If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

[myrkul]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

No hard numbers, no. Just a general sense of the community.

unfortunate. i have a feel for the size of our community but i dont have much of a feel for the size of their community so i personally have no idea how many of them there are.

Well, how's this for "hard" numbers:
Quick G+ search:
Anarcho-capitalism: 1493 members. (plus several sub-communities, one for NYC with 37 members, a private one for San Francisco, and a private one for AnCap Bronies)
Voluntaryism: 304 members
Voluntaryists (probably some overlap with Voluntaryism): 127 members (and one with 24 members for Bay area voluntaryists)
Libertarianism: 8063 Members

Anarcho-syndicalism: 25 members (last post was a month ago, and I quote: "anybody willing to cooperate on giving this community some life?")
Anarcho-communist: No results.
Communist anarchy: No results
Libertarian communism: No results
Voluntary communism: No results

Maybe Facebook has more commies, but the Googles is an AnCap haven.
Edit: Anonymous seems to be a red/black collective. Of course, that's about as far from "hard numbers" as it gets, so...

[1715075983]

1715075983

[1715075983]

1715075983

[Zarathustra]

The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.

Show me this ideal culture that you refer to.

That was human reality (and still is at some unmissioned territories) most of the time in history, until the birth of the tragedy around 10'000 years ago, with the submission of the bovine first and the human later: the patriarchy.

That's just bullshit.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, a society that did not value "capital".  You just don't know what the hell capital actually is.  There have been a number of different cultures that treated personal property in a different manner that I can think of, but none failed to "accumulate capital" and managed to survive long enough to develop writing, or at least be noticed by a culture that had already developed writing, in order to be noticed by history.  If you can name a culture that you believe satisfys your conditions, name it so that I can point out your errors of fact. Otherwise your  just another socialist troll.

If somebody of both of us is a socialist troll, then it's you. Capitalism is the interaction of socialized, collectivized humans: the citizens, which are forced to do business for the purpose of paying protection money to the state mafia. In matrilineal, pre-neolitic, pre-patriarchal, non-business-doing communities, there was nowhere and never such a thing as accumulated capital. They are not accumulating, they are sharing.
Some of the penan communities for example are still not missioned by the state mafia, and therefore, they do not accumulate, they do not grow rampant, either economically or territorially.
Capitalism began with the patriarchal, the perverted organisation of the homines sapientes around 10'000 years ago, as they began with the submission of the animals. Capital (lat. caput = head) is the head count of the accumulated and submissed cattles. It seems that you know nothing about the  history of the pre-patriarchal homines sapientes. It seems that you really believe that the socialized,  business doing cartoon of the homines sapientes, the citizen, is the norm in nature. That's very sad that there are so many Believers of this collectivist Bullshit-Religion, and that they call themself anarchists is a sad joke.
Pardon for my english language, the globalized hegemonial language is not my native language.

[justusranvier]

In matrilineal, pre-neolitic, pre-patriarchal, non-business-doing communities, there was nowhere and never such a thing as accumulated capital.

They couldn't accumulate capital because they were too busy murdering each other and engaging in rituals to placate the voices in their heads.

[Zarathustra]

In matrilineal, pre-neolitic, pre-patriarchal, non-business-doing communities, there was nowhere and never such a thing as accumulated capital.

They couldn't accumulate capital because they were too busy murdering each other and engaging in rituals to placate the voices in their heads.

Greatest Bullshit ever; it's very sad that the so called anarchists in this forum use the collectivist propaganda of the christian terrorists. These are post-neolithic, post-matrilineal communities (reservates in territorial stress within rampant growing civilization). Today, you can find a suicide cult also in territorially stressed communities. But the cause of it is not tribalism/anarchism, but civilization/collectivism.

[Anon136]

Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.

This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source?

No hard numbers, no. Just a general sense of the community.

unfortunate. i have a feel for the size of our community but i dont have much of a feel for the size of their community so i personally have no idea how many of them there are.

