Yes, maybe Banana Republics … OR just many little peacefully existing self organizing little kantons with a nice range of wonderful products available, the capabilities to self defense and a lot of trading.
Discussion
I would love that. Just not seeing this happening without limitating power (meaning capital) for everyone at some point, or developping outstanding self defense guaranteed for every one, making attack always excessively expansive. But still waiting for it...
Come on… who should limit who and by what standards? It is already self-regulating!
How is it self-regulating?
The current growing concentration of wealth is a very documented and aknowledged thing, seen as a risk for global stability. Do you call that self-regulation?
Yes. 100 % This will shift and in a few years (doesn’t matter how hard someone clinches to the power) and the power will be concentrated somewhere else. One company can make a better product and become rich without force… One government or state can conquer another government or state. One human can kill or fight another human. That all in itself is already self-regulating enough. No need for artificial and best purpose intervention or redistribution attempts. These usually make everything worse.
Ok so I understand you are not actually defending an idea of anarcho-capitalism but capitalism and rotation of power, just as it is right now, is that correct?
I agree that interventions can make things worst, but I think this is especially the case when it enables a minority to take power.
Also, there is a sweet contradiction here as every shift is the result of some people (in a given context) wanting to intervene to realise their vision of the world.
I am sorry but I am not that educated … I am usually just against the overreach of governments onto trades/markets.
Is that far away from anarcho-capitalism?
It's ok, nice of you to admit.
From what I understand, combining anarchism and capitalist makes you abolish the state and let free markets organise all aspects of society, based on the foundation of private property. So on top of that everything is based on private interactions (private courts, private police, etc.).
Being closer from this or other forms of anarchism is your say. For instance you can have anarcho-communism, which is based on commons but with no centralization by a state. And a lot of possibilies between the two.
Other people argue that the state is inevitable if defined as how people organize together as a society... In this case the question becomes how to have an anarchist state, ie a state without a ruler.
Coming back to this question, I had a personal breakthrough thinking of limits, thank you!
My main point being that no limit to power makes anarchism impossible, in that case power being essentially capital, how would you limit the concentration of power-capital without governements/states?
If you could design the main asset of such a society to be anti concentration, you might have something that holds.
If the main asset is money, and you distribute its creation for ever, then no one can cease it all (or an overwhelming part of it) and you get a balance of power by design.
Cryptocurrencies give a great advantage to defence via personal holding of private keys. Bitcoin does that. This advantage is reinforced by privacy.
As for distribution/creation, it should be infinite but with strictly limited inflation. Monero does that, but the more advanced work I have seen on this topic is "the relative theory of money", only in french here: http://trm.creationmonetaire.info/index.html
All of this makes me actually think that under certain conditions, anarcho-capitalism could be a thing...
Great talk haha!
There is actually an english version: https://en.trm.creationmonetaire.info/