Are you a Constitutionalist or an Anarchist?

[Young Paleocon]

no, it's like saying jesus doesn't sin.

No I'll stick with my original. Even though someone preaches morality doesn't mean they follow what they say. Nor, on second thought, due I think it is a requirement for an anarcho-capitalist to not vote. Don't think that's in the official rulebook.

 

[South Park Fan]

You forgot to add the fact that they would just bomb the country really well first. You'd shoot down stealth jet planes with a shotgun?

Putting aside what good it would do to bomb the country, you're forgetting that without government there wouldn't be anything preventing civilians from acquiring weapons capable of shooting stealth jet planes.

 

[Dr.3D]

Now from looking at the poll results, I finally understand what happened when I made a logical statement and got an illogical response.

I was making a statement about the current situation in this country and the person responding was responding as if we were in some future situation they would like this country to be in. The response really blew my mind, but now, I can understand what was happening.

 

[mczerone]

You forgot to add the fact that they would just bomb the country really well first. You'd shoot down stealth jet planes with a shotgun?

In a free society, a "well regulated militia" would own, maintain, and keep ready such anti-aircraft guns, if there was a need for it.

So lets start by selling our heavy arms to our own citizens, who will be able to provide defense for any willing buyer (individual or voluntary group) that feels threatened from those horrible invaders you warn about.

 

[JeNNiF00F00]

How are those 100 thousand guns going to get into the country? Dock in Mexico and walk/drive up through Mexico and cross the border?

Do you really believe Mexico or Canada would allow a foreign nation to dock in their country, only for them to march to the United States to try conquer us?

You're delusional if you think anyone could/would invade the continental United States.

Never say Never. Think about what the NWO is trying to do. They can use many tactics to get to us if they had the power and that is exactly what they are doing right now. Gaining more and more power by the day.

 

[mport1]

Used to be a constitutionalist/minarchist before I realized the contradictions and other problems with the philosophy and became an anarchist.

For those who are curious about anarchy, I have a few reading suggestions. Give it a chance before you knock it.

Start with this article - Stefan Molyneux's concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) - http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html and http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html

Practical Anarchy - Found in audio and pdf form here http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html (goes well with Everyday Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behaviour but Practical Anarchy looks at the practical questions you are probably more interested in)

The Market For Liberty - Very good in most aspects and again looks at a lot of the practicalities. http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

For A New Liberty - In print and audio. Also everything else by Rothbard is good. http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

 

[mport1]

Saying that, doesn't make it true about them all. I bet you can find several anarchists that voted for Ron Paul.

I did

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Used to be a constitutionalist/minarchist before I realized the contradictions and other problems with the philosophy and became an anarchist.

For those who are curious about anarchy, I have a few reading suggestions. Give it a chance before you knock it.

Start with this article - Stefan Molyneux's concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) - [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html[/URL] and [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html[/URL]

Practical Anarchy - Found in audio and pdf form here [url]http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html[/URL] (goes well with Everyday Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behaviour but Practical Anarchy looks at the practical questions you are probably more interested in)

The Market For Liberty - Very good in most aspects and again looks at a lot of the practicalities. [url]http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/[/URL]

For A New Liberty - In print and audio. Also everything else by Rothbard is good. [url]http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp[/URL]

I also recommend the above reading. Good stuff!

 

[Brassmouth]

Used to be a constitutionalist/minarchist before I realized the contradictions and other problems with the philosophy and became an anarchist.

For those who are curious about anarchy, I have a few reading suggestions. Give it a chance before you knock it.

Start with this article - Stefan Molyneux's concept of Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs) - [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html[/URL] and [url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html[/URL]

Practical Anarchy - Found in audio and pdf form here [url]http://www.freedomainradio.com/books.html[/URL] (goes well with Everyday Anarchy and Universally Preferable Behaviour but Practical Anarchy looks at the practical questions you are probably more interested in)

The Market For Liberty - Very good in most aspects and again looks at a lot of the practicalities. [url]http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/[/URL]

For A New Liberty - In print and audio. Also everything else by Rothbard is good. [url]http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp[/URL]

Someone sticky this. In every forum. Forever.

