World Building-Ancap Edition

generally every utopia is someone's dystopia

Please, not this again. You're going to summon that Ancap autist who made over a hundred posts in that last thread.

>The State is a legal fiction created by the Corporations and can literally only exist because of the monopoly of force.

Remember: Nations are a Noble Lie. The State is a Noble Lie meant to keep the corporations in economic alliance.

===

As to answer OP, would anything change? Honestly, a megacorp with territory and an army is no different from a nation-state.

It's more than likely going to be dystopian due there being many more corporations than there are currently states and the political chaos that will cause. There will probably be more numerous and aggressive "corporate imperialist" movements and policies within more resource-oriented areas of the world.

It will probably turn feudalistic.

===

The problem with idealized economics and politics is scaling. Everything works fine with a small, controllable population, but when the population grows they start needing to reach out into other economic spectrums to solve problems.

(Also, remember the 80-20 rule of economics. 80% of the wealth belongs to 20% of the population.)

To be fair, I trust the state slightly more than I trust Corporations. Neither are entirely trustworthy, but at least the state acts in the best interest of it's citizens, the economy, etc, some of the time, while the main motivation of a corporation is profit.

Depends on the feeling I'm trying to evoke in the setting. In a cyberpunk setting, for example, the ancap society would be a hellhole with open warfare between "corporations" on the streets, with ordinary people essentially having become slaves simply because they live on land owned by one of the "corporations," and even though they're not technically forced to stay there most choose to because the corporate land is at least patrolled by a PMC that doubles as a local police force, something which most people simply can't afford on their own.

In a more optimistic setting, it would just kinda work. People own the land they live on, and in general they respect each other's liberties, and when a dispute arises between two individuals they would go to a private court (essentially just a third party that they both deem impartial and fair to judge which of them is right). In the case of an actual crime, most people have an insurance with a private law enforcement firm that investigates the crime and brings the person responsible to a private court.

No an absurdist setting, things would be pretty much the same as in the optimistic setting, except that some private law enforcement firms also promises to punish other people for crimes that didn't affect you but that you witnessed, such as using drugs, being a prostitute, or being homosexual.

Well, as a libertarian I would be happy to see a more positive ancap setting, likely in some kind of frontier part of the world, be it fantasy or sci-fi, where the state is far away and people try to build something for themselves. Though I understand that any kind of game needs conflict and that tabletop games aren't supposed to pander to my political beliefs. So any kind of dystopian setting works as well, as long as it's first and foremost there to facilitate a certain tone and gameplay and not to make a statement.

No idea how people can say that after all the deaths many states have caused.

Any society that would be able to make anarchy actually work wouldn't be capitalist at that point.

States have caused deaths, corporations have caused deaths.

It's just what happened when you organize humans into groups.

Sure, maybe private corporations build the death camps, I don't know. But they sure as fuck don't have the authority to initiate something like this or even would see any reason to do so.

Aren't you basically just replacing the Government with Corporations in an ancap society?
The only difference is that the corporations have less oversight, as well with more freedom.

If you need to sell your kid to buy food, then that would be legal (since there's no government), If a Corporation wants to kidnap people to harvest and sell organs, that would be legal (although, they would take steps to hide their tracks due to criticism influencing the market such as using shell and front corporations) but still, without Health Care or hospitals, then people still need organs.

In many little regards yes, on some fundamental levels, no. You are not born into a corporation, a corporation can't exert authority over you, you don't have to obey a corporation on anything that you didn't voluntarily beforehand sign up for and if you don't like it you can leave any time. Also a corporation gains profit from your workforce, not extorting taxes on all things you pay for. And if you sign up for being treated like a slave you are complete retard anyway.
>all these NAP violations

>If a Corporation wants to kidnap people to harvest and sell organs
That wouldn't sit well with the ancaps at all as they believe people have natural rights. There would, strictly speaking, be no laws, but this sort of situation is exactly what the ancaps claim that you'd pay a law enforcement firm to protect you from.

