I look forward to it. Although I must say, the more concise you keep your answers, I would think the better case you might be able to make. You know, the opposite how John Kerry likes to explain everything a million ways and nobody really buys it? 
Crud - hit submit too soon. Also, griffen2, are you going to vote in the presidential election? If so, who is your man?
Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
And why would these resources disappear without a government?
I’m not saying [crime in a state of] anarchy is ok because we already have crime. I’m suggesting that it is a nonsensical solution to consolodate power in the hands of a few when crime is power exercized by the few in the first place.
There are several questions to address. You worried about murder or rape, and concentrated power in the form of a permanent power structure, the government, in order to address it, and you got genocide and similar grand atrocities for it… and still didn’t stop murder or rape. Address the problem? As if it were even addressed already! :dubious:
Which isn’t government-like at all…?
You only find solidarity in being ruled? Hmm.
Unenforceable contracts are not a cause of violence or every act of suspected betrayal in a group of friends would cause a hell of a lot more fights. There might be a correlation between unenforceable contracts and violence, but the simpler explanation was already given: as drugs are illegal, the only people involved in drugs are criminals, one, by definition, and two, because the familiarity with breaking the law which pre-exists for these people naturally lends itself to black markets.
Because the power we already have but gave up would vanish? 
You paint a pretty non-rosy picture of humankind, that were it not for a big gun pointed at them they’d point guns at each other. This reminds me of Nozik’s critique of anarchy in “Anarchy, State, Utopia”, with the unspoken assumption that without government men are animals. The problem, of course, is that with government men are animals, and concentrating power in the hands of animals is a ridiculous solution to the problem of coercive force.
Ayn Rand needed government because without it exhorbitant wealth of her supermen would be impossible to collect and maintain for the very reasons you mention. In the absense of popular support of such wealth, these persons must hide behind a government.
I’m sorry you’re only an honest person with the threat of government action hanging over your head. Or did you not want to imply that with your huge diatrabe about how the second Big Brother disappears that the few bullies rule the playground?
griffen2, IMHO the biggest problem with the type of system (if you can even call it that) that you are proposing is that it’s unstable and therefore temporary.
It’s unstable almost by definition. There is no one enforcing Anarcho-Capitalism - no one preventing people from acting contrary to it. It will inevitably evolve into something else which will be enforced, and in a relatively short time.
That was my point in comparing armed corporations to communism. Anarcho-Capitalism will not remain Anarcho-Capitalism. Groups of people will band together for mutual protection, or mutual profit, or to steal from others, or to attack some disliked minority, or for some other reason.
These groups will need methods for making decisions within themselves. The methods they choose could be majority rule or rule by the toughest and strongest or hereditary rule or any of a number of possibilities. Any of which could be called “government”.
Anarcho-Capitalism will inevitably evolve into communism, democracy, monarchism, feudalism, warlordism, or some other “ism”. It’s not a viable system, it’s simply a relatively short-lived transitional state that might occur between the collapse of one system and the evolution of one or more new systems.
Why do you think governments came into existence in the first place? Why didn’t the human race remain in a natural anarchic state?
All of this is, of course, IMHO. But I just don’t see how it could possiby remain stable.
Fascinating debate.
Tell me, how would you address environmental issues? Oh, I know that privatization can hypothetically sometimes be a very effective means of conservation, but bear with me. What’s to prevent corporations from polluting the air frivolusly, ultimately ruining the areas they wish to pollute, hurting the people residing there. Our government has ways to deal with this, but I can’t think of any solutions in an anarchy. I’m truly curious how this problem would be dealt with.
Now you’re just placing too much faith in a free market. It is accepted in economics that potential competition will keep a single producer’s prices at a competitive level, but only if sunk costs are nil or trivial. Unless I’m mistaken, building roads costs a lot of both money and time. If someone decided to try to build this road, I imagine that the monopolist cut prices, making the new road useless. Any costs spent on the new road would be wasted and the guy who was trying to make the road would be out of luck. After the threat of potential competition has subsided, the monopolist rises the price again. And that’s that.
There’s also the possibility of cartels, but luckily, they tend to fail under free markets. Of course, that’s merely a tendency. The sucess of OPEC means you can’t rule cartels out.
Theory of public goods.