 

[Vessol]

I just can't get over the fact that most "anarchists" I've met in my life were idiots whom said the word "dude" a bit excessively and political attitude was "no rules dude! fuck government, yeah dude!".

If I didn't get that taste most of my high school years I'm sure I'd have a more pleasant view of anarchism.

 

[Kludge]

I just can't get over the fact that most "anarchists" I've met in my life were idiots whom said the word "dude" a bit excessively and political attitude was "no rules dude! fuck government, yeah dude!".

If I didn't get that taste most of my high school years I'm sure I'd have a more pleasant view of anarchism.

The only anarchist I knew in high school was a Christian anarchist, and a public school teacher (English & Oral Comm.).

Goes to show how important it is to lead by example...

 

[CCTelander]

I just can't get over the fact that most "anarchists" I've met in my life were idiots whom said the word "dude" a bit excessively and political attitude was "no rules dude! fuck government, yeah dude!".

If I didn't get that taste most of my high school years I'm sure I'd have a more pleasant view of anarchism.

I've met my share of that type too. I used to refer to them as "rebels without a clue."

But you've got to admit, the vast majority of anarchists here don't even come close to fitting that mold.

 

[Vessol]

I've met my share of that type too. I used to refer to them as "rebels without a clue."

But you've got to admit, the vast majority of anarchists here don't even come close to fitting that mold.

Yes I'm seeing that for sure. I wouldn't say any I've met here fit that mold. This summer I hope to do quite a bit of reading now that uni classes are over. I'll be honest that I've only gotten political in the last year, before telling people I was a political atheist.

 

[Mini-Me]

This will be a long post...

First off, I want to say that if we actually had a federal government that followed the US Constitution and plenty of "mostly" free libertarian-leaning minarchist states to choose from, I'd be satisfied enough to live my life without complaining.

However, strictly speaking, my true preference is somewhere in the thin gray area between full-fledged minarchism and full-fledged anarcho-capitalism. In terms of anarcho-capitalism, I'm much more confident that certain things would work out just fine than I used to be, as long as the move to anarcho-capitalism occurred in a fair and orderly manner...here's where I'm at right now:

