Besides logically derived ethical/moral norms?
I want to provide a real world example of this one, if you do not mind. In Somalia many roads are blocked by thugs and there is still much fighting. How can we explain this? I do not know. I saw a time ago a talk at FEE about Somalia and how it performs well on many indicators of growth but I still read that there is much fighting. Is that right or just a misperception?
Maybe someone can answer both questions at one.
Competition.
between what, competeting warlords?
@Metus source?
Anyway, anarchy doesn’t instantly bring about peace and prosperity in society. It is just better than having a state. How much better depends on how well people can coordinate with eachother. I seriously doubt that roadside bandits can persist for very long if merchants are routinely being ripped off. Ben Powell’s paper notes that transportation costs are 1 cent / mile / animal, and that general security has improved since state collapse.
That’s going to be the problem with any mainstream reports on somalian anarchy. They’re going to focus on a couple of flashy events like pirates or bandits, when really any country has those, and the real question is how badly it impacts economic growth.
Yes, however, these “warlords” do not have a monopoly on the use of force so they will have to earn their customers, as oppose to relying on hostages like the State does. That’s why the term “warlords” is inappropriate. Private defense agencies would be more accurate.
So, warring states period China is good?
I don’t quite understand. What would prevent them form gaining a monopoly of force, given the usual Libertarian norms had not affected his decision?
Again, competition. And this isn’t a circular argument. Defense agencies have financial constraints that governments do not, namely that they cannot just externalize the costs of any unwarranted aggression onto their customers. Acts of war do not make any financial sense. Defense agencies are not at liberty to defy their customers and just gain up on them. Not without legitimacy at least, and I think it is fair to assume for your question to be valid that no such legitimacy would be granted.
You automatically define any state of war as anarchy and you think you have an argument? Please…
What? No, I did not define it as anarchy, I defined it as a warlord (or as you said "private defense agency) period.
But the question at hand is obviously with respect to the voluntary free society, i.e., anarchy or anacap or whatever. So why is this even relevant?
It most certainly was not. The question was “what would prevent warlordism (in the abscence of the state) besides logically derived ethical/moral norms?”
It was not "in a voluntarily free society what would… "
What would prevent slavery?
What of protection rackets? Or rather, “Offense Agencies”?
I would guess nothing. Slavery has been an acceptable institution for the majority of human history.
“Absence of a state” implies a free society. If there are warlords who are still fighting over territory then that is still a statist conflict. Again, you’re going to go back to arbitrarily define your own terms or according to some particular statist interpretations of history and I don’t want to divert the subject of the thread.
Open another thread if you believe that you have an historical example of a stateless society in constant war.
If there are warlords who are still fighting over territory then that is still a statist conflict
Not if noone has a monopoly on violence. Perhaps it is not me “arbitrarily defining my own terms.”
OK, well let me re-phrase my question so you can feel more at ease:
“What would prevent statism other than Libertarian ethical/moral norms?”
A protection racket is like a state. So what’s the question here? You can simply redefine your original question: What would prevent defense agencies from becoming protection rackets? It’s the same question.
I addressed that up thread. At least partially for now.