Fyodor

The question clearly refers to the article that Bitarkh and I wrote about how the idea of national sovereignty naturally leads to the idea of ancap. Of course, the idea of ancap can be derived in many other ways, because ancap is simply self-organization in society based on the principles of voluntarism and respect for private property. It is possible to derive ancap from the idea of the fief. True, a fief is not initially property, but a feudal tenure granted for service; however, it’s hard to criticize from a standpoint of justice, saying, “what nonsense, some degenerate inherited fabulous fortunes and is squandering them.” No, he earned his estate. Then we extend the logical chain and demand that the one who grants lands in fief must have earned their own holdings. We clarify how property can be earned in general—and suddenly the contours of ancap begin to emerge.

It’s not difficult with cities either. Suppose people have voluntarily clustered together for the convenience of trade, production, and defense; they have to develop rules for coexistence, and it turns out that it is beneficial for citizens to treat each other with respect. Otherwise, the magical synergy resulting from many people living close together—which, through the concentration of efforts, leads to unprecedented prosperity—will simply disappear, and everyone will flee from this miserable place. So, while they gathered for a small number of simple, practical tasks, a complex mechanism of interaction emerges, generating a host of spontaneous orders, and this ancap community can force any arrogant feudal lord to reckon with it.

In your spare time, you can practice deriving ancap from anything. For example, once, in honor of April Fool’s Day, I went as far as presenting a doctrine of anarcho-statism.