I did mention the broken window fallacy way before.
In fact, upon re-reading what I wrote, I’m gonna refrain from posting again because I sound like a broken record much like Rettoper does at this point.
lol…
“It’s not fair to say that activity X is profitable when the vast majority occurrences of X have been coercively funded, empirically speaking.”
This is the same arguement I make to people who say “actually Hitler was really effective.” Ya, it’s easy to seem effective when half your economy is built on slave labor…
david friedman
liberal democracies and statist regimes are proven more effective at eliminating threats since they exist, while anarchic societies dont exist.
the reason is that anarchic societies are decentralized. moreover, competing PDAs are not likely to assist a competitor PDA whose customers are under attack. whereas, all the resources from all 50 states will be directed against any single threat against a single state.
Proven? More than one liberal democracy or statist regime has fallen before. Given the actual amount of anarchist societies that have actually arisen and the amount of states that have arisen, you could hardly say that the proof is in the history of societies. I mean, given how hard it is to initially create an anarchist society, we don’t exactly have a vast amount of experimentation with it. We aren’t debating that it is hard to create one initially, that is certainly a given. We are debating how effective an anarcho-capitalist society would be at defense once it’s in full swing, so I don’t think you can use the lack of existence of an anarchist societies to show the ineffectiveness of something that has never arisen, and if it has arisen, at maximum only failed once or twice. Comparing ratios isn’t fair when you’ve rolled 300 times and come up with 20 6’s and we’ve only rolled 5 times and come up with none.
As to decentralized vs. centralized, decentralized terrorists have given these liberal democracies and statist regimes a greater run for their money with fewer resources than any state vs. state battle I can think of. At least when it comes to defense. Centralization is a liability not an asset when it comes to defense. I mean really, let’s compare apples and apples. Look at how horrendously shitty Iraq’s centralized military defense did as opposed to how well the insurgents have done. It’s like night and day. That is the difference centralization makes. Statists hate attacking decentralized defense systems, because there is no head to cut off, and it is self regenerating. Decentralized defense will further dissuade a statist regime from attacking. I’m sure they’ll remember “Mission Accomplished” in the future.
Where is the profit or logic in expending resources and capital to satisfy a competitor’s customers ?!
So what happens when you stave off an attack from a competitors customers?
A) You get paid for your trouble. You aren’t doing it completely for free (though maybe subsidized, or better yet, “gouging” prices).
B) You are also defending your customers from attack later down the road, a so called “Preemptive” defense.
C) Because you are now less likely to be attacked due to a buffer zone, any insurers are likely to give you lower rates.
D) Because any potential attackers now know of a mutual defense agreement, they are less likely to attack you, which again brings down even further your insurance rates.
E) Any Losses you take from the defensive battles would be covered by an insurance agency.
F) By defending said territory from a coercive monopoly, you leave open possibility of expansion which otherwise would be if not completely, then partially closed off.
G) Advertising, since obviously their company wasn’t able to defend them without your help, perhaps they’ll switch to a better firm.
not all wars represent a net loss to the aggressor. if a PDA and insurance company determine that there is a net gain from attacking a neighboring anarchic enclave or statist regime, then they will attack.
what is the logic in denying yourself a profitable course of action. If anarchic or statist neighbor X has scarce resources whose annexation would benefit anarchic society B — then society B will attack.
Moreover, does anarchic philsophy discount the utility of preemptive and preventative war as a cost saving measure ???
if they do, then this is another example of why no anarchic societies exist today.
The argument isn’t that all wars represent a net loss to the aggressor, nor that PDA’s will not attack if they determine that they will net gain from an aggressive war. The argument is that aggressive wars in anarchic societies with PDA’s will not be profitable. So I’d ask you not to say “Did America not profit from taking over Indians?” That’s not what we’re arguing. We are arguing if under the conditions that customers and stockholders can freely choose between PDA’s, and if a PDA attempts to do the following.
A) Aggressively take over a territory
B) Loot said territory
C) Compel inhabitants to become customers
What will happen.
A) Other PDA’s eager for just (Read: they won’t become outlaws if they attempt to gain these customers) acquisition of customers will defend the anarchic society being attacked either through financing or through outright payment. Perhaps with terms set beforehand in case of attack.
B) Civil resistance will occur (just like it does now in Iraq and Afghanistan when outsiders attempt to invade), and likely just as drawn out.
