How would an Anarcho-Capitalist society actually function?

Because the things it brings to mind usually are Failed States and possibly a decent example in 1936 Spain, and the latter immediately led to a dictatorship.

The idea nevertheless is pervasive in politics and private thought however. So barring just the talk of ideology; what would it take for an Anarcho-Capitalist state to come about, to maintain itself, and how would it survive without becoming more Statist?

Rapture is off-topic. Because it did not function, of course. Feel free to discuss real-life anarchies though.

edited 13th Aug '11 6:48:55 PM by Ratix

To answer the thread title: it wouldn't.

Also: dammit, Rapture is the best example ever, though!

edited 13th Aug '11 6:38:22 PM by USAF713

I was going to say 'Badly' but then you... Damn ninjas!

edited 13th Aug '11 6:46:45 PM by TheEarthSheep

I am the thread ninja.

Well okay, the big problem with anarcho-anything is that without a sufficiently powerful entity to prevent any other system from coming into place, it'll get replaced. However, a sufficiently powerful entity to stop the other systems is itself already not anarcho, so you have a catch-22.

So if you wanted to obtain this in real life your problem is two fold: foreign entities and domestic entities.

We want the system to spread power (and thus wealth accumulation) evenly for all generations. We also want the people to not give themselves to large authority units beyond the community. But, we want people to be able to band together for foreign invasions, thus preventing the establishment of a large power via foreign incursion.

Next, we want to ensure that it is more beneficial for people to keep any organisation to a maximum size of just the community because otherwise people will try to gather into larger and larger units until anarchy is gone again. Next, we want to ensure that people still feel part of a whole, otherwise it'll devolve into a failed state where each small unit will be fighting each other. Considering humans aren't perfectly rational, it's entirely possible for people to undertake self-destructive action against one another over petty reasons.

At this point I say: durrr.

This seems like a highly difficult maybe impossible method to maintain. I can how it can see how it would start and last for a bit. I honestly can not imagine how you would maintain it without something going wrong and displacing the system and/or leading to the failed state scenario.

edited 13th Aug '11 7:15:16 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Humans Are Limited, so any type of Anarcho-Capitalist society is bound to fail and/or lead to dictatorship. Now, if we removed those limits...

The strong will take what they can, they weak will suffer what they must, even more than they already do now.

How do I see it going? I see it looking somewhat similar to the company town, to be honest. Or to give a literary analogy, it probably would look a lot like the society in Snow Crash.

You'd see local businesses (or larger corporations) buying up local necessities, using either anti or ultra-competitive tactics to put smaller competitors out of business, then using the leverage they have from that to gain further assets. Eventually you'd probably see a whole bunch of localities basically owned by one corporation or another. Said large corporations would probably strike deals with each other in order to maintain their collective marketshare, making it basically impossible to do anything without their consent.

That's how I see it going, at least.

A good example of how this might happen, is say Wal-Mart buys the transmission infrastructure for a state. They then decide to cut the power to all other retailers in order to give themselves a monopoly. Say a small cooperative decides to strike out on their own. Wal-Mart forbids those buying their power/shopping at their store from doing business with said cooperative. Etc.

Anyway that's how I see it functioning.

And of course, once power starts to become concentrated in a few huge corporations, they will eventually be able to afford their own armies, becoming de facto governments.

edited 13th Aug '11 8:08:57 PM by Jauce

Might as well weigh in myself before heading to bed.

Anarcho-capitalists describe the most beneficial human interactions as being trade, gifts, and labor, with all being voluntary rather than coerced through force. Reasonable, given that without the option for such voluntary exchange you just have ordinary anarchy. So the primary purpose of the state should be to secure the means for these to be possible, ie. establish a currency (barter is inefficient and limiting in a free market), and provide a neutral ground through which disputes over physical and intellectual property. It must also do all this without actually collecting any taxes compulsively. A tall order for any potential founder indeed.

Since order must be maintained, the best case for law is likely a form of common law, where precedent is determined by decisions of judges rather than a legislative process. Actual due process will stem from certain fundamental maxims that reinforce ownership and freedom to act without imposing violence, coercion, or fraud on other parties. Said maxims will be outlined by the founders of the Anarcho-Capitalist state, including the roles of the state detailed below. Judges would either be career judges who sell their mediation as a counselor would, or act voluntarily in addition to their normal duties. The incentive would come from having built up many precedents over the years that ensure consistent decisions that are favorable for all parties (in cases of mutual disputes) or in accordance with ownership and action (in cases of assault, theft or abuse). In the case of the latter, rulings will be on the behalf of the victim or the victim's immediate benefactors. It's unlikely imprisonment will be used, but indentured servitude or percentage fines of a person's wealth are alternatives. Reputation would be vital for judges, and second opinions would likely be sought, but only if the party in question could afford it or garner enough support from 3rd parties who could.

