[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
Isnt the natural state that existed before government anarchocapitalist (as PVN describes it)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Essentially. Many will try to muddy the water and pile all sorts of extra meanings (mostly with negative connotations) on the word "capitalism".

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't this state collapse when the strongest individual and his cronies declared themselves the state? Why would an anarchocapitalist state be any different?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

Some differences between now and then:

* There is a more mature understanding of rights.

* There is more respect for order.

* There is more belief that problems can be resolved non-violently.

Specifically, your question is a form of the "warlord" question.

Consider that if we achieve an anarcho-capitalist system on a large scale in the US, it will very likely be through non-violent "revolution," and that will only happen when there is extremely widespread support for the ideals of true freedom.

Warlords are organized criminals. In a state-dominated system, organized criminals generate cashflow (power) by filling needs that the government stops the market from filling (e.g. drugs, prostitution, gambling). In a stateless system, these can be provided by the market. There's no need for organized crime to provide them.

Who will trade with a thug when there are legitimate vendors? Remember, we're talking about a population that believes in freedom and order.

Once the self-appointed warlord has alienated his customers, how will he maintain his power? Even if he has effectively limitless cash reserves, he can't do much with that cash if nobody will trade with him.

[ QUOTE ]
Without the bulwark of some sort of legalistic and multipolar state, what prevents the descent from anarchocapitalism to a much more stable despotic (or considering the current proliferation of nuclear weapons some sort of feudal) arrangment?

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't the bulwark of the state itself constitute a despotic arrangement?