What actions can the bad side take to keep them, acting according to ancap, and what can the good side do?

анонимный вопрос

I’ll start by saying that, of course, any group of people can already go into the wilderness and live there, without any contact with outsiders. Amazonia, the Andaman Islands, Papua — there are enough places, in general. If society in some part of the world evolves into ancap, such isolated communities will be left alone even more so, on the rights of exotic fauna that can be filmed with a drone, but it’s better not to venture toward them personally.

It’s a different matter when your community has regular trade relations with the outside world. Here, you can’t pass off as exotic fauna, because let’s recall East Berlin: even very complex fortifications did not allow for the complete elimination of emigration. If there is any communication with the outside world, the isolation regime is already broken, and the more thoroughly one tries to observe it, the sweeter the forbidden fruit. People will flee your isolated community by any means necessary, and gradually the whole world will learn about the customs that prevail inside. Then, the depressurization of the community is simply a matter of time. More and more companies will refuse to deal with you as long as you restrict emigration, and you will have to make compromises, like the USSR did regarding the Jewish question. Gradually, there will be no one left to maintain your sanctuary, and it will collapse from within — too many of its residents will want access to the outside.

Of course, I do not exclude that there will be individual special operations, where in response to a plea for help from the sanctuary, a group of volunteers from the Mainland will pinpointedly rescue a couple of children. This will certainly have a PR effect, but I believe that the main mechanism for the collapse of a community with closed borders involved in trade with the outside world will still be the increase of internal contradictions.