Fiat-purchasing power or free(literally) market purchasing power?
Both. Tho I think market purchasing power is more progressive than fiat in most circumstances (if not all).
Yes, and you have yet to offer anything even close to a consistent basis for such justifications, apart from your personal feeling of approval or disgust on a case by case basis.
I could submit that everyone in existence does the same. Even the NAP is a fickle mistress, prone to the fancy of irrational people.
More open to tyranny then what? The “will of the people”? Sure about that – being that you’re so fond of historical examples?
I think the democratic process has shown itself to be more efficient, progressive, and stable than all pasts methods. I have no example of an ancap society, but it is my feeling that it would not/could not work. People will get extremely wealthy (and therefore influential) and use that power to protect themselves against competition. Once again, I have no examples of ancap to use. But I have plenty of examples of laissez faire that exactly fit that model.
Do you see laissez-faire as the absence of all coercion/force, or just public c/f, i.e. would you consider a society where there were no government, but private institutions that initiated c/f, as laissez-faire?
The profit motive… ? The business model…? The market structure…?
When/where have there been laissez-faire?
Do you see laissez-faire as the absence of all coercion/force, or just public c/f, i.e. would you consider a society where there were no government, but private institutions that initiated c/f, as laissez-faire?
Laissez faire is not ancap. I would think Laissez faire implies minimalism, in historical context.
But I would more support a society w no c/f than one w only private annacountable c/f.
In an ancap society, i.e. no coercive central planning/regulations/moral hazards/distortive incentives etc, i.e. are you sure everything would be the same as today?
So when/where has there been a minarchy?
I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private “conflict resolution institutions” might develop into nation states.
In an ancap society, i.e. no coercive central planning/regulations/moral hazards/distortive incentives etc, i.e. are you sure everything would be the same as today
No, but I am sure that winners rise and losers fall in markets. (Not to say that is inherently bad but…) This will create large exploitable gaps between the have’s and have-not’s. And people are prone to protect their interests.
So when/where has there been a minarchy
I believe the early history of the US is widely recognized as an example of laissez faire minimalism.
I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private “conflict resolution institutions” might develop into nation states.
I don’t think businesses have the desire to limit themselves to small defined territories. What I suspect you would find is a lot of non-territorial warlordism. I think an ancap revolution would turn out much like the Warring States period in China. But I am not a fortune teller, and it could be a paradise…
I suspect that private(as theyd be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) whod initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private “conflict resolution institutions”.