link to original reddit post by /u/redundantdeletion
I'm not an ancap or a libertarian. To be honest I'm not even that well educated in political philosophy or science, but I'm interested, and I've been floating around political spaces for some time.
While I consider libertarians and ancaps a vital force for keeping governments in check, I have a concern for the ancap vision and I wanted to know if yall have a response, so here goes:
It really feels to me that ancapistan, or the state of nature if you prefer, is a false vaccum, to use a scientific term. Like a pebble balanced on a cliff, it looks stable, but it's fragile, it can be knocked off the cliff into a more stable state - where everyone is dead or dirt poor, most likely.
What does ancapistan do about the chimp with the biggest stick? If enough people form under a king such that he can just conquer the rest, what do you do? You're still looking at a tyrrany of the majority if 60% of people willingly swear fealty to a king and the rest are prosecuted as slaves for a dozen generations. I appreciate that democracy is looking pretty shit right now, but I still get the impression that a stable and regulated state is going to be more stable in the long run than anarchy.
Again, I'm not terribly well educated in the anarchist theory, so this is a question, not an accusation.