—“Ukraine was NEVER an anarcho-capitalist society and was never even close.”–
(a) Define Ancap. (anarchic) voluntary Polycentric polylogical (clan) law. Voluntary commons (none). Voluntary Military (gangsters, clans), usury, irreciprocity, blackmail, all permitted. In other words, migratory shepherds of the deserts trying to hold superior farmland, when it is farmland that created demand for infrastructure (commons), demand for armies, taxes, states to fund them. (b) Define State (territory, monopoly of violence, monopoly of rule, hierarchy, bureaucracy (c) ukraine has been a territorial possession not a state, since the golden horde. It was a territorial possession with wide latitude from the 12th century to the fall of the soviet union. If it was not a State, then what was it? What is the name for a stateless territory, not under control of an empire? So we have anarchic territory, territorial possession, and state. What other conditions of social order exist?
UKRAINE: —“Part of Scythia in antiquity and settled by Getae, in the migration period, Ukraine is also the site of early Slavic expansion, and enters history proper with the establishment of the medieval state of Kievan Rus, which emerged as a powerful nation in the Middle Ages but disintegrated in the 12th century. After the middle of the 14th century, present-day Ukrainian territories came under the rule of three external powers:
1.the Golden Horde
2.the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Kingdom of Poland – during the 15th century these lands came under the rule of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland, then of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (from 1569)
- the Crimean Khanate (from the 15th century)
After a 1648 rebellion of the Cossacks against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky agreed to the Treaty of Pereyaslav in January 1654. The exact nature of the relationship established by this treaty between Cossack Hetmanate and Russia remains a matter of scholarly controversy.[5] The agreement precipitated the Russo-Polish War (1654–67) also called The War for Ukraine. In consequence, by the Eternal Peace Treaty, signed in 1686, the eastern portion of Ukraine (east of the Dnieper River) were to come under Russian rule[6], 146,000 rubles were to be paid to Poland as compensation for the loss of the Left Bank of Ukraine[7] and the parties agreed not to sign a separate treaty with the Ottoman Empire.[8] The treaty was strongly opposed in Poland and was not ratified by the Sejm (parliament of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) until 1710.[9][10] The legal legitimacy of its ratification has been disputed.[11] According to Jacek Staszewski, the treaty was not confirmed by a resolution of the Sejm until the Convocation Sejm (1764).[12] After the Partitions of Poland (1772–1795) and the Russian conquest of the Crimean Khanate, the Russian Empire and Habsburg Austria were in control of all the territories that constitute present day Ukraine for a hundred years. A chaotic period of warfare ensued after the Russian Revolutions of 1917. The internationally recognised Ukrainian People’s Republic emerged from its own civil war of 1917–1921. The Ukrainian–Soviet War (1917–1921) followed, in which the bolshevik Red Army established control in late 1919.[13] The Ukrainian Bolsheviks, who had defeated the national government in Kiev, established the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, which on 30 December 1922 became one of the founding republics of the Soviet Union. Initial Soviet policy on Ukrainian language and Ukrainian culture made Ukrainian the official language of administration and schools. Policy in the 1930s turned to russification. In 1932 and 1933, millions of people, mostly peasants, in Ukraine starved to death in a devastating famine, known as Holodomor. It is estimated by Encyclopædia Britannica that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.[14] Nikita Khrushchev was appointed the head of the Ukrainian Communist Party in 1938. After Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939, the Ukrainian SSR’s territory expanded westward. Axis armies occupied Ukraine from 1941 to 1944. During World War II the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought for Ukrainian independence against both Germany and the Soviet Union. In 1945 the Ukrainian SSR became one of the founding members of the United Nations.[15] After the death of Stalin (1953), Khrushchev as head of the Communist Party of Soviet Union enabled a Ukrainian revival. Nevertheless, political repressions against poets, historians and other intellectuals continued, as in all other parts of the USSR. In 1954 the republic expanded to the south with the transfer of the Crimea. Ukraine became independent again when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. This started a period of transition to a market economy, in which Ukraine suffered an eight-year recession.[16] Subsequently, however, the economy experienced a high increase in GDP growth. Ukraine was caught up in the worldwide economic crisis in 2008 and the economy plunged. GDP fell 20% from spring 2008 to spring 2009, then leveled off.”—
2) –” Icleand, usa…”–
Iceland and the US Colonies were COLONIES under the ownership and protection, like ukraine, of empires and states. There were given limited rule by permission of those powerful states. This is as I said earlier, the only conditions under which the pretense of liberty (meaning preservation of local rule and custom) is possible. Furthermore, these were borderland (distant) territories, and settlers provide value in expanding territories because they prevent competing states from taking those same territories, yet require little cost for the state to hold that territory. In other words, settlement of new territories by the disenfranchised, poor, adventurous, or undesirable functions as purchasing an option by a state.
3) —“Thirdly people overcome the incentive to free ride without a state all the time.”–
Of course they do. They free ride on the production of commons made possible by the centralization of rent seeking in the state. They free ride on the empire or state that protects their territory from competitors. They free ride on the commons produced by others. That is what people go to cities for: to free ride on the commons. On the other hand, the scale of these societies (communes) is limited since the incentive to ‘cheat’ increases with increases in numbers, scarcity, opportunity SO the question isn’t that SOME people overcome the incentive to free ride out of some strange moral obligation, but the MAJORITY do not. And in fact, almost everyone, literally, demonstrates the minimum avoidance of free riding he or she can get away with. That’s research that just came out over the past few years and was published again yesterday. So, no, you’re claiming that people act irrationally, (not free riding) when in fact the opposite is true: people are rational actors: they seize every opportunity that they can to free ride. In fact, that’s the point of libertarianism: to free ride on empires or states by not paying the cost of access to commons, having the ability to engage in trade with members of those states, the technology produced by them, the discounted goods and services produced by them, the defense that’s provided by them.
Net net is either you produce sufficient commons to deny competitors your territory, or you are captured by those who produced sufficient commons to deny you the territory. That is why there are no anarchic societies: they cannot compete for territory. Worse, evidence is that they cannot compete for people unless they give something away for free. In the past this was land. In the present, instead of land, it’s credit.
I’m about 10k* smarter than you are, and I have many more years involved in the libertarian movement than you do, and much greater mastery of not only libertarian (jewish diasporic ghetto ethics) than you do, and I have far more understanding of all the competing theories of sexual, social, economic, political and military organization than you do. Libertarianism is just common property marxism. There is no difference. A monopoly. It’s just jewish ethics dressed up in the language of germanic law. I don’t do sophisms. I stop them.
-cheers.