Have a King, the King has Dukes, the Dukes have Barons, the Barons have households. No democratic tendencies at all. Taking from one set of households to benefit another set takes away from one Baron to benefit another so the second Baron uses his power to protect his clients.
-
-
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98
All you've done in your example is shrink the pool that each ring of government has to be accountable to, it doesn't remove the democratic tendency. The Baron has to keep the majority of his households happy. If that means... 1/2
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Why do you think the Baron has to keep "the majority of his households happy"? Do you imagine this is an elected office? He has to keep *all* his households compliant - that's it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98
Compliant, sure, use whatever term that means "preventing revolt" you wish.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The point is then unless you allow households to chose their own lords, the democratic tendency cannot be removed, since there is no escape for the minority. Only anarchy can protect political minorities by allowing them to chose their own lords.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Anarcho-capitalism is what we have right now only the single protective agency decided that taking over all territory and ruling unopposed is more profitable for them - then it broke down into being controlled by its employees.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98
then its no longer anarcho capitalism lol I can just as easily state we are living in "failed feudalism" if we want to pretend that words don't have meanings
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
"Feudalism" describes a system of governance. Ancap is a hopeful description of what a ruler will do if interested in profit (but of course, power is above profit in the hierarchy of concerns). I'm a monarchist - I can say "we don't have a King and we'd be better off with one".
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98
"Ancap is a hopeful description of what a ruler will do if interested in profit" IDK what definition you're referencing here, but this is absolutely NOT what that means. Anarchy (no rulers) and capitalism (free markets) have very specific definitions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Ok, so you have ancapistan where there are protective agencies that compete and control military force. Now one decides that he'd rather be warlord of the place for various reasons. He or a competitor will succeed eventually at this ambition. Nothing keeps ancap ancap.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Unless you also include the outcome of that struggle as ancap - in which case *everything* is ancap because that's exactly what happened with state formation in the first place.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.