I am currently a Minarchist, though I am still open to persuasion from Anarcho-Capitalists.
I don’t have time to go over my main problems with A/C, so I will put up my first (and probably largest) issue:
How would an Anarcho-Capitalist society defend itself from a state seeking to take over with force? For example, Germany dissolves the state and becomes Anarcho-Capitalist, but Social Democratic France goes to “restore order” and invades Germany, possibly putting some local German statists in charge. Without a government of some kind to defend Germany, the Germans would probably be conquered in short order.
Better to be enslaved by a small state (ideally one that is voluntary, minimalist, and paid for by either donations or by politicians themselves) then a giant one out to make everything from vacations to the internet a “right”.
States still have the advantage of “legitimacy” in the eyes of other states, as well as the ability to steal the kind of wealth for an army that few PMCs or similar groups could get.
However, lets assume the invaders ARE weaker then the PMC defenders.
What if the invaders (using their aforementioned ability to steal wealth) simply pay off the PMCs or hire them to help in the conquest? It would become an idealogical conflict within the country as well as in invasion (so to speak) which the invaders would win.
Buddy: "Better to be enslaved by a small state (ideally one that is voluntary, minimalist, and paid for by either donations or by politicians themselves) then a giant one out to make everything from vacations to the internet a “right”.
So if a stateless area was taken over by a small state it would be ok?
So what you’re saying is that your conversion to an-cap hinges on whether or not you think the defense system would be preferable (based on your values) in an an-cap society?
So what is a preferable defense system according to your values?
A small state (as in an actual small state by our standards, not a silly Conserative psuedo-empire) wouldn’t invade a stateless area due to it’s voluntary nature.
Thus far, there has been no such animal as an Anarcho-Capitalist state either (barring Iceland about 700 years ago, which was more a fuedal-ish state, and Somalia, which was lacking the “Capitalist” and was re-statitized a couple years ago)
Private institutions are more effective/efficient than public institutions, so a private military or militaries would be better at defending its customers than a public one.
I think that nothing would be able to prevent it in the short term. In your example if Germany instantly dissolved into an ancap society and France invaded a month later nothing would be able to stop them except for the individual people in Germany. They may win, they may not. Impossible to know.
Over the long term the situation is different and Hoppe did explain how this would possible.
As far as “converting” to anarchism. I did not based on whether it was feasible or not but based on whether is was morally superior based on the non-aggression philosophy. I believe that it is. So effectivness against other aggressors doesn’t matter to me.
I’m convinced that an-caps are like force users. that is to say that one must be born with a power in the force to be trained in it. no amount of trying will ever turn chewbaca into a jedi or sith. likewise, you have to be born an ancap. you either hear the logic and go, kicking and screaming, towards its conclusions, or you remain a statist. you can’t persuade, debate, or convince statists to be ancaps.
“it is better to trust one’s defense to an organization motivated by something more than pecuniary profit, whether this be love of justice, or homeland, or pride, or duty, etc. – to depend on individuals who, for whatever reason, are willing to fight at all costs, to their own deaths if need be. If I get to choose who defends me, I’d rather have a bunch of crazy Texans in an Alamo or a General McAuliffe at Bastogne, rather than someone who checks with the accountants to see whether firing the next shot at the enemy or at me would bring more profit.”
“it is better to trust one’s to an organization motivated by something more than pecuniary profit, whether this be love of justice, or homeland, or pride, or duty, etc. – to depend on individuals who, for whatever reason, are willing to at all costs, to their own deaths if need be. If I get to choose who , I’d rather have a bunch of crazy Texans in an Alamo or a General McAuliffe at Bastogne, rather than someone who checks with the accountants to see whether would bring more profit.”