• I mostly understand how roads would probably work under anarcho-capitalism. Privatizing currently public roads might be a sticky affair, and I certainly wouldn't want them to be handed over to some huge company...but it would work assuming it occurred according to certain rules. For example: Everyone would typically own the chunk of road bordering their own property, and they'd be responsible for paying for its upkeep. Anyone who wanted to live in the country would just have to factor in road upkeep as part of the price of having the privacy of a trillion acres (or live with a dirt road). There are tradeoffs with living in the country, because there are tradeoffs with everything. Aside from that non-issue: I imagine most urban and suburban roads would probably have certain [viral] contractual conditions on their ownership regarding minimal upkeep and right of passage between different sections of the same road, which would safeguard homes and businesses from unfriendly neighbors who might want to charge tolls for passage or disallow passage altogether. After all, people wouldn't want to buy property that DIDN'T have this kind of guarantee, because you never know when your neighbor is going to try to extort you or drive your customers away by charging tolls. "Road chunk ownership contracts" would probably also include clauses determining how access from other roads should be decided upon. (For example, maybe the "road chunk ownership contract" of Road A would include a clause saying a majority vote of road shareholders determines whether just anyone can access it from Road B - and the shareholders of both roads would probably meet together and come to a mutually beneficial decision.)
• Privatizing current state and federal highways would work just fine assuming each pre-anarcho-capitalism taxpayer [within the appropriate jurisdiction] received an equal share of ownership, which they'd be free to sell to others in the future. Depending on how many people kept their initial ownership (and passed it down to children, etc.), there may or may not ever be tolls charged for passage. There would be a few minor problems, but nothing huge: Any new highways would probably be toll highways - contributing to time inefficiency (which leads to economic inefficiency) - but it's not like there aren't already toll highways anyway, so it would't be the end of the world. The market may even decide on subscription-based highways if they could stomach the technological trespassing-detection methods...or maybe not. In any case, I don't see any problems here that absolutely require the state.
• Privatizing utilities isn't an insurmountable problem, either: "Road chunk ownership contracts" would include clauses determining how water-pipe-laying, sewage-pipe-laying, electrical-line-laying, etc. would be decided. In most cases, utility companies would probably negotiate with the collective owners of each road while mapping out new networks of cables and pipes, and of course there would be contractual agreements prohibitting people from cutting off access to each other, etc. Ultimately, I think the contracts would (and should) ensure that people are always free to switch utility companies as well. Although I can't imagine this realistically ever happening in a free market with decent starting conditions, the worst possible case scenario would be for a single company to have a monopoly over water and hold it all for ransom...but even if that worst case scenario ever happened, it would realistically be fixed the next day by blood in the streets anyway (non-aggression principle be damned), so I don't think that off-chance is too much to worry about. As a side note, I think the future of power is solar and the future of the Internet infrastructure may be a huge network of decentralized wireless devices working a bit like Bittorrent to maximize bandwidth, but...that's beside the point.
• Flowing resources like rivers and streams could be privately "owned" as well (generally by the people bordering them), although ownership here is a more complicated issue, since people downstream have every right to make use of the water as well without it being disrupted by upstream activity. Old-school English common law should suffice here.
• I see no need for any kind of executive branch of government. Instead of having police who are "above the law" and who have a monopoly over protection, people could quite easily pay private insurance companies for protection against crime, investigations, criminal arrest, etc. Some would be subscription-based, some would allow pay-as-you-go, etc. I see no reason why these companies could easily coexist peacefully, as long as the people agree that the "legitimate" use of force is always determined by a system of courts that agrees on a common law, not by "goons with guns.". That's a big if, but as long as the people recognize that the moral authority rests with the courts, and as long as they only recognize courts that have not gone corrupt, it would be very difficult for any thugs to create a coercive state. (After all, it's a lot easier for an existing state to enslave a public that have been indoctrinated to worship it, than it is for a bunch of random assholes to enslave people that live and breathe liberty.)
• Without an executive branch of government, there would be no centrally-determined foreign policy to speak of and no empire...which means very few countries would bother attacking an anarcho-capitalist society. Land-based invasion would be completely suicidal, considering the "gun behind every blade of grass" point. However, technologically-based attacks (missiles, etc.) from completely amoral countries could still be a threat. That's why the insurance companies offering protection would almost certainly offer technological protection against such attacks, e.g. missile shields, anti-aircraft guns, etc. Depending on their size and number, the insurance companies would either offer such protection directly or subscribe individually to other companies that specialize in that kind of defense technology. Of course, if anyone DID launch some kind of preemptive attack, I imagine there would be plenty of companies like Blackwater only too happy to send assassins overseas and kill some despots or raise some other kind of hell. (...and if a Blackwater-esque company launched a preemptive attack on its own - overseas or not - I doubt the anarcho-capitalist courts would be too happy about it).
• Without an executive branch of government, I see no need for a standing legislative branch: Without an executive branch to execute arbitrary laws and spend tax money, there's no need to Congresscritters to create a budget. Without an executive branch to fight war, there's no need for Congresscritters to declare it. If we stick to a system of common law based on libertarian rights, there's no need for Congresscritters to create arbitrary laws every hour of every day.
• Heck, I even see how the courts can be privatized...as long as they all agree on a system of common law, and the degree to which each court follows the common law determines its legitimacy (in the eyes of the other courts and ultimately the people). Some courts would be subscription-based, and others would be "pay-as-you-go." Ultimately, the loser in a civil case (violation of contract, etc.) would reimburse the winner's court costs. Criminal cases would either be investigated and prosecuted by the victim's court or protection insurance company, and the defendant's court or protection insurance company would pay for the defense (obviously, there would be competition for quality of representation). If all else fails and either side does not have the requisite insurance, they'd technically pay out of pocket, but I have a feeling that there would be some pretty big charities involved who would take on cases on behalf of truly disadvantaged people. Finally, if convicted, the defendant would owe full restitution for both the crime and the investigative and court costs.
• Obviously, full restitution is not always possible, because money will never bring back loved ones, lost limbs, dignity lost in a rape, etc. People have spoken about indentured servitude as an option for restitution, and that's a possibility, but there will always be dangerous [often repeat] violent offenders who will not respect their sentences...and for them, there's pretty much no option other than "eye for an eye" or prison. "Eye for an eye" is a dangerous proposition, since we don't want a court to authorize the killing or permanent maiming of someone who we later find to be wrongfully convicted...so we're left with prison as a necessity. So, who pays for prison sentences when there are no taxpayers? Insurance is pretty unlikely in this case, because applying for such insurance would generally mean you think it's reasonably likely you might end up in prison, and that would make you pretty uninsurable. Ultimately, it would be up to the convict to pay his own way. If he can't pay out of pocket, his family won't/can't pay, and charity won't pay, then it's up to the prison to determine how to put him to work to pay his own way. To prevent conflicts of interest and payola, not only should ALL verdicts and sentences be determined by a jury, but convicts should get their choice of prison...assuming the prison actually meets the definition of a prison as written into the common law. Obviously, they'll pick the one with the best reputation for treating prisoners. This kind of competition between prisons will prevent misery profiteers from getting unduly rich off of prisoner labor, and it will also prevent prisons from being able to unfairly undercut market prices of goods (thereby eliminating any incentive a jury might have to deliver unfair prison sentences just because they will result in cheaper goods on the market).