I actually run a game in an "ancap" post national world. the way I work it is this; after world war 2, Europe, America, the Middle east, and Africa (due to being colonised), all decided that having 'nations' was an absolutely shit idea because look at this MASSIVE WAR we were just in thanks to them. So they stopped having 'em.

Now the biggest governments are small regional councils, and most people are armed. Europe is mostly peaceful except for the constant, low level corporate espionage. (The party blew up a factory office on a "copyright enforcement" job).

Who is gonna enforce all those NAP violations anyways? The government?

Yeah but a place where 99,99% of the population are unhappy is more of a shithole than a place where most people are happy.

Big Tobacco alone is responsible for millions of deaths, user.

Yes, volunarily consuming huge amounts of tobacco is the same as millions dying in the gulags.

Considering that you can be sued for causing either I'd say yes.

>People are generally pretty happy in the city of Google, the company provides education, health care, and luxury comforts such as water and electricity.
>Nobody would dare say it out loud, because the HQ is always listening, but there are whispers that when the productivity of a worker drops, then they disappear.
>Some of the school children say that they get sent to the facility where "they turn humans into monsters", the parents usually quiet the children before the rumors get out of hand.

Well, education is privatized, and you can almost guarantee that the controlling class who runs the corporations, which run the schools, will try to make education un-affordable to the worker class to protect their status in society.

An uneducated population is easier to exploit, leading to vast populations of society ending up illiterate due to having no schooling.

I can see a illiterate worker signing themselves into slavery from not being able to read whatever contract they sign.

Only in America.

>will try to make education un-affordable to the worker class to protect their status in society
You will struggle explaining how exactly they are doing that. Also
>worker class
This is barely worth it.

>but at least the state acts in the best interest of it's citizens
What's their motivation to do this, instead of just ripping profits from their position?

Fahrenheit 451
the island
logans run
thx 1138
etc

99.99% happy utopic populations

Well, if nothing is public, and the responsibility for services such as education, health care, goes to the corporations, you have to trust that the people who run the corporations will act ethically out of good will, instead of protecting their interests.
I'm assuming the massive inflation that will occur upon ending agricultural subsidies, welfare, etc that will occur as the poor stop buying things, and the massive unemployment stabilizes.

You can guarantee that someone working below what would be equivalent to the minimum wage, wouldn't be able to afford schooling, as well as corporations having an incentive to make sure that people aren't able to afford schooling. since being able to pay a worker a sub par wage leads to increased profits.

You're talking about the US? Being a democratic republic, then if the state doesn't make an effort to appear like they're acting in the best interest of the citizens then the people involved in government risks being voted out.

I'm not saying that the state is trustworthy, just more trustworthy and has more of an incentive to play the role of the Government, than corporations which are entirely profit driven.

>you have to trust that the people who run the corporations will act ethically out of good will, instead of protecting their interests
But their interest is making money, and they won't make money if they offer shitty products. This is some basic level thinking. On the contrary, public insitutions don't need to offer good products and services, because they are already paid. A crap private school would not get many customers. It's that simple.
>I'm assuming the massive inflation
Massive inflation can't really happen in a society with free, hard money. Only states print inflated fiat money that you are forced to use.
>as well as corporations having an incentive to make sure that people aren't able to afford schooling
This is absolutely retarded. Corporations beenfit from a educated population, because it's the educated people that produces the best products and services, as well as perform the complicated work in finance, for example, or innovate new ideas and products. You can't get rich on an army of dishwashers while everyone else also has only dishwashers.
>since being able to pay a worker a sub par wage leads to increased profits
Yes, this is why Ford raised his wages to the famous 5$.

You need to be 18 to browse this site. Or I'm getting baited.

>you have to trust that the people who run the corporations will act ethically out of good will
No. Competition on the free market would ensure that they do.

We're talking about a hypothetical extreme ancap society, correct?

The education wouldn't be of crap quality, since the people who would be able to afford it would pay for the education. Most charter or private schools receive either some, or a large amount of their income from the Government, via grants, or subsidies, so the corporation who did have the funds available to start a private school, would be able to control the market.

If you all of a sudden got rid of Government, as most non-profit charity gets a large amount of it's funding from the government, via grants, then there would be a lot of hungry people starving.

