>>689|
>practically speaking you have to pick one, or try find a middle way somehow
No, you don't. The entire point of anarcho-anything is that it isn't any of your damn business what other people do. If you declare all property to be one way or another, you're making sweeping authoritarian proclamations, and have thus failed to grasp the concept of anarchism.
>But people figuring it out for themselves means total chaos
So you reject the possibility and the historical reality of private courts? You think that a species that depends upon cooperation and conflict avoidance to survive is so powerfully predisposed to violence that it will inevitably be the general rule?
Where no competing claims exist, there is no need to issue a ruling, and where competing claims do exist, people will tend to select nonviolent ways to resolve the issue through various conflict resolution methods. So long as the process is voluntary, it's anarchy. It's also none of your business if you aren't involved.
>The shareholders then pay people to defend it, and others pay people to take stuff based on their own interpretation of how far statute of limitations should go, and we just get "might makes right".
First of all, remember that with the collapse of the government support structure, the business must revert to practices that best satisfy consumer preferences, including conformity to social norms, or lose business to their competition. If they persist in an abusive fashion, they will lose their holdings and the problem will correct itself as they are forced to liquidate.
Second, that process of paying people to defend their claims constitutes one of the mechanisms by which a dispersal of their assets occurs. Since violence is expensive, the much more efficient route would simply be to pay off people with anything resembling a legitimate claim in the form of out-of-court settlements. This saves money and reputation.
Third, if you're worried about "might makes right", I must express my bewilderment in contemplating how you intend to bring your prescriptions to actuality, since they generate conflict between most extant or prospective property holders; and where there is conflict, there is opposition. You're basically calling to impose your vision of property allocation upon everyone. How do you intend to do so except by force of arms? I'm telling you right now that you're not going to convince everyone to go along with it peacefully.
>But in order for Ancap to work and result in self-emergent order, you need the majority of people to agree on what and what doesn't violate the NAP
False. Wrong. Incorrect. Negative.
You don't even need the NAP, for crying out loud. The entire point of the market is that it demonstrates order and cooperation emerging from people with very different preferences and values. If everyone agreed upon any particular matter of principle, there would never have been any need for law. It's absurd that you need consensus to pull off anarchy. It's… just plain antithetical to the philosophy.
>The problem is that who is to say when Ancap begins?
This question makes no sense. At all. It's like asking:
>Why blanket seven nacho expeditiously for next grapes even husbandry?
Since there isn't a proper answer to a nonsensical jumble of words grammatically resembling a question, I'm going to take a stab at ironing out what I'm guessing lies at the heart of your confusion.
Anarcho-Capitalism is nothing more than the rejection of coercion, both politically and economically. That's it. Doesn't matter whether or not people call themselves AnCaps, doesn't matter if people generally identify their social arrangements as AnCap, it's just a label we use to describe a particular philosophical insight. AnCaps tend to recognize various other philosophical notions, but that does not make those notions into a corpus of AnCap doctrine.
Economics informs us that consensus is not necessary for cooperation. Merely the intrinsic rewards of cooperation and the intrinsic disadvantages of conflict lead people generally toward the former and away from the latter, regardless of their values or interests. It requires a dedicated effort to oppose these trends, and such efforts are in the long run doomed to failure.
You don't need everyone to agree that gold ought to be money, or that cooperation is a good idea, or that English is a pretty good language, or that html is handy for making websites; it just works out that way without any consensus or central direction. That's what emergent order IS.
>There's no singular answer here.
Exactly. Yet you seem to be trying to provide one.
>This is why I think only statist libertarianism works.
Yet from this basis you seek to make prescriptions for anarchist libertarianism? Of course you can't understand anarchism if you think you need to impose it somehow. You need to question and evaluate the premises of your paradigm; that's how the rest of us got here.