Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology.
Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in.
At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are.
In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities.
Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource.
If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities.
Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book. Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.
> Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology.
Technology is a tool. There are always humans behind it. (If nothing else, the people designing the algorithms for the AI overlords)
Technology may help us to reach our goals, but in my opinion, it's rather useless if we're not even clear what our goals are.
> At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are.
And then what? It's obvious today how important clean drinking water is. Still people use access to water as a bargaining power and you might not have access to it if you live in a shitty part of the world and have nothing to offer. I don't see why it would be different here.
> Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource.
Then I honestly don't understand the logic of anarcho-capitalists.
So our current system is broken because, even though it has some checks, it still leads to too much accumulation of power.
Therefore we should replace it with a completely unchecked system which will lead to even more accumulation of power - but that's ok because suddenly accumulation of power is actually fine and there is absolutely nothing we could do about it anyway.
How does that make any sense?
> Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book.
In mine, it isn't. But even if it were, who is keeping the communities from using force?
> Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.
Yes, dominant powers change over time. For most of human history, that timespan was roughly "every few centuries". If you're talking about human life spans, it's absolutely possible that some groups are winning all the time and everyone else is losing all the time. (Oh, and those events where power actually shifted? They usually weren't very pleasant to live in either)
The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing restrictions on power.
It would not. But then the water-poor would realize its better to be
practicial than idiological. I believe in real life noone is all-poor. One as
an individual or group has always something to offer. The water-poor/everyone
would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
> How does that make any sense?
Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence.
Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars
against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
> If you're talking about human life spans, ...
Though I concur this is not what I said. If you restrict the time period ofcourse
you are going to find all sort of anomolies.
> The whole idea of our current system is to prevent that by imposing
restrictions on power.
Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does
not. If current systems just focus on the former and leave latter alone
not only the unpleasent shifts of powers can be avoided but also
libertarianism/ancapism need not exist.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that stuff, btw. I don't agree at all with the philosophy but I think it's good to understand the logic behind it.
>The water-poor/everyone would realize that there is cost of socialism which not everyone can afford.
Except there are places today where there is a right to clean drinking water for everyone - presumably you and me are living in such places. (That's why I was saying "in shitty countries"). So the "not everyone can afford it" point is not an universal truth. Of course it's true if you build a system that wants to make it true.
>Ancap are not happy with current state of inequality which is due to violence. Inequality due to trading-power is "ok". Though not bundled with ancapism, wars against current market leaders are heavely encouraged and just occur naturally.
I suppose the underlying assumption is that such wars can be won relatively easily and painlessly - I find that assumption highly questionable.
>Though I concur this is not what I said.
Indeed you didn't. My point was that your assumption only holds in time spans that are not practically relevant.
>Current systems do not distinguish between powers who break NAP and who does not.
I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here. There are lots of other ways I can abuse power that don't involve physical violence.
E.g., suppose I own some land that is crossed by a river that happens to be the major water source for some downstream communities. Now I can build a dam and make all kinds of outrageous demands to the communities and there is little they could do:
- they could try to find alternative water sources - which may be difficult or infeasible, depending on terrain. If I'm determined, I might also make it difficult by bringing as many relevant water sources under my control as possible.
- they could seize my dam or try to drive me away with force - which would violate property ownership and the NAP.
- they could give in to my demands, proving that my interests clearly outweigh the interests of the downstream citizens. Sucks to be them.
Economic warfare is the non-violent weapon. Win is not guranteed but
still its very effective. You as water-blocker will lose something if not due
to downstream community then others.
I also would guess that its a rare scenario otherwise market would have a solution.
> I don't see why violence is seen as such an important point here.
Because a violent actor is much worse. Ancap is solution to one specific problem
not a path to utopia.
Collective will has never solved anything. As always it will be technology.
Whether you'll be allowed to trade with or travel into another community will depend on the specific rules and agreements your and the other community decided to take part in.
At smaller scale it will be much more obvious how important these things are.
In those negotiations, communities with natural advantages will likely be able to make better deals and increase their advantage, which may lead to a growing inequality between communities.
Like now ? Inequality is natural state. War against inequality is just waste of resource.
If history is any indication, some gib private actors or a small number of powerful communities.
Why is that a problem ? Use of force is only injustice in my book. Other than that everything is fair game. Many will be losers and few will be winners. But _everyone_ will fail most of the time. That is, there is no such thing as a private actor or community winning all of the time.