with violence if I do not pay, then that's UNJUST. — Clearbury

That's totally reasonable. But not all things are so easy to buy as the service when your lightbulb has gone out. Safety and the perception of safety in a community is one. This is why it's not anymore just a service that an individual can decide to have or disregard. For example, you can go on a trip without travel insurance, but what about your car insurance? That's also for when you drive lousily and wreck somebody else's car. Of course, you can opt not to have a car.

But when it comes the issue of public safety, it isn't just a service you buy. And you cannot opt out like not having a car (and thus not paying the car insurance).

What is to stop large companies from erecting barriers to entry and price-fixing, colluding, and predatory pricing?

Nothing. But nothing stops someone else setting up a company that doesn't do that - and they'd mop up all the business.

It's the government that allows monopolies to develop by being one itself and then delegating monopoly status to others.

What if, as a private security company in an anarchy, I decide to extract payment with menaces? That is, I operate like a mafia? Well, those whom I threaten would hire another security company to protect them - to protect them from such menaces. — Clearbury

Yes, I'll hire my private security company, you hire yours, Moliere will hire another, ssu another, etc.. Then these companies will each be operating for different private interests and a street battle will be inevitable.

We don't have state issued shoes. If we did, they'd be awful.. — Clearbury

Have you ever seen army boots? These are top quality, as is the case with most stuff issued by the military. Why do you think that products issued by the government are necessarily "awful"?

Imagine there are two supermarkets near you, one is run by a really nasty piece of work. It pays its employees poorly and has a reputation for treating them badly and for treating customers badly as well. The other doesn't. Which one would you shop at? The nice one, of course. Most nice people would, anyway. — Clearbury

Are you saying that the government pays poorly, and treats their employees badly? Which government behaves like this?

The private sector will provide all of those things. Anything a government provides, the private sector can provide. There is no invisible obstacle preventing private companies from building prisons. If enough people want to pay a company to imprison some people, a private company - private companies - will emerge that will bid for their business. Or, chances are, some much more efficient way of dealing with rights transgressors will be developed. — Clearbury

I am still waiting for you to address the issue of building roads, expropriating property, and land ownership in general. How is the private sector going to provide for ownership of land? Is each person just going to claim a section, and hire their own private security company to defend it? What happens when I want the same section you want, and there's no deeds? Would we each have to hire our own private company to provide us with a deed?

It's people who come up with solutions, not governments. And violence is something people are capable of using. The point is that it will be used more sparingly and justly in an anarchy than it will be if we all decide instead that just one tiny group of people get to determine when and where to use it. — Clearbury

You must be joking. There would be no prisons, why go through the trouble of trying to organize and maintain prisons, when it's so much easier to shoot first and not have to worry about answering questions later? Your naivety is overwhelming.

Look at what you are saying. You are saying that if every person gets to decide when and where to use violence, there will be much less violence then if only a few people get to decide this. And, I'll add, the government hired "tiny group" have special training.

So, you think that if 100,000,000 people are free to use violence, whenever and wherever they determine it's needed, this will result in less violence overall, than if only 100 people are free to use violence wherever and whenever they determine it's needed. I assume you have some evidence or statistics to back this claim up?

I think there's an argument similar to this which promotes the right to own firearms for defense. The proponents say, that if more people own firearms then there will be less incidences of firearms being used for crime. You should check the statistics on this:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Yes, I'll hire my private security company, you hire yours, Moliere will hire another, ssu another, etc.. Then these companies will each be operating for different private interests and a street battle will be inevitable. — Metaphysician Undercover

yes, because those street battles between competing supermarket chains and banks are really common

Battles are expensive. The private sector hates them. Politicians love them.

Price wars is what you'll get. Those are a lot nicer than bullety ones. And they drive down prices and drive up efficiency. But you run to big daddy state and hope he sorts things for you. The track record is excellent!

Does this site have anyone on it who can actually read what someone says rather than attack strawmen of their own invention? — Clearbury

For me to read your argument, you would have to actually write it down first. All I have are your conclusions that this or that is unjust. But what is the reasoning that got you there?

yes, because those street battles between competing supermarket chains and banks are really common — Clearbury

Did you read my post? I didn't say anything about competing supermarket chains, or banks. I said something about individuals who hire competing private security companies for private interests.

