Arguments about the possibility of ancap often arise, and in theoretical terms, ancap is doing fine. Until recently, I was a confident ancap myself, until I thought about one idea of classical conservatism: in theory, just as people find the most profitable paths in a free market, society finds the most effective social institutions for itself. Thus, can it be said that the state is the most effective and natural way to combat crime, without which things would be bad? Preferably without Hoppean gimmicks: his theory is mainly devoted to Western Europe, and besides, centralized states like the Roman Empire existed in Europe even before feudalism.

anonymous question

Of course, the free market leads to the most effective solutions. However, the basis of the processes occurring in the market is freedom of activity and agreement. Any solution arising in the market cannot contradict these principles; it operates precisely as long as the agents involved agree to conduct their activities based on the terms of the agreement established between them. This solution ceases to operate in relation to anyone if the subject decides to break the agreement and refuse further cooperation. Thus, in the market, no one can forcibly compel someone to be a client of a particular organization, buy its products and use its services, or participate in any jurisdiction or any other form of collective of people. Indeed, market solutions do not use coercion.

Suppose that such a form of social management as centralized political power is, at a certain point, accepted by people as the most effective solution. However, living conditions gradually change, and people’s interests change as well. Naturally, no single solution can be effective forever. In the market, ineffective solutions are usually replaced by other solutions that are effective relative to the new conditions. A solution such as the “state” establishes itself as an eternal and indestructible solution, which no one has the right to challenge under any circumstances, and even less so to replace it with some other solution. Therefore, even if we assume that the state could have arisen through a market path of voluntary agreement, this in no way makes it an effective solution at any point in time other than the one in which it was accepted by everyone, since subsequently living conditions and people’s interests changed, yet the state provided no right to challenge it.

However, I would not even be quick to assume that states arose through a market path. Most likely, they arose through violent coercion. This is indicated to us by the theory of the stationary bandit, which states that states arose as a result of the settling of nomadic bandits who decided to subjugate the population of a certain territory and collect a regular tribute from it. You can read more about this theory here. Furthermore, history is known for numerous conquests and subjugations; therefore, even if one of the centralized territorial formations did arise through agreement, it ceased to be a market solution as soon as it was either forcibly subjugated by someone or decided to engage in the subjugation of others.

The state is not the most effective option for social relations simply because it consists of violence against people, as well as prohibits the implementation of any alternative solutions and establishes itself as an unshakeable and eternal truth.

Vitaliy Tizun