50 Comments

Appreciate the response. Better late than never! (just please correct my name in the title)

I think you’re right that I probably overstated the uniqueness and role of the British legal system in the lead-up to the Industrial Revolution. But I’d still maintain that it established the foundations. More of a necessary than sufficient condition. Roman law likely met those standards as well.

Otherwise, all I can add is that I’d definitely like to see the experiment of anarcho-capitalism on a small scale (through charter cities, seasteading, and the like).

Expand full comment

“a good legal system is a precondition of free markets, not the other way around.”

I agree, but how is this a criticism of anarchocapitalism? If a good (I read that as reasonably effective, transparent, understandable, and adaptable) legal system is so beneficial, that is what people will want to buy, and that is what suppliers will sell. Just because people are able to innovate, that doesn’t mean that there are not powerful incentive for standardization.

Expand full comment

Assuming rational customers and all that, which is a big assumption. Look at all the people buying healthy food instead of sugary crap... not.

Expand full comment

Why must we assume rational customers? The complexity of providing many highly customized legal environments seems like a huge cost, leading to strong economies of scale, even if we assume normal humans inhabit the system. We buy sugary crap, but it is mass produced sugary crap, not so much highly customized sugary crap.

Expand full comment
Aug 8·edited Aug 8

Libertarians have attempted to create new countries like Minerva, but that promptly got invaded by Tonga. Bryan's imagined more peaceful world is the RESULT of some countries being militarily dominant. Someone as familiar with Darwinism and game theory as him should be aware that a population full of doves will be vulnerable to invasion by a single hawk.

Expand full comment

What is the objective of invading an an-cap territory?

There is no tax revenue system to take over. The population have already rejected the idea of 'rulers'. There is no government to defeat and replace with your own.

Also an-cap territories are not controlled by the usual political class. The political class in statist wars generally agree to only use ordinary citizens as cannon fodder and leave each other alone, because to them war is generally for profits, distracting the population from other issues and culling the latest generation of idealistic, fighting age men (who pose a threat to the statist regime).

None of this applies to an-cap territories which means they are far more likely to assassinate the political leaders and generals and welcome the ordinary soldiers, offering them lots of weed and prostitutes if they agree to put down their guns. Perhaps even offering them sanctuary if they want to bring over their wives and children too. Offering discounts on housing etc would still be cheaper than waging a war.

Nations in the west have only just paid back their war loans for WW2. An-cap territories would be thriving economically without all the parasitism of a state and so they could offer HUGE incentives for soldiers to defect.

Sending in an army to an an-cap territory risks losing your army..... or perhaps the returning soldiers would be so miserable to come home to a statist society with taxes and politicians that they would stage a coup and turn their country an-cap.

Obviously all of this is a bit silly because the most likely thing to happen is everywhere adopts an an-cap society around the same time. This is how most social progress occurs. As soon as one territory becomes an-cap it will probably spread all over the world at the same speed that the internet or railways did.

Expand full comment

> What is the objective of invading an an-cap territory?

Off the top of my head, an adversary might invade

* To get access to the territory's natural resources (i.e. steal them)

* To get access to the territory's population (i.e. enslave it)

* To make Lebensraum for its own population

* To remove a potentially threatening, alternative social order

That is to say, for much the same reasons that states have tended to invade other states.

Expand full comment

Yes but all of these things would be prohibitively expensive. What you are proposing is no different to conducting a military coup against a supermarket chain just to get 'free bread'.

Why not just buy the bread and save all that expense and hassle?! Imagine the cost of not only violently taking over the supermarket but maintaining that control for years to come. Nobody is going to shop there any more. Suppliers will also migrate to other supermarkets. You will have no viable business, and you will be on the run from the law and for what.... 'free' bread?

Statism only works as a strategy if the public believe it is legitimate. As soon as they stop believing that it's a terrible strategy.

Try behaving like a king in your local neighbourhood and see how far you get. It won't work because nobody believes you are a king. Statism is the same.

Expand full comment

…and also stealing all their intellectual property. Since patents and copyrights are meaningless in an-cap world - at least as it relates to “outsiders”, right?

Or do you assume that even lacking any form of national defense, the an-cap territory will pay taxes to have folks negotiate treaties with other states for trade including on intellectual property?

Expand full comment

…and don’t forget to steal the non-natural resources of the territory. If the territory’s inhabitants become rich and successful, stealing their stuff becomes worthwhile, even for those not equipped to enslave it.

Expand full comment

Your arguments about offering discount housing and other bribes for soldiers to defect ring hollow in the real-world. If even 25% of the soldiers decided not to accept the bribes, the an-cap territory can be severely destroyed and its ability to generate wealth severely hampered.

