Freedomain Radio

Anarcho-capitalists like to say that the free market would work itself out in terms of commodity prices, and that state regulation of corporation is not ever required. I have realized that the poor, or even a very large poorer percentage of all the people, could be excluded from such negotiations as corporations could profit sufficiently and even excessively marketing only to the higher classes, and that eventually the lay people might be able to afford absolutely nothing. Of course there might be a couple corporations that would see opportunity for monopoly and thus lower their prices by choice, but would it not be possible that prices would rise and wages decrease to a point where selling to the poor or poorer would not be economically feasible for any business whatsoever? Without regulation, these poorer people would either fall between the cracks and wither away, which would be morally intolerable in my opinion, or they would organize a socialist uprising and eventual revolution, which would override the whole point in pursuing an anarcho-capitalistic society in the first place.

These are just some thoughts-- I am not an economic or political authority, so please feel free to agree with or to disprove these ideas as best as you can. 

What regulation that helps the poor now are you referring to?

If there is a demand for commodities you can be pretty sure that in a free market this demand will be satisfied.

Like has been said above the government causes a lot of poverty. How much better off would the poor be if america spent their $500 billion a year they spend on military on consumer goods instead? Its kind of funny to ask how we need govt to stop poverty when they are the main cause of poverty in 1st world countries.

Corporations don't exist any more than government does, both are merely legal entities, not physical ones.

People often refer to 'big multinational corporations' as evil entities, and blindly associate them as puppets of monacle-wearing fatcats, when the real owners of most big corporations are just everyday people in the form of shares, and particularly the aging population via retirement funds.

People that have a problem with these so-called evil entities shouldn't be protesting in the business districs of cities, they should be marching in the retirement homes. 

In practice we see it usually the other way around. Companies like Ferrari and Rolls Royce have a though time surviving and are often bought up by companies like Volkswagen that target the mass market. Exclusive cars for the rich has been a nightmare from a profit perspective (at the dutch stock market we have Spyker which builds very luxury cars for the rich and famous, started a formula 1 team to build an exclusive brand and is now withering away not far from bankruptcy). Rover has been sold back and forward for 1 dollar between BMW and another company. I don't say you can't make money catering the rich and famous, but if you want to get filthy rich yourself I would target the average guy.

pcrs:

In practice we see it usually the other way around. Companies like Ferrari and Rolls Royce have a though time surviving and are often bought up by companies like Volkswagen that target the mass market. Exclusive cars for the rich has been a nightmare from a profit perspective (at the dutch stock market we have Spyker which builds very luxury cars for the rich and famous, started a formula 1 team to build an exclusive brand and is now withering away not far from bankruptcy). Rover has been sold back and forward for 1 dollar between BMW and another company. I don't say you can't make money catering the rich and famous, but if you want to get filthy rich yourself I would target the average guy.

So true. The 'ultimate' car at the moment, the Bugatti Veyron, makes VW a loss of about 5 million euros for each car sold! 

Re: does anarcho-capitalism fail the poorer?

Do I really get to be the first to say this on the thread? Yay! Ok, here we go...

 

Compared to what? 

I think compared to statism, but that is a rather broad term and includes Zimbabwe and North Korea. my best guess would be: compared to the welfare state

Does failure not imply some type of goal or obligation?

I think the writer is prepared to sign on to positive obligations and ditch anarcho-capitalism if it would benefit the poor.

ash:

Does failure not imply some type of goal or obligation?

 I think the OP might mean obligation, which I don't agree with.  But I approach ancap with the goal of trying to have a situation where the most people can be prosperous, mainly because it is in MY interest.  If people are successful, they are less likely to attempt to rob or kill me.  Thus, I think it is a goal, and it IS possible to fail at a goal.

 That said, I don't think ancap would fail at all, especially compared to the state-caused near-financial slavery we're stuck in now.  Could you imagine how much better the "poor" would be if they could get a job at any wage AND keep all the money from such a job?  This would be a HUGE boon to the growing number of "working poor."  Plus, an ancap society would have stable currency, leading to no inflation tax, easier market entry, allowing more people to start businesses, and more incentive for hard work, rather than sitting on your ass or laying on your back waiting for more welfare to come.

 

Daniel Roncari:

If you mean that prices for goods will be at a point where poor people, earning low wages, will not be able to afford them, remember that in a free market the general tendency is for prices to go down through competition. It is regulation that interferes with this tendency -- for example licenses, regulating entry into industries, etc. Here is what Roderick Long has to say on this issue:

"The principal cause of poverty is government regulations that legally prevent the poor from bettering their condition.

Day-to-day living is anarchy.  As such, the conditions already exist for the poor to succeed.

The poor people I knew growing up had in themselves the capability to change their own fortunes in life.  One desperately poor family my father used to bring clothes and food to and provide them with transportation, changed themselves so much that they ended up with the food and drink franchise for the Orange Bowl!  Once they started to change, they didn't let family members' mental retardation, developmental disabilities, or physical disabilities stand in their way, much less the government.

The poor people I know now have to change their thinking if they want to change their fortunes in life.  A few months ago, I was talking with a perfectly capable woman in my neighborhood who had a job paying $7/hour about the new grocery store across the street that was hiring for twice that wage. She said it was probably too hard, she didn't have the right experience, etc.

The store opened up last week, and yesterday afternoon I saw a different lady in the neighborhood walking home from work in the store's uniform.  I asked her how hard the job was, and she said the store gave her training at three other places over the past month, and there wasn't much to it.

PRice:

Daniel Roncari:

If you mean that prices for goods will be at a point where poor people, earning low wages, will not be able to afford them, remember that in a free market the general tendency is for prices to go down through competition. It is regulation that interferes with this tendency -- for example licenses, regulating entry into industries, etc. Here is what Roderick Long has to say on this issue:

"The principal cause of poverty is government regulations that legally prevent the poor from bettering their condition.

Day-to-day living is anarchy.  As such, the conditions already exist for the poor to succeed.

The poor people I knew growing up had in themselves the capability to change their own fortunes in life.  One desperately poor family my father used to bring clothes and food to and provide them with transportation, changed themselves so much that they ended up with the food and drink franchise for the Orange Bowl!  Once they started to change, they didn't let family members' mental retardation, developmental disabilities, or physical disabilities stand in their way, much less the government.

The poor people I know now have to change their thinking if they want to change their fortunes in life.  A few months ago, I was talking with a perfectly capable woman in my neighborhood who had a job paying $7/hour about the new grocery store across the street that was hiring for twice that wage. She said it was probably too hard, she didn't have the right experience, etc.

The store opened up last week, and yesterday afternoon I saw a different lady in the neighborhood walking home from work in the store's uniform.  I asked her how hard the job was, and she said the store gave her training at three other places over the past month, and there wasn't much to it.

Can I please just second what Daniel said?