Didn't humanity start as a free society. We began with no state and a free market. Yet we now find ourselves with the state and less freedom. Isn't this the natural evolution of mankind? Won't we always gravitate toward establishing states?
This is just determinism. Whatever happened should have happened. You are probably correct that there are innate characteristics in men that cause them to organize into states, but I see that as something to be overcome, rather than a signal to surrender and just accept it. In the past, you could have said slavery or divine right of kings were the natural evolution of mankind. You could say the same thing about war. That doesn't mean it's not worth opposing those institutions. We are rational beings, and we don't have to be slaves to history or tradition.
Today's society is the natural outgrowth of people's actions, not necessarily a free market. Central to these actions is the act of aggression. Is aggression against another really a free market principle? Using force or coercion in trade seems to violate any sense of free market. Once aggression is used, you no longer have a free market.
That's essentially what has occurred throughout history. One group (family, tribe, clan, etc.) tends to dominate another group via force or coercion. It's typically a less productive group that uses force or coercion by way of a state to gain the upper hand. More productive groups tend to care less about dominanting less productive groups. More productive groups are also more likely to follow free market principles, because they gain from them, and are less likely to push for state intervention, because they have more to lose. There are obviously exceptions. A more productive group may have chosen to use aggression to acquire natural resources or to expand the group. The less productive group could have even benefited in the long run by way of this aggression. It's not a legitimate thing to do, but it's happened. And it's definitely not a free market principle nor is it a natural or unnatural outgrowth of the free market.
Err, our government grew up in agricultural socities, which are notoriously hard to defend against states or barbarians or whatever. The collective action problem of preventing an invader is not solvable if everyone lives 20 miles apart and travels by wagon. Ancaps believe that with reduced communication costs and higher economic productivity, a free industrialized society could ward off states.
So does that mean anarcho-capitalism is technology limited? Some levels of technological or cultural development become more conducive to AnCap than others?
I think civilizations are evolutionary much like species. The most fit mode of organization outproduces its competitors and grows. If our current habitat is one where AnCap can thrive, then it only takes one or two individuals to get a new growth started. Over time AnCap would dominate, much like democratic republics dominate now.
Mises Pieces: This is just determinism. Whatever happened should have happened. You are probably correct that there are innate characteristics in men that cause them to organize into states, but I see that as something to be overcome, rather than a signal to surrender and just accept it. In the past, you could have said slavery or divine right of kings were the natural evolution of mankind. You could say the same thing about war. That doesn't mean it's not worth opposing those institutions. We are rational beings, and we don't have to be slaves to history or tradition.
suggest as an answer.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)