This ain’t the 17th or 18th or even 19th century - an invading force could and would bomb the hell out of the place first before marching in with any soldiers. And your bribes idea is like the obverse of soldiers storming Utah Beach - lots an-cap folks gotta be willing to get slaughtered as they are offering their bribes before a few invading soldiers will decide that the risk/reward of accepting would be worthwhile.

I could go on, but I sense it would be fruitless.

Expand full comment

"an invading force could and would bomb the hell out of the place first before marching in with any soldiers"

Why are they invading though? What is the objective?

Expand full comment

See Jarrle’s reply above and my additions.

Expand full comment

“ As soon as one territory becomes an-cap it will probably spread all over the world at the same speed that the internet or railways did.”

On what basis do you make such a claim, aside from wishful thinking?

The American form of government has been superior for over 250 years, yet we saw nothing remotely like everywhere copying it. By your logic, this should not have been, right? Pls explain.

Expand full comment

Because human progress tends to be copied by other neighbouring tribes. And today we live in a globally connected world which allows ideas, technologies and culture to spread instantly to every corner of the planet.

The American form of government is as bad as any other kind. What was superior about it was that America started off as close to an-cap as we've ever got. American was full of people FLEEING the tyranny of statism in Europe and starting their own free market society in the New World. They all had a good work ethic and disdain for being ruled. That was the foundation of America.

The American government started off small and limited and this allowed for rapid progress, productivity, wealth and prosperity. Everyone was doing their own thing and government was just a small parasite. But of course as the wealth increased the government grew and expanded its powers and because life was prosperous nobody paid much attention until all of a sudden you have the biggest fattest most parasitic government imaginable. Now the productivity and work ethic of a relatively free society has been replaced by all the usual effects of statism..... social dysfunction, debt, welfare, war economy, mind control etc.

The American system copied all the other systems, but because the New World was founded anew (and by people fleeing statism) it took a century or two to catch up with the level of dysfunction we see in other nation states.

The New World was anarchic at heart, but they stupidly accepted 'just a bit of statism' when they should have rejected it completely and just gone with 'all men are created equal' and left it at that.

Expand full comment

Where you argue that small, limited government is best, I am with you 1000%.

Where you argue that American government was [writ large] better 250 years ago, and better in particular before the New Deal than since, I agree with you 100%.

And I agree more than disagree about the negative effects of the almost continual incremental statism that has occurred since.

But you’ve made not a single argument as to why anarcho-capitalism would spread just because one place did, nor have you made any good arguments about why it would be both superior to (and doable in the real world in practice) the limited government that the USA started with.

If America’s small limited government was clearly superior, why did it not - as you suggest - spread all over the world at the same speed as the Internet or railways? Why was it not quickly copied by neighboring tribes?

But I do acknowledge that you’ve made some strong arguments for a small, limited government being optimal.

Expand full comment

"Where you argue that small, limited government is best,"

It is worst because a small government leads to massive productivity which will inevitably lead to massive overblown government.

"But you’ve made not a single argument as to why anarcho-capitalism would spread"

It already has spread. Every single transaction and interaction in ordinary daily life is now conducted under the principles of anarchy (no rulers). Anarchists are not proposing anything new or revolutionary. They are simply proposing that society extends all the current laws as they apply to ordinary citizens to include politicians too.

If you can think of an argument why politicians should not be bound by laws prohibiting theft or violence then by all means make your case.

Expand full comment

You seem to be making the mistake that agents are always doves or always hawks. In reality people can be quite dovish until you invade, then the talons come out. There is no reason why a population without a standing army can’t have some very effective militias, as we have seen play out in less developed parts of the world.

Expand full comment

Not having a standing army is quite different from not having a state at all or a mechanism to put an army together.

It’s also different from not having a deterrent (nuclear or otherwise).

On the ground militias can be effective, sure. How does that help when the bombing begins?

Expand full comment

Ask the Afghans, Vietnamese, etc. Many places are ungovernable by outside forces not because of centralized governments but because of a citizenry or populace that will kill invaders. It can be conquered if the conqueror is willing to kill a large percentage of the natives, but that is difficult to do if you want most of the reasons for modern conquest; only natural resources are valuable even if you kill off the natives. If you are bombing the hell out of a place, you aren't getting much value out of it.

There are historical examples as well of an armed populace itself being a deterrent. Recall the famous WW2 line about invading the US implies facing a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Expand full comment

But the premise of everything in the piece and these comments is that an an-cap territory would be rich! Richer than “stupid” states with governments. So your narrative simply doesn’t fit.

And nothing you said responds to the question about bombing.

Yes I will concede your point that people who want to live in poverty in Afghanistan are not easily nor profitably conquered. But how does that practically relate to the question at hand about the wondrousness of an-cap and the lack of need for national defense in said an-cap location in the real world?

