link to original reddit post by /u/omgcoin
Many people imagine that in anarchy strongest warlords will takeover the weakest warlords. Another variation of this argument is that it will be a permanent war (Hobbesian's war of all against all). It boils down to fallacy that raw force is the only thing that matters in the absence of monopoly on force (i.e. the state).
However, what statists fail to notice is that if you zoom out, you can clearly see that there is no world government. On macro level, the world is non-ideological anarchy. If warlord argument were correct, then stronger states (aka warlords) would conquer smaller states till no small states left. In the other words, according to statist theory, we should already end up with one or two superstates. This is clearly not the case.
By now, sophisticated statist might claim that war between two states might be too expensive and too risky, that's why we don't have one global superstate. Furthermore, sophisticated statist might claim that in stateless capitalism, conflict might arise between individual and big corporation which is not the same as war between two well armed states.
However, this argument can be easily refuted by pointing out on existence of microstates. The difference in military power between France and Monaco is so big that it's comparable to the difference of power between corporation and individual. Namely, France might conquer Monaco in one day without a single shot. In the other words, France can act as a warlord to Monaco.
Furthermore, microstates acting as tax havens for corporations and individuals annoy big nations. So there is even populist pressure within big nations to get rid of these offshore jurisdictions. So if raw force was the only factor in anarchy, then all of these microstates would be invaded by big nations. Clearly, this is not the case.
The main peacekeeper in anarchy is network effect of economic inter-connectivity (including reputation). So France (as a warlord) has reputation to lose among other European nations. That's why France can't just invade Monaco.
Therefore, Hobbesian argument is incorrect. Stateless capitalism can't be rejected if you look closer at delicate structure of existing anarchy on international scale. In some sense, all laws in stateless capitalism are similar to international laws and treaties we have now.