On governance

  1. Don’t expect a stateless society to be lawless,
  2. Nor a wild-growth of different laws.
  1. 1st point first: in Ancapistan there will be governance, just no (central) government.
  2. Point 2: laws will smoothly synchronize. To the point of a reasonable average across most . Because if one business wishes to impose draconian limits, on stuff that they have no business with (who cares that someone walks into a flower shop, carrying a baggy of cocaine in their coat pocket? So long as they don’t poison the merchandise with that cocaine, keep it in their pocket). It is in no business owner’s interest to differentiate too much, because people prefer predictability. And will avoid doing business with another if that’s uncomfortable.

So, in heaven (I chose to not refer to Ancapistan as Utopia, but that’s my prrleference) the only laws that apply will be the ones that are local to the particular business.
Ergo: if the state wishes to ban drugs, it may only apply those laws to it’s own buildings. Meaning that the laws it passes will become a lot less crazy.


The Social Credit system

China is introducing a nationwide surveillance system (piloting in Shenzhen) to brutally penalise crimes like jaywalking. If caught five times, you lose the ability to travel, even to buy a house. (People in Macau are not looking forward to that)
In Ancapistan justice may also work by reputation, but severe punishments will be limited to severe crimes. Any person/business that tries to harshly punish jaywalking on an empty road, will themselves lose their reputation. This system will balance itself out over time. In Ancapistan nobody can have absolute power.
Which will also be great for the moral state of the world: because Lord Acton was right: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Plus: I predict a bloody revolution in China, because the people will be living constant fear, which is untenable. Surely the junta in Beijing knows that (they’ve probably heard of the USSR). Yet they chose to not give the people a reprieve from oppression.
This is the Chinese version of being tough on crime, oh the joke; tell right-wingish statists that they’re desires are being fulfilled in China, of all places.


In China, privacy does not have priority over public safety.

Is what the proud Chinese trade show rep told the host of a Dutch host of the program “Door het hart van China” (Through the heart of China)
Which is why it is imperative to quickly get rid of the concept of junta, as technology progresses.
Because the state will refuse to refrain from provoking counter-terrorism, because they can arrest all (counter-)terrorists, even before they know they’re (counter-)terrorists, so all foreigners (Arabs, Asians, Latin Americans, Africans) are unsafe, because whenever the junta wants to reinforce the public’s fear for anything else than the state, the state will likely start bombing them as the fashionable enemy du jour. Not only is this amazingly cruel to other people, but also it is the perfect provocation for WW3 or 9/12. And, it leads to (again: Acton+ 2 Stans) government going even more insane with delicious power.


Socialists are superfluous

Since all the “capitalism” they complain about, is really nothing other than the consequences of statism, ie the state’s interference, which is what socialism does (plus, the state is so very socialistic). So, since socialists dislike those results, they dislike socialism. True, it’s not true, pure socialism, nor pure capitalism, but this hybrid can only be cured with more  capitalism, instead of more socialism.
Capitalism, as per the name, is about supplying capital of businesses that need it. In the modern world, capitol is restrained by the central bank, which sabotages the money which is central to capitalism. In proper capitalism, the money is in the hands of the people, not the state. Making capitalists free to capitalize what business they want.

Slavery and capitalism

Politicians have discovered that slaves are more productive when allowed to choose their own profession, and have that taxed. That does not make it capitalism.
If we stick to Marx’s original meaning of capitalist, it was someone who provided capital (financing) for industry.
This surely means that the capitalist had a choice of who would receive that investment. How could it mean the investor did not?
So, capitalism is freedom.
Compare that to socialism, where the state (assuming the place of society, causing that to whither away) determines everything for you. You have no influence on the policies that control your life (yes, this means that all democracies are socialistic).