C) Insurance companies will refuse to pay for losses taken from an aggressive war.
D) Insurance companies will pay for other PDA’s losses taken from the defensive war.
E) Stock holders will hardly see the immediate benefits of an attack, and will quickly pile out of the company in the short term, cutting off further funding. There’s also the potential for stockholders to become outlaws, so that adds to the cost of being a stock holder, further driving down it’s value.
F) The risk of becoming outlaws by being involved in an aggressive war will dissuade most of your lower staff, causing your costs for lower staff to sky rocket.
G) They will lose customers that they already have who don’t like aggressive wars. Do you honestly think that all of the Democrats who hated bush would continue to pay their defense agency if they started a war in Iraq? I mean, we’re starting from the condition that they aren’t captive customers, so they would be able to switch. That PDA would then either have to accept the losses or compel payment amongst all of their customers, causing even further resistance and further loss of customers who now see that nobody is safe from compulsion from that PDA, and further war of that PDA vs. their previous customers and their newly contracted PDA + defectors who don’t want to be outlaws. That is certainly a loosing battle.
So no, I can comfortably say that in an anarchic society, there is no profitable aggressive wars that a PDA can wage. About as much as I can say Ice will not boil water. Or at the very least, it has a lower degree of probability than a liberal democracy turning into a fascist state and exploiting the populace.
you sound like a neocon. based on your statement above, it appears that you support American involvement abroad.
do you advocate entanglement in foreign conflicts ? do you advocate a series of defense agreements and mutual defense pacts ?
you cant be an anarchist and a neocon at the same time. choose.
the reason anarchists avoid mutual defense agreements is because they force members to engage in constant war. this is how WWI degenerated from a local conflict to a continent wide conflict.
amusingly, like most anarchists you are probably opposed to USA projection of power abroad in the form of mutual defense arrangements, yet you are advocating the exact same policy to defend anarchism ?!
Ohhh come on guy. That’s a pretty lame argument. Accuse me of being a neocon? How about freedom of contracts as the main differentiator between me and the neocons? The key word in there is mutual defense. In WWI somebody had to be the aggressive party. Any contracting profit seeking parties would obviously stipulate that they wouldn’t just get involved in any war their partner happened to be part of. WWI and allies is hardly a representative model for how PDA’s would contract their mutual defense agreements.
I don’t oppose the USA projection of power in mutual defense arrangements on the grounds that it’s a mutual defense arrangement, I oppose it because its set up by a bunch of states protecting other states. The mere fact that some states setup an institution does not mean that that institution is inherently bad. We might as well say that because statist police are created by the state and have done bad things in the past, the free market should never set up free market police with their own free market protections. Your argument amounts to exactly that. Because some states have setup a statist mutual defense agreement which sucked in the past, PDA’s should never find a similar free market version of mutual defense agreements.
because all of the advantages a statist regime has over an anarchic society is not present when dealing with a liberal democracy.
(1) liberal democracies share a common political bond that unites them. hence NATO, SEATO, et al.
See above
(2) liberal democracies have a centralized miiltary command and control structure (central government)
See above
(3) liberal democracies are not restricted by the profit motive when allocating resources for war (unlike anarchic society, they can deficit spend during wars)
Countered by profit motive efficiency in allocation of resources. Also there’s nothing stopping people from promising their own savings and property, and even debt, in order to pay for defense. They’d lose it all anyway if you don’t. Why not promise it as payment to fight the dicks trying to take it away out of spite? Besides, anarchy doesn’t all of a sudden destroy a sense of community and willingness to fight for it. In fact, the more free you are, the more you are willing to sacrifice for it because of the value the mere existence of anarchy bestows upon you.
(4) liberal democracies have an advantage over statist regimes in that they are largely free market societies. (they retain much of the economic benefits of anarchic society without the liabilities)
Liabilities countered, Anarchy adds to economic benefits.
do you advocate entanglement in foreign conflicts ? do you advocate a series of defense agreements and mutual defense pacts ?
you cant be an anarchist and a neocon at the same time. choose.
the reason anarchists avoid mutual defense agreements is because they force members to engage in constant war.
The sheer limits of argumentative dishonesty…
Rettoper, I think you missed my post below. I was hoping for a response.
You guys are desperately fighting a strawman while attempting to defend anarcho-capitalism. You adhere to the same fallacy as rettoper in believing that democracy omits anarchy, and vice versa. When you admit this he can spin you all over the place.