Well, how's this for "hard" numbers:
Quick G+ search:
Anarcho-capitalism: 1493 members. (plus several sub-communities, one for NYC with 37 members, a private one for San Francisco, and a private one for AnCap Bronies)
Voluntaryism: 304 members
Voluntaryists (probably some overlap with Voluntaryism): 127 members (and one with 24 members for Bay area voluntaryists)
Libertarianism: 8063 Members

Anarcho-syndicalism: 25 members (last post was a month ago, and I quote: "anybody willing to cooperate on giving this community some life?")
Anarcho-communist: No results.
Communist anarchy: No results
Libertarian communism: No results
Voluntary communism: No results

Maybe Facebook has more commies, but the Googles is an AnCap haven.
Edit: Anonymous seems to be a red/black collective. Of course, that's about as far from "hard numbers" as it gets, so...

google trends derp

[worldinacoin]

I was just doing some research on Anarchy, this thread is really an amazing collection of great opinions!  Thanks!

[Anon136]

I was just doing some research on Anarchy, this thread is really an amazing collection of great opinions!  Thanks!

if you are looking for awesome resources you should check out the relatively short playlist i made for youtubde intended to serve as a super basic introduction to the concepts.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL93BDC716ED0C525F

since i care about these ideas a lot, if you watch the whole playlist ill even send you my appreciation in the form of a small bitcoin donation

[worldinacoin]

I was just doing some research on Anarchy, this thread is really an amazing collection of great opinions!  Thanks!

if you are looking for awesome resources you should check out the relatively short playlist i made for youtubde intended to serve as a super basic introduction to the concepts.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL93BDC716ED0C525F

since i care about these ideas a lot, if you watch the whole playlist ill even send you my appreciation in the form of a small bitcoin donation

Deeply appreciate your recommendations will certainly go through the list

[NewLiberty]

I was just doing some research on Anarchy, this thread is really an amazing collection of great opinions!  Thanks!

if you are looking for awesome resources you should check out the relatively short playlist i made for youtubde intended to serve as a super basic introduction to the concepts.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL93BDC716ED0C525F

since i care about these ideas a lot, if you watch the whole playlist ill even send you my appreciation in the form of a small bitcoin donation

This is really excellent.  Am going to suggest it to my kid for viewing together tonight.
Viewers are paid to attend to it by the content, even more than by the offer of bitcoin.

[MoonShadow]

The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.

Show me this ideal culture that you refer to.

That was human reality (and still is at some unmissioned territories) most of the time in history, until the birth of the tragedy around 10'000 years ago, with the submission of the bovine first and the human later: the patriarchy.

That's just bullshit.  There is not now, nor has there ever been, a society that did not value "capital".  You just don't know what the hell capital actually is.  There have been a number of different cultures that treated personal property in a different manner that I can think of, but none failed to "accumulate capital" and managed to survive long enough to develop writing, or at least be noticed by a culture that had already developed writing, in order to be noticed by history.  If you can name a culture that you believe satisfys your conditions, name it so that I can point out your errors of fact. Otherwise your  just another socialist troll.

If somebody of both of us is a socialist troll, then it's you. Capitalism is the interaction of socialized, collectivized humans: the citizens, which are forced to do business for the purpose of paying protection money to the state mafia.

No, it's not.  Capitalism starts with the definition of capital.  You don't even know what it is.

In matrilineal, pre-neolitic, pre-patriarchal, non-business-doing communities, there was nowhere and never such a thing as accumulated capital.

There is no such thing as a non-business doing community.  Even the hippy-nerds who trek out to the desert each year for Burning Man are doing business, even if they might consider the thought offensive.  Capital accumulation is a required feature for survivival.  There are no mammals that I know of that do not do it, and it's even fairly common among insects.  Stop and think about what you believe.  How did you get there, and did you consider the root principles to get there?

They are not accumulating, they are sharing.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.  So you believe that a gift economy isn't business?  How would anyone give a gift, without accumulating capital first?  What are they going to give, prayers and well wishes?

Some of the penan communities for example are still not missioned by the state mafia, and therefore, they do not accumulate, they do not grow rampant, either economically or territorially.

The Penan are hunter-gatherers.  They hunt and gather, capital accumulation by definition.  The snare is capital, so is the bow and arrow.  The gathering basket is capital.  And even if none of this were true, the Penan consider the forests that they inhabit to be their property, and thus logging to be a crime against themselves and their culture.  It's a collective form of property, certainly, but it's a very real concept of property.  Thus, by definition, the Penan consider the forest that grows their food to be their capital.

Capitalism began with the patriarchal, the perverted organisation of the homines sapientes around 10'000 years ago, as they began with the submission of the animals. Capital (lat. caput = head) is the head count of the accumulated and submissed cattles. It seems that you know nothing about the  history of the pre-patriarchal homines sapientes.

