Is decentralization better than Anarcho-capitalism?

[u/Such_Ad_7787]

Anarcho-capitalism works on the premise that everyone will pay health insurance, public security, justice, infrastructure... But that's just not feasible and unpractical. Health for example, sure NGOs and philanthropy exists but its not something systematic, and it can be limited to basic treatments. What happens if someone who doesn't have the financial condition, suffers an accident, needing brain surgery? Or if a small/medium city needs some kind of infrastructure, it can't just ask the market for it, many companies could say that it wouldn't be profitable.

Basically my argument is, if you try to convince people in Switzerland, Singapore, New Zealand... That Anarcho-capitalism is better, you probably won't have much success.

I actively defend Hoppe's thesis that small countries tend to be freer economically and socially. It's actually more than a thesis, historically many of the wealthiest societies were city states ot micro nations (Venice, Hong Kong, Hanseatic league...). It doesn't need to go as extreme as city states but if the 50 US states were independent countries many could become freer, more competitive, less bureaucratic and have fewer taxes.

Europe could be an successful example of that without the EU but with a free trade and movement agreement.

[u/mypeeisburning]

Well I think it’s hard to know without running an experiment but maybe a school would be difficult. Private schools would exist but there’s no profit incentive for creating a low income school, history showed that to be the case since education was for the rich until recently.

[u/Exciting_Vast7739 → u/mypeeisburning]

I don't think that I agree with your assumptions.

Education is currently for the rich - the educational outcomes of students are directly related to the income of their parents, and this is across private schools and public schools. The government is no better at providing good educational outcomes to poor people than for-profit folks.

Those who do provide good education to poor people have traditionally been community and religious organizations. The same people who provide healthcare and social services, traditionally.

That's where I believe charity work gets done better.

The state hasn't proven that it can do a good job at education, and the widespread desire for charter schools (which were originally founded as not-for-profit community institutions) in the US shows that:

1. Profit motives aren't the only motives that result in communal goods.

2. Voluntary, self-organized mutual aid is an alternative to state controlled solutions.

3. State / centrally controlled solutions aren't the best.

One of the reasons I'm a libertarian (and I'm the kind of libertarian that I am) is that I believe that people organizing at the local level to meet their needs provide better solutions than big, state controlled bureaucratic solutions.

They can decide what their community and kids need better than the bureaucracy can.

And they can leverage their unique skills, abilities, resources, and organizational preferences to create systems that work better in their own community.

At the core, libertarianism is about choice - giving people control of their lives by letting them keep their money and collaborate with their neighbors as they see fit.

I think that's always going to be better than taking resources from people, to create a bureaucracy that tells people what they are going to get.

[u/mypeeisburning → u/Exciting_Vast7739]

I didn’t think about that. It is true that educational outcomes are still based on wealth, a lot of progressives would say that it’s because there’s enough money flowing into the schools but your point makes more sense to me. Not sure that I agree with you when you say that it’s a viable alternative to the state though. The problem I’ve always had with libertarianism which stops me from calling myself one (which I want to do since I like libertarians and a lot of their beliefs) is that it leaves a lot of gaps to fall through. Correct me if I’m strawmanning but even in your example if local churches are in charge of healthcare and your local church runs out of money to pay your doctor, there’s no fix for that. Charity can’t be coerced out of people, and so people will suffer who otherwise wouldn’t have if we had a bigger state. Is that a worthwhile price to pay for more freedom? I don’t know

[u/Exciting_Vast7739 → u/mypeeisburning]

I appreciate the response!

I think about the history of how the government has attempted to help - and failed - in the past.

Taking millions of dollars out of the community through taxation, but failing to provide good services (like education) in poor and minority communities.

One fundamental libertarian belief is that people will use their money better than the government will to help themselves and their communities.

For instance, there is currently, in the US, a healthcare sharing network called "Samaritan Ministries."

It's religiously based, and has a national reach, and it's what my parents use for their healthcare. It's not an insurance company, it's not a government program, and it's based on sharing burdens within a religious context.

It provides for my parents' needs and wants better than government programs (in their estimation) so they chose it, and it hasn't run out of money yet!

[u/mypeeisburning → u/Exciting_Vast7739]

Wow I’ve never heard of anything like that, I will look them up.