I think we already live under anarchy.
People living under anarchy would be forced to join together collectively and form alliances, which is equivalent to a state. Laws such as copyright would be enforced in some organized associations.
We already live under anarchy. The reason that it is not effective as anarchy is because we only have 200 countries. These countries can band together and enforce the same laws. But if we have 10000 countries, things would be more similar to anarchy.
We already face competition between countries. Those who have strict IP laws least taxes and the least corruption would attract the most innovative businesses. These efficient businesses would outcompete other businesses so therefore the country can even lower taxes and raise profit. The country would attract more citizens because of low taxes. But with 10000 countries, competition would increase dramatically, which means nearly invisible taxes.
Would landlocked countries such as enclaves face a threat from bordering exclaves?
You’re correct in saying that we live in an anarchy, but not in an anarcho-capitalistic order. There’s a difference between there not being a universal government for all of humanity and there being the sort of governmentless society envisioned by the anarcho-capitalists.
If we have 10000000 countries is it equivalent to an anarcho-capitalist society? How about 7 billiion little countries (one country per person) forming an alliance to a few supercountries?
The definition of anarcho-capitalism is subjective. I don’t think there is any rational or formal definition of anarcho-capitalism.
One gajillion little territorial monopolies, although it would be correctly defined as anarchy, would still not be a “governmentless” society, since it would consist of one gajillion governments providing no protection outside their territory.
One big empire with no internal monopoly on security and justice would be a governmentless society (pluriarchy).
Ditch the word “anarchocapitalism.” It means the opposite of what you wish it to mean.
We are living in an anarcho-statist society. Gazillion little territorial monopolies may be anarcho-communism.
No way!
Why are many states any different than few states? Every citizen is just as much a slave to their respective state.
However, there does exist a state of anarchy between most countries, except when there is war or the threat of war. The USA, who threatens violence all across the global, is not a member of that international anarchy. It more closely resembles a world government than does the UN!
You are confused because national sovereignty is a corruption of legitimate property rights. In true anarchy there would be legitimate borders, based on homesteading and voluntary exchange, rather than today’s illegitimate borders, based upon conquest and subjugation.
Disney Land exists as a city-state within a state, just as California exist as a state within the Super-State of the USA. Yet Disney Land is not a government. Contrasting how Disney Land established its borders, generates revenue, gains population, and enforces rules with how the State of California does reveals the difference between Anarchy and Statism.
I saw something on Disneyland the other day and they were showing the infrastructure, etc. Talking about the development and purchases realted to it. I started writing something on it that same day. I think it is a very good example of so many things, just couldn’t resist the topic.