Comment: Arguments based on history...

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Ok, I see your point. That is (see in situ)

Arguments based on history...

...cannot prove anything to a certainty.

If you just want to claim that ancapism is unlikely to work because it has never worked in the past, that's a plausible argument (though they have counterarguments, and it's in the nature of empirical debates like those that neither side can definitively prove anything). But if you want to prove that ancapism is actually impossible, then history is useless, you need a theoretical argument, one whose conclusions would be true in all times and places.

And this: "it wrongly accepts the premise that it is possible to have a capitalist economy in general without a monopoly on security forces."

Why is that premise wrong?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."