Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2011, 08:57:45 PM

Quote from: lemonginger on July 22, 2011, 08:41:46 PM

Quote from: Babylon on July 22, 2011, 04:44:12 PM

The issue is the redistribution of wealth that has been acquired through force, without this a Canarchist society would rather quickly evolve into feudalism.

Yes, that is why asking how existing wealth should be dealt with is one of my litmus tests for whether or not I think that an anarcho-capitalist is serious about building a better world, or whether they are just arguing for an intensification of the status quo.

The only wealth that has been truly acquired by force is government property (one could argue that any business subsidized by government funds was too, but that's not important, as I'll show later). Any government property is immediately up for grabs upon the dissolution of the government, and most likely, immediately homesteaded by those who use it (That should make you happy, lemon). Any property which was subsidised by the government is likewise now wholly owned by those who use it.

Businesses which required government subsidies would quickly fail, giving those resources back to the ones who are best able to use them. (or at least better)

So you essentially don't believe that the current shape of the playing field or how it got there matters at all? Even Rothbard argues that quite a few corporations should be turned over to their workers and universities to their students.

For example, a variety of military-industrial complex corporations (let's say lockheed martin) could no doubt be retooled to make civilian stuff rather than military warplanes, but what of the fact that shareholders and management have made their capital supplying the State with weapons? Now they get rewarded with the ownership of tons of useful capital and they get to keep all their ill-gotten gains?

--

I would argue that if current wealth imbalances are left like they are any attempt at anarcho-capitalism will quickly devolve into a sort of hyper-feudalism. You can't essentially admit that all land/capital was taken illegitimately (by defining current markets as unfree). If the market is to serve as the only/ultimate decision making tool for aggregating choices and preferences, then it makes a huge difference if some people have a lot more of that decision making power.

--

Also,this article is a good examination of different libertarian attitudes towards redistribution

http://mutualist.org/id45.html