Another common criticism of anarcho-capitalism that I've seen is that people think that if people have freedom to have the ability to defend themselves, for there to be private armies, than then this will lead to warlords taking over and ancapistan would be warlords constantly at war with each other.
I think ancaps in response have argued that states are kind of like "warlords" and they sometimes go to war with each other, and often are at peace because peace can be mutually beneficial. I guess there's no real guarantee of how much war ancapistan would or wouldn't have, any more than there's that guarantee with states.
What do you think of the "warlord" objection and how do you respond to it?
There would be private armies and there would be warlords taking over and it would look awefully close to the same thing as States.
This is actually essentially how things worked in ancient times more or less and arguably that was better.
If the end result of empowering people by giving them more liberty is an outcome that looks awefully a lot like what we have now, I fail to see the criticism.
Isn't same outcome with more freedom better than same outcome with less freedom?