Or perhaps we could both avoid these one-sentence answers and get down to more detailed debating. I think what Larry Borgia posted is a perfectly fine assumption, especially when one realizes that criminal investigation is a public good, and that under a free market, it would probably end up being under-produced . Allow me to elaborate. When a criminal investigator tracks down and removes a criminal from a community, who benefits? Everyone in that community, of course. Who pays? Under the current system of “government coercion”, everyone in that community would pay through taxes. But who would pay in an anarchy? Well, if a nice investigator decided to go track down and catch a criminal, people would strategically freeride, and the theory of public goods says we cannot just ignore the freeriders. The good of criminal investigation would end up being underproduced, and so would any other public good.
Now let me anticipate your response. My guess (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that you believe that private investigative corporations (which would essentially be hitmen) would rise up to take the place of public criminal investigators. Yes, this is correct, but only the wealthy would really be able to afford this service. The resources required for an extensive investigation are enormous, and I doubt a man of ordinary means would be able to afford it. When the costs are borne by the entire society, then sure, criminal investigation is no problems. Criminal investigation under an anarchy, however, is riddled with problems.
This also raises questions about legal processions. Who’s to judge that when a man is guilty or not? A private investigator has the economic incentive to simply find someone to pin the guilt on and fabricate the incriminating evidence (it’s faster and easier). Under our current system, people would have a trial, and if we’re lucky the truth would come out, providing disincentives for investigators to do such things. In an anarchy, however, the right to a fair and speedy trial is no longer protected. No one has an immediate incentive to ensure a trial, so why would they? This is one of the most troubling faults I see in anarchy, and unless you can find a solution to this, then I refuse to accept this as an admissible system. If you can find a reasonable solution, then you have my humble apology.
Snazzy comeback, but it’s ultimately another one-liner that lacks real substance. You never actually refuted the original statement.
Come now, who would enforce contracts, as well as other rights? If a company decided to dump toxic waste on my land, what could I do about it in an anarchy? I mean, that’s a violation of property rights, so I should stand up for myself and do something, but what?. Go after the company and their numerous armed guards with my lone shotgun? Not likely. Oh sure, maybe the community will take pity on me and we can band together to stand up to that company, but then again, maybe the community doesn’t like me.
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but let’s calm down for a second here. For starters, I don’t think men are animals under either system. Men are men. What I think it means to be human is that you are always trying to serve your interests. This is the economical way of looking at it. Luckily, sometimes, your interests are beneficial to others. For instance, charity is completely self-serving in the sense that you must value the recepient’s welfare more than the money for the transaction to take place, and as a rational being, you are always trying to satisfy that which you value most, and so you greedily give your money to those less fortunate than yourselves. Unfortunately, it’s hardly rational to assume that everybody values other people’s welfare more than others. Empirical observations suggest that the trend is very much the opposite. So please accept that, no matter what the system, humans are always humans. They will always try to get what they want, regardless of whether those wants hurt or help other people. Let’s just hope those wants are socially beneficial ones 
It usually only lasts a couple of turns, but for that time your worker efficiency is cut in half and you have no hurry method. Very irritating if you’re competing to build wonders as quickly as possible.
But not if you’ve exceeded the maximum governmental city size and want to avoid unrest!
Convinced me. I am now a proud anarchist! Feel free to ask me questions. I won’t answer them, but noone else has either…
Assuming for a moment that a free market can delieve peace, justice and the American Way…
So, what happens after the free market has been subverted by the self-interest of market participants and ceases to be a free market?
If you propose some mechanism of market oversight by a non-participant to ensure the market remains free… hey, wait, we already have that.
erl:
You appear to be proposing the age-old anarchist’s canard of continually referring to the worst governments in world history. I propose comparing a hypothetical anarchy with those governments you and I labour under, namely the US and UK democracies in the year 2004 (“USUK2004D’s” for short). OK?
Can we agree that genocide and killing-for-property are immoral and should be minimised? If so, we might ask how such might be minimised. Merely ignoring the fact that anarchy might have woefully inadequate means of preventing genocides and widespread killing-for-property by saying “hey, they still occur now!” is intellectually dishonest. In USUK2004D’s, genocides don’t happen and killing-for-property is rare.
Oh, but he can. How unreasonable would, say, three carefully planned sniped-from-afar victims per day be without any specific entity dedicated to investigating and stopping him? That’s over 1000 per year. “Join me” says John, “and we shall prey on the weak and undefended members of a particular ethnic minority”. How many followers would he need before you called it genocide? (Incidentally, what if a company paid him to exterminate the poor?)
Clarity of command is required for efficiency of operation, yes? Businesses have clarity of command, yes? If my operation was to prevent people exercising force, it would operate more efficiently with clarity of command, yes?