People in the working or middle class who have a job, would have decreased job security, because now you have thousands of hungry poor people after that job who would do it for less pay, causing increased unemployment along as decreased wages as there's always going to be a starving person willing to do the same job for less than the previous person.

On top of that, as people are accepting lower and lower raises, and more and more people are becoming employed as employers can hire people for less pay, with increased hours, then both the poor, and the shrinking middle class stops buying things. Ending agricultural subsidies raises the cost of food, making people more desperate.

The poor starts starving, the middle class stops buying things, the price of everything raises, people stop buying electronics, the price of electronics rise, people cut down on buying food, the price of food rises. In order to have a stable economy, then you need people to be able to buy things.

There would be educated people, there would just be an incentive to make sure that there are uneducated people and protect the status quo, as the people who run and own the corporations would still be sending their family to receive education, and having them work for them.

I don't think you adressed much of what I said in my post. But adressing this bullshit would require a giant wall of text that I don't have the time for. And it would probably lead into more bullshit since you don't really read or respond to what I say. So, goodbye. On my behalf you can count that as a "win" in this internet argument.

This isn't really the right board or place for an economic or political debate anyway, it's a worldbuilding thread for how a ancap society would look in your campaign, it could be as successful or dysfunctional as people choose, as it doesn't have to apply to real world economic logic.

Daily reminder that ancap society cannot exist without degrading into corporate dystopia or Mad Max in a matter of days, if not hours.

I'd imagine the movement penalties over terrain to be an issue to the overall campaign in regards to overland travel.

>This isn't really the right board or place for an economic or political debate anyway

r u havin a giggle m8?

But, at least you won't be forced into slavery by having to pay taxes, amirite?

Of all the ancap memes this is the most exquisite.

>ITT people who know nothing about Ancap
Read a book, you filthy commies.

...

Guys, there is an actual setting for this called Ancapistan.

Alternately, play a game set in the world of Telemachus Sneezed, by Atlanta Hope.

youtube.com/watch?v=AH9ufx-Wq3w&t=90s

You know that they were making fun of objectivists and Ayn Rand, right?

No shit. No fucking shit.

Well, I mean you could play a campaign in the actual world of the Illuminatus trilogy, which takes this philosophy serious as serious as these books can take anything and has actual ancap factions fighting against the big bad evil governments, instead of a fictional world inside of it that is a parody of a particular fringe group of libertarians.

>Illuminatus is philosophically ancap
That's a big fucking -sort of-

Hagbard's crew barely qualifies, but most of the others are lefty militants. Most of the characters that swing towards the libertarian right end up fucked by various factors and dysfunctions, particularly the ungratifying nature of their sex. The appendices go into this rather deeply, pointing out how many libertarian groups use authoritarian tactics.

Playing as a Corporation State and simulating a corporate takeover via Private Army, as well as managing your Corporation (state) and trying to stomp out rebellion may be fun a fun concept.

Possibly making a system where you have to balance between profit, and obedience.

Draconian policies such as slave labor increase unhappiness, which increases the chance of rebellion and decrease productivity, but utilitarian policies such as increased wages decrease profit.

>but most of the others are lefty militants
Like? No sorry, it's some time ago that I read it. Hagbard has nothing on socialism, they was this slut-anarchist that freed one of the protagonists, before having sex on the beach with him, that this protagonist mistook for a communist, but she shat on socialism as soon as he mentioned it. Do you perhaps mean the mafia? I think they got fucked because they used mainly violence, not inherently because they oppose planned economies.

Off the top of my head:
>All the journalists at Confrontation (George, Joe, Peter, etc)
>Markoff Cheyney still hits a little left of center
>The other half of the slut anarchist (Stella vs Mavis)
>The Erisian Liberation Front
>The Jams
>Stannislaus Oedipuski turns into one before the god's lightning dudes kill him
>Malaclypse (The interdimensional demon thing based on the real discordian writer)

The slut anarchist didn't fuck George, she just sucked his dick. George didn't fuck her because she slapped him over his pointing out her pyramid tattoo. I THINK she's also supposed to be a changeling because of Hagbard, since it's pointed out that she's ALSO Stella by the end. Stella was the black chick who fucked George a lot and taught him about empathy. The whole point of George's Stella/Mavis relationship was that without empathy sex is meaningless, because Mavis only used sex to satisfy urges and purpose, and wasn't ever available to George after he starts fucking Stella, who he found it really easy to tell "I love you".

