>>63022
>So what if most people don't care about NAP?
See above. They don't have to care. What they do care about is their own well being, and that's all you really need them to care about to make defense institutions work.
>you need some way to encourage or "force" people to abide by the NAP.
You mean by defending your self and your property? With "force"? You mean to suggest that people are incapable of doing this without socializing the cost of doing so? Somehow defense only works when monopolized?
There's a bait-and-switch with the word "force" here. The force used to defend one's property is only force in the same way that self-defense is "forcing" somebody to stop attacking you, but you're treating it like the necessity of such force proves the necessity of declaring a set of universal commandments and forcing everyone to obey them.
>You need more than just something visionary in your head.
Acknowledging principles does not indicate a lack of practical consideration.
>So again, how would you make the NAP a real thing?
Your problem is that you keep asking questions under false premises. The NAP is an abstract concept, and it's part of the reason why I shudder whenever people advocate for it; it leads to discussions like this where people treat it like a game plan. It is not. It is not legislation, commandments, or anything of the sort. It really shouldn't be a part of this discussion.
Now, if the question is, "How do AnCaps propose to promote a social order consistent with the ethics of non-aggression?", then there's some possibility of an answer there.
At its core, AnCap philosophy is itself agnostic on the particulars of that. Part of the confusion stems from the fact that the language surrounding such discussion is often couched in the nation-state paradigm. Anarcho-Capitalism, if anything suggests, that any solutions offered to a different problem be varied, voluntary, and permitted to fail. In general terms, AnCaps suggest that defensive services be provided by numerous means, conceived by whoever wants to take a shot at it. Inevitably, some of the solutions tried will include considerations and ideas such that no one person could anticipate them all. Some of those solutions will prove more successful than others, some will incorporate each others' elements, and others will simply fail to provide what consumers of those services need. Through a process of consumer selection, the solutions which best satisfy consumers' concerns will tend to emerge as most successful. Because consumers are diverse individuals, it is likely that multiple disparate solutions will emerge in a dynamic process of competition, innovation, success, and failure. In the case of defense, you could be looking at volunteer mutual defense groups, private security, insurance, militias, or simple informal systems like kinship groups, neighborhoods, or even just personal defense.
>>63026
>>63031
>Now in the theoretical situation there is a war between an ancap society and a nation state.
>Who has the advantage as far as military goes?
All other things being equal; the AnCap society.
1) Nobody can surrender on everyone else's behalf, making any invasion effort into an untenable war on a thousand fronts.
2) There is no tax system to capture, making it much less rewarding to capture such a region.
3) Being a free economy, it's likely that there will be much more to gain from trading with them than from invading them. The sheer capacity of productive output makes them far too sexy a trade partner to invade. Attacking them would destroy that productive capacity, and any international business with dealings in the AnCap region would be willing to throw a lot of money at preventing hostilities. Even without the economic differences, it's much more lucrative to trade than to invade.
4) Defense firms are capable of economic calculation, drastically reducing waste. No trillion-dollar planes that can't fly, since the projects can't be propped up by non-existent senators, and manufacturers have to compete with their products instead of their lobbyists.
Of course, an enormous nation-state with a massive military apparatus could easily steamroll a tiny anarchist thorpe, but that has nothing to do with their forms of social organization and everything to do with sheer size. A state would be even more vulnerable were their sizes reversed.
>>63039
>AnCaps generally don't believe their society will be permanent
I would go so far as to say that AnCaps don't support the idea of a single AnCap society. Being pluralistic, we tend to support countless simultaneous societies operating in the same geographic regions, permitted to succeed and fail, rise and fall, naturally. Allowing free entry and exit in these societies and not tying them artificially to monopolized necessary services means that their fall will not be catastrophic when it comes.