I think your specific critique regarding the profitability of crime and war applies very fairly to Friedman. Does it apply to other ancap, who do ponder defense against foreign invasion?
And of course, these are not issues unique to stateless societies. Many states are helpless against foreign invasion. Costa Rica has no military. Many states have experienced corrupt courts. If we can make use of competition somehow, Friedman's account is of interest. If we can’t, how do we address the question of controlling a monopoly of legitimate force? Philosophers since Plato have tried to address the question. I think the optimists all have made simplifying assumptions as strong as those made by Friedman.
Some of these critiques are good. However this does fall into some pitfalls of assuming that 1 problems will occur, and 2 these aren't problems that exist currently, 3 solutions which we use currently won't work. For example what if P.As go to war with each other, ignores the fact that states go to war with eachother. P.As could just ignore rules and attack weaker P.As and their clients is ignoring that nothing is stopping say Germany invading Luxembourg beyond responses from other states and general accepted norms. Now this is not to say Anarcho-capitalism would be vaguely functional compared to what we have now, but one might as well say you've debunked states and especially disproved Luxembourg , if it's just strong beats up weak as an argument. You need to say having a bunch of non-territorial PAs causes unique problems. We're living in a world where Russia invades Ukraine, but the US doesn't annex the Bahamas, Germany doesn't take Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, and the Taliban attacks Iran. Annoyingly we're in a world where things both work and don't.
Typo? “Where the state has been deemed legitimate, prison gangs have taken their place.” Should be Where the state has been deemed illegitimate, prison gangs have taken their place?
I think your specific critique regarding the profitability of crime and war applies very fairly to Friedman. Does it apply to other ancap, who do ponder defense against foreign invasion?
And of course, these are not issues unique to stateless societies. Many states are helpless against foreign invasion. Costa Rica has no military. Many states have experienced corrupt courts. If we can make use of competition somehow, Friedman's account is of interest. If we can’t, how do we address the question of controlling a monopoly of legitimate force? Philosophers since Plato have tried to address the question. I think the optimists all have made simplifying assumptions as strong as those made by Friedman.
Some of these critiques are good. However this does fall into some pitfalls of assuming that 1 problems will occur, and 2 these aren't problems that exist currently, 3 solutions which we use currently won't work. For example what if P.As go to war with each other, ignores the fact that states go to war with eachother. P.As could just ignore rules and attack weaker P.As and their clients is ignoring that nothing is stopping say Germany invading Luxembourg beyond responses from other states and general accepted norms. Now this is not to say Anarcho-capitalism would be vaguely functional compared to what we have now, but one might as well say you've debunked states and especially disproved Luxembourg , if it's just strong beats up weak as an argument. You need to say having a bunch of non-territorial PAs causes unique problems. We're living in a world where Russia invades Ukraine, but the US doesn't annex the Bahamas, Germany doesn't take Luxembourg and Lichtenstein, and the Taliban attacks Iran. Annoyingly we're in a world where things both work and don't.
Typo? “Where the state has been deemed legitimate, prison gangs have taken their place.” Should be Where the state has been deemed illegitimate, prison gangs have taken their place?