That's a direct shot at Ayn Rand, whose take (in RAW's eyes and very clearly in some of her writing) on sex is that without purpose and individuality it's not satisfying. Mavis kind of half-asses the ancap principles to get George to question what he's being told and make him skeptical, but it's pretty clear that she loves Hagbard and isn't fucking George for any reason outside of natural urge.

Another shot was the one guy from White Heroes Opposing Red Extremism who got the drug cocktail juice and went from authoritarian right to libertarian right, saying it was the right of anyone to use anyone else for whatever pleasure, on the grounds that whoever was used could also use anyone else. Then he raped one of the God's Lightning chapter leader's daughter and got her pregnant so they hired a hit on him and had to break their christian principles to get the fetus aborted.

At least those are the parts that stick out to me.

Expanding on this, maybe you could gain a bonus in different attributes depending on what Corporation you play as: For example:

Google starts out with either a boost in Research or Technology.
While an Urban Warlord would start out with a boost in Loyalty.

The corporations could be based on real life corporations. That way depending on the system then the campaign can be competitive with each player competing against each other by playing as a different corporate state.

Any suggestions for fleshing out or making a system around this, since it seems like a neat concept.

These people were just recruited by Hagbard and people that worked with him. Yes you have many different factions in this series with different beliefs, but I think Hagbard as the authors loudmouth is still pretty ancap in general. An overabundance of left-leaning factions can be seen as a reaction against the zeitgeist in which this series was written.
>Mavis kind of half-asses the ancap principles to get George to question what he's being told and make him skeptical
Because it's one of Hagbards methods to make his new recruits question what they believe. He would make a right-leaning person confront and understand leftist leanings and vice versa.
>Another shot was the one guy from White Heroes Opposing Red Extremism who got the drug cocktail juice and went from authoritarian right to libertarian right
This could be interpreted as jumping from one extreme to the other due to drugs, since
>saying it was the right of anyone to use anyone else for whatever pleasure
Is not a right-libertarian principle at all. It was basically the same methods as described above gone wrong.

This is what I don't understand about ancap.

How does a private law enforcement firm work if they don't have any authority to actually enforce laws or even investigate crime? (or NAP/tort violations, if you're going for the there's no crime without laws angle).

There's the social ostracism angle, where people will allegedly just stop dealing with you if you repeatedly don't allow the cops on your property or respect the rulings of private judges, but that just encourages criminals to not shit where they eat. Which is even easier if law enforcement becomes more local.

And this is still assuming the criminal and their victim are approximately equal. If one group's got all the food and guns, or has a monopoly on some crucial resource, in the US there's a standing army and a justice system that (ostensibly) works for every citizen of the country. In ancapistan it's up to everyone else to organize and overthrow such a group, which is pretty much the same safety valve you'd have in a dictatorship or monarchy.

So I guess that's a plot hook for an ancap game. Play the resistance movement that's trying to institute an actually sane form of government.

Continued
>(I forgot to mention the guys in greentext were all at some point associated with commie anarchist/ anarchosyndicalyst groups)
>Simon Moon was the youngest member of the Beat Generation

>Is not a right-libertarian principle at all. It was basically the same methods as described above gone wrong.
They link it to the Libertines, like Sade.

The Appendices are worth re-reading to get the gist of RAW's philosophy.

From Property is privilege:
>Property is theft
>Property is Liberty
>Property is Impossible
"The statement that property is theft means that some property, mainly land title, is based on armed robbery. The statement that property is liberty means any property that is voluntarily honored in any anarchist society. Property is impossible (property 3) indicates that property 1 conflicts so much with property 2 that society is in perpetually undeclared civil war. The mistake made by the egregious followers of Ayn Rand is to assume that all property 1 is property 2. The test is to ask 'would this be valued in a free and equal society?'"

