Is the term "anarcho-communist" an oxymoron?

obvious Child said:

What's stopping firms from colluding to take power? What's stopping them from just shooting their competition? Nothing. Your idea makes no sense in the context of how humans actually operate. When there is nothing to stop being from acting badly, they act badly. Your argument resides on the principle that people are inherently good, that firms won't collude, that they won't kill their competition. What's stopping them from shooting each other in the face? Nothing.

Click to expand...

Once again your argument seems to be that because a monopoly on the use of force might form due to collusion between individual security firms it is less preferrable to the monopoly on the use of force that already exists in the form of the state. I'll refer you once again to the Friedman quote:

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around - that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply'." -- David Friedman

At the moment, no. But it was and without state support.

Click to expand...

So Apple went out of business at one point? What are you talking about? How was microsoft a monopoly? They had a large market share but it wasn't a monopoly and it wasn't due to unfair trade practices it was because they provided a superior product and a reasonable price.

And we can legislate laws to limit that.

Click to expand...

And what stops the military and police forces from ignoring these laws any more than a private institution?

Your proposal has no method of recourse. Your proposal has no method to control groups who do not play by the rules. Your proposal is nothing more then Despotism.

Click to expand...

Your system is already despotism. Your argument boils down to "potential monopoly on the use of force bad, existing monopoly on the use of force good."

"Private defense service employees would not have the legal immunity which so often protects governmental policemen. If they committed an aggressive act, they would have to pay for it, just the same as would any other individual. A defense service detective who beat a suspect up wouldn’t be able to hide behind a government uniform or take refuge in a position of superior political power. Defense service companies would be no more immune from having to pay for acts of initiated force and fraud than would bakers or shotgun manufacturers. ... Because of this, managers of defense service companies would quickly fire any employee who showed any tendency to initiate force against anyone, including prisoners. To keep such an employee would be too dangerously expensive for them. A job with a defense agency wouldn’t be a position of power over others, as a police force job is, so it wouldn't attract the kind of people who enjoy wielding power over others, as a police job does. In fact, a defense agency would be the worst and most dangerous possible place for sadists! Government police can afford to be brutal—they have immunity from prosecution in all but the most flagrant cases, and their “customers” can’t desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency. But for a free-market defense service company to be guilty of brutality would be disastrous. Force—even retaliatory force—would always be used only as a last resort; it would never be used first, as it is by governmental police." -- The Market For Liberty

Who needs customers when we can just take their stuff? Who needs to pay for anything when we can just execute anyone who gets in our way? Who needs to even play by the rules when we have more guns then you? You think PMCs act to protect. And there's where your argument fails. Nothing is stopping PMCs from taking what they want when they want.

Click to expand...

Actually there is nothing stopping public police forces from doing that, in fact they already do that and are insulated from reprecussions behind the protective shield of the state.

Except there was no government. Do you know what anarchy means? Unlike Civil wars between defined groups, such as a suceeding government or rebel factions, Somalia was little more then a free for all.

Click to expand...

No Somalia resulted from the oppression of the existing state under the tyrant Siad Barre, this led to the civil war between two major participants the failed state of Siad and the United Somali Congress led by Aidid. Actually the only thing that led to some semblance of a return to stability after the government completely collapsed is when citizen militias formed into private security firms who provided protection for hire, during this time services and goods were all provided by private businesses as well. The civil war between state actors caused the catastrophe that is Somalia; whereas, anarcho-capitalism brought them back from the brink.

And why you'll get rolled over by people with more guns.

Click to expand...

You mean how each and everyone of us gets rolled over by the state every single day?

obvious Child said:

And the big PMC would just execute them. What's stopping that from happening? Nothing.

Click to expand...

Once again this magical "big PMC" wouldn't be able to form without the aid of the state.

Well the ideals of anarcho-communism rely on the idea that man is for the most part good and that a man will help his fellow man

So Apple went out of business at one point? What are you talking about? How was microsoft a monopoly? They had a large market share but it wasn't a monopoly and it wasn't due to unfair trade practices it was because they provided a superior product and a reasonable price.

Click to expand...

Microsoft was held to be an abusive monopoly in a court of law. They got away with a slap on the wrist, but their abusive behavior with OEM's was blatantly anti-competitive.

United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

rathi said:

Microsoft was held to be an abusive monopoly in a court of law.

Click to expand...

And the court of law didn't even know the definition of the word monopoly FYI this bull**** decision was overturned on appeal.

They got away with a slap on the wrist, but their abusive behavior with OEM's was blatantly anti-competitive.

United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

They got away with a slap on the wrist because they agreed to a settlement, the decision against Microsoft was overturned because it was a crock of ****.

So what happens if I don't have the money for a private security firm?

stinagen said:

Well the ideals of anarcho-communism rely on the idea that man is for the most part good and that a man will help his fellow man

Click to expand...

This idea, however, is most likely completely invalid, dispite any wishes to the contrary.

And the court of law didn't even know the definition of the word monopoly FYI this bull**** decision was overturned on appeal.

Click to expand...

More falsehood. The court overturned the maximum liability Microsoft was responsible for, but there was no dispute over the facts that microsoft was a monopoly and abused their position.

They got away with a slap on the wrist because they agreed to a settlement, the decision against Microsoft was overturned because it was a crock of ****.

Click to expand...

Actually, the DOJ from the new administration decided to slap microsoft on the wrist instead of actually doing anything about the problem.

rathi said:

More falsehood. The court overturned the maximum liability Microsoft was responsible for, but there was no dispute over the facts that microsoft was a monopoly and abused their position.

Click to expand...

The judges entire decision was overturned and the case was remanded to another court and then the DOJ decided they weren't interested in the case any more and offered Microsoft a settlement. Furthermore; Microsoft was never a true monopoly to begin with as there were operating system competitors; such as, Apple.

Actually, the DOJ from the new administration decided to slap microsoft on the wrist instead of actually doing anything about the problem.

Click to expand...

Microsoft had to agree to the settlement, they won their case on appeal. Microsoft could have told them to screw off and have the state try them in a higher court.