What business would prevent John and his followers exercising such lethal force in an anarchy?
I don’t understand this. Can you explain it again?
griffen2
As I did to erislover, I suggest we do not fall prey to comparing hypothetical anarchy to the worst examples of government, but to the examples of government we have right now, ie. USUK2004D’s. Agreed? (There is little point proceeding if we don’t, since even I agree that anarchy would be preferable to totalitarian genocide or the like.)
Very few children die like this in USUK2004D’s. You think an anarchy could keep the rate similarly low?
Agreed, but they would need to vastly increase in order to compensate for the disappearance of tax, even hypothesising a large percentage of “government waste” within that tax. You are vastly overestimating people’s predisposition towards paying what they don’t have to.
If I were anything like the rich today, I’d probably say “fuck ‘em” and buy a big boat.
And who stops plutocratic corruption in an anarchy?
So what happens to those whom a charity “refuses”?
Is this before or after they’ve bought their hand cannon and flak jacket?
So I might as well have asked “What if everybody wasn’t reasonable and rational?”, then?
If I woke up freezing and hungry with a scarily painful lump somewhere, you know what? I might become John. If you earned $100k, I’d watch your back.
I agree, actually. This shows that the illegality of drugs rather than “government” is responsible for the high murder rate in certain urban areas, does it not?
John targets the poor remember - the ones who can’t afford to pay an agency.
This is outright plutocracy, yes?
John snipes with a spotter, remember. He and his followers could just as easily use car bombs (heck, I know how to make them!)
If I saw people dying needlessly at a rate I perceived as being far higher than in USUK2004D’s, guess which side I’d join. And I am a persuasive public speaker, believe me.
Given that there are people like me around, it would appear that anarchy is vastly more unstable than USUK2004D’s, agreed?
And incidentally, erl, I happen to agree that “government” will likely eventually disappear in the far future (in, say, an Iain Banks-like ‘Culture’ having essentially free energy, food, healthcare and robots capable of preventing murder).
But the way to get to that future from the year 2004 is via responsible democratic, utilitarian government.
You know, I know everyone here thinks they’re being great debaters, “Look at all these issues!” But every question is framed from the perspective of a central source of power and control. “How would environmental issues be addressed?” People would get together and address them. I mean, how are they addressed now? SentientMeat, Eris bless him, wants us to tackle the problem from the perspective of my current government. But I think the case can be made that my government isn’t cutting the mustard, either. But that’s not the point. The point is that, whatever solution presents itself, it will be through nearly unanimous agreement. Apart from some kind of armed negotiation anarcho-syndicalism, that any polluter has no essential protection, either. Companies in the fine pre-union free market needed to call in the government to protect their property from worker sabotage and other destructive tactics. Absent the government to protect any particular person or persons from the consequences of their poor treatment of workers/environment/whatever, what do we have?
And then we return to the “men are animals” argument, that the only people who will effectively organize will be large groups of armed individuals. That might be so. But how will they get along if all they want to do is exploit? Why do criminals kill each other, too?
What corporations would exist in anarchy?
I’m going to leave off the road discussion for another time. But what I’d like you to explain to me is just how this monopolist could get to his position without a government to protect his hoardings? Guns? But what huge company is going to exist to make guns, unless everyone wanted them? And if so many people wanted them, we’re right back to the question: how is this man going to commit any atrocities against an unrestrained and armed population?
You’re right, of course, that anarchy cannot strictly address issues in the same way we address them now. And I do not mean to suggest that a free market as such can address public goods adequately. But I also think it is fair to say that a free market as we often think of it in a libertarian sense would still have trouble coming about because of the very special conditions that would have to occur in order to have people accumulating enough resources to hoard without any entity with effectively unlimited time and resources (the government) to protect them.
If we are in anarchy, as I’ve mentioned, it is because we got there. Enough people would be tired of rule, tired of giving up their rights, tired of paying speeding tickets and taxes to a police force that didn’t prevent murders or car theft. The assumption that needs to be in place is that we would come to anarchy because we’ve tried rule, and it still didn’t accomplish what was wanted. Would there still be leaders, charismatic persons people look to for advice and guidance? Of course, humans are not created equal. Would anarchy still have organization? Of course, any goal-seeking group must adopt some form of organization, but it is my position that this organization needs to dissolve when the goal is realized, and no goal should be sought that requires a permanent and intentional organization.