Expand full comment

Sorry, but it rather seems that you don't want to understand what I am trying to say to you. I even directly discussed bombing but you seem to have not grasped the point.

Expand full comment

All your examples are of places that don’t have much to be worth taking (unless you literally want slaves),

I conceded your point that a poor place will not be inviting to invade, and might fight back harder than would seem.

The question still remains how a rich an-cap territory would survive in a real world where most - heck, even merely several - other states are states. Your multiple responses remain non-responsive. You seem either not to have grasped the point, or more likely are just choosing to evade the question.

Expand full comment

“So why give “systems of law provided by government” the credit when amazing things finally happen?”

I’m no historian, but from what I’ve read, I think there’s a decent argument to be made that the relative lawlessness after the English civil war is part of what lead to the Industrial Revolution.

For just one small example, among many, British parliament post war is bankrupt, and can’t provide for the roads. So they establish the turnpike trust system, which quasi-privatized roads across England. And having decent roads to transport large amounts of iron and coal on are essential for a blossoming industrial economy.

Expand full comment

Interesting. Any readings you can recommend to dig deeper?

Expand full comment

Without government nobody will have roads but everybody will have nukes.

Oh the mind of a statist. Haha

Expand full comment

“ My ultimate view is that economies of scale in defense are modest”

This claimed view seems to be at odds with your response that few entities would have worrisome nuclear weapons under anarcho-capitalism.

If you’ve explained this apparent contradiction elsewhere, I’ve never seen it.

Expand full comment

It shouldn't need saying but this person (a statist) cannot logically debate anarcho-capitalism vs statism. To do so would be to adopt the principles of an-cap. What he is actually saying (as all statists are) is that at the end of the day he is still going to point a gun at you and force you to obey his policies. Therefore there is no 'winning' the debate, because there never was a debate.

A 'civilised' debate between an an-cap and a statist is the equivalent would be a lovely meal in a restaurant shared by a man and a women when the man is ALWAYS going to coerce the woman into having sex regardless of how the evening goes. This can hardly be called 'a date' and to do so is to flatter the man. To call any conversation between a an-cap and a statist 'a debate' is also to flatter the statist, no matter how 'civilised' that conversation is on the surface.

Statism/ an-cap are not 'ideas' they are human behaviour. One is voluntary and the other is coercive (under threat of kidnapping and murder). Dating and raping are also human behaviours and not merely 'ideas'.

Expand full comment

Libertarians of all stripes tend to be deontologists rather than utilitarians. I think this the root of much talking past each other. A person holding the belief that initiating coercive acts against others is wrong, but that in practice an ancap political system would result in some kind of Haitian dystopia as an empirical matter and would thus have more coercion is holding a rational, and even moral, belief, but has different priors that I do (and I presume the parent poster as well)

Expand full comment

A statist is someone who has rejected debating (negotiating) for thuggery (the initiation of force). In this respect they are no different to a rapist.

A rapist can try to convince their date that having sex with them is both moral and necessary, perhaps by arguing that we are suffering from declining birth rates. But if they are prepared to rape anyway these arguments are not a 'debate', they are just an attempt to reframe a fundamentally coercive physical transaction as an abstract (intellectual) non physical interaction in public (in the restaurant) ...... with all the rapey behaviour hidden behind closed doors (when they get home).

This is also how most statist behave. They do all they can to mimic anarchists in public, by having intellectual debates and showing how reasonable and civilised they can be... but like the rapist they still resort to violence anyway when the debate is over.

I have never seen a statist in a debate cross their arms and tell the anarchist "you can argue all you want but I'm going to just point a gun at you regardless, so why even bother"

But that is their position, by definition.

If statists stopped posing as anarchists all the time then the everyday (mostly brainwashed) public would finally SEE the level of violence inherent in the system (as per Monty Python) and rapid social progress would be possible, and I would say inevitable.

Expand full comment

The best, most thorough account of how a stateless society can successfully function is Stefan Molyneux's free ebook, "Practical Anarchy". There is no rational, economic or moral reason to assume that governments are necessary for the provision of roads, healthcare, charity, dispute resolution, courts, policing, national defense, jails - or any of the other services currently monopolized by the state. Governments are extremely dangerous, responsible for over 250 million deaths in the 20th century alone - if it is possible to run a society without a government, surely this is something that we must strive towards as a species. Practical Anarchy makes strong case for the private - that is to say voluntary - provision for public services. It reveals the idea of government as a dangerous and unnecessary anachronism, and points the way towards a peaceful and voluntary future for mankind.

