The Epstein-Huemer Debate on Anarcho-Capitalism

It was difficult to follow because of the audio. This proves that it is necessary a new Federal Agency for debates and microphones. Youtubers need regulation and taxes.

I wonder if Epstein would have won if the debate had taken place outside New York. For example, in Maui both debaters would have lost the debate, and perhaps both would have been put in prison. But who goes to Maui for a debate.

I disagree that the US military could pose a menace to the world in the future. Too much weapons for too few people, most of whom are medicated and cannot concentrate enough to follow orders, and seem to have too delicate emotions to go to war. Computers and robots, on the other hand…

China and Russia are more dreadful, because people there seem a little more cogent.

Can any Anarcho Capitalist explain to me if in an Anarcho capitalist society there can be slaves?

Slavery is perfectly compatible with AC, isn’t it?

Alex,

For most anarcho-capitalists, Michael Huemer included, anarcho-capitalism is a prediction: For a wide range of existing or plausible societies, if government disappears, the result would be a society which is approximately libertarian. Since anarcho-capitalists are libertarians, that’s an important reason why they’re in favor of anarchy. (Another important reason is that governments have to initiate force to maintain their monopolies.) So asking if slavery is compatible with anarcho-capitalism is kind of like asking if observations of faster than light particles are compatible with the standard model in physics. That’s not what the theory says should happen.

Kind of like, but not exactly. As Michael Huemer talked about at the beginning of his argument, anarcho-capitalists make weaker claims than physicists do. They believe that slavery would have a tough time existing in many real or realistic societies without political authority, but concede that it’s possible to conceive of anarchies where slavery would exist or even thrive. Perhaps there’s a world in which a large majority feels strongly that a small minority exists to serve them. Under those circumstances plus anarchy, there would be slavery. Of course, given those circumstances, very few governments would prevent slavery either.

And we do know that government is compatible with slavery because they have in fact coexisted, even when the government was supposedly founded on libertarian(ish) principles, as the United States was. Furthermore, as Jeffrey Hummel argues in Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, slavery in the U.S. was sustainable only while the government subsidized it through the Fugitive Slave Acts and (in the south) conscription into slave patrols. I dare say blacks in antebellum America could have benefitted from at least smaller and weaker government.

Alex, Eric – The slavery is compatible, and it would almost certainly exist in anarcho-capitalist society. It is enough that very few people (maybe one only) want slaves and very few women (maybe one only) are willing to born children and leave them for money.

The landlord who wants the slaves pays to woman to born child on his land and go away. Very few women would do that, but some would. The landlord rises the child. When child is grown up, the landlord reduces his food on little bread and water, not enough for long term survival – and offers significantly better conditions if child signed the contract that he will work for a lifetime whatever landlord demanded.

The child is free to leave. But when he tries, the neighbor (the landlord’s collaborator) do not allow trespass. The child is left with choice – slow death or slavery contract. Furthermore, all slave’s children will be the slaves on the same way.

Greg G, you’re confusing recommendation with prediction. I said that the nuclear weapons need to be dismantled before the government is abolished. This is obviously true. I did not predict (still less “assume”) that either of these things will in fact happen.

I certainly don’t think it’s absurd to think that this could and should be done.

I also didn’t say “everyone is far too rational to do that.” I pointed out that all the actual WMD’s that have ever been built have in fact been built by governments. This is an appeal to empirical evidence, not some absurd a priori faith in “rationality”. And I didn’t say “no worries.” I pointed out that since government is the actual source of all WMD’s they are prima facie the biggest threat to worry about.

There is nothing naive, utopian, or rationalistic about my approach. People like Epstein and Mark Skousen like to say that because they only hear the word “anarchist” and then ignore everything else that I actually say. I have always said that there will be risks and imperfections, and bad people doing bad things, in any social system. It is a question of which system has the larger problems.

Typical minarchist vs anarchist debate, no authoritative direction to ensure quality audio video and live streaming to the world.

These guys are in a nation state the size of a library room. Just make sure we have lots of books in the backdrop to make us look smart!

If you ever wonder why we live in a statist world compare the backdrop of the state’s propaganda (school classrooms, coordination, flags, uniforms, tall buildings, stuff Huemer writes about) vs anarchist.