Depends what do you mean by wrong @Will

does it hurt the kids for two men to adopt a child, yes

is it morally wrong for someone to be attracted towards the person with the same sex, no

But as I've said i have some concerns

BUT TRUMP IS THE RACIST

thats not how it works. god does not do everything for you

even though I'm not that of a traditional Christian i understand that

A lot of people argue that it is a sin transfered through out generations

In short and simple, your grandparents did something fucked up, thus your grandkids will suffer

"suffer" isn't the right word but you get the memo

What are your thoughts on anarcho capitalism

gov abolished and free market runs everything

competition

not really since theres no gov

for example different institutions would propose rights

and those rights would be "enfourced" by private courts

Why do you think it would fail? Are you proposing it is utopian?

Fair enough

Trhe whole premise of it is for it to not be as organized as the gov so it cannot have a monopoly on force like the gov has.

yes?

warfare is expensive. It produces rather unpredictabe results as you can imagine. So from the standpoint of both firms it makes much more sense to agree on a private court, that will settle disputes between them

yes but the cost of it would outweigh the benefit

and even their private rights enforcment agencies would agree on that

smaller governments? Not really since competition woudl stop that from happening since government create monopolies, monopolies are impossible in free markets.

There would be different kind of militias

and yes

different firms would try to top over each other with better protection

gov has no incentives

if it monopolizes, but as ive stated monopolies are impossible in free markets. Govs create monopolies so that would not happen

a militia from a single firm?

https://mises.org/wire/many-ways-governments-create-monopolies

what do you mean by that

there would be different kinds of militias from different kinds of firms. They could get bigger but it all comes down to the consumers choice. There will be those firms who would go bankrupt, but if there is competition there would not be just a single militia

for exmaple

lets say that there are two countries, and one is anarcho capitalist

i think i understand what youre saying?

Youre not saying they would monopolise it youre saying that they could just defend the city?

yes

or are you saying that they could go tyrannical?

and just get ahold of the city and no one could defend

That's already the government

a gov can do that

a gov has the monopoly on force

and since there is no competition and no private militias rising for competition no one could stop them

why would it be beneficial for private firms

you said that like 10 times

yes

thats why i want to abolish the gov

i sounded like a communist there wtf

yes and those private armies would be owned by firms

who have high incentives to innovate

yes

businesses in general if there is competition and profits have huge incentives to innovate and keep their cost down

what

yes

how would we have more control of the gov if there is no gov

lol

private firms that have a hold of private militias?

same thing that stops them now

sid

why do you have the role american if you said youre from the uk like 10 mins ago

what

yes

were talking about anarcho capitalism here?

competition

and no one would buy t hem

other companies would take advantage of the situation

and sell at lower prices

and boom demand

no that would be a monopoly what youre talking about. And monopolies are impossible in free markets as ive stated. And they wouldn't. That argument could be appliked to the gov

The gov can foprcibly take property from peopel

right now

they already do

use force

taxation

What? IF who wasnt big enough? And yes the could go tyrannical but what would be the point of that first of all. And the second thing, as i've stated private firms, different private firms would go against these people. If you're stating that it is impossible for, lets say a high number of firms who have a high number of people working for them as militias, how is it possible for a normal military? It is more of less the same thing however those firms have high incentives to innovate and keepo the costs low since competition, the only difference is that since competition would exist, a single firm would not get as organized as the gov

and monopolise force

thats the whole point of anarcho capitalism

they wouldnt get tyrannical since they wouldnt be a monopoly

and yeah private police exists but theyre never gonna get as popular

for now

since theres gov

Or how about a scenario where a large army takes over an area and government military isn't able to combat it

why

why would they be rare and those wouldnt

how

since they have more incentives

profits, competition, innovation etc

no how are they weaker

those have more incentives

and

they could not get tyrannical

since they wouldnt ever be able to form a monopoly

how are they weaker

how do they not have as many recourses? how does the gov have

What? Yes? And that is my point. They have a monopoly on basically everything. What stops them from going tyrannical. So to answer your other "question" about them nto being as effective. Those companies would be able to get to these resources, since nothing would stop them from getting them since they have incentives since competition. So they would be as effective as the government military

even more