All righty, righty, arguments against anarcho-capitalism.

So here we are going to have a quick tour through the major arguments against

Anarcho-von-capitalism and let's just dive straight in.

The main anarcho-capitalist point is that a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force

must also include a legal monopoly on the use of coercive force.

So the main anarcho-capitalist point, so you've got to look at for sophistry from the very beginning.

Is it a point, or is it an an argument or it is a conclusion or a rational approach or whatever?

Just saying that it's a point.

Well, you know, my point is, you know, that's something that is not objective, right?

It's not saying it's an argument.

It's not saying that they're attempting to be consistent with the non-aggression principle. It's not saying it's an argument. It's not saying that they're attempting

to be consistent with the non-aggression principle. It's just saying it's a point. A monopoly on the

use of retaliatory force must also include a legal monopoly on the use of coercive force. Right,

retaliatory force. So if someone breaks into your house and steals your bike, then someone or some agency

or some entity, someone has to go and use force to get your bike back, right? We understand that.

So if only one agency called the state is allowed to do that, then it must prevent other people

from doing it, which is an initiation of the use of force. Okay. Outlawing alternative protection

services, if such services represent individual rights, must be itself an act of coercion and thus

immoral. If other protection agencies use force only for retaliatory and not coercive purposes,

then outlawing such agencies would be

coercive force. To question how a monopolistic government can be created that does not,

by its very nature violate the rights it is in the objective is viewed charged to protect.

...