I believe that if the U.S. devolved into a stateless territory, the most likely scenario would be small and medium sized cities governed by private associations. From such private associations there would be many private security forces and from such organizations there could be formed volunteer militias to serve in the event of an attack against them (individually and collectively).
The defense problem really is the hardest challenge for anarchists because it’s structurally different from replacing police or courts. Police and arbitration scale in a modular, case-by-case way that markets can handle, but military defense is a collective, existential function that requires unified strategy, unified command, and credible signaling to external actors. It’s also a public good that can’t be limited to paying customers. That discontinuity is why limited-government advocates treat defense as the one function that markets can’t easily replicate, and why any anarchist theory has to meet a higher burden of proof here than in other areas.
This is convincing, but is it really that important to outline the mechanisms of an anarcho capitalist society? Even if it anarcho capitalism doesn’t “work” empirically, I don’t understand how a minimal state can be justified.
Obedience in terms of taxation for necessary resources seems doable, but how would you justify taking out competing police agencies, for instance? You can’t even do the objection of: if you don’t take them out, you will have a Hobbesian collapse. Taking out a single agency won’t lead to such a collapse, so any single coercive shutdown seems unjustified.
I believe that if the U.S. devolved into a stateless territory, the most likely scenario would be small and medium sized cities governed by private associations. From such private associations there would be many private security forces and from such organizations there could be formed volunteer militias to serve in the event of an attack against them (individually and collectively).
The defense problem really is the hardest challenge for anarchists because it’s structurally different from replacing police or courts. Police and arbitration scale in a modular, case-by-case way that markets can handle, but military defense is a collective, existential function that requires unified strategy, unified command, and credible signaling to external actors. It’s also a public good that can’t be limited to paying customers. That discontinuity is why limited-government advocates treat defense as the one function that markets can’t easily replicate, and why any anarchist theory has to meet a higher burden of proof here than in other areas.
You should have a chat with https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/
This is convincing, but is it really that important to outline the mechanisms of an anarcho capitalist society? Even if it anarcho capitalism doesn’t “work” empirically, I don’t understand how a minimal state can be justified.
Obedience in terms of taxation for necessary resources seems doable, but how would you justify taking out competing police agencies, for instance? You can’t even do the objection of: if you don’t take them out, you will have a Hobbesian collapse. Taking out a single agency won’t lead to such a collapse, so any single coercive shutdown seems unjustified.