Net neutrality

> Well yeah, your victims pay for it.

That's not what I meant. I meant that when a country starts a war, it's not politicians who pay for it. Citizens pay for wars with their taxes. Politicians simply sell them a war, while not investing any money of their own. In fact, what happens is, politicians make money, because there are companies who benefit from wars (oil, military equip and tech), so they lobby politicians. If politicians or companies had to pay for wars out of their own profits, there would be no wars.

> In theory Capitalism distributes the most to those who provide the most, which sounds great.

That's a misunderstanding. A rich person can only spend that much for himself (even then, by buying things, he actually creates jobs). He then has to invest into something he believes to be sustainable. Thus, I see businessmen as ultimate redistributors. They proved on the market they're good at handling money, thus they deserve to have more of them. Politicians only proved they can manipulate public opinion and you are entrusting them your own and someone else's tax money. I don't think it's a good idea at all.

> And you think a society that would pass such a vote would be any kinder in a free market

Yes, because in a free market the redheads would be able to legally invest money of their own to protect themselves from other people, who wish to kill them. With government, since it has the monopoly on protection and laws, no such thing would be possible. In other words, in a completely free market minorities are able to put a price tag on them being discriminated against, while when you have government, they would actually be paying for their own discrimination. Gay people have been paying taxes just like everyone else, yet until some point, it was even illegal to be gay, not even talking about marriage.

>No, my whole point is that access to services is a form of freedom

Very well. Even by your definition then, when government takes a portion of my money as tax for the services I don't use or disagree with (like wars) it takes away my freedom to use other services I consider good.

The crucial distinction is force. Government is force that is abused because it's so centralized. Government is telling other people what they can or cannot do, how they can or cannot spend their money and what services they can or cannot use. It doesn't matter what you consider freedom to be. With government some may indeed get a little more "freedom", but always at the expense of someone else and always with people in the government benefiting most from their position. I'm simply against this redistribution, because it is based on a system that is inherently unfair and broken. No, it cannot be fixed.

I think you've misunderstood my question then. I never mentioned wars. I'm asking why these entities with the power to violently coerce others would operate friendly protection agencies, instead of simply stealing from everyone around them?

I consider this a pretty obvious and fundamental flaw with anarcho-capitalism, and I've never heard a coherent argument against it, so I'd really appreciate an answer here.

> He then has to invest into something he believes to be sustainable.

Which works pretty well in our current situation where you have a bunch of regulations in place to stop them abusing that power. They can't use violence. They can't lie to consumers. They can't make dangerous products. They can't abuse their workers. You only have to look at developing countries to see how companies operate outside these restrictions.

> Thus, I see businessmen as ultimate redistributors.

Except nothing gets redistributed. They invest, and unless they fail, they get even more money back. And after a certain point, they can even leave the investment to other people. Then you have a bunch of rich people doing nothing, but enjoying the majority of the wealth. Their investments may slowly improve life for the poor, but the massive inequalities remain.

> Yes, because in a free market the redheads would be able to legally invest money of their own to protect themselves from other people, who wish to kill them.

Yet again, assuming they have any money. If your hypothetical society hates redheads to the point of wanting them dead, then I would expect them to be incredibly poor, since their ability to participate in the market would be extremely limited.

> With government some may indeed get a little more "freedom", but always at the expense of someone else

Freedoms always come at the expense of other freedoms. Freedom from slavery means limiting the freedom to keep slaves, but I think most people are happy with that. There will always be trade-offs, the question is how we decide which freedoms are more important than others.

Can you explain why you think the freedom to decide how the last 10% of your income gets spent is more important than the freedom to eat?

> No, it cannot be fixed.

Why not? I have already suggested the solution (direct democracy) and your only objection is that it allows the majority to abuse the minority, but you haven't explained how capitalism fixes that.

