I do not see countries full of rape, murder, and corruption out competing more civil societies
It's like ancaps think that valuing your neighbor's life as much as your own or your kid's(or even their next meal) is some emergent human property.
Now instead of more capitalist it is more free/more individualist.
But at the end of the day those that were more capitalist were left with greater wealth (greater influence in the world/greater economic fitness).
Much like after the Cold War the more capitalist US was left as a superpower after the fall of the USSR. Both existed for a while & people in the USSR didnt have to become capitalist
guess you could call it an emergent property. dont think it has to be forced on people though. just after the dust settles that's what will be left so might as well move toward it now
Again, it's a chicken and egg thing. I think you don't sustain a free society(nation?) unless the members of that society are committed to preserving the values/morals that created it.
process of coalescence, but there may come a time when the cost of attacking a truly free economic community is too great for the state. Perhaps BCH will play a role in the above. /2
The USA did pretty well by having a very limited mandate for the feds(border defense and basic NAP enforcement) and state legislatures. Had a target on it's back from the word go.
true, this is the problem minarchists have, how do you keep the state at this level when everyone sees it as an easy way to 'solve their problems?'
Exactly. The big problem with ancap is that, while theoretically decentralized, there's no meta-security mechanism. Once you get something good going you will def get attacked.
What you need is a nucleus of individuals around which such a society and culture can grow and which cannot be easily disrupted. Historically, the state always acts to disrupt this /1
History is not a good indicator of the future when exponentials are involved.
kowloon walled city had a good run. heard people were cramming in there despite the conditions.
I see a lot of ancaps using "the state" as an ill-defined slur, much like you'll get a Marxist screaming about "capitalists" but then it always ends up being the same gangster assholes
The state is pretty well defined, no? OTOH, socialists always cherry pick what they mean by "capitalist" which always means some billionaire govt. crony, not a wealthy dentist, etc.
yeah, state is monopoly of violence in a geographic region right?
then there is no reason to think that all behavior will follow selfish lines. Also, the anarcho part of anarchocapitalism means lack of political rulers, not a lack of rules./2
If you're playing a game and only 75% of the players are following the rules you either need a referee or you need to admit that those aren't the rules of the game.
Does 100% of the population follow the rules now? Ancap society does not demand 100% adherence to the NAP, just a critical mass (perhaps). People play by rules that benefit them.
Ancap society is basically just bitcoin protocol but in real life. If more people are not playing by the rules, the market price for defense and security will be higher (more demand)
I have a theory that the original US constitution was a PoW system that got wrecked by authoritarians under the guise of more "democracy" which allowed them to rig the rule making.
Similar to block size controls - the funny thing is that commies beg for this kind of crap. And they think majority rules (aka democracy / soft forks) are great! Keeps everyone in line
Precisely. And then once you have a mafia organisation (aka government) that issues threats of violence in order to implement price controls... market distortions happen. (1/2)
So the ancap faith is that the NAP necessarily creates a positive feedback loop if only "rulers" are eliminated? This sounds childishly simplistic and naive to me.
Been doing some research into history of Anarchy. Looks like Anarchists consider Anarcho-Capitalism to be an Oxymoron as the Capitalist is ruler in biz. structure. Anarchy b socialist.
I mean I understand the sentiment completely. I've been a punk rocker for 20 years now. It's just that an(no)archy(heirarchy) in a universe with competition is complete fantasy imo.
Altruism is found in nature, particularly among genetically related individuals. Culture is at least as important to humans as genetics, so if your neighbor holds similar values /1
Oh and your neighbor aren't enough to defend a border. And if you're forced to choose between your neighbor's or your kid's life, who's do you choose? This is anarchy after all.
***You and your neighbor***