Battles are expensive. The private sector hates them. Politicians love them....
Price wars is what you'll get. — Clearbury

You just spout random ideas with no grounds in reality, Clearbury. Why don't you actually think about some of these things for a while? How could banks or supermarket chains even exist without governance? These entities are features of the type of state that we live in.

What you seem to be doing, is taking all the aspects of our type of state which you dislike, taxes, violence by police, etc., and separating them from the aspects of our type of state which you do like. Then you claim that if we get rid of the governance, "the state" itself, we will rid ourselves of all the negative aspects, and be left with the positive.

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, shatter your illusion, but reality just is not like this. Many "things" have both desirable and undesirable aspects. Annihilating "the thing" which supports these properties does not leave you with the desirable properties, while ridding you of the undesirable. You need to provide for yourself, a more sophisticated approach to this problem, if you want to address it seriously. Have you read Plato's "Republic"? It's very educational, concerning different types of states, different types of people, and justice in general.

Sorry to have to burst your bubble, shatter your illusion, but reality just is not like this. — Metaphysician Undercover

This has been said maybe a dozen times in this thread already. The heart wants what the heart wants: justice without the tyrannies of justice, free market solutions for every problem, infinite resources, zero pollution, the perpetual health of the commons, a future of biological/social evolution without violence, a Jinn that grants 14 wishes in good faith...

Did you read my post? I didn't say anything about competing supermarket chains, or banks. I said something about individuals who hire competing private security companies for private interests. — Metaphysician Undercover

Omg! Apply it to them. As I said, I can't really discuss things with someone like you.

As I said, I can't really discuss things with someone like you. — Clearbury

Sounds like the final nail in the coffin that is this thread.

It's in the opening post. It's not mine, it's a published and respected one.

No, some people aren't worth discussing things with. For example, someone who only attacks strawmen or who thinks everything is just a matter of opinion or someone who doesn't understand the basics of good argumentation. People like that aren't worth the bother because they're just a lot of work - one has to try and educate them, which isn't why I'm here - and are not going to make good and insightful and troubling criticisms of one's view (which is what I'm after). They can discuss among themselves, but I'm not obliged to engage with them, except for sport.

Safety and the perception of safety in a community is one. This is why it's not anymore just a service that an individual can decide to have or disregard. For example, you can go on a trip without travel insurance, but what about your car insurance? That's also for when you drive lousily and wreck somebody else's car. Of course, you can opt not to have a car. — ssu

Yes, the state's existence depends on fear and people's misguided assumption that there are some things - protecting our basic rights - that the state does best. Upon recognizing that this is simply false - that the state police are really awful at their job (due to lack of competition) - as well as unjust is the first step.

Most people have no idea just how bad the police are at solving crimes, for we rarely if ever need them. When was the last time you phoned the police? I've phoned the police once - once - in my entire life thus far. That's not thanks to the police doing a good job. It's due to the fact most people freely respect one another's rights. (How many times have you had the opportunity to get away with stealing something and been tempted to steal it? Personally, virtually never.....and even when I have, I've typically resisted it).

They're appalling at their job and there's no one else to go to, because the state - by virtue of being one - prevents anyone competing to do what they do. Even as individuals we are not allowed to protect our own rights if we so wish. I have a right to punish those who violate my rights, but the state prevents me from exercising that right. It insists that it will do that on my behalf. It does that without asking me, and it does it appallingly badly, and it insists I pay for it.

Omg! Apply it to them. As I said, I can't really discuss things with someone like you. — Clearbury

I've noticed that. I want to focus on reality, talk about the way things are, and allow that to have due bearing on the propositions we make. But you want to keep your mind within your fantasy, and not allow reality to impose itself in any way. Of course that leaves you in no position to discuss anything with someone like me.

People like that aren't worth the bother because they're just a lot of work - one has to try and educate them, which isn't why I'm here - — Clearbury

If you are not here to educate us on why anarchy is praiseworthy, then why are you here? I mean simply praising anarchy is rather pointless, unless you can show why it ought to be praised.

In being an educator you need to assume that the person to be educated has no knowledge of the subject which you profess. Therefore you need to start from the basics, make them very clear, and then move on to the specifics. You are doing the opposite, starting form some very specific assumptions, but then you cannot show any general principles which would support these specific assumptions. So you appear to be lost.

