How does an Ancap society come up?

Miscellaneous General
1

Does the budding of an Ancap society require that all(or at least most) citizens of the society believe in the principles of individual freedom and the NAP? In short, does an Ancap society mean something like a voluntaryist society in which people with similar likings choose to stay together?

If the answer is on the affirmative, what’s the difference between such an Ancap society and a Minarchist society in which people voluntariily decide to fund or not to fund a small State? Both cases require people who believe in a common set of principles, no? So why is an Ancap society, with multiple PDAs rather than a single State voluntarily funded by the citizens, any better or different from a minarchist society?

2

The minarchist society has no competitive forces in the markets of law, justice or security. The minarchist society thus has no incentives not to perform badly, which may include growing into a leviathan.

The minarchist society is also contingent upon universal consent which cannot be withdrawn. You don’t choose the minarchist state, and you can’t leave it if you want to. Again, no market forces. The consumer is diminshed by a monopoly.

In order to maintain the minarchist status quo, aggression against competitors is necessary, otherwise the minarchist state cannot fulfill its mandate.

3

Three stages:

1 - Collapse of state sovereignty. This can be the result of a direct attack on the state, or the state’s own internal decline and corruption.

2 - Intervention of natural elites to provide law and justice.

3 - Agreement between natural elites on a common protocol of universal, multilateral law.

4

Well, can’t citizens stop funding a minarchist state if they don’t like it? Just like how people deal with PDAs in an Ancap society.

5

hmm.. so that means everybody voluntarily agreeing to a common code?

6

Then it is a PDA, not a minarchist state.

7

Pre-internet, this may have been the case, but the Hoppean notion of natural elites is now largely an anachronism with the advent of internet which allows for the capacity to politically organize outside meatspace. That doesn’t mean everything will be done online, but that one no longer needs to be local to an elite or PDA or lawyer, or technician, or advocate, to be able to tap into their resources or services.

And, entrepreneurship is exploding, where this concept of people well bred to be leaders, are no longer relevant when the paradigm has shifted from who you are/where you come from, to what you do/what are you capable of doing. The new elites rise and fall daily, and this sort of creative destruction in leadership will only accelerate as the process expands.

Hoppe would have been a genius with this stuff 600 years ago, and I mean that with all due reverence and sincerity. But networking and silicon have radically changed communication and organization, in ways which make the old forms dated and no longer predictive of future orders.

8

“Natural elites”?!!!

I don’t choose to follow any “natural elites”.

9

Technically no. It only requires for the people who are not ancaps to oppose a crackdown on ancaps.

10

Your choice, but being alone in the world can be a scary prospect.

Anarcho-capitalism means that you hire capitalists for their protection. You can make a go at it yourself (self-defense) but it is just another form of autarky, and likely to result in your death. Everyone has to sleep sometime.

11

I would argue that it is more relevant than ever, and I would cite as an example the mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg. He was elected by the city’s elite as the first amongst them (the most successful and wealthiest) to lead a war on politicians, and has ruled the city like a king ever since. His rule is nothing like the politics that have characterized the two centuries of New York City politics because he is accountable only to himself. He is a king in all but name.

Like it or not, capitalism requires capital. anarcho-capitalism requires a lot of capital. That is why it is the natural elites, those who have shown the best ability to produce capital, that will be the best placed to offer protection.

12

All we need to do is all use Bitcoin. The natural order will take care of the rest.

13

I think it takes at most 5% of the population.

I don’t think so.

Why would a whole population voluntarily fund a state? You think one organization could possibly satisfy the legal needs of hundreds of millions of people? If so, what in the market place would lead you to believe such a thing?

14

I think what PP means is, to have an ancap society for 100% of everyone, does it require that everyone in that group uphold anarchic ideals. Obviously if X many people can break off and form an anarchy, it would be an anarchist society because 100% of those people believe in anarchy. I don’t know that the minimum number is, but I’m tempted to say that its zero because our free market actors are just assumed to be self interested agents who act on their knowledge of their own personal wants…

Though I will say that if a significant number of people think the state is a good idea, then anarchy would fail. So you don’t have to be an anarchist but you can’t be a statist…

15

And my answer was no, and that I think it only requires at most 5% of the population to believe in anarchy. It says it right there in what you quoted.

16

Yes, or how about ad click derivatives?

17

Perhaps…hopefully. But lately I’m finding it increasingly difficult to argue against this part of me saying that the state is the natural result of the conversion of labor to capital, when population levels are over-optimal. Should that make any sense at all, there nothing anyone can do to bring about anarchy…it shall have to come by itself. I hope I’m wrong on this.

18

Merlin, could you elaborate on that idea?

19

when we’re countering the randians’ claim that PDAs will do battle, and we say that they could but probably won’t because they have to bear the full cost of their actions, doesn’t the same logic apply to people? That even if they wanted to infringe on another’s rights the cost would be a deterrent, so we can expect that anarchy would be pretty libertarian?

20

Its still a very blurry thing. But generally speaking…

We all know that the division of labor brings more goods for everyone, but the argument holds well only if there is enough capital to allow everyone to specialize in some job. No capital= no specialization=no society.

Mises spoke of the “optimal population level”, i.e. the population level that maximally uses all capital available. One more inhabitant would be unable to specialize in some line of production enough to bring in more goods that he consumes. That is, before such a population level is reached, every newborn is an asset to everyone: he will specialize and increase efficiency. Beyond this level, every human being is, materially speaking, a waste: he consumes more than he brings in. Malthus wins.

Now, suppose at some distant time in the past, the world population was, more or less, at the optimal level. Now assume that some strong environmental change destroys much capital but kills not so many people (a massive Biblical flood destroys irrigation networks, but people manage to flee). The population is now over its limit everywhere in the world. From here two things may happen: eith****er the population goes down, or else capital is increased.

So, we either have wars, genocide, criminality, starvation, disease, etc. OR people are turned into capital. They are no longer “employed” as free men, but as “machines”, slaves, adding to the capital stock. Metaphorically, people become cows.

Now that the “population” has decreased and the capital stock has increased, things are right. But what has happened here? Some men have lost their freedom, and are considered no better than cattle. Two classes of men replaced humanity. The State is born.

Note that “human capital”, unlike normal capital, increases over time, only with limited amount of maintenance (sustenance). As time goes by, the master class diminishes (relatively) and the slave class increases in numbers.

Only when the population shall go under its optimal level, some slaves will be freed to feed the hunger for labor.

It just so happened that most people are still slaves nowadays, as we still have a state. Only a massive influx of capital (or a massive reduction of population)can dissolve the economic roots of the State.

But again, this theory still needs a lot of elaboration.