Can someone explain why they think An-capism would work

I'm not talking about NAP or free-market. I mean the human side of things. Why do An-caps actually believe that people would follow the rules without force.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It would require a high-trust homogeneous society.

>It would require a high-trust homogeneous society.
Wouldn't any society work under this principle? This is like when communists say that communism only works post-scarcity. Everything will work post-scarcity.

So basically a utopian one

Except for Japan ofc

>without force

Nice strawman.

How's that a strawman. There's no state. What force would there be to enforce laws and property right.

Bump

Ancap is less about creating a system that would work and more about imagining ways that privatizing everything could theoretically function in a perfect world.

Which is why socialism worked in Sweden before it didn't.

youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

>follow the rules

what rules?

This is a well known misrepresentation of anarchism with the well known retort that it is for, rules but not rulers.

What are the rules of anarchism.

The point of all forms of anarchism is to provide a principled limit to the use of force, not to get rid of it. These come in many forms, in the capitalist varieties that would be the (in)famous NAP formulation.

How do you limit force.

By force, that is the only legitimate use of force according to anarchist thinking. The mechanisms of law enforcement must be private because the 'state' itself falls fowl of such principles.

they're just autists who don't understand why humans grouped together and formed governments in the first place and think it won't happen again

or they're turbo autists who plan to murder anyone that tries

How do you have private enforcement.

Well, there have been many theories for private law enforcement, even private law making. You'll just have to read up on it. This seems decent to me: daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html

Anyway, I see no in principle refutation to the idea.

There would still be private security like guards, right to bear arms, security cams, law enforcement agencies, etc. It doesn't mean there's no enforcers, it simply means that you pay for them voluntarily instead of with taxes.

So how do people without money to buy security protect their property.

Bump

How do people without money buy food? Or anything? Communism NOW!

>when your wife is raped because you don't have enough money to buy a militia to protect her from your neighbor
#justancapthings

> give me free stuff

>When wanting basic rights such as criminal justice makes you statist communist
#justautistethings

> give me free stuff

Of, course, what you're saying calls for world government.

There are people in the third world who need some free stuff, but they don't get it. Your give people free stuff ideology only seems to apply to whatever polity you belong, too. The other people...who cares about THEM?

Kind of like how it would work in an ancap society. Communities would help others, (after all having criminals running around is not something people like, even if they haven't been targeted...yet. People generally want criminals off the streets, and they'll pay to have them removed), except these communities wouldn't be defined by citizenship, but rather come together voluntarily.

corporations would, wouldnt they?

I definitely don't want a corporation responsible for security and enforcing the law.

> a corporation

I.e, singular, i.e, the state.

Corporations - plural - is ancap.

A corporation, i.e., ONE corporation - i.e., a monopoly - is a government, and what you have.

Governments aren't primarily profit driven. Corporations are. I do not trust a company that would stop defending me just because it benefits their bottom line

Government's will stop defending you when they are voted to stop defending you, or if they just feel like it because there would be no backlash, or because you happen to be outside of their borders.

It's profitable to defend customers. It's profitable to not get sued for contract violation and ruin your reputation in a competitive market - no so much need to care when a monopoly though.

>Implying anarcho-anything is anarchy at all
Why do people try to apply a system to anarchy? Isn't the point of anarchy to have no system?

>Governments aren't primarily profit driven
As an institution, no- why would they be when they don't have to be? The individuals that make up the institution, however, are almost invariably out for personal gain and they almost invariably succeed.

ancaps are wannabe hippies according to ayn rand. even murray rothbard admits there's no such thing as ancaps. at least he admits they are just left anarchists.

that and her atheist views are about all i can agree about with her.

>even murray rothbard admits there's no such thing as ancaps

Although not inventing the idea of competitive market law, he invented the label "Anarcho-Capitalism". Rothbard correctly stated that Anarcho-Capitalists were not in the same political category as self-described anarchists like anarcho-syndalicsts etc. Maybe that is what you're referring to.