Most people have no idea just how bad the police are at solving crimes, — Clearbury

The assumptions you make are glaringly false, often to the point of being ridiculous. There is no "lack of competition" in the work of solving crimes. Have you not heard of "private investigators"? Anyone can take of the task of solving crimes, there is no monopoly here. So if the police are terribly bad at this task, it is not the result of no competition.

the state's existence depends on fear and people's misguided assumption that there are some things - protecting our basic rights - that the state does best. Upon recognizing that this is simply false - that the state police are really awful at their job (due to lack of competition) - as well as unjust is the first step. — Clearbury

Lack of competition of what? The legality of the laws and legal system?

I think Max Weber understood correctly what is at stake with a state and with it's legality. For Weber the state is defined as a community that successfully claims a monopoly over violence within a geographical area and this state is then required to have legitimate and legal authority that is accepted by the people.

That isn't a transactional issue you simply can choose to buy. It isn't a situation that could be modeled as an oligopoly. And this is where it comes down to the aspect that humans don't act in a society as individuals thinking of just themselves, but as groups that have bonds. If you don't accept that authority of your state, but the vast majority of the people do, tough luck. If nobody accepts the authority of the state, well, the state collapses more quickly than the Soviet Union did. And you will quickly have to reinstate something before it becomes a fight.

When that legality or the legal system simply doesn't exist anymore, people are right to fear.
Even a brief collapse of the states authority makes people different. Just look how people behave when governments collapse or in many countries when a hurricane or earthquake hits the country. It really comes down to the social cohesion in the society. If there isn't that cohesion or it is low, then it's OK to steal from the supermarket. Then it's OK to take from "the rich people". And on the other side, then it's OK shoot a looter.

In order for there to be some kind of transactional service you buy or sell, you simply have to have firm institutions at place. And this is the problem here with the idea of competition of security: you really understand this isn't similar to hiring that electrician. And it really isn't simply the same thing as buying a security firm to watch over you. Security firms providing a service means that there has to exist institutions that uphold the contracts and overall laws. Yet when those institutions don't exist, the "security firms" are quite different: if they have the weapons, they have the power. Will they create and uphold institutions that basically weaken their current position? Likely no. This is the major problem.

Most people have no idea just how bad the police are at solving crimes, for we rarely if ever need them. — Clearbury

Well, in my country they write books and make documentaries about unsolved murders. That's how rare unsolved murders are in my country. I guess last Century there was about ten-twelve or something like that in my country of 5 million. Less than 20 murders were done last year, to give you a comparison. But when my car was broken into, they didn't do anything. Something for the insurance company. Hence the severity of the crime is where police focus.

The effectiveness of the police emerges from the whole society itself. Do people respect the police or are they criminals themselves. As my wife is Mexican and I've been in Mexico many times, I can assure you that police and the societies are very different from Finland, even if the friends and family of my wife are as honest and hardworking as Finns are. It all comes down to those institutions, social cohesion, customs of the land. These all make theoretical micro level ideas of safety as a service very remote from reality.

Even as individuals we are not allowed to protect our own rights if we so wish. I have a right to punish those who violate my rights, but the state prevents me from exercising that right. — Clearbury

Punishment is far different from defense. Defending your life or home is legal. Giving punishment is really another thing. That's really not a right for you to become the judge and make your own laws.

In being an educator you need to assume that the person to be educated has no knowledge of the subject which you profess. Therefore you need to start from the basics, make them very clear, and then move on to the specifics. You are doing the opposite, starting form some very specific assumptions, but then you cannot show any general principles which would support these specific assumptions. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I view anarcho-capitalist libertarianism as a prime example how once a successful ideology (that is liberalism here in question) has achieved it's logical and most justifiable goals, the next "waves" in the thinking that want to go further, simply in the end make it all very silly. Just look at where modern feminism is now after second, third and fourth waves after the Suffragettes. Not many women support the objectives of the fourth wave.

a monopoly over violence — ssu

A monopoly over the *legitimate* use of violence, I believe.

legitimate, legal and accepted by the people as I tried to convey. But we have to still remember that violence is still violence, even if we hope that the threat of violence works for those willing to break laws and the rules of the society.