And what do you think a government is? They're monopolies on violence that have existed for a long time in an otherwise free market. If demand for an alternative was enough to defeat a protection racket monopoly, then surely the same argument would apply to governments? Is there any argument you can make for why governments haven't been out-competed, that couldn't equally well apply to a private protection agency?

> If they buy stuff, they create jobs.

In an increasingly post-labour society, this is not necessarily the case. You might buy a machine that eliminates many jobs, and creates far fewer.

> Now if the majority in a society with a state hates redheads, wouldn't they pass laws that would restrict redheads from escaping the poverty?

Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My point is that there are ways for the majority to hurt the minority in both cases, so it's not an argument against democracy.

> you can't do good by forcing other people to do it

Of course you can. If someone is about to kill someone else, and you stop them, in what way have you not done good? Why is the situation any different when it involves property? If someone is withholding surplus food from a starving man, they are just as much a murderer as if they stabbed them.

> If you don't think it's ok, why do you believe it's okay for the government to do the same on my behalf?

Because the government's actions are approved of by a majority of society.

> How is it more humane or fair to you?

Because in your society, if I have no money, I die. In my society, if I have no money, I survive.

Private protection agencies do have the threat of force though, so they can force people to pay to sustain them. And clearly it must be sustainable, because governments exist.

Or do you think there some magical property of things called "governments" which protects them from the market forces you claim something called a "private protection agency" would be subject to? In what way are they different?

> Did somebody build that machine?

For now. My point is that as capital overtakes labour as the primary factor in production, using jobs as a means of wealth distribution will no longer be effective.

> Doesn't that situation incentivize people to learn more sophisticated skills?

And how will they learn those skills if they have no money?

>Please re-read it and I'd really like to hear your response to that.

You threw out some arbitrary numbers with no real basis. Why does it take 90% of society to harm the minority in a free market but only 70% in state?

The actual difference is that in a democratic state, you need a majority of people to harm a minority. Whereas in a free market, you need a majority of capital. If capital is evenly distributed, then they will be roughly even, but if there is massive inequality, then genocide could easily be committed in a free market with support of only 1% of society.

>So, if the government approved me robbing you directly, you'd be okay with it too?

Why would they come to such a decision? Why would society at large care about you and me in particular? If you mean as part of some wider social program, and I happen to have more wealth than you, then I would be happy to share it.

>That's actually not true. In my society there are friends and relatives. Individuals have responsibility to help others, not some abstract government or society.

Right, and what if they don't have any money to spare either? Or simply don't want to help me? I still die.

To condense my question: Doesn't the existence of stable governments demonstrate that monopolies on violence are a sustainable business model?

(Indeed, by your own argument, one could conclude that there must be market demand for the existence of current governments, otherwise they would be out-competed?)

>I first looked at what would happen in both societies if 90% hated a minority, then looked at what would happen if only 70% hated a minority, again, in both stateless and statists societies.

With no real basis for either conclusion. You just assert that a free market where 70% of people hate redheads would be totally fine, because they can still trade with the remaining 30%. Which says nothing about the far far more important factor of wealth distribution.

>This is because they can buy election campaigns and control public opinion through the media they own. Then, when politicians are voted in with their help, they get the laws they wish to be passed. Suppose a billionaire wishes to commit a genocide. What do you think is going to be cheaper: directly finance the genocide or influence a public opinion and sponsor a politician who would do it for him using taxpayers money? Of course the former is the cheaper route!

(I'm assuming you meant latter?)

If people are apparently so gullible in their political decisions, what makes you think they won't be equally gullible in their financial ones? If it's possible to convince people to vote for genocide, then surely it's equally possible to create market demand for genocide?

>"without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions".

To be honest, this kind of statement just highlights the naivety I see in anarcho-capitalist arguments: "If only there were no tyrants, everything would be better." But in a world with power imbalances, there will always be more tyrants.

Democracy is the only system we have seen which attempts to solve this fundamental problem of power imbalance.