A POLITY CANNOT SURVIVE COMPETITION WITHOUT COMMONS Anarchic polities don’t exis

A POLITY CANNOT SURVIVE COMPETITION WITHOUT COMMONS

Anarchic polities don’t exist for two reasons: (a) they cannot obtain or defend territory, and (b) they cannot create sufficient commons to attract investment (people).

How would an anarchic polity come to evolve and persist in competition with social democracy, state capitalist, or classical liberal governments?

Anarcho-capitalism was a productive research program, but a condition of anarchy is uncompetitive and cannot survive competition from either Nomocratic (classical liberal middle class), social democratic(representative and working class), or state capitalist(command and peasant class) methods of government.

I only work with what I can find a method to construct. Meaning, that an idea is meaningless unless I see an institutional means of constructing it. ergo: you can have rule of law, but not anarchism, because no polity without the ability to construct commons can survive competition.

So I don’t really deal with ‘anarchism’ so much as that I rely upon nomocracy as the institutional system with which to prevent parasitism in the construction of commons.

We can solve the problem of commons but we cannot create a polity without commons. In fact, that’s probably a logical contradiction, since a polity that can prevent occupation and conquest by any organized group must construct a commons to prevent it.

So in that sense, an anarchic polity incapable of constructing commons is a logical as well as existential impossibility.

So please give up on your fallacies. Either fight for liberty or acknowledge your servitude, but wishful thinking about anarchic polities is a modern variant on waiting for the resurrection and second coming.