Capital is anything required to produce.  To the hunter-gatherers, the tools of same are capital, as is the lands traversed.  To the sheepherder, the sheep, the sheepdog, the grazing fields, the shearing tools, etc are capital.  To the farmer, the plow and workhorse, and the fields, are capital.  So yes, the root of the word is a "head count", but no it's not about submission of animals per se.  If you want to be a hunter-gatherer, go do it.

 It seems that you really believe that the socialized,  business doing cartoon of the homines sapientes, the citizen, is the norm in nature. That's very sad that there are so many Believers of this collectivist Bullshit-Religion, and that they call themself anarchists is a sad joke.
Pardon for my english language, the globalized hegemonial language is not my native language.

You make assumptions about my beliefs you cannot support.  The modern concept of capitalism isn't the natural form of same, but capitalism certainly has a natural root. 

[justusranvier]

In matrilineal, pre-neolitic, pre-patriarchal, non-business-doing communities, there was nowhere and never such a thing as accumulated capital.

They couldn't accumulate capital because they were too busy murdering each other and engaging in rituals to placate the voices in their heads.

Greatest Bullshit ever; it's very sad that the so called anarchists in this forum use the collectivist propaganda of the christian terrorists. These are post-neolithic, post-matrilineal communities (reservates in territorial stress within rampant growing civilization). Today, you can find a suicide cult also in territorially stressed communities. But the cause of it is not tribalism/anarchism, but civilization/collectivism.

I need to learn to stop responding to Markov chains as if they are people.

[Biomech]

Ok.

All marxists that I have ever interacted with do this, and unfortunately a lot of anarchists who ought to know better.

So here's the deal.

Capitalism is NOT a political system!!!

Let me repeat that. Capitalism is NOT a political system!!!

Fascism is a political system whereby capitalistic enterprise is allowed to exist, but regulated by a central authority.

Communism is a political system that INTERNALLY makes all capital common property (still capitalistic at it's root, but that's a story for another time.)

Modern democracy is closer to fascism than communism. The big problem, aside from the dehumanization of the individual, with communism and it's derivatives is and always has been NO realistic means to figure out exchange. Sure, absent allergies you can figure out food, but anything non necessary but desirable cannot be evaluated without TRADE, which is the root of capitalism.

A free society is necessarily based on production and trade. A totalitarian society (which communism MUST be unless limited to extremely small groupings) still needs to trade, but it's rulers can make the value decisions. Poorly.

Capitalism is an economic system whereby PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS own the means of production and trade freely amongst themselves. In a truly capitalistic system, money is just another commodity, not some magical "declared to be of value" piece of promissory paper.

BTW, for all of you socialists and statists, the corporation is the primary economic basis for fascism. Mussolini's fascist party, for whom the term "fascist" came into common usage, described their system as corporatism. While the organizational structure of a corporation is legitimate in some ways, the "juridical person" of a corporate entity is BY DEFINITION a 'person' created by the state. Without states, there are no corporate persons, thus the shield against personal liability by corporate officers goes away.

Absent the state, free trade does and always has existed. Through most of history, barring external events, prices start high on new goods and trend downward as competition enters the game, thus in the long run benefiting everyone involved. Yes, there is fraud in the marketplace, and there always will be. But there is LESS fraud when the penalties are market based than when you can "insure" against them with "public" monies. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand at work.

To some extent, every system of polity from the most totalitarian to the most anarchic has some element of capital accumulation and trade. This is NECESSARY unless you want to be a wild animal, subsisting solely on what you find that day and at the mercy of the elements, since even basic tools and clothes are capital. The basic derivation of the word basically has the meanings of wealth or things of primary need. If it can be used and possessed, it IS capital.

Free market anarchism, or Libertarian Anarchism, which is commonly known as anarcho-capitalism or volutaryism, is a system whereby EVERY HUMAN old enough to live on their own is considered a sovereign person, duty bound to make their own way so long as they do not violate the Non aggression principle. Mutual trade to be carried out based upon contract and agreement, not who has the bigger dick. States, and it is my decades long consideration that a collective version of anarchy is going to be at least a minimal state, has a "middleman" at all times, taking a piece of, or frequently ALL of the action and leaving the individual to rot. Agorism, the system to which I ascribe, is inherently subversive in a way the communists could never imagine nor pull off. We aim to outcompete the state, subverting it by making it respond to us via it's own weaknesses rather than violent revolution. Bitcoin actually serves that purpose quite well. It's an intangible currency, much like their fiat, but it's decentralized nature makes it difficult to track and impossible to control. Yet coming down on it in a meaningful way exposes them for what they are, which they cannot afford unless they ADMIT to being totalitarian. And probably wouldn't work anyway, as it would just go underground. The long term goal, of course, is to smash the state. The means is to make them chase their tail so long and so enthusiastically that they smash themselves.

