Why Anarcho-Capitalism Is a Canard and Its Implications for Atheism

[log]

My alternative is the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospels.

And in the so-called "civilized society," the state controls such things by issuing - yes, you guessed it - threats against everyone to control their conduct, even unto death if deemed necessary.  If Willy Wonka was in the Old West, he might well shoot thieves.  And I don't know about justification - that depends on one's moral foundation.  But that's precisely what's at issue in this thread: the moral foundation of social order.

Be more specific please. "Love thy neighbor like you love thyself" isn't a suitable replacement for the rule of law. I want details on how Jesus can replace capitalism.

And here, I am hopeful that atheists - since they have nothing invested in this proposition, and thus less cognitive dissonance - might see more clearly than my nominal co-religionists.  If you will take a look at the Sermon on the Mount - Luke 6, Matthew 5-7 - you will see that his commandments resolve all these issues.

Not by enforcing threats against others, but by disciplining the self to withstand abuse.  

The commandments of God are nothing more nor less than the rules of the civilized society. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" essentially means if you would do a thing for yourself, you had ought to do that thing for your neighbor - or, in other words, "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them: for this is the law."

---

Or begging.

True, begging doesn't often occur to me.  Well noticed.  I'd rather not be a beggar, how about you?  

Economic exchange is when the parties agree, implicitly or explicitly, depending on the perceived damage should one party default, to not exercise their threat to kill the other for taking their stuff only so long as the other gives the agreed upon stuff in exchange.

There's no point in talking about economic exchanges in the absence of ownership.  You can't sell or trade or give away what you do not have possession of.   Personally, I wouldn't kill anybody for taking my stuff (not worth the nightmares).  

I'd recover damages legally.

That is true: there is no economic exchange in the absence of ownership - in particular, private property.  There is an alternative definition of ownership, but you'd probably see it as mystical or nonsensical.