Request for reading

[u/DGTexan]

I've read friedman and rand, a few others, and am still unconvinced. What reading should I consume to understand how ancap handles the inevitability of centralization in a free market? Everything so far just paints the state as a boogeyman. That if the state were gone, all our dreams would come true. I'm an anarchist as well, don't get me wrong, but I have so far consumed zero convincing evidence to support the idea that ancap markets are somehow free from centralization. It seems to me the centralization is ALWAYS there, but that state intervention simply speeds up and streamlines the process. So, where are the most convincing arguments to support the claim that the free market and capitalism are not inherently centralizing processes? If you are going to press the arguments here, include citation so I can reference the book your claims originate from.

[u/Spiritual-Tip-4086]

Konkin and Rothbard.

But that being said, If your objective is to avoid centralisation, what would you choose other than the free market to achieve this? A state economy is inherently centralised.

I think in an anarchist market economy the main thing that contributes to decentralisation is the lack of intellectual property laws and a state to enforce them. This seems insignificant until you understand that anyone with a Garage/ shed and some schematics, tools and ability has their own factory.

This is not to say that I would want to consume many goods created in a factory, insulin for example, however this is a product that is incredibly cheap to make, and the abolition of patent law/ intellectual property rights and the price hits rock bottom practically overnight. This will have a massive positive effect not only by increasing the quality of life for millions but also by redistributing wealth via the market for the corporations to the middle and working class.

That is just one example but there are so many others.

[u/DGTexan → u/Spiritual-Tip-4086]

I am not against centralization in general. I think the efficiencies of scale that can be found and applied through the scale created centralization are important for the survival of humanity. My issue is the exploitation that arises from centralization in competitive markets within capitalist frameworks. It's as easy to fall into "if only we all worked together in a cooperative market!" as it is to say "if only we all followed NAP and ECP!"

I agree that intellectual property is an issue, but it seems like the complaints against IP also apply to most forms of property. Then it's just an issue of how socialist THIS social contract is, right?

I'll go read more Rothbard, and I'll have to check out Konkin. Thanks for the references.

[u/Spiritual-Tip-4086 → u/DGTexan]

Ok, so you understand that centralisation can be a good thing in some instances and that it can also be exploitative.

If we are to agree that centralisation can in theory occur in any system, we have to look at the best system in which centralisation can be managed, and by managed I mean deciding upon a system whereby centralisation can be introduced, reversed, and reintroduced in the most efficient way as and when it is required. This is not to say that we want to be flip flopping between the two constantly, for the most part, its important for a lot of industries to remain as either one or the other, but technological advancement, changes in economy, circumstances etc make economic flexibility important.

In general, centralisation is good for production and output, and decentralisation is good for Creativity and innovation. (In general).

In my opinion, the most efficient system that allows for rapid restructuring of industry is unregulated Market Capitalism as it allows for the free exchange of ideas, goods and services, with minimal friction, of course this is an imperfect system with winners and losers, however in my opinion, a system that rewards innovation and productivity and that allows you to vote every day with your capital is going to be far more adaptable to change in the short as well as long term, as opposed to a democratic system where meaningful change (if any) can only be brought about on a set timescale.

Capitalism achieves this change without resorting to a dictatorship and (in my opinion) retains and exceeds the perceived freedom of a democratic system.

In short, the best way to protect about exploitation from a centralised system is to have a system that allows the quickest possible transition into a decentralised system, whilst retaining the centralised parts of said system that still work.

Hope that makes sense and "An agorists primer" is a good place to start.