: You might look into libertarianism a little deeper. Libs want to get rid of a lot more than government rules on corporations. In fact, most libertarians want to get rid of absolutely everything the government does except for defense.
Right, defensse of the property rights of the rich, regardless of the suffering and envionmental damage that result.
: Anarcho-capitalists wouldn't have the government do that either.
The capitalists would do it for themselves (they don't need the government).
: Basically, an anarcho-capitalist is someone who would do away with government all together (which would seem implicit in the term "anarchy"), but understands that private property is simply a fact of life which a.) doesn't need government and b.) can't be gotten rid of, and any attempt to do so necessarily involves an expansive totalitarian government. See Russia, Cuba, China, and well hell, anywhere the socialist experiment has been seriously attempted.
Personal possesions are a fact of life. The control of the means of production is not. Allowing these means to be controled by a few individuals does not increase the freedom of the vast majority of the people, instead it reduces it as the people must be dependent on selling themselves to those who own the property at whatever terms the owners will accept.
: : : Anarchists on the left like to think that "rule" means all hierarchy, which apparently includes rules of property ownership. Unfortunately, property is one of those things which is genuinely impossible to do away with. It rules us in the same sense that hunger or the weather rule us. (There is a hierarchy in our bodies which sometimes puts the needs of the stomach over the needs of, say, your foot. There is a hierarchy in the weather wherein the needs of the thunderstorm pay no heed to your desire not to get wet.)
: : So, the best thing to rememdy this situation is to have a self-appointed and nepotistic class of property owners to distribute the scarce resources? Yes, the sweet smell of freedom.
: No, that would be a government. The best thing to do is to let people's freely chosen market transactions allocate the scarce resources.
What gives a small minority of people (capitalists) the right complete acess to these scare resources and all the rest dependent on these people. THe market system is based on wealth, not need. As a result, luxuries are produced for the wealthy while the basic needs of the poor are not met. Scarce resourses controlled by demorcratic means and distributed on base of need, not wealth.
: : I don't believe you can't see the difference between a boss threatening me with starvation and the weather threatening my buildings/plans (i.e., insurance terms, "acts of God"). You must be able to see this, so you are simply arguing your point. Rock on.
: I'll concede that one involves a relationship between two people and one between a single person and forces of nature. But, a boss can't threaten you with starvation. He can threaten to stop exchanging with you (fire you), but that should be everyone's free right. (What is freedom if not the right to decide whom you are going to deal with?)
Remember, the worker and the boss do not act on conditions of equality. Since the boss owns the company, he has all the athority and the worker has none. All the worker can do is quit. He may,(or may not have other options and even if he does, those are likly to result in a simular cercumastance, as those companies must also give poor working conditions and low wages to be competitive). The worker (given that he has no control over his working life) is not free. Only by palcing the means of production demorcratically into the hands of the people will the worker be able to have some measure of control over his own working envionment.
: If, after being fired, you sit on the street and starve instead of either finding a new job, creating your own job, or growing your own food, that's not the boss' fault.
Really, where will I grow my own food. I'm sure most starving individuals would if they could, but they don't have any property to grow it on. Under all forms of capitalism (particuarly those with little state intervention,) all the property is controlled by a few wealthy individuals. The workers do not have much choice who to work for ansd theirfore either starve to death or accepting whatever working conditions (16 hour work days, dangerous work conditions, low pay) that the capitalists decide for you.
The reality is that anarcho-capitalism will lead only to domination of the vast majority of the poeple by a few selfish individuals and will be no better then slavery. Wake up.