>>86209
The consequences of antagonizing corporations who are playing the game in a fair and efficient manner are far greater than choosing to join them in playing by the game. If corporations do not play the game in a fair and efficient manner, it becomes much easier to justify hostile action.
With a more open market, monopolies of efficiency should be broken by internal competition, and prickly monopolies of law (like copyright or arbitrary land ownership) should be broken by a lack of a government to enforce them.
Prescriptive "should" used because this is an untested assertion, but based on modern socioeconomic thought, not an unreasonable one. "fair and efficient" used to represent a policy that has long-term efficiency, in other words, a simultaneously equitable and efficient policy.
I'm not personally an ancap or interested in pursuing an ancap society, but I think this is a fair answer to the proposed problem.
>>86232
>states are monopolies on violence
It's better to represent them as a monopoly on volition, at least in most civilized countries. The retrograde view is that the state should 'monopolize force', which hasn't even been feasible since gunpowder became public domain and borders became porous. At best, a few islands will manage to hold on tight to that petty dream, and only so long as their neighbor states aren't inclined to sabotage them.
A murderer kills someone in cold blood, while some homeowner shoots a robber in a reactionary and defensive manner. Both individuals used plenty of "violence" or "force" in their scenario, but it's the murderer who acted of their own volition, and without the state's consent, who is treated antagonistically by the court and negatively by the public. The same logic applies to many other generally hostile acts: a popular example is the comparison of "taxation vs theft". A much more relevant and subtle version of this dichotomy is the volition to seize property and land-wealth, which is the basic feature of war, and a defacto property of the state.
The implication of this understanding is that it is most efficient to offload volition, not force or violence, to a third party who acts as the deciding body for any such action. With the weight of overwhelming evidence on its side, this view is most likely true when seen within a historic (and pre-historic) context. The modern era is not in that range, though, as the social and technological landscape is a sharp contrast when compared to most of those "case studies".
"The state" is not a monolith and it's a consequence of our modern perspective (from a time with few, if any, successful alternatives to welfare capitalism) that we believe it to be so. Countries throughout history have been ruled in an array of increasingly efficient ways, often with newer ways overtaking the old as a market representation of a critical mass in technological and utilitarian advancements.
It's possible that the trait made obsolete was the efficiency of offloading volition, the bedrock of the state. Considering how much has changed in communications technology and material sciences, this view would be reasonable, if not down-right conservative. It's important to remember that not even one single technologically advanced country has been founded and designed with the information age in mind, and we simply do not know what a successful example of this kind of futuristic society looks like. This has been a matter of speculation for three decades now, first as science fiction and then as object reality, but we still do not know.
I think it would be a good idea to read the signs as they are and look for escape routes that don't involve society totally imploding overnight and/or utter tyranny, so I'm urging you to maybe humor ancaps when they insist that their option is a legitimate one and try to find a more pleasant alternative to it, instead of clinging to the fading orthodoxy and condescending at them.
The more heads hit this problem from more directions, the less likely we're left with fucking anarchy as the only valid model.
this post got way too long to proofread well and it's probably riddled with enough errors to make me look like an ESL, fug