Just breakup 'big tech', easy.

What if, to make lawsuits more affordable, we gave every defendant and plaintiff the option for a public attorney, just like for defendants in criminal cases.

And to incentivise the attorneys who work on salary, we offer them a cut of the profits

@Wild Dog no but, there's always one asshole that will become your government official; he/she allows that process, to, not be fair. Throughout because they are out of touch with reality. Now the daily lives of people -; compared to 'tech giants', has been a massive leap.

You can't suddenly have a change in people's thinking, about their lives, about the services they need daily that exsist for the benefit of others and themselves. For example hospital. You may not visit a hospital that many times but you were born in one. Then when you figure out how many people work in a hospital and you compare their pay it's , a whole different set of values or perspective. But, you're not going to make the law suits fair unless you understand, they too need protecting for the sake of the population. And perhaps, the attorneys, are like -: thinking they are more important?

@Wild Dog Here is a nice philosopher whom makes sense of specialisation and morals that we are not able to get back to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejJRhn53X2M

@TEABAG!!! I don't think that the attorneys are *neccesarily* even looking at that from a who's more important in the schema of things.

The two things (medical and litigation) are separate fields, and the latter is used to protect the former in some cases. As the clientele can afford to pay more, the attorney makes more.

@Wild Dog If someone pissed me off enough to take it to the courts I could see giving the public attorney more than half the payout on a win on some moral grounds of just ensuing someone wont get away with out right theft and such.

Yo @mikimof2 the ancap is in. Just let me get comfortable on this throne made of socialist workers...

@Lupinate I would like to know about anarcho-capitalism from the wiewpoint of one, and basically understand how you came to your conclusions

Well, started in 2012, mainly. First and last election I ever bothered to vote in, and my candidate (Ron Paul) got robbed all over the map. So that began my disillusionment. Follow that up with the ndaa of 2012,which abolished habeas corpus conceptually if you are suspected of terrorism. That really made me lose trust in the system.

I was a minarchist libertarian then. Minimal government, but need police and judges and money to be at least somewhat central for civilisation to work. Then bitcoin came out, and my ancap mates had only two markets to prove could be provided in a truly decentralised manner.

And it was a lot of debate, and a lot Austrian economic theory being painstakingly explained in detail, that let me eventually realise markets can technically do it all. The private sector basically does the implementation of policies everywhere in any case.

Ok, but how will you keep private companies from basically becoming nations in their own right? Because that is, at least in my opinion, the consequence of the ancap system

Well, a lot of that is not really just capitalism alone in action. It's capitalism + the state.

It's very, very hard to supply all services to someone that fulfills all demands made within an area. It's a lot easier to focus on one service or good. As such that means there is scope for a lot of competition.

With competition, private companies a) are incentivised to be less corrupt (or lose customers), and b) will struggle to capture its own market or others.

With a state, we have to throw that rulebook out. You have a monopoly in play de facto, so the monopolistic system of management comes to the fore.

The companies then just need to lobby or engage the state to act for it.

That's a lot easier than convincing millions of people you're not just the best service, but the only one.

Ok, but how will the companies not simply replace the state? Without any restrictions they will start cannibalizing each other until we have a few megacorporations that basically dominate over large numbers of people, as there is nothing stopping them from reducing their workers into slavery

Why would they?

Because slaves cost nothing, reducing the cost of production and maximizing profits

So slavery ain't really permitted (unless someone is dumb enough to become a voluntary slave and stay that way) in ancapistan mate. Negative rights are a pillar of it, so unless you consent to it all without coercion (unlikely), it's not really an option. Well, not unless you want your neighbour to feel justified in shooting you for violating others negative rights.

Also to reduce prices & costs , one must have competition in market, so... That disproves your second argument...

As to maximising profits, the rate of roi trends downward, so maintaining profitability becomes harder, not easier, over time.

That's why we always are innovating new ways to make profit off old things.

The fact is that without any regulations companies are completely free to simply impose whatever working conditions they prefer, and it's not like they will set up good ones out of the kindness of their hearts

Why is the state the only entity capable of regulation? Have you never heard of user reviews, user ratings, the percent scores on ebay and amazon?

Any why is it impossible for a market to provide the regulations themselves for other markets?

I see no desirability in making regulations a monopoly provided market.

Justify the need for that monopoly. I'm happy to change my mind, but it better be damn convincing...

Of course the people can influence the market thougth purchases and rewiews, but it's likely that all companies, and not only a few, will set up horrible wotking conditions, just like in the 1800s.
The fact is that all markets require regulation and up to a certain point it can be provided by the buyers, but only if there are alternatives: why did workers accep the 1800s working conditions? Because they were the only ones.
That means that there needs to be a small amount of influence from an external force, in this case the state, to ensure the upholding of basic human rights.

OK so a) why would people give up good working conditions? You act as if the companies can just get skilled labour for free.

B) They didn't accept the conditions. There we a lot of strike actions in the USA, all of which to my knowledge withstood all private intervention, until *the state militias were called in to break the strikes*.

And c) those that did saw the benefit in comparison to how they lived in the 1700s.

So d) why would we give up the labour benefits we set in contracts just because the government isn't there? The contracts still exist without a state mate. So do lawyers. And judges.

Also, if you are going to claim the state protects human rights, explain why the state justified slavery should exist for over 5000 years, before a British judge ruled it was not permitted in either British or common law.

@mikimof2 is the 21st century comparable to the 19th in our cultures in any way? I say no, not really.

As to your consideration "companies will just give workers bad conditions" well, there is nothing stopping people starting a company with better working conditions as a way of distinguishing oneself from the pack. Why do you think devs liked working at Google before they began hemmoraging talent? Free food, great amenities, lots of open spaces and support. They don't have to give it, but if they don't other tech companies will give them similar treatment.

Smes often sell their culture to prospective employees harder than salary these days.

The first argument relies on the assumption that there will be alternative working conditions provided by various companies, which, since the only goal of them is to maximize profits, seems quite unlikely to happen, as they will all gravitate towards the less expensive, hence worse, ones.
The second one assumes that in a completely stateless society there will not be private militias employable by the companies, also, the fact that it was the state that put the strikes down is because they asked the state to impose better working conditions, not the companies.
C) Yes, but due to tecnologic advancements, not the fact that they worked 12 hours a day doing the exact same thing over and over.
D) what makes you think that in a stateless, hence lawless, society, judges will have any kind of power? And who will check that contracts will be respected? We would need some kind of external authority to make sure that the law is upheld, and such authority needs to have the power to chastise and punish those who break it, basically we would need a state.
E) Touche.
F) how will people have the power to create a new company? And what makes you think that companies will simply not force people to work for them? As I said earlier, there will probably be some kind of private militias.

Also, about the culture argument: I was not talking about culture, I was talking about basic human nature

A) the goal is to get the best employees in order to maximise profits. Culture and amenities are a nice benison to a good wage packet, and if everyone is willing to offer your asking price, it's a valid way of edging competition.
B) private defense would be a thing, and is presumed in ancapistan as being a thing. It's also presumed that property rights are respected in ancapistan, so defense providers protect rights, not laws. As such, you are highly unlikely to get bands of merc brigands because of the risk other defense forces will just wipe you out for violating negative rights.