Expand full comment

You claim “there is no good reason for…”

However, even if you can make a compelling case for ALL the other services - and I confess I’m a skeptic on policing and criminal courts, while open minded about practically all the rest - there remains in the real world one *very* good reason for government: national defense.

It is fine to be idealistic and cite striving towards your ideal. But the “national defense” point is kind of an enormous one until you’ve got AT LEAST over 95% of the world - and possibly it could be more than that - in your camp.

That is the one where it is absurd to suggest that the burden of proof is on those of us who believe in limited government for the real world.

And small scale experiments in anarcho-capitalism within some state’s boundaries, while likely admirable and otherwise worthwhile, could not possibly disprove the need for government for national defense.

Expand full comment

This is certainly no proof, but there is no reason to think private military forces couldn’t maintained and funded for national defense. Certainly mercenary companies are nothing new. Likewise community militias and gorillas actions from confederated groups have long existed. It seems feasible to me that some combination of insurance fees, secondary payments from private policing forces could fund a range of activities from local militia clubs to professional groups. You could argue this would be insufficient (I think it would heavily depend on the circumstances on how such a condition evolved) but it certainly seems possible

Expand full comment

Thanks for the attempt.

I think something much like your argument - i believe I’ve seen Caplan make similar - is at least plausible for private police forces. I’m skeptical, as I said, but I can at least conceive of it. I’m very skeptical of private courts for *criminal* conduct, but I can at least consider the possibility.

For national defense, however, I can’t conceive of it, except to the extent that, say, 80% (the exact percentage not important, they just gotta be economically significant and for the most part sorta contiguous - or have oceans for boundaries for some) of minimalist states were at peace for decades (or more), they all more or less simultaneously agreed to become an-cap, AND they banded together NATO-style on national defense, pooling resources (paid for appropriately proportionately, which means folks in every state agreeing to some form of taxation). And somehow haggle over who runs it, how decisions are made, etc. - JUST as current states would.

If you concede something like this for national defense, then and only then is the idea even semi-plausible. Otherwise, it’s just not anything akin to real world, and you can never get there, you’re imo just being utopian and doing thought experiments for the sake of learning *something*, but not anything that could actually be accomplished given human nature.

But that’s just my two bits.

Expand full comment

I've always loved what we now call anarcho-capitalism. I read JS Mill's article "On Liberty" as a 15 year old and have been sold ever since on the broad concept.

The question people have, that I have had in the past as well, is to look at areas where there is a weak government and determine if this would operate as a proxy for AC.

Haiti, for example, has a weak government. What we see today via the media is a lot of guys shooting AK-47s into the air or at others because the central government broke down. Likewise, the case of north eastern Nigeria comes to mind, when Boko Haram captured and raped underage girls in an area where the Nigerian government pulled out. The case must be made to distance anarchy-capitalism from these (frequent) cases. Without doing this, people new to the concept will have reasonable objections that they don't want to live in a failed state because they don't want to be crime victims.

Expand full comment
Aug 8·edited Aug 8

I didn't think On Liberty was supposed to be any kind of argument for anarcho-capitalism. Mill was on the rationalist end of the rationalism vs pluralism spectrum*, arguing on behalf of British colonialism. Even On Liberty seems motivated by his elitism more than any libertarianism (he drifted toward socialism later in life). Admittedly, I haven't read On Liberty myself and am just going by what others have said about it (which is Bryan's recommended way of absorbing Hayek's better ideas).

*I'm borrowing that concept from Jacob Levy's "Liberalism's Divide" https://entitledtoanopinion.wordpress.com/2008/08/02/jacob-levys-liberalisms-divide/

Expand full comment

He accidentally hits my general critique of private law, a bedrock of anarcho-capitalism, in "work just as well without a government providing a robust rule of law that applies to everyone in society." in that that isn't true hence doesn't work well even now. It works well for tort and ancaps, libertarians, etc want to reduce everything to a tort but that is simply because the "authority" (USG) is a neutral arbiter in that dispute. On the flip side his statement 100% doesn't exist today in the criminal system where that same authority is both the prosecutor AND arbiter, in that case the government carves out all sorts of legal and extralegal exceptions to ensure the rule of law does not apply to everyone, only those they favor.

I've seen no convincing argument that any private law system, sans a future omniscient power, has solved the abuse of authority problem. To use everyone's darling HOAs for example, HOAs are sued routinely for failing to follow their own bylaws and/or board members being more equal that others and that only gets resolved because the USG's independent court system to that. A magical ancap paradise nation wide HOA doesn't fix that.

Expand full comment

To be fair, one need not prove that an-cap solves all problems perfectly - in particular those not solved by ANY system. One “merely” needs to “prove” that it solves all the most important problems we rich civilized people living in “states” today consider important at least *approximately* as well as those states do

Expand full comment