Would anarchism last?

[Koldo]

So I understand the question your asking but I isolated this part because I want to point out that (my branch of) anarchism does not believe in intellectual property rights. So Car Company A is not in the wrong with your specific scenario, in my eyes. I understand what your asking though, IP is besides the point.

So imagine in a free market society, there would be competing arbiters. Both car companies would agree on an arbiter. Perhaps there are stipulations that car companies agree to with each other beforehand, such as which arbiter they go to in the case of a disagreement. But there is not one set arbiter (e.g. a state) that would decide. Everything is voluntary in a free market society. The free market in such an environment is supposed that it will spontaneously and naturally form and grow.

But why would anyone willingly agree with any arbiter other than one that is heavily biased towards themselves?

 

[an anarchist]

But why would anyone willingly agree with any arbiter other than one that is heavily biased towards themselves?

With a little imagination perhaps, I can draw up a hypothetical. I already did though in the response you quoted.

Understand that Ancapistan does not exist so I could not say what the exact circumstances would look like.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think you may be right. If not completely, then you are at least mostly right.

Yet, I still see the state as immoral and anarchism as moral. Shouldn’t we always strive for morality?

Well, an anarchist society does account for immorality. There is hypothetical justice in Ancapistan.

Perhaps the perpetual existence of a State throughout all of recorded history is a reflection of the immorality of man. To hope for a moral system amongst a bunch of immoral apes... it‘s like asking a lion to become vegetarian!

If you are attempting to philosophize about anarchism, I think you first need to show how the state is immoral, and anarchism is moral. I personally see no connection between morality and governance per se.

And beware, Ancapistan is satire, which will provide you little of use in philosophy.

As to humans being "immoral apes," well, I have to take a bit of exception to that. Humans have evolved as a eusocial species, like ants and bees, but with a difference. A worker ant or bee could no more consider striking off to make a life of her own outside the nest or hive. The soldiers could no more decide not to bother fighting to the death to save the queen than she could write the Encyclopedia Brittanica.

But humans, while we are programmed for social behaviour, are quite capable of defaulting -- of behaving anti-socially for our own ends, or for our own survival. The man who knows it is wrong to steal may still rob the grocery store to feed his starving children. This makes us a most complex creature. Professor Jacob Needleman makes a good accounting of all this in his book Why Can't We Be Good?

 

[sayak83]

I wholeheartedly, categorically, indisputably, and seriously disagree with you on this one.

It is most important not to take them seriously. Suppose if no one took the government seriously. When they would point and say “Bomb and shoot those people in that country!”, we would all shrug our shoulders and go about our lives, if we didn’t take the government seriously. But we treat government with the upmost seriousness, so we go and shoot and bomb other people.

If people did not take government seriously then they will also not take laws seriously and violate them at will. As happens during riots, violence, looting and killing will happen unabated.