Yes, you’re perfectly right.
Is there something specific you are talking about?
Rettoper, sorry I’ve been gone so long; my absence was (only partly) caused by an internet failure. I have time right now to deal with only one of your objections to anarchy, so I’m going to pick the most novel and interesting one. Your objection goes something like this:
We already have anarchy between the states (or, within the geopolitic). This anarchy has been a miserable failure –there has been constant warfare, and governments have collaborated to repress their citizens. If anarchy fails at this large scale, why would we want to introduce it at lower levels? (i.e. between people, rather than between states)
I hope this is an accurate depiction of your argument. If it is, the first thing I have to say is “Shame on you!” How could anyone remotely familiar with the works of Mises try to disprove or evaluate apriori economic principles with empirical (aposteriori) evidence? You ought to know better, Rettoper! Empirical evidence is incorrectly used by mainstream economists, but as an Austrian, you ought to be familiar with the apriori/aposteriori distinction and the appropriate places for each. Here’s an excerpt from Human Action about empirical evidence:
Now, I’ll add my own explanation (I’m not trying to hit you with an appeal to false authority fallacy). Empirical evidence is not useful with regard to economics/praxeology. History can be explained differently by different people, and it is impossible to isolate one historical factor from all the others in order to prove the effect of this factor. The laboratory experiment, meanwhile, has no workable equivalent in the social sciences.
Besides that little problem, other portions of your argument are also disagreeable. Chief among them is your assertion that what currently exists between states is anarchy. Whether or not this proposition is true depends entirely on what your definition of ‘anarchy’ is. There may be multiple acceptable definitions, but one that I commonly use is the absence of coercion. Going by that definition, we certainly don’t have anarchy between the states, as all the wars you mentioned can attest to.
However, there are other definitions of anarchy that may be valid as well. I will not accept the popular definition of anarchy, which is something like violent chaos; no one here advocates that. But many people define anarchy as the absence of government. Going by that definition, I suppose there isn’t a ‘government for governments’. But how could there be? What would such a thing look like? Why would anyone want it? This attack, while difficult to refute, does not tell us anything useful or illuminating about anarchy, so it should be discarded. If you have another definition, you are free to provide it, but you must make sure that your definition defines what self-proclaimed anarchists actually advocate; anything else would be a straw man argument.
I also take issue with your claim that, empirically, the situation that exists between states is awful. I think that is just an opinion, devoid of and logical or empirical rigor. Actually, we don’t have that many wars anymore, so one could claim that the situation between states is actually good and desirable. If you think about it, most of the atrocities states commit are committed against their own citizens, not other governments. Besides the fact that your value judgment (the situation between states is undesirable) is unscientific and not a valid argument, you also have failed to prove causation – is this ‘anarchy’ the cause of the undesirable situation, or could there be other causes. Could the situation just be a random fluctuation? All these objections and more must be overcome if you take the empirical route.
I’ll get to your other objections when I have time. I’m also going to start something new: at the end of every one of my posts (to you), I’m going to include a list of your objections with the status of each. This list serves two purposes:
- Helps me keep track of your objections so I know what to actually argue against.
- Prevents you from using a tactic you have used in the past: arguing one position, being rebutted, then trying to use the rebuttal to support a completely different point. Any objections to anarchy should be valid by themselves; constant;y switching prolongs an argumentative back-and-forth that gets nowhere. Note that one of your objections could be “There is no way to solve problems X and Y together in anarchy; any attempt to deal with one correspondingly worsens the other.” This would be a completely valid argument format. However, most of your points will probably not need this structure.
If, after I rebut or refute an objection, you don’t bring it up again in a few days, I’ll mark the status as dropped. Feel free to add to or correct my list.
| ### Objection | ### Status |
|---|---|
| We already have anarchy between the states. | Refuted |
| Ararchic societies cannot defend themselves. | ? |
| PDAs will morph into governments | ? |
| Any others? | N/A |
In fact, upon re-reading what I wrote, I’m gonna refrain from posting again because I sound like a broken record much like Rettoper does at this point.–yuberriers
your post is simply another ad hominem
. I debunked your broken window fallacy.
cooperation is always preferable to coercion, however when states or anarchic enclaves believe that they can realize a net gain by taking a competitor’s resources/wealth in the absence of diplomacy — they will do so.
moreover, your argument makes the absurd assumption that ALL scarce resources can and will be “traded” peacefully through market mechanisms.
history and logic has shown that your broken window argument is debunked.
