As someone who is personally a minarchist, I'm wondering how the Non-Aggression Principle would be enforced in the AnCap model.
Given that there definitely is definitely no executive branch, people would obviously have to take personal defence into their own hands. But would there be trials for people who pollute your land? Surely not all 'aggression' is the type that would give you the right to shoot someone on the spot?
On another note, what about defense from external forces? You would need an organised and unified military. While I hate the government, I cannot understand the AnCap solution to an armed conflict with another country .
Agreed but punishment is not a goal, its a means to a goal. Mainly deterence. In an ancap society the goal would focus more on conflict resolution. It makes more sense to me that if somebody robbed me or attacked me or whatever that I should be compensated rather than my attacker be punished.
Friedmans book "machinery of freedom" is the most thought out work on how the service of conflict resolution could be provided soley in a free market. If you Google that, im sure you can find a video or podcast of him giving the summary.
At the end of the day though, you have to realize that an ancap society is not going to be perfect. People are going to rob and murder and rape. Just like they do in our current society. And just like they would in a minarchist society. The biggest thing that ancaps scoff at minarchists over is the attitude that "government is really bad at providing services, so the government should only be in charge of the most important services." I know you don't see it that way, but it's worth considering. Should the government be in charge of the most important things in society? And if so, then why shouldn't it be in charge of everything? Why would governments be competent in the realms of defense but incompetent when it comes to baking bread?
I'll take a look at the Friedman. I understand that in a state of nature, you are living on a plain of anarchy with a structure of government on top of it. Since because having a government (not necessarily like the ones we interact with today) is natural and anarchy is natural, I take a careful approach to approaching either extreme. While I genuinely do believe that government sucks at everything, (e.g) government has a bad problem with military innovation because operations have to be kept secret so contractors cannot just operate as they wish, thinking up an an alternate system to national defense is quite annoying as generally I think the system should be chosen by the free market. I sort of have a pavlovian response of 'ugh' when the time comes to cover how a system should be implemented because it reminds me of socialists experimenting with their stuff but I'll take an interest in this side of things rather then just the moral argument now.