...are good libertarians, then a *non-aggressive* monopoly will emerge as I have briefly described. My concern is that, over time, the organization will fall into the hands of less scrupulous individuals and become aggressive (i.e. a state).
Whether this happens or not depends on the structure of the organization: e.g. whether it is more or less centralized. It's essentially the same problem as we face in trying to keep limited government limited.
Since everything depends on the form the inevitable monopoly takes, I disagree with those of my fellow ancaps who think our goal should be to create a free market in dispute resolution, and let the chips fall where they may.
Rather, we should start thinking about how to design the best organizational structure for a non-aggressive monopoly. Once we have that organization, our ultimate political goal should then be to implement it in reality from the start (skipping the "chips fall where they may" polycentric law phase).
I also think it would be a lot easier to sell ancapism if we could talk about a concrete organization rather than....get rid of the state, it'll all work out okay, trust us.
"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the Daily Paul, its owner, site moderators or Ron Paul. This site