Is there perhaps a benefit for the rich in protecting the poor? And what if there are no rich people somewhere, but only gangs providing “protection” to neighborhoods under threat of violence? Or will such a “ghetto” eventually heal itself over time?
Anonymous question
Today, the weapons market is extremely regulated and largely stigmatized, as a result of which the demand for weapons is predictably lower than it would be in a completely free market. Therefore, there are every reason to believe that due to the expansion of the market under ancap, weapons will be more accessible in terms of both variety and price, not to mention the absence of any arbitrary restrictions. And if even now certain types of self-defense weapons, such as pepper sprays, cost mere pennies and are available even to those with the most modest incomes, then under a free market, things will be quite good in this regard.
What should people do who do not want to pay some security organizations to maintain order in the area where they live? Naturally, do it themselves. After all, we maintain order in the house if we don’t want to pay cleaning services. Similarly, there is no problem in sticking a barrel out the window upon a neighbor’s alarm signal and ensuring that everyone in the line of fire has calmed down and returned to peaceful activities.
In essence, the only thing for which professional help is more likely to be needed under ancap in terms of maintaining order is searching for stolen goods, since theft is a clandestine misappropriation, and a pistol in the pocket does not protect against it by default. Well, here either insurance works, or a simple desire for revenge, corrected by economic expediency. Either way, the victim either searches for the missing item themselves, hires detectives, or the insurance company hires detectives wishing to recoup the cost of paying the insurance premium.
Can gangs that forcibly hold a particular territory under their “protection” exist stably under ancap? Actually, such gangs are called states, and the only thing that keeps them from being destroyed is the consent of those under their protection to put up with such a state of affairs. This will also determine the stability of criminal ghettos under ancap. An additional factor of instability for them is complete freedom of migration. Overly active thugs will simply discover one fine day that everyone has fled their territory. This can be easily observed in criminal enclaves such as certain US cities managed by overzealous Democrats: people simply move away to quieter places. So there are indeed incentives for such ghettos to eventually heal themselves or disappear, and the only thing that can prolong their existence is stupid, irrational submission. It is precisely to eliminate this that ancaps like me conduct their propaganda)))
