This is going to be a bit of a rambling OP, but bare with it, I think there is some good discussion to be had on this topic.

I have a question to ACers. For the sake of keeping this thread on track I want to assume that AC is completely feasible in Western society right now. Don't worry about how it would come about or any of the problems with it, just assume it works right now and it works well. I'd also like to leave the morality of the state out of the equation and focus strictly on the pragmatism or 'success' of statism and anarcho-capitalism.

My question is this - is there a stage in history where anarcho-capitalism would fail miserably? What is this point and why?

e.g. If "America" had been founded as an AC society after the Revolutionary War, could it have succeeded?

Is there a point in the technological development of human beings where anarcho-capitalism would fail miserably? Do you think an medieval agrarian society would flourish as an AC society? Would people be able to negotiate an effective method of defense without gunpowder?

Sorry for rambling a bit, but I guess my overall question can be summed up as - was the state necessary to the development of human civilization and at what point(s) is AC able to succeed?

I also appreciate that the intellectual complexity required for an anarcho-capitalist society would be far beyond any of the situations I listed, but I'm more interested in the economic feasibility of it, and also the application of law and defense. It may be a stupid question I know due to the difficulty of separating the intellectual sphere from this, but it's worth a shot I guess...

I'm not sure if this is really a relevant question. Part of the reason society was stuck in the medieval agrarian society was because they didnt respect property rights. Imagine where we would be if rome had followed and ACist path instead of a statist collapse, we would have skipped the middle ages. ACism is only gonna work where people respect property rights, I dont think that the technological level matters as much as the general level of understanding about economics.

The one thing I don't get is that AC will only work when people respect property rights. I thought that the whole point of AC is that it is people's best interests to respect property rights because the repercussions of not doing so are not worth the risk. If the whole thing would just come crumbling down if everyone didn't believe in property rights, then how is that different than any other political solution, all of which work in theory?

I dunno, I kind of disagree with this. The thing that AC needs more than anything is information, I think. Being able to quickly find out what products and companies are good based on a wealth of previous purchasers of those products seems really important.

Of course ACland probably would have come up with the internet much faster (because it would be more important to more quickly convey information in a world where more information makes you more likely to succeed.)

Are you saying that understanding economics necessarily leads to respecting property rights?

This would be not be promising if I were an ACist. What are you going to do when the general level of understanding remains what it is (namely, not understanding)?

"When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state."

-Vladimir Lenin

It would 'fail' if exploitation is not understood. Exploitation of the few over the many cannot succeed unless it has ideological support. The Pharaoh used to be God and now democracy is God. Nevermind the fact that we are paying 60%+ of our income to the democratically elected exploitation class, people believe they are free and they will wave their flag like a good little believer.

So if AC is to succeed exploitation needs to be understood, so if you know what creates that or stops that, then you know if and when it can come about.

If it had been set up properly like that, then there is a good chance it could have succeeded imo. But that's the thing, it wasn't set up like that because people didn't understand freedom well enough back then. So in no time increase of exploitation set in.

A society with a strong internal bond has capital and ideological advantage over a group who's bond is only aggression.

Sorry I think i worded it wrong. I didnt really mean that people have an undergrad type understanding of economics, I think I meant more just like a general philosophical view. Like people used to think usury was immoral and it hampered the markets ability to provide investment and hold back economic growth. Nowadays people would think that is just silly as everyone borrows and lends on a regular basis. People dont really have an academic understanding of the economics of lending and usury but simply an everyday type of understanding.

I think for AC to work people will have to have an example of how it works in their day to day life. So a possible path would be privatization due to the state collapsing. If AC theories are correct, this would produce better production of roads, health care, etc and then people would simply not know any better what came in the past, but would instantly get up in arms if some central authority came and disrupted the order of their society.

Hope that clears it up a bit

Nice post, and very interesting op as well imo. I've been pondering these questions as well. To me one of lingering questions i have about ACism is how it is suppose to survive in a world of nation states; in a world of various hegemonic- social, political, and economic/industrial/military powers. It seems to me for ACism to work on a large scale you would need a great awakening amongst a significant percentage of the people of world, if there is only an awakening amongst a certain segment of the population, then the powers that be could manipulate and essentially destroy the AC society. This is much like how the individualism in the US was subverted and largely replaced by the populist marxism ideals at the turn of the 20th century.

