That's not a contradiction; ancaps believe that the enforcement of private property can also be privatized. You have to dig a little deeper. But I promise it'll be worth it, because the conclusion is even dumber.
Privatizing enforcement is allowed in anarcho capitalism. At which point someone's private army can enforce whatever contract terms they want on whoever has a weaker one. Which can be anything, because a contract can be anything that people consent two without government coercion ("agree to my terms in exchange for not being mowed down by my army" is a fair contract (lol)). So a large private army could enforce exactly the body of law of, say, the US government, and that's okay in ancapistan.
And that's the real contradiction of anarcho capitalism - it permits all possible governments, yet somehow is supposed to be opposed to the form of government we have now.
Raising a private army needs a lot of money, and the largest private army (the one that gets to dictate terms) will be the most expensive. That money comes from the profit from voluntary transactions; if the people participating in these transactions did not want there to be a giant private army they would not trade with the giant-private-army-haver. Thus by virtue of the fact that someone has a giant private army, we can conclude that the majority of people consent to this state of affairs. So there's no violation of the NAP, you got into this situation via a series of voluntary transactions.
That's not a contradiction; ancaps believe that the enforcement of private property can also be privatized. You have to dig a little deeper. But I promise it'll be worth it, because the conclusion is even dumber.
Privatizing enforcement is allowed in anarcho capitalism. At which point someone's private army can enforce whatever contract terms they want on whoever has a weaker one. Which can be anything, because a contract can be anything that people consent two without government coercion ("agree to my terms in exchange for not being mowed down by my army" is a fair contract (lol)). So a large private army could enforce exactly the body of law of, say, the US government, and that's okay in ancapistan.
And that's the real contradiction of anarcho capitalism - it permits all possible governments, yet somehow is supposed to be opposed to the form of government we have now.
What is a government if not a bloated private army that has laid claim over a land by contract
Mods how do I save a comment
Click the vertical ... menu on the comment
Click the star
View your profile then choose the saved tab, there it is!
View anyone else's profile then choose the saved tab. There it is too! Wait what?
Aren't you a mod?
No mods no masters.
I just clicked the star button. It turned orange but I don't know if it saved it. I'll keep you posted.
No, see, this is impossible, because everyone has to follow the NAP
Raising a private army needs a lot of money, and the largest private army (the one that gets to dictate terms) will be the most expensive. That money comes from the profit from voluntary transactions; if the people participating in these transactions did not want there to be a giant private army they would not trade with the giant-private-army-haver. Thus by virtue of the fact that someone has a giant private army, we can conclude that the majority of people consent to this state of affairs. So there's no violation of the NAP, you got into this situation via a series of voluntary transactions.
(lol.)