Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[Renton]

Sorry I've been busy and have lacked internet and now I finally have a chance to respond to some of these.

All of these questions hold that certain taboos of the current generation will never be broken, but if we're going to explore true unfettered capitalism and lay blame at the governments feet at each opportunity, let's get a little cutthroat about it.


A recently privatized town has monopolist fire-service. A man so wealthy and scrupulous that he has kept any competition from lifting a head. Is it fair that when your house catches on fire, firefighters will come and bid to buy the home from you at a heavily discounted price? And if you refuse, they move on to the neighbors and bid to protect their homes from the fire that will likely destroy yours?


Two men in good standing agree to an MMA style duel. Each has agreed to submit himself into the service of the other for the remainder of his days, forfeiting all rights and properties to him. Is this fair? After the fight, the man seeks to attain the fair market value of his slave at auction, is this fair?


Can armies be instruments of profit? If not, what will stop them?


This is less about making a point and more about coloring in this hypothetical world.

In your fire-service example I'm skeptical of the ease with which a local monopoly like that could ever emerge in a modern capitalist society. Yeah I'm sure its possible for a really wealthy asshole to waste massive amounts of resources just to spite his local neighbors, but is this something that really ever would happen?

The MMA example interests me greatly. First of all, no matter what you or I think of the fairness or humanity of that, they did both agree to it. The second part of the example violates the non-aggression principle that most anarcho-capitalists find to be a bedrock principle. The two MMA fighters agreed to the servitude so it's not coercive or aggressive, but it seems to me like the sale of the slave isn't legal. I guess it depends on the exact stipulations of the agreement.

What it sounds like to me is not slavery, but indentured servitude, which IMO should be legal. Indentured servitude would most likely greatly benefit the people that agree to it, 99.999% of which would be people in third world shitholes. Again, this is all assuming the non-aggression principle is followed.

Can armies be instruments of profit? Of course. But in a completely private society there would be no need for offensive armies, and where there isn't a need, there isn't a service. Armies can only profit where there are those that are willing to pay them. Currently, societies are coerced through taxation and poor representation, and convinced through state-based propaganda, to pay for armies.