I still don’t think he understood the argument that aggression is much facilitated by the state which makes everyone pay for it, tax or draft.
To the extent that you want defense however, you’re free to pursue it without such hinderances, in an-cap.— yuberries
I still dont think you understand that aggression by the state which has the power to pay for it, tax, and draft incorporates economy of scale and specialization of labor that makes ancap society vulnerable to predation.
in sum, the very tenets of ancap society that you tout and the conditions that have led to its inability to sustain or establish itself since the dawn of civilization.
namely, ancap society doesnt allow for centralization of command and control of effort among the disparate competing PDAs and they are by definition decentralized small enclaves without benefiting from the economy of scale present in the USA or a large statist regime
I don’t think anarcho-capitalism can be ruled out because it hasn’t yet existed; I simply see it as an extension and evolution of the current world order. The current world trend has been toward anarcho-capitalism through the increase in the number of countries and the breakdown of old empires, and increasing the number of countries even further and encouraging competition between nations would only approximate anarcho-capitalism even more. Technology is a big driver behind this, and it may turn out one day that we find ourselves in an increasingly polycentric world order simply through evolution of current structures, and initiatives such as seasteading and eventually, spacesteading.–ultima
the argument that ancap cant be ruled out because it hasnt existed is a logical fallacy.
it is equivalent to confirming any society that hasnt existed, including a society of large breasted, oversexed, amazonian women (but like ancap society, you can still hope).
with respect to ancap society, two praxeological precepts debunk it.
(1) specialization of labor or division of labor ---- economic theory confirms that ancap societies have/will form heirarchal quasi- political structures like corporate boards, home owners associations, trade associations, et al to increase efficiency and cooperation among disparate enterprises seeking to increase productivity. these associations are the parasitic embryo of statism that will eventually overcome the ancap host.
(2) economy of scale – the larger the society or enterprise the greater the benefits of economy of scale. capitalism is rife with examples of large corporations initiating a takeover, spending more on research and development, or flooding the market with cheap goods and services to destroy smaller companies. this will occur in an ancap society in which a cartel or monopoly PDA forms. at this point, it would be more profitable for this PDA to prevent any competitors from emerging by becoming absolutist.
In sum, by advocating the dismantling of constitutional federal republicanism (which was created in response to the threats outlined above) the anarchists is simply playing into the hands of the statist who will seize power once our constitutional federal republic is scraped for an unproven unsustainable system.
You guys are desperately fighting a strawman while attempting to defend anarcho-capitalism. You adhere to the same fallacy as rettoper in believing that democracy omits anarchy, and vice versa. When you admit this he can spin you all over the place.—filc
ancap society is simply a precursor to statism.
(1) specialization of labor confirms that a capitalist enterprises and interactions require a heirarhical organization or association to specialize in establishing standards within an industry or service among the disparate private enterprises. None can deny that these group of professionals increase productivity and quality within an industry or service. however, once these organizations or associations get their foot in the door, they evolve slowly into statism.
In contrast, our founding fathers who created our constitutional federal republicanic understood that statism is a virus that infects every societal interaction, so they created antibodies (checks and balances among the different branches, federalism, universal sufferage, bill of rights, et al) to prevent it from becoming fatal to the host (society)
ancap society has no protections – it is unprotected since it is under the naive belief that market forces will prevent statism from emerging despite the wealth of historical evidence that has proven otherwise.
(2) economy of scale confirms that the larger the private enterprise the more productive and competitive, hence a monopolistic PDA will emerge and there is no guarantee that this power will not evolve into absolutism. It only has to occur once and ancap society is destroyed permanently. in contrast, liberal democracies understood this threat and established safeguards in the form of distinct military branches, civilian control of the military, state militias, separate branches of government and state governments, bill of rights, et al.
in reality, ancap society is simply a construct that statists will use to remove the significant civil and political rights and standards of living that liberal democracy, albeit not perfect, has bestowed on man since 1776.
