Is an anarcho-capitalist society possible?

Is an anarcho-capitalist society possible?

I think that flag accurately represents how it would turn out. An African level shithole.

a society without the state to enforce private property will instead require a separate entity to enforce private property, likely a private militia. that sort of society is entirely possible. the question is if it's desirable.

Yes, until it gets invaded by its neighbors.

Nahhhhh not really.

Well I mean, anarcho-capitalism will just turn out to be hyper fractured democracy.

Think about it like this, ancap society is "established", people want to protect themselves, private security is not enough, people would rather live among their own, new independent communities form out of a country that is now in a huge mega civil war of different such communities trying to control property and resources.

yes it can work because it will naturally coalesce into a state

>democracy
There's nothing democratic about it. It's naked and absolute plutocracy with no pretence of democracy in the state nor in the economy.

it most certainly is, capitalism would have no problem enforcing itself on the population even without a state, in fact in places where the state is weak, corrupt or theres a lot of deregulation, capitalism tends to function that way any way

its usualy characterised by rampant corruption, decrease of all standards of quality or safety and complete disregard for human right of any kind, especialy workers rights, not to mention enforcing monopolies either openly or 'under the table'

its basicaly what capitalism constantly strives for, a situation where the capital itself becomes political power and the other way around, and society becomes basicaly just consumer base/labor-pool

thats what any anarchism would turn into

once you have anarchism you no longer have any way to make people accept any specific anarcho-suffix

the an-xy that people would adopt would basicaly be their economic function, their life-mode, pretty much exactly along the lines of ones economic activity being symultaneously his political activity

so in rural areas youd get anarcho collectivism, in urban areas youd get anarcho-syndicalism in manufacturing and industry and in the markets youd get the an-caps or equivalent, some people would just segregate, some would run for the hills, some would turn total fascist, some would likely wander the land as religious estatics or whatever etc etc...

fun question is what would the it crowd turn into, probably some variation of anarcho-syndicalism, their basic stuff is information, which cant even be privatised without state law, so even in anarcho-capitalism you couldnt have information property without just literaly putting a lock on it

If it has anarcho in it it's not possible

You misspelled "feudalism" there, bucko.

Have you not played Bioshock?

For 10 minutes maybe.

The problems in that game happened because of denial of free trade

Yep, but it would be pretty shitty probably.

It's still a better ideology than all of the other "anarchisms" because their societies would crumple immediately.

it probably is in the right circumstance. Maybe like a new space colony or some shit. Or like a city-state scenario. Since I have no imagination I am just going to say DUDE SOMALIA LMAO!!!!!

...

More possible (and desirable) than a Communist society, but both are impossible. As all Utopias are.

what about a cyber-anarchist society where mechanic overlords are in charge of removing every trace of organized society like laws?

He's not wrong

When will people understand that it's human nature that shapes government and bout the opposite?

>monarchy
>the elite few end up controlling the state
>fascism
>the elite few end up controlling the state
>communism
>the elite few end up controlling the state
>capitalism
>the elite few end up controlling the state

Your special snowflake system doesn't stand a chance of producing a different result

Today? No. An caps, miniarchists, chicago boys, randbots and the rest of them ignore that capitalism is more than a weberian ideal type. It is a historical developement that had, since its beginning, an evolution that is completely intertwined with the state. You cannot split the two of them.

Eventually, in the future, capitalism might evolve into something different. Material conditions might change. Scarcity could be left behind. We might have a singularity that provides each and one of us with our own Matrix or some weird shit like that. We can't rule out the possibility of a state less society that ensures private property rights. But not today.

>human nature

So basically Karl Marx's communism

>anarcho-anything
>libertarian-anything

Why can't people just let some memes die

Well, Marx and Murray Rothbard had that point in common: the state is evil and has to go

I think I read about a guy who said that an anarchist society would end up being capitalistic and communistic at the same time. Didn't read the article so I wouldn't be able to tell if I agree, but the argument is out there.

Talking about things that don't yet exist is pure speculation, but I believe that the only way to get rid of the "state' is to have a society where all material needs imaginable are instantly gratified, so no human being would ever have the impulse of violating the "non agression principle". If this is possible would be answered by technology and not by political movements.

>Talking about things that don't yet exist is pure speculation, but I believe that the only way to get rid of the "state' is to have a society where all material needs imaginable are instantly gratified, so no human being would ever have the impulse of violating the "non agression principle".
This is exactly what Marx said. He said you can't just dismantle the state and expect things to work out, unlike other anarchists. This is his historical materialism.

> If this is possible would be answered by technology and not by political movements.
Marx predicted the last jump to this level of technology would require socialism, where the owners of the capitals were also the beneficiaries of the product. The inherent conflicts of interest in capitalism would be unable to make the final jump to post scarcity, because it's not conventionally profitable.

You really should take the time to read Marx.

The solution is clearly to change human nature rather than change the form of government.
Genetic engineering when?

Yay, I love ancap meme ball threads

>Marx predicted the last jump to this level of technology would require socialism,
Well, it seems to me that a purely materialistic outlook would actually state the opposite. I think that Marx got carried away by his political commitement.

Pierre Bourdieu said that you can think with Marx against Marx, and with every other author against himself. Guess this could be one example.

>You really should take the time to read Marx.
Absolutely. It's been more than a decade since I picked it up. I've been reading comments on him (Who hasn't) but not the real thing. Wish I had more time to revisit him.

Sure it is. Anything is. But it wouldn't be nice. It'd be like what the wild west in bumfuck nowheresville was like. No NAP would prevent strife and conflict over property and its protection. You'd end up with a hierarchy based on who has more wealth and the ability to shoot anyone who wants it in the face.

Marx also predicted wages would go down and exactly the opposite happened, so I wouldn't trust him that much.