I love the state post office

Fiat-purchasing power or free(literally) market purchasing power?

Both.  Tho I think market purchasing power is more progressive than fiat in most circumstances (if not all).

Yes, and you have yet to offer anything even close to a consistent basis for such justifications, apart from your personal feeling of approval or disgust on a case by case basis. 

I could submit that everyone in existence does the same.  Even the NAP is a fickle mistress, prone to the fancy of irrational people.

More open to tyranny then what? The "will of the people"? Sure about that -- being that you're so fond of historical examples? 

I think the democratic process has shown itself to be more efficient, progressive, and stable than all pasts methods.  I have no example of an ancap society, but it is my feeling that it would not/could not work.  People will get extremely wealthy (and therefore influential) and use that power to protect themselves against competition.  Once again, I have no examples of ancap to use.  But I have plenty of examples of laissez faire that exactly fit that model.

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

People will get extremely wealthy (and therefore influential) and use that power to protect themselves against competition.

What`s this based on?

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

Once again, I have no examples of ancap to use.  But I have plenty of examples of laissez faire that exactly fit that model.

When/where have there been laissez-faire?

Do you see laissez-faire as the absence of all coercion/force, or just public c/f, i.e. would you consider a society where there were no government, but private institutions that initiated c/f, as laissez-faire?

What`s this based on?

The profit motive... ?  The business model...?  The market structure...?

When/where have there been laissez-faire? 

Do you see laissez-faire as the absence of all coercion/force, or just public c/f, i.e. would you consider a society where there were no government, but private institutions that initiated c/f, as laissez-faire?

Laissez faire is not ancap.  I would think Laissez faire implies minimalism, in historical context. 

But I would more support a society w no c/f than one w only private annacountable c/f.

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

The profit motive... ?  The business model...?  The market structure...?

In an ancap society, i.e. no coercive central planning/regulations/moral hazards/distortive incentives etc, i.e. are you sure everything would be the same as today?

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

Laissez faire is not ancap.  I would think Laissez faire implies minimalism, in historical context.

So when/where has there been a minarchy?

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

But I would more support a society w no c/f than one w only private annacountable c/f.

I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private "conflict resolution institutions" might develop into nation states.

Johnny Doe:

I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private "conflict resolution institutions" might develop into nation states.

Statism is definitely not the way to go.

In an ancap society, i.e. no coercive central planning/regulations/moral hazards/distortive incentives etc, i.e. are you sure everything would be the same as today

No, but I am sure that winners rise and losers fall in markets.  (Not to say that is inherently bad but...) This will create large exploitable gaps between the have's and have-not's.  And people are prone to protect their interests.

So when/where has there been a minarchy

I believe the early history of the US is widely recognized as an example of laissez faire minimalism.

I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private "conflict resolution institutions" might develop into nation states.

I don't think businesses have the desire to limit themselves to small defined territories.  What I suspect you would find is a lot of non-territorial warlordism.  I think an ancap revolution would turn out much like the Warring States period in China.  But I am not a fortune teller, and it could be a paradise....

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

No, but I am sure that winners rise and losers fall in markets.  (Not to say that is inherently bad but...) This will create large exploitable gaps between the have's and have-not's.  And people are prone to protect their interests.

But without a coercive government it would be difficult to create inequalities as large as those we have today.

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

I believe the early history of the US is widely recognized as an example of laissez faire minimalism.

But that doesn`t mean it was laissez-faire, just that there were fewer regulations than we have today(link).

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

I don't think businesses have the desire to limit themselves to small defined territories.  What I suspect you would find is a lot of non-territorial warlordism.  I think an ancap revolution would turn out much like the Warring States period in China.  But I am not a fortune teller, and it could be a paradise....

European nation states("conflict resolution institutions") didn`t limit themselves in the last millenium...

'European nation states("conflict resolution institutions") didn`t limit themselves in the last millenium...'

I'm sorry but you seem to be implying that European nation states are private institutions. Am I reading this correctly?

Andrew Cain:

I'm sorry but you seem to be implying that European nation states are private institutions. Am I reading this correctly?

I suspect that private(as they`d be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) who`d initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private "conflict resolution institutions".

Johnny Doe:

I suspect that private(as they`d be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) who`d initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private "conflict resolution institutions".

But what relevance does that have to anything?

liberty student:

Johnny Doe:

I suspect that private(as they`d be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) who`d initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private "conflict resolution institutions".

But what relevance does that have to anything?

These are the previous posts:

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

But I would more support a society w no c/f than one w only private annacountable c/f.

Johnny Doe:

I agree minarchy is the way to go, i.e. I suspect an anarchy with private "conflict resolution institutions" might develop into nation states.

Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:

I don't think businesses have the desire to limit themselves to small defined territories.  What I suspect you would find is a lot of non-territorial warlordism.  I think an ancap revolution would turn out much like the Warring States period in China.  But I am not a fortune teller, and it could be a paradise....

Johnny Doe:

European nation states("conflict resolution institutions") didn`t limit themselves in the last millenium...

Andrew Cain:

I'm sorry but you seem to be implying that European nation states are private institutions. Am I reading this correctly?

Johnny Doe:

I suspect that private(as they`d be in an anarchy) "conflict resolution institutions" would develop into nation states(as we have today) who`d initiate force on behalf of/in the interest of their customers at the expense of the customers of other private "conflict resolution institutions".