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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98
Winner-take-all is not how markets work IRL. Even the largest companies rarely have more than 50% market share unless they've been granted monopoly power in a given area. Any agency that tried to become a government would be kept in check by other agencies and their customers.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Power is better when there aren't rivals for it so rivals will fight and reach accommodations - leader A becomes a lieutenant for leader B. Firms are kept in line by a market b/c they operate in the kiddie pool of what the state permits - no competition via violence.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
You absolutely will see consolidation if you remove that restriction. "Oh, then a competitor will dethrone the monopoly" - not if the monopoly can launch a nighttime raid on the rising competitor's CEO's house.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @CovfefeAnon @0x49fa98
If you are seriously arguing that a company could get away with murdering/stealing from every single potential competitor I don't think you understand how markets work. Even governments can't war with other nations forever, violence carries very real costs, not just monetary.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, governments don't war with each other forever but they only settle when they find defensible borders They'll war until a there's a clear winner if they're in the same location. Read Roman republic conflicts as an ancap- they made war on rival protective agencies for clients
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Did they advertise "come join us for the benefits of Roman law"? Of course not - even though Roman law was a massive benefit. If they tried, their rivals wouldn't've let them apply Roman law to Roman clients in rival territory.
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.