This post is an adjunct to an essay refuting the theoretical basis and practicality of “anarcho-capitalism” or “market anarchy.” It is a reproduction of a discussion on a public area of reddit. I am Sword_of_Apollo and I am debating Liber-TEA, a proponent of anarcho-capitalism.
RobO2112: A truly Objectivist government wouldn’t be in the business of telling people what to do and how to do it; government, as understood by Objectivists, has one purpose and that is to protect the rights of individuals from coercion and fraud, and nothing else. So it’s kind of an odd question. To an Objectivist it would read like, “What would an Objectivist government do with people who do not consent to having their rights protected from force and fraud?” And I have to venture that the answer would be, “nothing, so long as they do not violate anyone else’s rights.”
Liber-TEA: But what if I disagree with the application of that, or I disagree with a particular law ideologically?
Sword_of_Apollo: Then you have to speak, reason, persuade. If the government allows people to opt out every time they disagree, then any criminal can get away with murder by invoking the fact that he disagrees with the idea that what he did should be punished. If the government allows people to opt out at all from its ultimate authority, (even if they have not yet committed a crime) then it has nullified its own ability to protect rights.
If the person sets up laws that are coercive, and the government says, “Oh, we’ll just make a compromise between your laws and ours,” then imagine what kind of destruction would be wreaked on justice.
What would a “compromise” look like between one law system that protects children from honor killings, and another that allows them? The parents get to cut off the child’s right arm and completely destroy her genitals?
Liber-TEA: And what if you can’t persuade me?