A look at anarco capitalism and the issues

1) Child Abuse - It is naively paternalistic to believe that in the grand scheme of things, government is actually successful in preventing this, but since there are some cases where they are...

Obviously it is impossible to predict what would happen under AC, but it is likely that 'common law' would dictate that a child would have the right to divorce his or herself from their parents. Remember, the fundamental property right is self-ownership and this also applies to children. It is likely that there would be organizations created to prevent child abuse and help abused children pursue their emancipation and find new, better homes.


2) Slavery - It seems ridiculous that any arbitrator would render a decision in favor of the slave owner given that the most important property right of any individual is self-ownership, which inherently makes the ownership of another human impossible.


3) National Defense - Defense is not definitively a public good. Since it would be demanded on the market, it would be likely that insurance-based defense companies would be formed. A person like Bill Gates, who has a lot to lose, would likely invest a good amount in defense. A person living in a studio apartment who is barely making a living would likely not contribute or contribute a meager sum, depending on the prospects of invasion. If an invasion were likely, it is logical to assume that the demand for defense would skyrocket, and because the resources would be allocated on the market, they would be used much more efficiently.

Add to this the fact that a successful conquest requires the quelling of frequent ubiquitous guerilla uprisings. Look at the Vietnam War if you need to see how difficult these are to deal with.

I think the propensity to conquer is being vastly overrated. It is fundamentally self-destructive for governments. If it weren't, then states would always make attempts at conquest in order to advance their power. Granted, there are cases in history where people were able to be coerced into aiding conquest, but these are rare in the grand scheme of things and can be suppress through the market, rather than coercive means.


4) Intellectual Property - It is likely that copyrights would survive and patents would be done away with. This would be in the area of "common law", but I would imagine that arbitrators would show discretion on these matters. Remember, in the current system, copyrights are established at the time of creation, not when they are filed for (which is something of a formality).


5) Criminal cases – Each the defendant and the plaintiff would have the right to have their case tried in from of their own courts. Now, if both courts decided the same verdict, the case would be settled. If the courts came to different verdicts, then they would have to agree on an appeals court. It is likely that the general consensus would be that the decision of two courts at any time would be deemed final. Again, this is common law and may vary from area to area, region to region.

Suppose either party decides to go to an arbitrator who is not reputable (his brother, a known dishonest judge etc…). This judgment simply wouldn’t be accepted by the rest of society and ignored. A decision only means something if people accept it.

It is likely that there would be a few large arbitration firms, all of which would be generally accepted. They would be set integrated with various appeals courts. Thus, Arbitration Firm A and Arbitration Firm B always agree to do appeals with Appeals Court A.