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 .
it ends up looking a little bit like government but not the same
consider if there was no government: people might be able to shoot each other, but if person A shoots person B, then person B's friends might shoot person A, so they end up coming to an agreement of not shooting each other (a law, voluntarily agreed to: "on my property you will not shoot me or I will shoot you", something like that), these kinds of agreements will be made with respect to trespassing or stealing or whatever else.
These kinds of laws might become standardized and multiple properties would accept them so that in effect stealing or trespassing might be illegal everywhere.
You might ask, "but what if someone just wants to break the law anyway?" Well, that's the same as under a government, some of the same threats of consequences exist if people break laws, it's just different who enforces them.
Now you could set up courts and people would make use of them because, just like under the State, if people will not make use of the courts then they are in "contempt of court" and subject to whatever penalties. Say person A shoots person B and now person B's friends want to have a trial about it, but they won't go to court. They are subject then to person B's friends shooting them at the extreme, or less extreme subject to lesser penalties person B's people might attempt.
This is all kind of a thought experiment, but to me it seems pretty easy to see how anarchy matures into something that looks like government but there's not just one government entity in charge of everything. (Just like thinking about if you were to build businesses from scratch, about how that would be developed)
Also you might want to read about "no rule of law" situations, or what happened in countries where the rule of law broke down like when there were civil wars. Ancap would build further beyond those primitive conditions but it shows what the starting point is. (Some of them might not be the best examples but rather would be more like states)
To me I just envision everything we have now but it's owned by private entities and instead of there being like one roads company for example, there might be multiple road construction agencies.
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.