That and Hagbard's infatuation with equality (That whole beat he hits like 10 times about how accurate communication only happens between equals) I think rather precludes him from ever stepping really wholly into ancap territory.

I always kinda pictured him right up the middle of the anarchy line, in with all the crazies, as the book put it.

>The Church forms a Corporate State, originally becomes a haven to attract the spiritual, at first the corporate state forms a stable community, with an adequate food supply from farming with a daily service focused on topics such as community, and loving your neighbor.

>Then the sermons begin to get darker and darker, the head priest begins to speak more and more on the end of times and judgement day.

>More forceful collection of tithes from the citizens, old testament laws are passed, the punishment for violating those laws is usually violence such as stoning, or being burned at the stake. People are killed for suspicion of non-believers.

>The Church Corporate state then forms a morality police, who's purpose is then to stop sinful behavior according to Church laws outside of the corporate state.

>They link it to the Libertines, like Sade
And those were hedonists, not right-wing libertarians.

And Hagbard might have philosophized about these things but in practice he was still a merchant, selling flax. Reminds me of Robert Anton Wilson that later on became a libertarian, an advocate of the small state, instead of a full blown anarchist.
>I always kinda pictured him right up the middle of the anarchy line, in with all the crazies, as the book put it.
That's probably true.

>And this is still assuming the criminal and their victim are approximately equal
No, they are not. NAP is an universal principle. If person A attacks person B and person C jumps in to defend A against B out of goodwill, then person C is in the right to defend someones else freedom. It's actually not that different if person C was a security man getting paid for it. The security man just doesn't do it out of goodwill well, maybe he still does and also really loves his job, but you get my point, but he's already there to step in when the violation happens and gets paid for it.

>And those were hedonists, not right-wing libertarians.
I agree, but I'm saying RA Wilson rather didn't at the time of writing it. He codified that section as that dude supplanting himself into the libertarian right, and lumped De Sade in with it.

That's what I don't like about it. It RATHER strawmanned a lot of ancaps.

"There were the anarcho capitalists, who sounded like republicans, except they wanted to get rid of all functions of government. Then there were the anarcho syndicalists, who sounded like communists, except they wanted to get rid of all functions of government. Then there were anarchists nobody could place, simply put, the crazies."

>If person A attacks person B and person C jumps in to defend A against B out of goodwill, then person C is in the right to defend someones else freedom.

And if person C jumps in to defend person A against B only to find out this is retaliation against person A breaking the NAP earlier?

Don't know, how are courts dealing with this right now?

That was more a question about if it's intent or action that matters more with the NAP. As that person was clearly trying to enforce the NAP but was attacking someone in the right themselves.

>this is retaliation against person A breaking the NAP earlier?
Then it's not retaliation.

How is it not?

He is not really jumping in to enforce some mystical power of the NAP, he's jumping in because someone is about to get beaten up and he doesn't like it, even though the guy getting beaten up maybe deserved it for fucking that other guys wife or whatever. If you want to make this one of these ridiculous examples that probably never happen in real life, maybe these two signed a contract in which they agreed to be allowed to beat each other up, show it that guy, and he walks away confused why people would do that.

I don't know what's so hard about this to understand, since most people already operate under the NAP. You don't start hitting random people, you don't want to get hit by some stranger for nothing. Start shit, get hit, most people understand that. If your courts aren't completely bonkers they allow self-defense, as well allow someone to use violence to defend some innocent. I can, currently, think not of any incident in which a court would put someone in jail for defending someone because that guy was about to get stabbed, and the defender was wrong for saving a guy from getting stabbed. At least not in the civilized world.

Assuming that society is even functional in the first place, but what's to prevent the corporations with all the influence, who probably buy the private police force/courts in an ideal society from blatantly violating the NAP?
People are acting like the freemarket is some magical force, that fixes every problem despite no validation behind it.
Saying, the freemarket will fix it is a bit like a fundie saying that they don't need a doctor, because praying to god will cure her.

>I can, currently, think not of any incident in which a court would put someone in jail for defending someone because that guy was about to get stabbed, and the defender was wrong for saving a guy from getting stabbed. At least not in the civilized world.

