Theme: Constitutional Order

Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is every possibly sovereign. So a person with property begs for liberty with is property by permission the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust total prohibition on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form.

Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds and thieves.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-anarcho-capitalist-system-prevent-a-monopoly-of-power-Is-it-a-concern-in-the-first-place

Anarcho capitalist societies are impossible because it is impossible to create any competitive order without a territorial monopoly, and impossible to create a territorial monopoly without competitive defense, and impossible to create a competitive defense without competitive commons, because it is impossible to create concentrations of wealth without competitive commons. Moreover, all competitive commons in history have included public-private partnerships. There have been no AC societies except the two extremes of jewish ghettos, migratory pastoralists, and gypsy bands. Only unlanded peoples seek a privatization of (parasitism) rather than continuous investment in commons. The west was superior at commons creation because it was superior at high trust production, and it was superior at high trust production, because it held territories that unlike the flood river valleys did not concentrate production that could be centrally administered and taxed, and therefore relied upon a militia, and militia participation for defense. No other civilization could and no other civilization did so. There is no possible liberty except by permission of the sovereign. Only a militia is every possibly sovereign. So a person with property begs for liberty with is property by permission the way a slave begs for freedom to sell his labor by permission. The only people who do not beg are those that need not: the sovereign. And the only sovereignty that is possible is the distributed dictatorship of sovereign men for whom no option exists except perfect reciprocity and markets in everything. Anarcho capitalism relies on the ‘ghetto ethics’ of Rothbardian low trust pastoralism: Intersubjectively verifiable property. Whereas western sovereignty relies on high trust total prohibition on the imposition of born costs regardless of their form.

Thus endeth the lesson. AC will never be. It is the ethics of shepherds and thieves.

https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-anarcho-capitalist-system-prevent-a-monopoly-of-power-Is-it-a-concern-in-the-first-place