Since monopoly and state-favored advantage are rejected concepts, the state itself would be very different from a normal government. It would be entirely gift based since the state has nothing to give or product to market. The purpose of the state would be; to define a currency recognized throughout its territory, to organize the hearings of judges and facilitate citizen requests for their service, and to manage and keep record of contractual agreements among citizens, which would define everything from forming corporations (pooling of capital) to private citizen unions and agreements to work or interact. Naturally, every "state official" would serve in this capacity only as a voluntary means, earning supplemental income from gifts in exchange for making the jobs of judges more organized, and securing the contracts of citizens that enable them to function together; given the high demand of such duties, it's understood that a generous gift can ensure your contract or case will be handled promptly. Favored or disfavored officials will thrive or perish at this task, and any official can be challenged for their role, which will be overseen by a judge.

The biggest challenge facing an Anarcho-Capitalist society is maintaining borders and relations with foreign states. Trade is possible, but not insurance against aggressive action. Therefore, the state will be given additional diplomatic power to negotiate trade, treaty agreements, and if necessary, coordinate military action. All of these roles will be appointed from the highest gifting entities based on the merits of their abilities. Due to the expediency of foreign policy, it's impractical to imagine that if, say, a commander in chief is needed to wage war, only then is one appointed. Rather, foreign relations positions will be granted as honorary when such individuals emerge, and they will hone these practices so that when called upon, they are able to serve in these capacities.

Finally, national unity arises from the common knowledge that these freedoms are possible only within the given nation; indeed, if there are other Anarcho-Capitalist states nearby, trade and resource pooling may lead to a "merger", though the expected policy would be for all nations to remain sovereign. The state has no revenue beyond gifts, and though the state serves to organize meetings between judges and clients, it holds no power over them; judges are free to challenge the state, and any of its donators, on their conduct. Finally, the state offers a relatively neutral ground for parties to form contracts and maintain them, rather than being kept by the involved parties which could cause mistrust and accusations of fraud down the line.

And that's the best I can come up with. Granted, I'm not an Anarcho-Capitalist, so I have little idea how this country would fare. I seriously doubt it would be as productive as a typical first world country. First of all, the smaller the territory, the less territory the state needs to exert control over; too much and the requirements of even the ruimentary government roles become too taxing without, well, taxing for more revenue than citizens are willing to give. However too little territory means less resources, meaning less infrastructure, meaning less production overall. Admittedly, this would keep national "mergers" rare, as each nation would rather only worry about those who fall under its banner and its currency (and thus, mutual means of exchange), but even that is being fairly generous by assuming multiple stable Anarcho-Capitalist states existing. If it's just one, it will likely become very militant; defense of individual life and liberty means weapons production will be a major industry, and those who buy the weapons would contractually form militia. And unless the country gets really good at negotiating food imports without aggravating neighbors and inspiring tariffs and embargoes, food will be an issue in all but the most fertile geographical locations. Expect a segment of the population to suffer from famine, or face near permanent indentured servitude in exchange for basic provisions.

One final judgement call on this scenario: even if a hypothetical state beats the odds and achieves first world or even super power status without resorting to fascism or elected public servants with the authority to levi taxes, it would do so only because it has been established in this way from the get go. In no way would a country survive the transition from traditional state to Anarcho-Capitalist. The shock to culture, loss of national identity, and vestiges of the former government would all act against the goals of Anarcho-Capitalism. Violent revolution would be inevitable, and power through violence is antithetical. At best, the refugees of a failing state could be coerced into forming a new voluntary state, but would require a force of personality exceeding even, say, the founding fathers of the U.S.

To which I say: good luck. You will need it.

edited 13th Aug '11 10:05:41 PM by Ratix

An analogy might elucidate the situation:

We have this balloon, and it's filled with air, and we're trying to figure out why it just sinks like a rock and never goes anywhere. A small group of passionate thinkers investigate the situation, and discover that the ever-present air is weighing the balloon down, preventing it from flying. To these people, the solution is simple: eliminate the air! They become the founders of the radical "Vacuumist" movement.

"But wait," say the moderates, "hasn't this been tried before? If we actually put Vacuumism into practice, wouldn't air just rush in and crush us?" The Vacuumists don't trust these people: "Airism will never get us afloat, because it's the air that weighs us down!"

Along come a new group, the Heliumists, who propose that a new, different gas be introduced to replace the air. But this subtlety is lost on the Vacuumists, who only hear "Airist apologetics!"

