Recently, I came across an interesting criticism of ancap. The gist is: you believe that the market will solve everything, and that monopolies shouldn’t be touched because they are inefficient and always eventually collapse. So why are you picking on the monopoly on violence? It will collapse on its own too. Either admit that monopolies aren’t collapsed by the market themselves, or that violence is a special, separate type of service that should only be managed by the state.
Is there any answer to this argument?
Querens
Monopoly in conditions of free market entry is a rather conventional concept; everyone tries to establish their own arbitrary criterion for what percentage of the market should be considered a monopoly. Again, the boundaries of the market are also taken from thin air. For instance, on the scale of Montenegro, if you try hard enough, you can see a monopoly on violence held by the Montenegrin state. But on a planetary scale, you can’t see one even with superpowers.
Therefore, it seems more convenient to me to speak not of monopolies, but of the optimal size of an organization. In given conditions, there is always a certain size of organization (determined by the technologies it uses and those used by others, population density and characteristics, landscape, history, and a host of other factors), beyond which the organization is forced to spend disproportionately large resources to maintain its own structure and activity; conversely, if the organization is smaller than the optimal size, growth proves beneficial because the organization’s activity brings a greater effect with relatively lower resource expenditures.
A hairdressing business has its own optimal size, as does a business producing microchips or airliners. Similarly, in these specific conditions, the business of organizing coercion will have its own optimal size. God is on the side of the larger battalions, but the technology of assembling large battalions is a very non-trivial thing.
The Neolithic agricultural revolution made it possible to coerce the inhabitants of fertile lands to grow grain, deliver it to state granaries, and then assemble into large battalions that could eat this grain on the march and crush small barbarian tribes by sheer mass, turning them into slaves or subjects who became new farmers. But on barren lands where grain does not grow, the state did not take root, and various highlanders are still considered less civilized—that is, less shaped for state needs (this was a brief summary of James C. Scott’s book “The Art of Not Being Governed“).
Nowadays, the financial system plays the role of grain. Whoever’s economy allows for the extraction of more resources for state needs can afford more expensive military toys, as well as fashionable soft-power tools—and that party secures that very monopoly on violence in a more complete volume and over a larger area.
Libertarians are a modern remake of those same barbarians described by James Scott, who sought to retreat to areas where grain doesn’t grow and where the hand of the state—in the form of censors, tax collectors, recruiters, and other unpleasant types—hardly reaches. Only now, instead of potatoes and other yams, they grow their bitcoins, which are useless for state needs, cook up their tokenomics, which are useless for the state, corrupt the tax collectors, refuse to work in the army or police, remain indifferent to patriotic slogans, but are keenly interested in all sorts of technological innovations useful to them, even if for some reason they are being banned.
Now, I will answer the question itself. Monopolies (including the monopoly on violence) do not collapse on their own; they are helped by the invisible hand of the market. But this hand consists of many elementary actions of all those for whom this monopoly is an inconvenience. And the invisible boot of the state consists of many elementary actions of those who profit from the monopoly on violence. The only thing that large battalions handle very poorly is guerrilla warfare, plus sabotage. This is a complex technology of decentralized resistance, and that is exactly what we are developing.
