Given that there would be some sort of public election of sets of laws by the laws of the market, why wouldn’t this power be used to enforce interventionist policies? I think people would choose laws according to their self interest, let’s say, how good that set of laws benefit himself the most. But the overall outcome of that social process could lead to sets of laws that compete for the most beneficial results for the most (like redistributionist measures). What do you think?
I think that interventionism is always going to be at risk of ocurring as long as the law of unintended consequences remains true; fruther still if society remains ignorant of it via cultural, anti-intellectistic attitudes.
De-centralization however would greatly minimize the possibilities of a massive event of interventionism, and under a stateless society, I’d imagine it would be far easier for accountability to be attributed if and when interventionism occurred.
I already see a prototype of a possible response to interventionism (in a stateless society) via The Internet, & how breaking news travels fast (i.e. Comcast throttles, strategies to avoid being throttled, on blogs, etc.)
Essentially, in a stateless society, information would have less barriers & red-tape to go through, and information regarding interventionism would be easier to attain & attribute.
Locally, however, I don’t think interventionism will be much a problem. I think however, when a certain critical mass of polycentric law occurs, the new complex system that emerges might cause initial rocky events that might be the result of in-experience with the polycentric system. Needless to say, a good deal of humility would be in one’s best interest.
*Edit: I was arguing from a market-anarchist perspective, but I suppose it could apply to anarcho-capitalism depending the definition used, etc.
I’m not convinced that anarcho-capitalism truly is a stateless society in the first place, it’s just favor for a private state. It merely privatizes the exact same functions as the state, and the defacto result of that is called monarchy. Most anarcho-capitalists still advocate reformist strategies of privatization and tend to treat many currently existing elements in society as a given.
Who are “most anarcho-capitalists”?
Many of the anarcho-capitalists at this very website, for example.
Can you name 3?
I’m speaking to one right now.
You used most and many, implying more than one. I’ve asked you to name 3. Are you going to back up your claims?
Also, I think you’re incorrect. Could you source my writing to back up your claim? I’ll even make it easier for you. Ask me directly if I believe what you claim, and I will answer so you don’t have to do the research.
No, anarcho-capitalism is more like a redundantly-distributed private state. Every function of the state is likely to be duplicated by multiple competitors that act simultaneously in the same “jurisdiction”. That doesn’t result in monarchy. This also means successfully-established anarcho-capitalism is panarchist to a reasonable extent.