[Zarathustra]

No, it's not.  Capitalism starts with the definition of capital.  You don't even know what it is.

You don't even know what it is: caput = head (count of the cattle), which is the start of patriarchal business doing.

There is no such thing as a non-business doing community.  Even the hippy-nerds who trek out to the desert each year for Burning Man are doing business, even if they might consider the thought offensive.  Capital accumulation is a required feature for survivival.  There are no mammals that I know of that do not do it, and it's even fairly common among insects.  Stop and think about what you believe.  How did you get there, and did you consider the root principles to get there?

If you are autark and selfsufficient as a community, then you are not doing business. Very simple to understand. A selfsufficient community therefore is not doing business with others, because it is autark and selfsufficient. Also very simple to understand. You never heard anything about autarky and selfsufficiency, and about the difference to the non-autark collectivism (business)?

Ah, now we are getting somewhere.  So you believe that a gift economy isn't business?

Yes, it isn't business. Gift economy is another oxymoron. A gift is a gift and an economy is an economy. „It's the economy, stupid!“

Selfsufficient, autark communities do not grow rampant and do not destroy their environment, because they do not have to do business, which has to be growing rampant for the purpose of paying protection money (census) to the rampant growing state mafia and interest to the creditors. Interest on debt is a derivative of the census (tribute) to the state mafia. Capitalism is by definition a state bastard (quote: Dr. Paul C. Martin)

 How would anyone give a gift, without accumulating capital first?  What are they going to give, prayers and well wishes?

A gift is a gift. Has nothing to do with business. Gifts never grow rampant.

The Penan are hunter-gatherers.  They hunt and gather, capital accumulation by definition.  

BS. Selfsufficiency, autarky and sharing (non-business) by definition. No growing mountains of material, money, gifts, gold etc.

The snare is capital, so is the bow and arrow.  The gathering basket is capital.

Uhh, and the bonobos are capitalists because they use some tools? What a perverted ideology, which has its roots in vienna, where some elitist aristocrats brought a lot of collectivist BS to paper.

And even if none of this were true, the Penan consider the forests that they inhabit to be their property, and thus logging to be a crime against themselves and their culture.  It's a collective form of property, certainly, but it's a very real concept of property.  Thus, by definition, the Penan consider the forest that grows their food to be their capital.

Property? That's the sad view of a deeply brainwashed capitalistic collectivist. If you cannot see the difference between autarky and collectivism, thats your problem.

[MoonShadow]

Biomech nails it on the head.  He has displayed a working knowledge of how the world really works.

Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.

A different question, Zarathusta, what about Bitcoin attracts you to this forum?

EDIT:  I noticed that you never would commit to reading a book, if I were to recommend it.  I see now that my prior choice would have been presumptive.  I might recommend a different set of books as a starting point.  I was going to recommend The Stealth of Nations by Robert Neuwirth, but perhaps The Beeman by Laurie Krebs would be more your speed.

[myrkul]

Classic side issue that An-Cap&Co always struggles with: at what age are they "old enough"?

Old enough for what? Dress themselves? Most kids can do that by five.
Cross the street? 7, maybe 8 for the slow ones.
Drink responsibly? Hell, even some adults aren't mature enough to handle that.
Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

[Zarathustra]

Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.

An economy as a state bastard by definition is the state patronized interaction between people, which are not autark and not selfsufficient. They are not autark, because the autark communities are forbidden and have been destroyed by the state and church mafia, wich replaced the matrilinear communities by perverted, monogamous pairing families and harem families, for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money. These are the roots of accumulation and these are the historic facts.
The reason why in anarchistic communities you cannot find ever rampant growing mountains of material, money, gold etc. is the fact, that they are not forced by the state mafia to accumulate such mountains of material by destroying their environment. Neither the Penan nor the Bonobo is a homo oeconomicus. In a capitalistic collectivist society, the mountains of accumulated things as well as the production grows rampant hundredfold in 100 years. In an anarchistic community (Penan) we find no production growth and no growing mountains of accumulated things.

