Let me sum up what I'm saying, deusvult:
1. Money/resources is/are power, and people will have a tendency to want to aggregate as much of it as they can, and will cooperate with others in order to do so.
Agreed
2. Possession of a large amount of power in a few hands always has huge potential for abuse and violating the rights of others.
potential yes. But everyone has potential to cause harm. This is the same argument for gun control. A gun has a potential to harm someone, therefore something must be done about guns. It would be simpler to focus on the abuses and the violating of rights. There are plenty of people have have power and don't abuse it. So the fact of having money, resources, or power in and of itself doesn't constitute an "evil"
3. Removing the state will not change points 1. or 2., at best it will result in a decentralization of aggregate power, and at worse will simply create a state by another name, but which has no accountability to the people it governs.
By creating a state it must have more power then those of which it wishes to control by necessity making it more powerful and have more possibility for abuse than those who earned their power though "honest" means, by making goods and services for others. In the sense that there can be a state that rules with the consent of the governed then I believe we agree. I see nothing wrong with having a government which rules with the consent of the people whether that be a communist state, monarchy, or totalitarian state ( these can rule by the consent of the people, if they wish to live under such a state). In the sense that a state operates by stealing or forcing it's constituents against their will and likewise a non state actor who forces other against their will are also in violation of human rights. This is the political philosophy idea I lean towards the most. I think the philosophy breaks down when it comes to externalities of decisions. Pollution, crowding, waste are all parts of the transactions we make daily. People try not to take these in account and a good argument for a state is an entity that helps mitigate these externalities or balance these problems though society.
4. A state with limited powers, which is democratically constituted, while far from perfect, and we could probably do much better, is the best institution in place right now to wield power over other people and institutions for the purpose of defending their rights, as it is accountable to the people.
So far it is. I got nothing against democracy. I think it is the closest to liberalism ( the philosophy not the political party) that we have come so far. There are some economic problems with it such as the democratically elected steward's time preferences towards the resources under their stewards are much more narrow than they might otherwise be under different systems and other things. If everyone agreed to be in a democracy then there isn't anything wrong with it. It is when a democracy does something that people don't agree with, then they can't get out of it.
5. Corporations, cartels, and other such business entities are authoritarian, self-interested and autocratic by their very nature.
This really isn't any different than anything else.
In an anarcho-capitalist world, such entities would be the dominant institution.
Not necessarily. An AC position is that government can't act without consent. If people consent that the government rule their entire lives then that is fine. I am sure there is some small percent of the population that would agree with that. The idea that ACist believe solely in business is that they believe that business could take over various parts of government and do their job better and more efficiently because business are constantly subject to consumer responses. I am more parcial to this, that most subjects that government takes over could be done more efficiently by business, though probably not all.
As alluded to above, such institutions will either be entirely competitive, and thus decentralize the power, but still wield power in an autocratic fashion
The more decentralized the power the less the transactional costs from switching leaving one system to another. I disagree that they would act autocratic, the less centralized the less autocratic one can act. If your local grocer wants to act like a nazi you can go down the street.
or they will form regional cartels, monopolies, trade institutions, etc. which will wield the same powers as a state, but without any accountability.
You will be hard pressed to find a cartel or monopoly that operates strictly without state power. If the good is elastic then rising the price will drastically cut the production of the good and lower revenues and if the good is inelastic then each cartel member has an incentive to "cheat" the cartel, produce more than the other members, and gain a profit. The instability will cause the cartel to fall apart. If we wish to say that the cartel will use force to procure its profits then it is only limited to the resources it has on hand which are immediately vulnerable to consumer choice, which unlike a state, people can simply chose to not by the product. People don't by goods from companies that bully them. If we talk about natural monopolies then yea those can come about, but those are so rare as to not constitute a holistic reason to throw out business practices as a whole. It is pretty difficult to come up with a cartel or monopoly that has hurt consumers and hasn't used state power to hold onto it's monopolistic powers.
That they will gain their power and wealth through control of resources and sales of goods rather than taxes is quite irrelevant.
Well there is a fundamental difference. When I buy a good it is because I chose to buy it and because I think it will benefit me. If it doesn't then I simply don't buy it. Taxes are taken irregardless of whether I approve of the actions of the state or not.
Finally, I don't believe in free-market theory and that competition will sort everything out. Businessmen will conspire with each other to fix prices, corner markets and monopolize resources.
Every market monopoly that has harmed customers and been created without state power has failed. Either their conspiracies are found out and consumers simply chose another business or the monopoly simply falls apart. It takes state power to hold a monopoly together to either subsidize it so it can be more profitable or to limit choice though other mechanisms.
They have since the dawn of civilization, and I don't see why removing the state or the state's controls on them will stop this.
Who do you think gives them this ability to corner markets and freeze out competition while harming consumers?
Furthermore, there seems to be this idea underpinning anarcho-capitalism as well as other free-market based ideologies that the state is some kind of illegitimate and alien institution, whereas business enterprises are wholly legitimate and natural. I do not accept this distinction-- they are simply two different kinds of institutions created by people, with different reasons for existing.
I agree. Since the beginning of time we have had state or state like entities that have had various functions. To dissect which of these functions is economically profitable is a business we all should be in because it one of the most important things governing our lives. The difference with ACist and others have is that ACists believe a state should be completely voluntary no matter what form a state takes. I am partial to this or at least lowering the barriers of states so that labor can more more freely than capital can across borders. I don't think a state could be completely eliminated in society for various reasons, but could be significantly reduced.
On a side note: I am pretty ticked off at Islam for its piss poor economics. A supposedly all encompassing law to guide all mankind is seriously lacking on economic fundamentals and is so sparse regarding economics as to be able to constitute hard core socialism, a mix state, or a completely free market ideology. Which I could understand if economics was so damn important to human existence. Arguably a "perfectly" correct economic system ( one given by God) would have the power to redirect resources perfectly and alleviate a lot of suffering throughout the world. Sadly God was too concerned with women menstruating and non believers to focus on a part of the social sciences which could have really helped humanity. Dear God at least drop us a bone. Give us the law of marginality or diminishing returns or something.
Topic: Your philosophical stance?