reed07

Again, from a theoretical (and moral) perspective, it makes sense to hold non-aggression as universal. I know that it is impossible to know exactly how things will function in an anarcho-capitalistic society because the free market can spawn solutions to problems that are not easily imaginable, however I was trying to wrap my head around how this works in practice (the ultimate test), not just theory. Additionally, how would a society with a government fall into anarcho-capitalism (how does this all get started, functionally, without a new government or dictator taking over)? I know that there are no modern examples of this happening but I assume that someone has a theory on this. If a country such as the US, right now, had a revolution that lead into an anarcho-capitalistic society, what would happen to the property that the government currently owns, including land (the some 40% owned by the govt.), government buildings, war equipment (bombs, guns, etc), and more? I assume that the society would first have to become minimalistic and slowly shrink away, similar to how Marx intended the communistic government to shrink away?

I seek the truth. I support Libertarian principles such as the NAP but am currently deciding to what degree (minimalism vs. full-fledged anarcho-capitalism). I presented the opening paragraph so that others could help me clarify my confusion about how law would function in a society without a government. I assume that you could understand how such a system could easily seem far-fetched and non-viable to someone who has not thought about it extensively because of the lack of real-world examples of it currently functioning. For me to support anarcho-capitalism, not only do I want it to be the best system from a moral and theoretical perspective (such as being the only system that fully adheres to the NAP), but I also want to make sure that it is also viable in practice (which is even more important IMO). Could someone explain to me how security firms would not conglomerate and force smaller firms out of the market or to join them? Do you think that small security firms would stand a chance against large, well established ones? Capitalism relies heavily on several factors such as well informed consumers, a multitude of choices (government is a monopoly but an oligopoly can be just as bad), and ease of choice (i.e. there not being a large barrier to re-choosing a security firm if one's suddenly acts undesirably). Most theoretical models of capitalism take these things for granted, and I don't see them as unachievable, but I think that it is important to remember that lack of these factors can limit capitalism's effectiveness in practice. Don't get me wrong, though--I think capitalism is a great system.

Thanks for this series! It helped a lot!

If people did not use force upon each other then the society would be utopias. The problem is that there are people who use force. Because of this, security-oriented establishments need to be created to apply force back (which is justified because they didn't initiate the force and is currently monopolized by the state). The problem is that the idea of "competing" force-users presupposes a free market but the market cannot be free without established security (circular). Security-based insurance agencies will want to not protect people who initiate force, however there will be an incentive (due to the "free" market) for them to rule on the side of their constituents even when they are not truly in the right (or else the constituents will find an agency that will rule on their side). So if two people had a confrontation, it would eventually become likely that their differing security agencies would both rule in favor of their respective defendants which puts them at odds with one another. So now might-is-right and the bigger agency will have the last say in the situation. This is in direct opposition of the spirit of the free market. Without a monopoly on the use of force, I don't see how conflicts could be resolved because of the lack of universal state law. Without proper conflict resolution, there is no free market. Rebuttals?