Re-marketing anarcho-capitalism

Mr. Karaoke sent me the following:

Of course, I think Peterson's point is good -- we can't do without government -- and it illustrates how "ancap defense agencies" should be re-marketed by their advocates: here is a better form of government: it is a sort of extreme federalism, with multiple, overlapping jurisdictions associating in loose federations.

That might indeed be a better form of government than we have now: we'd have to try it and see!

But it is a form of government.

Which we need, since, as Peterson notes, we have to reach some agreement on the rules for social interaction. E.g., can one, per Walter Block, pry a falling person's fingers off of one's balcony or shoot a kid who wanders onto one's property to retrieve a ball, or per Roderick Long, are those responses dis-proportional to the intrusiveness of the initial property rights violation? To debate such questions is to engage in politics. And that can't be done away with without the "bad anarchy" (i.e., chaos) taking hold.


  1. I agree - and this sounds likes minarchism - which has been part of libertarian political philosophy all along, right ?

  2. "and this sounds likes minarchism"

    Well, no: it sounds nothing like minarchism. Any one of these federated "mini-states" could be maximal as all git go.

    Minarchism is about the proper scope of a polity. The ancap idea is about how one joins and leaves polities.

  3. Gene, do watch this, 4 minutes.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Fair's fair!

Well, So What?