I also don't quite get the dissenting views some ACist have for the libertarian minimal government approach a la the first 100+ years of the US. Since an AC type society would face the same kind of challenges. Which is essentially anytime a great enough percentage of a society can be sold/convinced of totalitarian collectivist/populist/marxist type mentality then conceivable both a individual type republic or a AC type society can be overcome. And i would argue the libertarian minimal government approach is easier to implement(convince a population of) and historically been more successful.

Help them understand.

That's a bold mission, sir.

imo, the big (practical) argument against a minarchist government as opposed to AC is that you are giving a group of people state powers, and we've already seen that those powers can be gradually increased until you reach a non-minarchist state - be it socialist or whatever. It's much harder to form a government than to expand one.

There's also the straight Philosophical argument that Government Is Bad, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.

I agree with the first part, but the second is like saying manned exploration of the moon has been more successful than manned exploration of Mars.

See this is precisely the sentiment that minarchists disagree with. The minarchist belief is that government formation is "hard" only in the sense that it is probably a period of chaos, but it is not "hard" in the sense that it is somewhat inevitable. Using historical arguments is easy for ACists, but at the same time the statist can simply say "in any situation in which there is not a strong coercive entity, one seems to pop up". (And yes, I am aware that ACists will argue that the organization of the institution of defense would prevent this from happening)

You need a huge cultural shift to move from state to AC. I would argue you need a lesser cultural shift (higher probability, less cost, whatever) to get to "limited government" as a strong, accepted ideal. it is somewhat probably that it will be easier to move in the minarchist direction. I don't see why this should be any less permanent than you imagine ACism would be. In the same way that some of the very core principles have carried on from 1776, a strong cultural revolution based around limited government would have strong ramifications for the forseeable future, imo

xorbie - We agree. I phrased that badly.

I should have said:

" It's much harder to form a big government from an AC society than to expand one from a minarchist government."

Edit:
I'm still not sure I'm putting this clearly. To me it seems easier to go from here to minarchy than AC, and easier to go from minarchy to big government than from AC. I also think if AC were to ever come about, that it's likely got more staying power than minarchy.

It's strange that you are assuming "understand" = "reject" in regard to exploitation and that ideological support for exploitation can only exist due to ignorance.

Where did you get 60%?

I think what I'm saying is it might be easier to from AC to bad (not necessarily big) government very quickly. Took us a while to get to where we are from the revolution. Under conditions in which people perceive a lack of the rule of law (which, again, I understand is not what ACists posit their society would feel like), it seems that big or bad governments prop up rather quickly and violently. This is my fear.

Why?

Through addition and multiplication. If you really want to get into this I suggest you start another thread.

Because one does not logically follow from the other...

I agree with this, I dont see how we could move to AC without moving through some period of limited government. Arguing for limited government can be much easier in some cases since its really hard for some people to wrap their heads around no governments.

Its also arguable that a minimal state based on well understood principles could be as stable as AC. I think one of the reasons the original american minimal state failed was because the limits of the government were probably more due to the lack of technology and the ability to tax then it was to the inherant philisophical views of the people living in america. If our current state of communication techology is able to bring us to a future state of minimal government I dont see how that would be able to revert back to statism, I dont really believe the early american colonies would be a good indicator of future trends if this situation arose.

I think one of the best ways for AC to come about is through minarchy.

If people are not dependent on the state and people are used to not having the state in their lives then it's only a small jump to AC.

Basically, as the state shrinks, more of its functions would be supplied by private companies, and eventually there will be businesses that supply everything the state supplies ie AC.

Of course that depends heavily on the method of taxation among other things.

Not being exploited is not better than being exploited?

Hmmm, your subsequent statement about Democracy being God threw me off what I think you were really talking about. That is conditions for success in absence of a state, rather than conditions in a state that would lead to a lack of state. It now makes more sense to me what you were saying. My mistake.