How would we get to anarchy right now? I don’t know. I’m not a violent revolutionary, so I’m not eager to overthrow the current system, and especially in wealthy countries there are a great number of people who have too much to gain from keeping the current system (because they couldn’t maintain their possessions without it). But, philosophically, I think government is intrinsically wrong and though it can indeed address some issues in a certain way, the benefits we gain from a government are not worth the cost we pay in diminished rights and resources (taxes, for instance).
I don’t intend to rule them out as such. There will, quite naturally I think, be groups that will form that would seek to accomplish goals that only cooperation can bring. As I mentioned in my first post, I vastly prefer cooperative anarchism over competitive anarchism, but I do not for a moment believe that universal cooperation is something that can be achieved, and history has definitely borne out that it cannot be forced.
Then people will need to pick a specific point to debate, because almost every post raises about fifteen issues and says, “See? It’s all fucked up.” Even disregarding the text limit on responses, no one can keep up with that.
Assuming that we can never reach a point when there aren’t people committing atrocities to other people (i.e., criminals (though the word assumes there is some law to break)), there will need to be people who will attempt to protect and track down such evildoers. Would it be under-produced? Well, perhaps. There would be a tendency for “witchhunts” and vigilantism should crime become bad enough. But there would also be a tendency for investigative agents. Because of the near-impossibility of massive wealth accumulation, humans (as I said) would probably loosely organize into collectives that would serve their interests to some extent that they feel comfortable with. Naturally, some people would want to keep out the bad element (unless you think it is the great pay that causes people to become cops?). Though it is not a given that any particular person that was wronged could “hire” a private detective or some such, it is also not a given that such persons would exist as a public “servant”, serving the group in exchange for what it takes to live. Another solution might be a rotating force, where most, many, or some people find it their duty to serve, and the community takes care of them.
Yes, there is always the freerider problem with a public good. But if the good is being allocated/created, why would we force free riders to pay? And so we have the tension: people would be inclined not to pay because they didn’t have to, but if no one paid then there’d be none of the good.
Is force the only solution to fund a public good? And when that good fails to serve, does the forcing mechanism in place vanish, or am I (hypothetically, of course) still paying for protection even though my car is still stolen and the protectors are out issuing speeding tickets?
Our OP tends toward strict free markets. I tend towards competing cooperatives.
Are you not simply wishing you lived in Star Trek?
What are we comparing this hypothetical anarchy to, exactly? I contend that democratic utilitarian government is, right now, the least worst way of managing people’s inherent unreasonableness.
You seem to be merely pining for a world where people were less unreasonable. I’m happy to join you in la-la land so long as we both agree that it is idle daydreaming rather than earnest debate.
::still awaiting reply::
SentientMeat, don’t let your prejudices get in the way of the discussion. I honestly don’t see where you get some fictional utopia from my post. More reasonable than they are now? Huh? People are as reasonable as they need to be, and have been for quite some time. I’m not waiting for people to get “better”. Nothing really forbid democracy from springing forth numerous times in history, except that people didn’t want it, or didn’t know about it, or couldn’t see a way to get it started from where they stood even if they knew they wanted to be there. Was Pythagoras less reasonable than Newton? Do you think that we could show him the calculus and he’d understand? Does that mean Pythagoras wasn’t reasonable enough to get it? Nonsense. We investigate. We try. We fail, and if we’re still around after failing then we try again, something else this time. Men are reasonable enough now, we just don’t quite know how to get ourselves together. On smaller scales, we know how to be anarchists: nearly every group of friends I’ve ever encountered handle themselves well, solve problems, and organize around tasks without explicit and permanent leadership. Small companies, in my experience (certainly my experience now for the place I work) have almost no formal authority, all people have valuable input and round-table discussions are the order of the day. Not that everyone always participates; it does me little good to sit in a programming meeting, for instance.
Bit by bit I think we’re seeing the light; more and more, people are trying solutions to encourage good behavior rather than just punish bad. Why have a law against polluting when any fool can find it in his interest to not pollute (if we can organize ourselves that way)? Solutions like this are far better than the alternative. Is it the threat of imprisonment that keeps you from going on a killing spree? Of course not. You, like most people, have satisfied yourself that killing sprees are not going to help anything or achieve any of your ends. Are you reasonable enough to continue not-killing should the law suddenly be repealed?
I’ll admit that I worded that poorly. Of course there’s no central government to address these problems. Can you forgive me on the grounds that it was very late last night when I posted?
Nonetheless, I still want an opinion of what would happen to the environment under a competitive anarchy. I know this isn’t your preference, erl, but I made the environment question specifically in response to the OP, so perhaps we should let griffen2 take that question, since he’s the one advocating a competitive anarchy.
