Marmeladov

I think I was a little confusing. I'm not interested in the lightbulb debate specifically. What I would like to see further explored, is if non-coersive entities can cause harm to 3rd parties in general. While this topic is touched on in a lot of stefs work and the work of others, I have not come across anything dedicated to this topic anywhere. I believe this general, not specfic, issue is the hangup for many who would otherwise be onboard with ancap.

I thought it was a real shame how the conversation broke down between StormCloudsGathering and Stef right as the debate (if it can be called that) was getting somewhere. For those that might not have seen it, the last 10 or so minutes was fundamentally a discussion over whether or not non-coercive entities can cause harm to 3rd parties. The 1st and 2nd party would be the two (or however many) light bulb manufacturers and the 3rd would be the customer in their scenario. Stefan argued that in fact they cannot harm the customers for competitive reasons, so either the 100 year light bulb was false or there must be some coercive forces at play: i.e. patents or government raised entry costs. Completely ignoring the accusation of dishonesty, SCG's argument, that non-coercive entities can cause harm to a third party based on the lightbulb documentary, was the point of conflict for the two. For people who accept that a state is unacceptable, exploring this topic in great detail might help bridge the gap between the various anarchic theories I know Stef has content on planned obsolescence, and that this is not his main focus; but it seems to me that this point is the main division between anarcho-capitlist and everyone else who does not believe there should be a state. I think a broader explination dedicated to putting this issue to bed could help a lot of people understand why businesses, DRO's in particular, would not be something to be feared.