So, I "get" most of anarcho-capitalism, I like the morality of the non-aggression principle, and I'd like to follow it all the way through IF it's practically viable. I even agree that most of it is definitely viable, and I think it would be a great experiment to try out over some area [alongside a nearby minarchist Constitutional republic probably], but I still have the following hangup:

For all this to work, I can't get around the idea that private courts absolutely MUST agree upon some common law (and of course, it would have to be a very libertarian common law based on rights for this to be called anything close to "anarcho-capitalism" or "minarchism"). My thinking is that this law should be written down in stone in some unchanging territorial Constitution. Of course, this would create a monopoly of law over a given jurisdiction, and the law itself would essentially become "the government" over a certain area. The legitimacy of courts would be determined by peer acceptance and ultimately public acceptance of verdicts. Each private court would have every incentive to generally respect the verdicts of other courts with high public acceptance and reject the verdicts of other courts with low public acceptance...and ultimately, the people and their hired protection will have every incentive as well to respect/disrespect verdicts based on the same criteria. Rather than the state, the people's loyalty would be to the common law that the courts must follow, but they would still have reverence for the authority of that law. So, in a way, this is just a mini-minarchist government, minus the state, not full-blown anarcho-capitalism.

The reason I have this hangup is that I don't buy into the idea that law itself can be bought and sold as commodities without any problems whatsoever. Don't get me wrong: It would definitely work, because it's been done before (with the tuath system in Ireland, which lasted a thousand years!), but the idea sounds a little too much like gang membership to permit permanent peace between people. It seems as though such an idea makes courts pretty irrelevant in most cases, since disputes between different people would be primarily solved by agreements between the different "law-offering" protection insurance agencies. The problem is this: What happens if these agencies have an irreconcilable dispute? They might go to a private court to settle the dispute, but that court would have to be agreed upon. That poses a huge problem for the uninsured, who will have no such prior agreement with anyone. If there is not a commonly-recognized system of legitimate and authoritative courts following an authoritative common law, and there are no prior agreements about which court should be chosen in the event of a dispute, then the uninsured have no reasonable recourse whatsoever. The other person/protection agency they are up against will simply have no incentive to consent to the dispute-settling authority of any small pay-as-you-go court. If we extend this problem a little bit, we see that without a common authoritative law, the larger protection agencies won't even have to make agreements with the smaller ones: They can just ignore them, and there will be no recourse for the smaller ones except for violence...and they'll lose.

Although I disdain the very idea of human beings having authority over others, the only way to ensure social harmony is if everyone is on the same page about what the law is and who decides disputes. At the moment, I see no alternative other than creating some Constitutionally-defined system of common law over a given jurisdiction...and the only way it will work is if people are as fanatically reverent of that law as they are of the state today.

So, errm...I'm not sure if I should be technically considered a minarchist or an anarcho-capitalist, and I'd probably be happy with either, but the wall of text above is where I'm at right now.

 

[TGGRV]

In a free society, a "well regulated militia" would own, maintain, and keep ready such anti-aircraft guns, if there was a need for it.

