Argument against anarcho-capitalism

I'm trying to think through this argument against anarcho-capitalism. Can someone give me some insight?

-Mike

I am afraid of someone who is willing to risk his own life by building a cheap nuclear power plant, for the hope of earning lots of money off of the power, and putting my life and your life in danger in the process (because we are his neighbors). So what do we do? We let him know that we will refuse to buy his power. Maybe we cannot dissuade him, he just sells his power to people living a long ways away. Our land becomes devalued.. no one wants to move there. Is it fair? fair is irrelevant. Is it just? Yes. Are we screwed? Yes. So he buys our land at cheap prices, takes the power plant down, and has made out big time in the deal. He moves the power plant somewhere else and does it again. Pretty soon, he owns lots and lots of land.

Mike,

Sounds like what governments have been doing all
along, and this isn't "anarcho-capitalism." Except the
government leaves the land polluted and very expensive
to clean up (which private individuals wind up doing).
I can create a long e-mail on this, which I won't, and
also debate Steve's mislead vision on individual
ownership of nuclear weapons (yeah, it makes a lot of
sense to tell people that they can't own Nuclear
weapons because it's dangerous, and at the same time
say it's OK for governments to own them, such as N.
Korea, Iran, or even the US). Sarcastically speaking.
Anyway, this would have been a great discussion for a
political chat, but I can't be at the chats anymore
for another year, unless the day of the week is
changed.

By the way Steve, I hope you can make it to the Walter
Brock event.

Dave Barker.

--- Mike Dilger <mike@...> wrote:

If it is wrong for an individual to own a nuke, where there is individual accountability, than it seems certainly all the more wrong for a government to own one, where there is no accountability.

-Mike

dave barker wrote:

Dave Barker wrote:

By the way Steve, I hope you can make it to the Walter
Brock event.

I'm going to try to.

Mike Dilger wrote:

If it is wrong for an individual to own a nuke, where there is
individual accountability,

How can you hold someone accountable when they've just vaporized themselves and the surrounding 5 million people?

than it seems certainly all the more wrong
for a government to own one, where there is no accountability.

I think it would be ideal if no one had one, but I'm not sure how accountability is relevant to the cost/benefit analysis. Could you explain that a bit more?

-- Steve

David Friedman does a good job of casting questions like this in economic terms. What is it worth to you and your neighbors for him not to build the plant? What is it worth to him to build the plant? Let's simplify and say no one in town wants to live near a nuclear power plant; you can all pool your money and buy him out, or he can buy you all out. Whichever of you is more motivated determines which option happens.

Now, of course, if he sets this up as an extortion racket, and you're aware of that, then you treat him like a goon and a thug (I won't say "criminal" in an anarchist context, but that's what I mean).

~Chris

What does "treat him like a goon and a thug" involve that prevents him from setting up his plant? If it involves the use of force, how is the situation any different?

-- Steve