link to original reddit post by /u/cnnr_g
I'd like to get yall's take on a theory question:
In thinking about the "state of nature" concept, it's basically only coherent in the sense that a person never interacts with another person since this would constitute a society, at least for a brief moment. But Locke also describes the state of nature as a state in which men are free "to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature," in other words, property rights.
"Within the bounds of the law of nature" seems pretty subjective since the law of nature is supposed to mean "reason" and man can only manage his property according to his own understanding of what is reasonable - unless that bit just means "within the bounds of what is possible," which would make it pretty unnecessary to include.
Anyways, if you take the position that, in reality, "might is right" in the sense that your rights are pretty much void if you can't enforce them, then a society based on any sort of rights requires enforcement of/respect for those rights. This would constitute a sort of superstructure imposed onto the framework of human interaction - one which those in the society with the means to enforce it happen to favor. In the case of governed nations, enforcement falls on government, who therefore establishes which rights it will and won't recognize.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, the market for enforcement would reflect the market for rights. So my question is: how does a society based on property rights come about? (For the sake of argument, let's assume property rights are the only rights that need protecting, as this is the position that I believe is most coherent - however I'm open to alternative opinions)
Would it require the people participating in that society (or at least a critical mass of people) to adequately *value* the sole protection of property rights? Or are market forces supposed to trend toward property rights as an equilibrium? Is it actually that "right is might" as far as sustainable societies go?
In thinking about polycentric law, it occurs to me that some systems of law would attempt to go above and beyond property rights into the protection of other rights or the imposition of redistribution or certain standards of decency, e.g. in the case of collectivist/religious communities. Is it the ancap position that these societies would be less favorable and therefore less sustainable in the long run? What has stopped ancap societies from popping up in the past? Insufficient time to develop? Insufficient appreciation for primacy of property rights? What is the foundation that a stable Ancapistan actually rests on?