Fair enough question, but I don’t see why they wouldn’t exist. Corporations exist because they allow shareholders who possess ownership rights to the firm’s profits to have liabilities limited to the amount of investment in the firm. Even if central governement ceased to exist, that hardly prevents a corporation from forming, though enforcement of the rights of the owner would be a lot trickier. We’re both talking about business corporations here, right, or am I merely being to short-sighted to understand what you mean?
Also, when I said corporation, I really meant any business firm. Again, it was late when I posted, please forgive me.
What atrocities? I mean, no one likes high prices, but that’s hardly an atrocity. Are they going to shoot the monopolist for charging monopoly prices? Okay, sure, the monopolist still can’t commit atrocities, but single price monopolies create dead weight losses and are considered economically “bad” because of that. In the anarcho-capitalist world mentioned in the OP, there is no protection against monopolies. That’s what my train of thought was. Perhaps we simply were focusing on different things?
And to answer your question, yes, I assumed the monopolist would hirer security guards to protect his hoard. The fact that everyone has guns hardly prevents monpolies from occuring.
I don’t believe I assumed any of this to be false in my previous post, but the point is well taken. What I fear is that this society of “tired” people would decay as the actions of self-serving individuals begin to corrode foundation for the formation of these temporary anarchal organizations. Also, the power and goals of these organizations are entirely ambigous, which was your obvious intention, but because of that, these organizations may be ultimately ineffective at providing social order. These organizations would probably be very myopic as well, since they are temporary and therefore need only concern themselves with immediate issues. Or perhaps I’ve miscontrued your vision of this world?
Oh, well, if we’re talking philosophically, then I agree with you on some (though not all) points. Still, this is the best system I’ve seen so far, so I’ll be pragmatic for the time and continue my support of it. For instance, I feel that while we must give up some rights under government, it’s ultimately for the protection of more vital rights that would probably be infringed upon in most anarchies.
The debate style of these boards makes what you propose very hard. Besides, this system intrigues me: I’m genuinely curious about many issues and how the proposed anarchy would effect them. I apologize for the inconvience of answering my questions.
So, what you think will happen is that people will organize into groups that are not interested in themselves, but interested in the community? Sort of like a neighborhood watch group on steroids? Yeah, that probably will happen, but don’t discount the cop’s pay entirely. Incentives matter, and the lack of pay is a lack of incentive, even if that pay is nothing to boast about. I suspect such a group would have serious shirking problems, even more so than the police force of today has. This group is also very close to mob justice, which I’m not comfortable with in the least.
Also, I apologize for my previous use of the word criminal, I’m just not sure what else to call a person an anarchal society decides to punish. The fact that there are no laws to break makes the whole system very unstable in my eyes. How does society decide when to punish somebody? What is the code of right and wrong? At least with our government, I know what I should and should not do, but with anarchy, that’s all very vague.
Thank you for stating that so clearly. That’s the very core of the public goods issue. I can’t imagine it being said any more eloquently.
Question 1: It’s the only truly sucessful solution I’ve seen so far.
Question 2: I have to nitpick on your wording. If the good fails entirely, then it does not serve a human need/want, and then, by the definition of a good, it is not a good at all. The public good always fulfills a human need/want, it just may not always do that very, which is what your point is. So don’t say the public good fails, just say it doesn’t work well.
Now to actually answer the question. Quite frankly, even though your car is stolen, the police are probably trying to find it, at least at first. Also, the speeding tickets are in place by our democracy as a punishment for those who endanger others by driving at recklessly high speeds But ultimately, you make a strong point. Why should you pay taxes if the government institutions are not serving you, only other people? Well, that’s the flaw of the public good: everyone has to pay, even if they don’t benefit from it. Nonetheless, I have seen no better solution to the public good problem than this, so I will stick with it until an alternative is found which I perceive to be better. I am unconvinced that anarchy is better.
I’m trying to stick with the OP still, so please forgive me if my questions make assumptions based on the OP. Could you elaborate the meaning of competing cooperatives? Despite all the talk, I’m not sure I’ve grasped the concept.
You know, you sure chose an extreme example. Is it right to punish those who have abortions? This is a bit more ambiguous. Most people accept that killing sprees are wrong, and agree that we should punish those who partake in them. Issues exist which are less clear. Under an anarchy, if a women decides to have abortion, will she be punished by society or not? This is one of the big problems with anarchy. There is no written code of behaivior for this instance and no general consensus either. What do you think will happen under this instance? I think it would be chaotic.