We already have anarchy between the states. Refuted-- lennow
I disagree, my definition (and the ancap too) of anarchy is absence of government. the global geopolitic is anarchic since it is absent any central governing authority.
moreover, you are naive to state that there would be no coercion in an ancap society. I stated earlier that PDAs would compete and engage in conflict over disagreements and projections of power to gain “market share”. since a PDA possesses military hardware and trained professionals, it is naive to assert that they wont use these assets to guarantee security of clients in the inevitable disagreements with another PDAs clients. also, economy of scale suggests that a omnipotent PDA will emerge, and it is grand naivete to assert that this entity will not “cross the rubicon” and assert absolute power over all its domain in order to prevent a competitor from emerging.
in sum, it is naive for ancaps to think that private enterprises, albeit efficient, operate in the best interests of society in general. if they did, they would go out of business. indeed, the managers operate in the interests of clients, shareholders, and ultimately their own self-interest (see enron, worldcom, AIG, et al) as a result 99% of them go bankrupt. when faced with the choice of going bankrupt or seizing absolutist power, the PDA will take power over society since it has a critical mass of military power.
to debunk the assertion that no empirical “test tube” exists that disproves ancap society. the global geopolitic is an example of what would happen if the United States or anyother large state devolved toward anarchism. it would simply repeat the violence and chaos that exists on the current geopolitic.
In contrast, within the UNited States there is very little civil disobedience and strife when compared with the wars, starvation, instability, and despotism that exists in the anarchic world outside our constitutional federal republic.
moreover, ancaps claim that market forces would eliminate conflict, yet despite the fact that nations do benefit from trade and they do suffer from war (miscalculating power structures that lose wars often end up dead) , yet despite the risk of death they still engage in war when their leadership perceives that their national security is at stake and/or that they can realize a net gain greater by coercion than by cooperation. there is no reason to suggest that PDAs will not operate by the same paradigm
Ararchic societies cannot defend themselves. ?
statist regimes benefit from economy of scale in matters of national defense. they have centralized command and control of ALL of societies resources both in production and on the battlefield. In contrast, anarchic societies are decentralized without a single governing or controlling authority to direct resources to decisive points on the battlefield or protect vital centers of gravity. A statist regime could destroy the weakest ancap societies in detail and work up to the largest since the disparate PDAs would not likely expend resources and capital to defend a competitor’s land and clients.
In summary, you cant win wars by committee or by a loose collection of ad hoc alliances against a single monolithic enemy. In contrast, if ancap society wanted to centralize command and control of the disparate anarchic PDA’s into a single governing authority then ancap society has in an instant devolved into absolutism by forming a “statist” structure to control a single PDA in order to unite the disparate ancap enclaves into a command defensive force. our founding fathers did this when they determined correctly that the conferation formed at the end of the Revolutionary war was untenable as a defense arrangement. We are lucky that they formed a constitutional federal republic as opposed to an absolutist monarchy as many envisioned.
PDAs will morph into governments ?
economy of scale – only one PDA will emerge. and then the ancap societies’ future and freedom is dependent on the whim of the PDA management. moreover, an omnipotent arbitration agency would emerge which would represent statism in all but name. otherwise, anarchic society would constantly be engaged in petty low level conflicts among the competing PDAs protecting their clients from abuses committed by competitor PDAs in the absence of any final arbiter (supreme court)
specialization of labor or division of labor dictates that an association or organization forms to create standards, rules, procedures, et al among private enterprises within an industry or a group of private citizens in a community, club, et al. this organization is the virus (statism in its embryonic form) that will ultimately destroy the host (ancap society)
moreover, ancap society doesnt allow for a final all-powerful arbiter to adjudicate disputes to a definitive conclusion or make a definitive decision on an issue or course of action. Imagine a society in which a disagreement between private corporation or citizens is never resolved unless by force from the most powerful entity. And if the ancap society surrenders power to an omnipotent “Private” arbiter, then they simply become absolutist in all but name.
In contrast, constitutional federal republicanism has far more sturdy pillars to defend against the establishment of statism. moreover, liberal democracies have shown they can easily defend against external statist threats and even rollback and destroy statism with preemptive and preventative wars. ANcap societies and PDAs would be loath to resort to this beneficial and necessary manner of defense.
ONe last quote from von Mises, since you like to cite his arguments and you chastised me for not “reading” AE:
Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. –Mises, from Economic Freedom and Interventionism
A little problem that might just be nothing, but there appear to be a couple different ways one can arrive at the conclusion that AnCap would be the best. Two of the most popular are through a natural rights argument and the other on utilitarian grounds. But both seem to have problems. I think its pretty obvious that once you get around the hurdle of do natural rights exist, then it leads one to think that the government is illegitimate because it can only exist by violating rights. And while I think that generally AnCap would also lead to the best outcome, isn’t it impossible to do interpersonal comparisons of utility? You can’t really say that society A gives its people more ‘utils of happiness’ than B can you?
