Ayn Rand's Capitalist Paradise Is Now a Greedy Land-Grabbing Shitstorm

[Rassah]

46. Ah, yes, those anarchists :)

There are two types of anarchists:

Anarcho-communists, which is closer to the Occupy types, where nothing is owned, everything is shared, everyone takes care of everyone else, and things are bartered and traded instead of bought and sold for money.
Anarcho-capitalists, who are kind of like randians, but unlike Rand don't think there should be any legalized coercion or violence, and who want to build their world based on the non-aggression principle (no one has the right to initiate force, and everyone has the right to defend themselves), and on the idea of completely voluntary and uninhibited trade.

The general idea behind anarcho-capitalists is that we can manage small scale things just like we manage relationships with our neighbors (we are generally not assholes to each other), and we can manage large scale things the way large businesses handle relationships between and within each other, through contracts, arbitration, "assurance," and most importantly reputation (Assurance is like insurance, except instead of insurance protecting you for others, assurance protects others from you. You would need to have assurance coverage for others to deal with you, and the worse asshole you are, the more expensive your policy). Whether you support it or not, I have found their hypothetical thought experiments on how society could be structured, and what possible consequences could arise, rather fascinating.

The closest thing that was attempted, though not modern, was the Icelandic Commonwealth that lasted from 930 to 1262. There was no government, per se, but representatives you bought in their version of "congress." You paid a subscription to them, and they negotiated general things on your behalf. If they did a bad job, you fired them and hired someone else. This only applied to large, overall, general country-wide stuff, not specific interactions between your neighbors or traders, and thus the amount of work involved was very little, and fee to hire such a rep was very low.

Regarding the two ways, 1) could very well happen, and it does already, but it doesn't last long. Commercial power comes from selling products, and as companies get large, they get comfortable and settled in what they do, shunning innovation for it being "too risky." And new start-ups invariably come in and kick their ass (like digital photo killing Kodak, internet killing AT&T, and even cars killing horse and carriage). As for 2) there will already be centrally accepted ideas of universal rights (respect life and property), but the recourse will likely be whatever the company you hire to protect your rights decides is best for you and cheapest for them. That could be anywhere from going after the perp directly, to negotiating with the perp's own security or assurance company on both of your behalf, to just paying you for whatever damage the perp did, if it's cheaper. So, just having generally accepted rules and guidelines doesn't automatically make it a government. You would need a central body enforcing those rules regardless of what people want for it to be government.

In the Exxon example, you won't be going to Exxon's arbitrators, but to one both you and they agree on. Most likely you won't even be the one going, and instead your security agency will go on your behalf. That agency has many more resources, since it will be a large company with many subscribers, comparable to a home insurance company you have now. Another big difference is that without government, there would not be a government-created concept of "limited liability corporation." Exxon would not be a nebulous entity whose actors are exempt from any harm the corporation does, but will be a group of people who are directly liable for their actions. This applies to everyone, from the careless drill operator who spilled oil onto your back yard, to the company owner who decided to stick that oil well on your neighboring plot against everyone's wishes. In the worst case, there also aren't any police that are forcing you to pay their salaries so they can keep Exxon safe from you. Exxon will have to have their own security, and the more harm they do, the more expensive their security costs will be, due to pissed off people taking things into their own hands.

At least that's the general hypothesis of how things MIGHT work.