Yeah, but doesn’t all that exist in the shadow of the courts? Hardly any disputes are resolved by them, but don’t courts (and the coercive power behind them) facilitate all transactions?
Paladud
I see no reason why we couldn’t eliminate them altogether. The only reason they have any use whatsoever at the moment is because the world is composed of vyeing nation states.
For any nation to successfully declare war on another it has to have the support of a large proportion of its populace. How could any Government rouse support to attack an Anarcho-Capitalist nation with no foreign policy?
Titobenito
Currency would likely be produced by several competing corporations… perhaps corporations like Visa or Mastercard? Doesn’t really seem too farfetched does it? Especially since they already support a medium of monetary exchange and all.
Ravenman
No.
None of these places made a gradual progression to Anarchy. As I said above, no country could switch to Anarchy overnight and make it work. These societies losts the Governments they had grown to depend on and were thrown into shock.
Also in the case of Somalia, the reality is that it hasn’t gone downhill at all. Sure, it’s a hellhole, but it was a hellhole when it had Government too. Government royally screwed things up and was suddenly overthrown. A country which had grown accustomed to an infrastructure (of sorts) was suddenly left to fend for itself and instinctively moved to install Government. As I said above, what is a Warlord other than someone who wants to rule others by coercion, in other words, govern?
I envision Anarcho-Capitalism gradually replacing government as technology improves and the ability of entrepreneurs to usurp the Government improves with it. People’s disgust with coercion would increase as it became more unnecessary until there would be absolutely no use for Government whatsoever. Private security forces, private national defence forces (which I’ll talk about later), private charities and other services would have gradually grown in size and popularity over several generations or even longer. The destabilising shock of a sudden loss of infrastructure that has all but destroyed the countries you mentioned would not occur.
Firstly, because hardly anyone has ever heard of it, let alone knows how it would successfully operate. Secondly because the people are still used to Government and are trying to recapture what they know. Frankly, I think that efforts to restore Government to those areas is a good thing because they’re not ready for Anarcho-Capitalism. No society is, at least not at the moment.
They couldn’t attempt to try it successfully because the rapid descent of their Governments rendered the smooth progression from Government to Anarcho-Capitalism impossible.
Armchair philosophising.
That’s a fair question. Unfortunately, since I’m not a US citizen I can’t really answer it because I didn’t get a tax break at all. I don’t give to charity because I’ve got a crappy job and loads of overheads but I do volunteer my services for charitable causes as often as I can.
I genuinely don’t know. I tried googling but I couldn’t find any figures on the amounts given to private charities before & after the tax cut was initiated. I would be quite surprised if there hadn’t been some sort of increase. I’ll keep looking.
If I were eligible I’d vote for Kerry. The Government has ballooned enormously under Bush and will continue to do so. In that respect I’d have little to lose by voting Kerry. Besides, I just really fucking hate George Bush
Alessan
The aggressors would have to justify their war somehow. If Anarcho-Capitalism was operating smoothly then they wouldn’t be able to use their ‘peacekeeper’ excuse. You’re also ignoring that an Anarcho-Capitalist society would remove all artificial barriers from free trade with other countries so foreign countries would be able to benefit from increased profits as well.
The reason they wouldn’t be able to invade is because it is entirely impossible to invade a heavily armed society that doesn’t want you. The “10,000 tiny security forces” would be backed up by 200 million pissed off citizens packing heat. They’d dwarf the armies of half the world.
I’ll be back with more responses later.
Three quick comments while I am at work. First, Kludge, I only clarified the use of “criminal”, I knew what you meant and I’m perfectly comfortable with using the word, so long as we remain clear that it normally comes with a lot of social baggage. Second, by corporation I mean exactly what you surmise, that is, the legal entity which exists as a shield for private investment. Without law, there can be no legal shield. Third, I generally envision an anarchic society as anarcho-capitalism in a broad sense. The “collective” part is the part which must form to address issues like public goods. Different collectives of different sizes, possibly approaching the size of smaller states here in the US but organization at that level becomes prohibitively difficult except for very directly addressed issues. The tighter the community, the less free riders are a problem for created public goods (like investigation or protection), though similarly the more difficult they are to support. Generally there wouldn’t be collectives as such, except that they would by necessity spontaneously form in order to address problems. I would imagine that collectives would take a lot of different forms, farming communities and production communities might take a socialist model, but externally they bargain as a single unit when dealing with a water supplier. In the meantime the order mostly dissolves so long as their needs are mostly met.