So lets start by selling our heavy arms to our own citizens, who will be able to provide defense for any willing buyer (individual or voluntary group) that feels threatened from those horrible invaders you warn about.

Yes, I bet people will donate money to build a fleet of F22s. You're delusional. But again, you're proof that anarchy is just a power vacuum that in no time is going to be filled by a dictatorship/oligarchy.

 

[Theocrat]

Anarchy Keeps Us Safe From Military Arms?

In a free society, a "well regulated militia" would own, maintain, and keep ready such anti-aircraft guns, if there was a need for it.

So lets start by selling our heavy arms to our own citizens, who will be able to provide defense for any willing buyer (individual or voluntary group) that feels threatened from those horrible invaders you warn about.

How does anarchy guarantee that those private individuals who buy heavy arms will not ever use them against others who cannot afford to purchase them on their own? What stops a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard in a pure anarchy?

 

[Mini-Me]

Yes, I bet people will donate money to build a fleet of F22s. You're delusional. But again, you're proof that anarchy is just a power vacuum that in no time is going to be filled by a dictatorship/oligarchy.

This isn't really a fair criticism though, because defense technology would not necessarily rely on donations, and it would probably be funded by the people who you buy protection insurance from. No country in their right mind would launch a land invasion in a country of well-armed anarcho-capitalists, so they could never hope to occupy a significant amount of land by conquest. Since there's no imperialist foreign policy to speak of without a state to speak of, only a few truly despotic foreign states would ever have the audacity to launch an unprovoked attack on anarcho-capitalist territory. It would require pointless, aimless savagery to the tune of North Korea attacking Denmark for the fun of it, and they'd have literally nothing to gain for their money and efforts except sadistic satisfaction. The only kind of government that would be actually likely to do something like that is a jealous one world government, irate that part of the world refuses its jurisdiction. Are F22's really still necessary for defense when you have anti-aircraft guns, missile shields, well-armed ports, etc. to defend against air-based and water-based attacks, and no state exists to instigate conflicts? If so, the insurance rates just went up. If people in some geographical area don't want that kind of protection, well hey...that's their own risk to take. I have a feeling enough people would pay their share here, especially along the coasts and areas bordering other countries, considering the amount needed is MUCH, MUCH less than we spend on "defense" (empire and standing army) today.

 

[Mini-Me]

How does anarchy guarantee that those private individuals who buy heavy arms will not ever use them against others who cannot afford to purchase them on their own? What stops a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard in a pure anarchy?

Although you'll never agree with anarcho-capitalism for the same reason you'll never even agree with libertarianism (you want a state that can control people's behavior based on Biblical rules), I think I can answer your current question: I think you're just getting too caught up on the word "anarchy" here and equating it with lawlessness. The absence of a state does not really mean the absence of "government" altogether.

What stops a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard under anarcho-capitalistic governance? Something very similar to the same thing that keeps a Rothschild from killing a Rothbard under the rule of a state: The people's reverence for the authority of the law and the courts over the legitimate use of force.

As long as we're talking about anarcho-capitalism with a common law (probably Constitutional), which may or may not be considered pure anarcho-capitalism, law and order without the state apparatus would work pretty much the same as today. The primary difference is that the payment plan for the courts and police (protection insurance agencies) would be different, and it would probably be organized in some way similar to what I described a few posts back. Whereas people today are indoctrinated to be loyal to the state - the actors that supposedly carry out the law - people under the kind of anarcho-capitalism I'm thinking of would instead owe their loyalty to the common law itself, and they would judge the legitimacy of courts and their decisions based on their faithfulness to that law. I think the law would probably have to be a territorial monopoly, like the state is today, but technically speaking, I think the concept of a state - i.e. a tax-funded monopoly over the courts and police services, at the most basic level - is actually pretty superfluous to the core idea of "government."