Depends on the extent of the defence. Ending a bar brawl by shooting a guy dead, even if he was punching someone is something that tends to get people in jail for example. It's about proportional response.

>He is not really jumping in to enforce some mystical power of the NAP, he's jumping in because someone is about to get beaten up and he doesn't like it, even though the guy getting beaten up maybe deserved it for fucking that other guys wife or whatever. If you want to make this one of these ridiculous examples that probably never happen in real life, maybe these two signed a contract in which they agreed to be allowed to beat each other up, show it that guy, and he walks away confused why people would do that.

Fine then. Someone tries to shoot a robber stealing something from him and accidentally shoots a bystander. Is that a violation of the NAP? I'm genuinely asking about intent vs action having primacy in the concept of the NAP as it's not something I've seen much on.

>It's about proportional response
Yes, and even an ancap court in this scenario would jail that guy for using disproportional violence. This is why I asked this because it's often not that different.

Yes it is. Just like any court he wouldn't be sentenced for murder, it would be seen as an accident. Probably ends up in monetary compensation for the medical bills.

>Just like any court he wouldn't be sentenced for murder, it would be seen as an accident.

Yeah, most courts would rule that Manslaughter if the guy died. Still jail time but likely not life.

So what if B is on my property with my permission and my dog bites him. I know my dog, and I know he only play bites, but to B this constitutes a violation of the NAP so he kicks my dog. By my interpretation B just violated the NAP, not in defense of his own violation and we come to an argument. Who arbitrates? If we both agree to pay an outside arbitrator what's the stop me from paying him more money so that his arbitration favors me? What's to stop me from killing B? If his death appears fishy who is going to pay an outside police force to investigate his death?

>ancap court
Who organizes the court? Who ensures that the jury is a group of unbiased individuals? If there's multiple privatized courts who determines which one we use? If I pay one court enough money can they detain the guy who shot and killed a bystander? Can he pay enough money to get another court to free him from, in his eyes, unfair imprisonment? What if one court gets a reputation for favoring defendants? Or favoring rich People? You can't say they'll get undercut by free market competition without resorting to some insane corruption of justice in which some courts charge huge amounts of money to guaruntee guilt or innocence.

The invisible hand of the market comes down from the heavens and slaps the guilty party.

All of this is not that different on how an usual court would operate.

>but to B this constitutes a violation of the NAP so he kicks my dog
Than its a clear violation of NAP on his side on the pretense of being attacked by your dog. Something that is hard to prove on both ends if you don't have any video material, but also by him if he isn't damaged. As long as the dog is not seriously hurt it shouldn't be brought to court, that's a waste of time and money.
> Who arbitrates?
That will either be decided by both of you, or your both insurance companies find someone that has no connection to both of you. In the best case you won't know this person until it will be brought up to the court.
> If we both agree to pay an outside arbitrator what's the stop me from paying him more money so that his arbitration favors me?
The mystical forces of the free market. No, seriously, this system is not free of corruption, it can't be. As well as the systems we have right now. This is why the insurance company of the other guy will check your insurance company to make sure that there is nothing fishy going on. This is why both insurance companies will make sure that the process is as transparent as possible. This is why they make sure that there is no corruption going on behind the scenes, because both want to please you, the customer, and can't afford something like this going wrong.
>What's to stop me from killing B?
Now you've gone full retard and I'm only responding because I've written the rest already. Fuck you for wasting my time. I'm out.

I think the fact that the police is private means that the person requiring police intervention is forced to pay the police. I'm guessing that there's no response until you pay.

If someone can't pay the say $300 fine for the police (it's probably going to be a lot more than that it it's private, but I'm being extremely generous) then they don't take action or make an arrest.

You can see how it would lead to some problems with people who can't pay due to poverty to call for the police, or how people will decide that it's not worthwhile.

In honestly as the police are a public service that people need, it's probably going to go down the route of the US insurance market.

>You can see how it would lead to some problems with people who can't pay due to poverty to call for the police, or how people will decide that it's not worthwhile.

