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 .
So you would need a social cohesion for this to be less risky. I think that in the situation of gangs, one guy kills another and then there's a retaliation and a retaliation in return and it just keeps going.
yes, to note: a State doesnt guarantee social cohesion (examples: states that devolved into chaos and no rule of law like with civil wars). Similarly there could be social cohesion in the absence of a centralized State (various separate governing companies/agencies still exist to provide that check and balance). I argue minarchy and anarchy (in the context of ancap-ism) may be very similar in practice in how they look and operate. Social cohesion becomes rational to avoid the heavier losses of violent conflict: people voluntarily agree to abide by many of the laws that commonly exist under centralized States.