In any stable "anarchist" society, there is going to have to be a set of institutions playing the role of the Helium, preventing the vacuum of power from being seized upon by warlords, biker-gangs, and the like (which would arguably be worse than a modern first-world democracy). Perhaps it would resemble the "courts plus glorified-charity" outlined by Ratix. But an outside observer may well be tempted to just call this a "government." In which case, we should avoid the temptation to automatically reject the proposal as "by definition" not anarchic.

Here's an alternative to the all volunteer government I outlined:

What other sovereign nations would call the "government" is simply a cooperative formed of weapon manufacturers, arms dealers, body guards, and militia who enforce law and order within the borders, and sell their services as mercenaries to other nations in order to raise revenue. This revenue would go towards establishing "public" infrastructure like roads and utilities, which would otherwise be the responsibility of private firms with competing interests.

Since this is just one step away from being a military dictatorship (the cooperative already effectively controls all the territory of the nation), the judges will once again be the mediators who watch over and make unilateral checks on the military cooperative's power, while competing firms will be ever poised to rise up and take their place. This may undermine the "no threat of violence" principle of conduct, but then this hypothetical society already embraces enabling individual defense, sabre-rattling is often employed as a defensive measure. Ultimately the judges will establish precedents when the difference between the two comes into question, resulting in a baroque, convoluted web of rulings that can really only be kept track of adequately by those qualified to become judges. A cooperative of judges would not be out of the question.

How would you identify a judge?

The same way we identify lawyers; those who have studied the maxims and precedents that compose the common law and thus are sought out to mediate disputes.

Yes, but how do you confirm their qualification to act as a judge? It sounds like it would be easy to impersonate one.

Barring the presence of a cooperative of judges, the best solution I can think of is to allow appeal to other judges who will hear the case at a price. A complete fraud would thus run up against the precedent of legitimate judges.

What is to be done if two or more conflicting judicial-coops arise with irreconcilably different legal doctrines? E.g., Group A imposes the death penalty for rape, while Group B doesn't, and holds murder trials for members of Group A who carry out such penalties, and Group A denounces these trials as institutionalized aggression against legitimately rights-exercising individuals, etc. etc... Wouldn't the natural tendency be towards the universal adoption of a single set of legal doctrines? And if so, what's to stop the legal doctrine from being "All Glory to the Evil Overlord"?

Nothing. Anarchists don't understand that what they want isn't anarchy, it's tribalism. And they're hypocrites if they think they can stop it from just becoming normal society again, because to do it they have to force people into keeping with anarchy, which goes against the entire ideology.

Anarchists don't want government to end, they want it to be small and easy to hold at gunpoint.

edited 14th Aug '11 9:02:43 AM by USAF713

First, any kind of society with an "anarcho" would not have states. At all. The idea of a widespread governing force above the individual is entirely unanarchistic.

Secondly, an anarcho-capitalistic system is governed by the principles of the market, meaning that the qualification of a judge or any other institution would be determined by the satisfaction of their customers. The whole idea is that any kind of social interaction is based your willingness to pay for it.

^ Anarcho-Tribalism is merely on of many forms of anachism. Most of them differ in how the manage the interaction of people. So while a capitalistic anarchism relies on the market, a tribalistic one uses the verity of available different systems. A combination of Moving To Canada Federalism Up To Eleven, if you want.

edited 14th Aug '11 9:20:09 AM by eX

Very well then, with what shall they be paid? My purpose of establishing a governing body was to define just such a tender, and from there to make it's operation dependent on the competing market forces. If they so desired they could cut off the government altogether; at the expense of a recognized currency and definition of borders, which would make them helpless against foreign forces.

Dollar, Inc.

The concept wouldn't be that different from what banks already do.

edited 14th Aug '11 9:36:51 AM by eX

Anarchism is all about personal rights, no? And in such a society, it's about survival of the fittest. Well, people who are not "the fittest" would naturally gravitate towards one another and create a collective society to survive. Eventually, this would become bigger. With many of these, you have tribes, and eventually, nations. How do you stop it? Do you attack them? Do they not have the right to work together? Anarchism requires inherent hypocrisy to function: we all have the right to do anything, but only if you work alone. If you attempt to collectivize, you will be shot.

Nonsense, I say.

Please, the same argument can be made about democracy. Every non-forceful form of government hinge on the people actually wanting to have that specific system. The whole "Are you free to limit someone's freedom" thing is not specific to political systems.

edited 14th Aug '11 9:42:49 AM by eX

Yes it can, but democracy (using the First World as the model) is what everyone has agreed upon.

Anarchism only comes about in two ways:

• Violent revolution, which, without a majority, is utterly immoral and should be crushed, and a sane majority wouldn't back that even against an authoritarian dictatorship... unless it's North Korea...
• In response to disaster, in which case force will be necessary to keep it stable.

It's not that anarchism is special in requiring force, it's special in that "force is unacceptable" is a big part of the doctrine.