Matthew James Gering wrote:

Laissez Faire capitalism is based on a concept of individual rights. Therefore the proper role of any government (in a libertarian state) or individual/social institution (in rational anarchy) is to protect individual rights (life, liberty, property), and act as an objective framework for retributive force.

No government can protect individual rights. The only way one could do so would be if it: (a) could predict the future, and act to prevent certain futures from happening; or (b) it controls every aspect and motion of each individual's life, thereby ensuring that nobody steps out of line. Unfortunately, the first scenario is impossible, given the current state of the art, and the second results in the complete extinction of individual rights in the name of safety (which is the ultimate goal of the current powers that be, it seems). All any state can do is threaten to "retaliate" against (why not just say "attack") people who disobey its edicts. In order for this threat to be credible, the state must wield sufficient power to kill any individual (or group of individuals) who would stand against it. If it does not have this power, it cannot govern. The problem is, if it does have this power, then there is nothing to stop those individuals in control of the state from violating the individual rights of its citizens. As often seems the case today, for example. The system you suggest, which I assume consists of a state with a "minimal" amount of power, run by enlightened people, is in a state of extremely unstable equilibrium (if it is indeed in equilibrium). If it wields just enough power to enforce its will, that power can be used by evil men to increase its power. Just look at what happened after the Constitutional coup took place in the fledgling USA. Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? When we lost the Articles of Confederation, we were taking the first steps down the road to the tyranny of today. The anti-federalists predicted this, although they sorely underestimated how far it would go --assuming that it would be stopped by another revolution. The minimalist state has been tried. It lasted less than a decade before it started turning into what we have today, and what was left of its spirit died with the war of northern aggression. The only truly free system is one in which there is no body of people calling itself a government which can enforce its will over the individual. The only way people can seem to be free living under such a body is entirely dependent upon the good will of their masters, and this is a shaky assumption to make.

Therefore, any transaction that violates individual rights is immoral (if not illegal) and constitutes a black market.

How about: Any action that involves the initiation of force against the property of another person (the person belongs to himself, of course) is immoral. This neatly tidies up the obvious question of exactly what "individual rights" are. There's a partial list of them in the bill of rights, but it is not complete, by its own admission. Furthermore, the above definition excludes such dubious rights as the "right to an education", the "right to welfare", etc.

e.g. assassinations, ransom, stolen goods, extortion, slavery, etc.

All of the above involve the initiation (or threat of initiation) of force. Hence they are immoral, and the victims and any bystanders would be morally justified in using force against the initiators. Of course, this would not be true in a governed society, where the state must hold a monopoly on the use of force, if only to maintain its own position. Much less efficient. Besides, putting a subset of the population to the task of defining what is and isn't moral leads to such inanities as "homosexuality is immoral", "premarital sex/underage sex is immoral", and "ingesting certain compounds is immoral." We've all got our pet peeves. Would you like to live under mine? Would I like to live under yours? Can I trust you to be tolerant? Can I trust your successors, 20 years from now? Can my descendants trust subsequent successors, 200 years later? Experience tends to show the contrary.

To create a anarcho-capitalist definition of free market where everything goes and there is no concept of individual rights is as immoral and perverse as the statist concepts that similarly have no concept of individual rights (fascism, communism).

The anarcho-capitalist free market is not one where "everything goes," and there is indeed a strong concept of individual rights. What is moral and not moral is defined by society on an individual basis. The first and only rule is: No one has the right to initiate force against another or another's property. This is the fundamental and only "social contract" we make. Anyone who disagrees with this is obviously antisocial, and nobody's going to want to live with him (or allow him to continue living, if he attacks someone).

From this, morality follows. If X does Y to Z, and if Y is perceived as immoral, then X is not going to be very popular with Z or anyone else, unless he can make amends. No one will want to trade with him, be near him, etc. This is a very strong motive to avoid doing immoral things.

If Y is really nasty, such as the initiation of force, then X is going to be in *deep* trouble. Z may well shoot him out of self defense, and even if he survives his action, he'll have to pay a *lot* of restitution before people will trust him again, if ever. Law enforcement by ostracism --read L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach", for a more detailed description. In summary, a free market is far from being an immoral market. In fact, it is the most moral market there is, since there is no state which holds the "right" to initiate force. Regards, Michael Hohensee