Am I just bastardizing these cases? Even so are there not actual legit arguments somewhere underneath?
I guess its like saying “it doesn’t matter if you can think of 100 ways to get to Never-Never Land, it doesn’t exist” What good is it if you can argue different ways to get to the same place if you can’t prove either one.
I think really the strongest point is that the burden of proof is actually on the statists and they have done a terrible job of trying to justify the state.
What’s the logical fallacy? Is it the same kind of fallacy that applies to statements such as “A colony on Mars can’t be ruled out, simply because it hasn’t existed.”, or “Immersive virtual reality can’t be ruled out, simply because it hasn’t existed.”?
Well, if anarcho-capitalism is ever to be implemented, it will be as an evolution from current structures.
But we already exist in a state of parasitism. We should be discussing how society will become more anarcho-capitalist. Trying to figure out how the state could then regain control is a little difficult when we have no idea how that society would be organized in the first place. However, I again point to trends in technology as empowering decentralization.
The internet is an anarcho-capitalist segment of society that exists, today. It is influenced by the state, but governments have limited power over the Internet. It’s only your opinion that the host will always succumb to the parasite. Has the Internet succumbed? Looks like P2P, Tor, etc… are all thriving. The Internet is also a motive force in the world toward more anarcho-capitalism, not less. It is the most anarcho-capitalist segment of society. Sure, liberal democracies are an improvement on communist Russia, but you seem to be arguing that evolution has reached a dead end.
The world is full of plenty of examples where economies of scale turn into diseconomies of scale. Empires grow too big and collapse. Corporations eventually get too unwieldy and start to disintegrate. If what you say is true, then we would already be under a single world government. Obviously, there are forces that pull in both directions and diseconomies of scale as well as economies of scale.
You commit the fallacy of conflating public and private and seeing those two as belonging to different universes or something. For all intents and purposes, the government may as well be yet another private actor; simply one that happens to have a monopoly on force and law. I don’t care about public and private, I care about voluntary and involuntary. What is your issue with voluntary government?
I personally don’t advocate dismantling anything without having a replacement in place. I think we should move toward anarcho-capitalism in incremental steps, such as secession, seasteading, and the movement of economic activity into the digital sphere. Implementing anarcho-capitalism by overthrowing an existing government by force is a little hypocritical. I’d prefer that it be implemented by people voluntarily choosing these alternatives.
“It’s not fair to say that activity X is profitable when the vast majority occurrences of X have been coercively funded, empirically speaking.”
This is the same arguement I make to people who say “actually Hitler was really effective.” Ya, it’s easy to seem effective when half your economy is built on slave labor…-- epicurus
clarify.
if your claiming that I have touted the benefits and efficacy of fascism than your argument is a logical fallacy - strawman.
hitler was profitable RELATIVE to marxism, socialism, collectivism, et al, however history has shown that liberal democracy or specifically constitutional federal republicanism was more effective since it was less coercive.
I have never argued for statism, in fact I think that ancaps are playing into the hands of statists by advocating the dismantling of the very system that is destroying statism – liberal democracy.
i acknowledge that statism is making some inroads by economic redistribution and coercion in the form of taxes and onerous regulation within liberal democratic society. However, it is far easier to check these statist abuses within a framework of constitutional federal republic then to scrap the system that has worked for over 200 years and replace it with an unproven and unsustainable system (ancap society) that the statist would love to see implemented.
moreover, I assert that statism can more easily emerge within an ancap structure then within a constitutional federal republic.
liberal democracy has the checks and balances in the system that make it more difficult for statism to emerge, while the naive anarchist has none within his system to prevent the emergence of statism
essentially, liberal democracy inserts a “statist vaccine” into society (limited government, decentralization of power, separate but equal branches of government, bill of rights, state power, et al) to prevent against the establishment of full blown statism.
this is why you will see many statists, marxists, communal-anarchists, collectivists et al infect and embed themselves within ancap organizations since they see the establishment of ancap society as a pathway to power that is easier to attain then through constitutional federal republicanism.