Yeah, it seems like it would horribly exasperate the issue there already is where 'If a poor person is found dead, the investigation isn't as good as if a rich person died' and make getting justice for crimes against the poor. After all, a murder victim with no estate has no ability to pay the police to investigate his own murder so you are reliant on someone else to foot the bill.

>and make getting justice for crimes against the poor.

Sorry, I appear to have missed a word there.

>'And making getting justice for crimes against the poor difficult'

Obey the Corporate Powers.
With the Free Market, they can do no wrong.
The corporations always act with our best interest.
Trust the Corporate Powers.
The Power of The Free Market will always Protect us.
Obey.
Don't question the corporate leaders. The free market makes sure that they keep us safe.

Look at how gated communities deal with security and it will be more clear.

Mind you, gated communities also tend to be wealthy and they do get the regular police involved if an actual felony has been committed.

Services and products become cheaper as the demand rises and efficiency increases. Last time I concerned myself with them there was an increase in gated communities in bad areas of latin america. Not always only for the wealthy. Not for the dirt poor, but regular people.

>Not for the dirt poor, but regular people.

Yeah but poor people was the topic there.

>You can see how it would lead to some problems with people who can't pay due to poverty to call for the police

>Services and products become cheaper as the demand rises and efficiency increases
Also if we are talking about full on ancap, police services will be plentiful, with actual competition for markets and customers, and paying them will be like paying your rent and electricity bill.

>and paying them will be like paying your rent and electricity bill.

And a lot of people can't pay that and have to rely on shelters that get by in a good part from government funding. Which is what was being discussed where it seems like it would make an existing issue (The homeless are very vulnerable and don't get the sort of support they need investigation-wise) a lot worse.

>And a lot of people can't pay that and have to rely on shelters that get by in a good part from government funding
I bet my ass that in 90% of cases it was the governments fault in the first place.

> It's within the interest of security providing companies to actually increase its maintence costs and tarnish its image by letting criminals go, giving chance to competitors to capitalize on their mistakes.

Also, you are just thinking of one way to provide security, try to think of it as entrepreneurship without a state to provide a bailout or to guarantee its market share.

People are free to choose about their own security within their own properties. Perhaps poorer people will make use of neighbouhood watches through favor exchanges, perhaps they all try to share the cost of a minor secutrity plan from a trustworthy security provider, perhaps they share a culture of severe criminal punishment that keeps criminality somewhat at bay (because of the lack of resources to make use of a formal one, this one can be seen in real life too).

>tfw the government won't let me personally pay more taxes to fund more destroyers

Being a statist is suffering.

Assuming that is correct(Not really part of the topic here so we'll just run with it): That 10% is still there and how they are covered in an Ancap society is a concern, unless you want people getting away with crimes purely because it was done to someone too poor to enforce the NAP economically.

Wrong word, I suppose. What I meant to say was that it's not self-defense at that point and thus a violation of the NAP.

See I'd support that if you didn't drag everyone else into it.

>People are free to choose about their own security within their own properties.

Which is going to increase inefficiency. It's already rather an issue with police trying to catch criminals who range over a wide area (Like, for example, serial killers who kill over an entire state rather than in a single town). Making it multiple companies is going to increase overheads (As they have multiplied basic infrastructure that each of them needs, like headquarters or training or Internal affairs) and reduce the sharing of information between groups.

Crime is also an area where the visible dealing with it is not the same as the effective dealing with it (Or the popular). A lot of crime solving has very little visible effect or is only seen years later or is about stuff like stopping drunk drivers who are a threat but the method of dealing with such isn't popular (No one likes random breath tests for example).

It's an area I'm not sure could be done as private companies effectively without adding severe blind spots to the system.

No, why would I want that? Those people are free to secure themselves with what matters they deem suitable and aren't a danger for anyone else. On my behalf they can collect charity for it. On my behalf they can arm themselves. On my behalf they can form a community and band together. All these things are possible in our undefined ancap scenario.

So if someone goes and steals your stuff but you don't find out who did it until say, 3 weeks later (When all the investigation/forensic analysis is done) then it would be violating the NAP to try to deal with them?