A different question, Zarathusta, what about Bitcoin attracts you to this forum?

I am looking for anarchists in this forum. But I met hero collectivists who are enthusiastic to interact and doing business with unknown people in the globalized hypercollectiv. As for me, I view Bitcoin as a subversive tool to end the state and with it the economy (homo oeconomicus). As soon as the mission is accomplished, Bitcoin will be obsolet.

EDIT:  I noticed that you never would commit to reading a book, if I were to recommend it.  I see now that my prior choice would have been presumptive.  I might recommend a different set of books as a starting point.  I was going to recommend The Stealth of Nations by Robert Neuwirth, but perhaps The Beeman by Laurie Krebs would be more your speed.

To starters I would recommend this essay:

http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

Macht, der Staat und die Institution des Eigentums
(Power, the State and the Institution of Property)
*
Paul C. Martin
**
(Preliminary version of 26 October 2003)
Abstract

Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force. The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the possession of it guarantees property of it. Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute). The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons (copper, tin). Thus non - circulating money begins. Taxes as “census” and money are the same. As soon as defence and protection of the (property-) title power executed by armed force in war and peace needs mercenaries (soldiers from outside the power system) the one – way -money turns into circulating “genuine money” in modern sense and its material changes from weapon - fitting to precious metal and actually into any material which can be monopolized by the state.

Interest also at first is the tax (census) itself. The state, that must exist before property and
property-based contracts which only can be executed with use of armed force, can’t be
financed out of property or income which can only appear after its existence. Therefore the
state faces the problem of pre-financing itself (power, sovereignty) and it must draw on later
tributes or taxes. This “interest”, which always starts with power-based and never with
“private” titles is nothing but a discount, thereby rather a discount of the state-owned property
(monopoly of armed force) or property rights (monopoly of taxation) than any private
“property premium” or even an mysterious item that “enlarges” something. Interest than is the
partition (cession) of forced or expected income (as measured in the state-owned monopoly to
declare “legal tender”) or property (goods) by the party which will get this income or property
(goods) with other parties. The more (existing) property is ceded by the state to the private
sector or can be created as income after cession to the private sector in the private (non-state) sector the longer the process called “creation of wealth” (recte: later income or property) can endure, because the more power-sustaining taxes can be imposed.

[myrkul]

Classic side issue that An-Cap&Co always struggles with: at what age are they "old enough"?

Old enough for what? Dress themselves? Most kids can do that by five.
Cross the street? 7, maybe 8 for the slow ones.
Drink responsibly? Hell, even some adults aren't mature enough to handle that.
Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

If you hadn't snipped out the context of my reply, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself like that. Or are you trolling again?

Free market anarchism, or Libertarian Anarchism, which is commonly known as anarcho-capitalism or volutaryism, is a system whereby EVERY HUMAN old enough to live on their own is considered a sovereign person

Ahh. I missed that bit about being old enough to live on their own. But the point is moot. I place no such restrictions on treating people like people, and not property. I place no arbitrary age limits on competency. Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

[MoonShadow]

Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.

An economy as a state bastard by definition is the state patronized interaction between people, which are not autark and not selfsufficient.

Simply repeating or restating your, already circular, definition does nothing to change the issue of understanding.  We, apparently, don't see the world in remotely similar contexts.  Our worldviews are, thus, incompatible.  Without some degree of effort towards reconciliation of our worldviews, and use of language, we are almost literally speaking different languages.  Your half-assed answer above does nothing to improve the reader's comprehension of what an economy is, and thus is not a real definition.  Please try again.

 They are not autark, because the autark communities are forbidden and have been destroyed by the state and church mafia, wich replaced the matrilinear communities by perverted, monogamous pairing families and harem families, for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money. These are the roots of accumulation and these are the historic facts.

First, are you a German speaker?  Because I don't know of any English definition of "autark" that would make any sense in this context, and even a google search sheds no light.

Second, the above excerpt just sounds insane.  I've never had any interaction with anything that resembles a church mafia (although the state mafia is hard to avoid) and your claim that (I assume) traditional marriage was "for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money" is far from a fact, and you fail to provide any support for the claim.  Your calim is, therefore, quite literally baseless.

The reason why in anarchistic communities you cannot find ever rampant growing mountains of material, money, gold etc. is the fact, that they are not forced by the state mafia to accumulate such mountains of material by destroying their environment. Neither the Penan nor the Bonobo is a homo oeconomicus. In a capitalistic collectivist society, the mountains of accumulated things as well as the production grows rampant hundredfold in 100 years. In an anarchistic community (Penan) we find no production growth and no growing mountains of accumulated things.

