— Ron Paul (via libertyidaho)
Rule of law is FUCKING NECESSARY to have a successful free market. You need a goddamn fair playing field. Yes, it is hard to draw the line at government intervention. BUT RUNNING A GODDAMN COUNTRY IS HARD.
Rule of law is necessary? Do you have proof for that or just assertion? Yes, “rule of law”-based intervention did prove successful for the markets that lead to, say, the great depression. Or our most recent recession how ‘bout?
Ah, wait, no.
Where government and capitalism exist together, corporatism is inevitable. What the left constantly projects as being “capitalism” is, as most will agree, actually corporatism. (The contrasting definitions were only recently clarified for myself.) The money-grubbing dudes getting protested on Wall Street are not capitalists, they are corporatists. They have used government mingling and Keynesian economics to gain unfair advantages within the market.
So wouldn’t it stand to reason that if we were to remove the government, instead of turning politics into corporatist monarchy, the capitalists would just revert back to the days of lords and serfs? Not quite. You see, society is, and always has been, organized from the bottom up. This is what makes ideas such as Marxism seem appealing. To the authoritarian/statist mind, however, this seems chaotic and wholly incorrect. Our world’s religions have told us constantly that it was organized from the top down, that a creator planned and designed our world first. And during the days of crown rule, it was in the king and queen’s best interests to make the peasants think that they were the subjects to the crown.
Now, while there are schools of capitalism (ex. Keynesian) that believe in top-down control (which gives rise to exploitation, to the concept of the government needing to intervene, of a country being ran by an authority), from what I’ve seen of anarcho-capitalism, there is absolutely no room for it. Because when control is coming from the top of the social pyramid, it must be delivered through coercion.
You say we need a fair playing field? That’s exactly what anarcho-capitalism would achieve that is non-existent in our mixed, corporatist economy. Inextricably intertwined with the anarcho-capitalist philosophy are the ideas of agorism and voluntaryism. Complete non-aggression. This doesn’t imply some sort of pacifist, egalitarian, communist ecotopia, but rather a society where if you don’t want to do something you don’t have to. You don’t want to work on a farm? That’s alright, we’ll find someone else, and you can crash with whatever family and friends will have you. You don’t have to worry about becoming a wage slave, coerced into working for some predatory monopoly. In a free market, monopolies cannot emerge. For one corporation to buy out another requires financial set backs which would only increase the competition in the business’ field. Monopolies of the private property variety can only emerge when the state intervenes on the behalf of Corporation A, or Corporation B or C or whatever.
In top-down social structure, i.e. the state, the playing field can only become imbalanced if the top of the social pyramid makes it tip - in our current structure this means the predatory corporations and the governments they own (although, with the increase of socialization, more and more the government is turning into the predatory monopoly).
The anarcho-capitalist instead believes in bottom-up control. Non-coercive, non-exploitative. The playing field can only become uneven if the mass of people desire it to be so; and we know, from recent events (Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street, ect.) that the mass of people do not desire this.
Wow, this was a lot longer than expected. I totally understand if this is a “tl;dr” situation (I know I would personally pass b it). But, hey, there’s my 4-in-the-morning intellectual stimulation. I’ll be off to bed after trying to sum up this whole thing as best I can: "Without the state, corporatism cannot exist, meaning capitalism cannot devolve into exploitation/coercion/wage slavery. This means that the rule of law is absolutely detrimental to the free market, as it is established on the foundations of top-down control that lead, unavoidably, to statism and corporatism."
Good night all.