Yours, mine, and the Rothbardian ancaps' - let me try to compare them.
The ancaps usually define the state as a territorial monopoly in the provision of law and security (or something to that effect). Note that the word aggression is not in that definition; it's taken for granted that a monopoly can only exist if it uses aggression against the competition. As a result of this assumption, ancaps are hostile to monopoly itself (where they should only be hostile to monopoly if it's aggressive), hence their support for polycentric law.
You and I agree that monopoly will emerge from polycentric law, but we draw very different conclusions from this.
You implicitly agree with the ancap view that monopoly = state, and since polycentric law will yield monopoly, you then dismiss ancapism as a failure on its own term (and you would be right to do so if monopoly really did = state).
Whereas I say: polycentric law will lead to monopoly, but monopoly =/= state. Only an aggressive monopoly is a state, and a monopoly DRO does not have to be aggressive. The ancaps are wrong in saying that a monopoly can only exist by employing aggression against it's competitors. Rather, a monopoly can only exist by using *violence* against it's competitors. As limelemon pointed out, aggression =/= violence. And the point I keep reiterating is that a DRO *must* use violence to enforce its rulings (including violence against competitors if they resist the enforcement of its rulings), so a monopoly is inevitable, but this violence is not aggression if the rulings being enforced are just.
"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: