Could a strong a free market replace government?

Question

Basically anarcho-capitalism. Could insurance companies and contracted defense agencies replace a government?

Answer 1

I think we'd all be surprised how quickly everything in society would degenerate without government monitoring, or the threat of stiff penalties.

I think society, especially business, is like insects trying to get into your home. Every day, hour and hour, they are working inexorably, silently, trying to find that one route to get inside. It's the same thing with business. They are always strategizing about how to beat the system, how to cheat just enough to not get fined or thrown in jail, but beat their competition.

Remember the Savings & Loan debacle in the 1980s? A scary number of banks became insolvent because they had been playing fast and loose with the rules. If one more major bank had failed, the government might not have been able to salvage the economy. They didn't have enough capital to replace what was owed. Without a government to threaten stiff fines and legal action, companies would become increasingly like illegitimate rogue criminals.

As much as I want a smaller government, we need courts, a military, centralized planning for infrastructure like roads, bridges, and ports. Without a government to provide all this, the infrastructure of society would quickly deteriorate and society would start becoming very Third-Worldish.

C_Millionaire gave the most amazingly concise and excellent explanation, and Neo Libertarian finished off explaining most of the problems of being without a government. I hope I added a modest bit to C_Millionaraire's astute observation.

Answer 2

The drive to replace democratic government with private enterprise is a symptom of the growing power of the capitalist class in traditionally democratic countries. When the capitalist class grew too powerful in nations with monarchies, they also attempted to assert their influence, believing they should have more power, and the king should have less. The same goes in democracies - wealthy business leaders believe they should have more power and the voting public should have less.

I personally have no problem with a market economy or smaller government. However, the difference between anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-syndicalists is how much democracy they're willing to preserve. Anarcho-capitalists want to divide up society into private dictatorships, ruled by CEOs. Anarcho-syndicalists want to replace private dictatorships with democratically run companies, thus preserving rule by the people and self-determination.

Answer 3

No. That notion has been floating around for a long time--and is no more workable than having no government at all. Both are utopian fantasises--and every time someone has attempted to put such ideas into practice, the fantasy has promptly turned into a nightmare.

The reason is simple--there is no simplistic solution to a society's problems. You must have a division of power--maintained by a system of checks and balances--or you end up with a few individuals having absolute poweer. And that equals dictatorship. And--despite what would-be despots always claim--there is no such thing as a "benevolent" dictattorship.

Answer 4

no! of course not. first of all, money would become worthless, because it's only the government's guarantee that makes it worth anything at all. second off, all businesses would stop investing in long-term projects, because there would be no economic stability. and what would stop the defense agencies from deciding they want to run everything as a kind of dictatorship or authoritarian government? nothing. this is such a terrible idea, it would lead to an all-out war

Answer 5

You'd still need a supreme court, federal courts & federal laws like the US constitution, some type of US military & a Sec. of State. But besides that, yes a strong free market could replace 95% of the current US Govt.

Answer 6

Not entirely, but mostly.

The few exceptions are law enforcement, disaster recovery (including fire departments) and infrastructure (roads) which would be difficult to fit into a privatized model.

But most other services, including health care and most defense functions, could be handled by private contractors.