The problem of unsustainable growth that you refer to has much more to do with the effects of fiat money and fractional reserve lending, further juiced by the past 150 years or so of the industrial oil age, than it does have to do with any actual fault with capitalism or even traditional marriage contracts.  You have identified a longstanding problem of the modern world and completely misinterpreted the underlying causes.

A different question, Zarathusta, what about Bitcoin attracts you to this forum?

I am looking for anarchists in this forum. But I met hero collectivists who are enthusiastic to interact and doing business with unknown people in the globalized hypercollectiv. As for me, I view Bitcoin as a subversive tool to end the state and with it the economy (homo oeconomicus). As soon as the mission is accomplished, Bitcoin will be obsolet.

You seem to have more in common, ideologically,  with a communist hippie commune than you do with any flavor of 'anarchism' for which I am aware.  I don't think you're going to have much luck finding fellow travelers here.  Bitcoin literally has zero chance of ending the economy.  I really don't think you know what the word means.  Is English your first language?

EDIT:  I noticed that you never would commit to reading a book, if I were to recommend it.  I see now that my prior choice would have been presumptive.  I might recommend a different set of books as a starting point.  I was going to recommend The Stealth of Nations by Robert Neuwirth, but perhaps The Beeman by Laurie Krebs would be more your speed.

To starters I would recommend this essay:

First off, I've read it before, and he is somewhat full of shit, although not completely.  He is wise enough  to 'condition' his statements to apply to the modern state of things.  

Second, I wasn't asking for your recommendations.  Have you read it, or are you just throwing out  philosphophers in order to sound smart?  I ask, because he starts off with this...

"Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state
needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force. The ultimate “foundation of
the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the
possession of it guarantees property of it."

With the condition I highlighted, 'of the day', the author is deliberately avoiding discussion of natural property rights, as that is not the state of things today and not what he is talking aobut in the essay.  That said, the basic premise of the essay is roughly correct.  Namely that the modern state requires property rights as part and parcel to it's justification for it's existance, and further requires the monopoly of the use of force, i.e. "the gun".  Not simply a gun, but all of them, and this is a root cause of the 'gun control' efforts the world over across all of human history.

You should be very careful in this forum doing what you seem to be trying to do.  You will find that you are not the smartest guy in the room, if you ever were, and most of us cannot be bullshitted.

[MoonShadow]

Classic side issue that An-Cap&Co always struggles with: at what age are they "old enough"?

Old enough for what? Dress themselves? Most kids can do that by five.
Cross the street? 7, maybe 8 for the slow ones.
Drink responsibly? Hell, even some adults aren't mature enough to handle that.
Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

If you hadn't snipped out the context of my reply, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself like that. Or are you trolling again?

Free market anarchism, or Libertarian Anarchism, which is commonly known as anarcho-capitalism or volutaryism, is a system whereby EVERY HUMAN old enough to live on their own is considered a sovereign person

Ahh. I missed that bit about being old enough to live on their own. But the point is moot. I place no such restrictions on treating people like people, and not property. I place no arbitrary age limits on competency. Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

Ah, yes.  The classic issue of children in an anarchy.  This is where Myrkul and I have had great disagreements in the past.  It's not a simple question.  If a child is born, does s/he have full rights immediately?  If so, who may excercise those rights on their behalf?  For how long, with what limits?  Under what conditions can the child assume their own rights entirely?  The standard answer is that parents have those rights in an 'escrow' of sorts, and that the child assumes those rights upon reaching an arbitrary age of maturity.  But what about those children who mature early, or those adults who will never mature completely?  What about the parents that violate the rights of their own children?  There is a huge rabbit hole here, and before this goes further, please consider whether or not another thread would be more appropriate.

[Malawi]

Classic side issue that An-Cap&Co always struggles with: at what age are they "old enough"?

Old enough for what? Dress themselves? Most kids can do that by five.
Cross the street? 7, maybe 8 for the slow ones.
Drink responsibly? Hell, even some adults aren't mature enough to handle that.
Age is a number. Maturity is not measured in years.

It can be measured pretty well in years. An average person is a proper adult (brain fully developed) at around 23-25 years of age.

Still - as you point out, some are more mature at a younger age than their peers.