Similarly, consider the following situation: The people are loyal to a libertarian common law and revile the concept of a coercive state (of course, anarcho-capitalism could only work with the consent of a certain percentage of people, but that goes for any system of government). They generally respect the private court system's authority over disputes, but only while the courts remain true to the law; large courts know that if they betray the people, they will face their wrath. In this kind of climate, just how much money do you think a company like Blackwater would have to spend to turn enough heavy arms on the people to establish themselves as a state for...eh, longer than three days? For all their murder and extortion, there's probably not enough money in the world that would save them from the wrath of the people's small arms and molotov cocktails. It would be the last mistake they ever made. Even today, when the United States government has the largest and most powerful military in the world, there is no physical, logistical, etc. reason why the people of the United States could not handily defeat that military and quickly take out its leadership. The only reason the government and military are so powerful is because they have the power of mindshare in the people: People worship the state and its perceived moral authority over everything. In a free society where everyone respects a common law instead, they will not bow before some random thugs with guns.

 

[TGGRV]

This isn't really a fair criticism though, because defense technology would not necessarily rely on donations, and it would probably be funded by the people who you buy protection insurance from. No country in their right mind would launch a land invasion in a country of well-armed anarcho-capitalists, so they could never hope to occupy a significant amount of land by conquest. Since there's no imperialist foreign policy to speak of without a state to speak of, only a few truly despotic foreign states would ever have the audacity to launch an unprovoked attack on anarcho-capitalist territory. It would require pointless, aimless savagery to the tune of North Korea attacking Denmark for the fun of it, and they'd have literally nothing to gain for their money and efforts except sadistic satisfaction. The only kind of government that would be actually likely to do something like that is a jealous one world government, irate that part of the world refuses its jurisdiction. Are F22's really still necessary for defense when you have anti-aircraft guns, missile shields, well-armed ports, etc. to defend against air-based and water-based attacks, and no state exists to instigate conflicts? If so, the insurance rates just went up. If people in some geographical area don't want that kind of protection, well hey...that's their own risk to take. I have a feeling enough people would pay their share here, especially along the coasts and areas bordering other countries, considering the amount needed is MUCH, MUCH less than we spend on "defense" (empire and standing army) today.

So why would people who live on the coast pay for protecting people who live in land too? Why would the defense insurance cover everyone if not everyone pays?

And countries fight for resources, control, spheres of influence too, not because that country has an imperialistic foreign policy. Or just out of people being brainwashed into it through religion or other ways.

 

[Mini-Me]

So why would people who live on the coast pay for protecting people who live in land too? Why would the defense insurance cover everyone if not everyone pays?

Essentially, people would pay for their own defense [insurance], and it's kind of incidental if their money ends up protecting others as well. People on the coast would probably be willing to defend the people inland in the event of an air-based attack, even if they didn't "owe it to them"...but if they really wanted, they could always threaten to leave the heartland hanging out to dry if more of the protection companies there didn't start chipping in. Seriously, just think about all the neocons today who are foaming at the mouth for more and more money to be spent on our gigantic empire: Do you really think the people in today's United States would not willingly spend the <1% of that number that it would actually take to reasonably defend the country from air-based attacks?

If you say no, I think you're really underestimating the willingness of people to voluntarily spend money. Think about all the money people spend on charity, even with the taxes we have today. If you've read The Revolution: A Manifesto, you probably remember the page where Ron Paul mentioned the government's request for $121 million to be spent on the National Endowment for the Arts in 2006...and compared it to the private donations to the arts that year of $2.5 billion! Think about all the money people spend tipping waiters and waitresses - technically, it's not mandatory, but most people do it anyway because of the social expectation and their own feelings of fairness. I think defense is important enough that there would be a pretty big social expectation for people to chip in here as well. Heck, if a significant number of people considered defense technology to be extremely important, there would be public shaming of cheapskates who didn't pay their way. Companies run by more "hawkish" people who are serious about this may be so pissed that they wouldn't even hire anyone unwilling to help pay for defense. There are LOTS of ways to convince people to fork over their share of defense money without literally creating a state to take that money by force. Plus, what people consider a fair amount of protection will always fluctuate from time to time based on geopolitical factors, so if people really start to legitimately fear attack by some foreign empire, they'll be much more eager to fork over their money.

Also, the coast vs. mainland issue is actually pretty moot due to the economic reasons people live on the coast in the first place: Port cities are lucrative, because they're the hub of all international commerce. (Eventually, I think a lot of drinking water will come from desalination plants as well, and it will be much cheaper on the coasts than in some barren desert in the middle of the country.) The more people, companies, etc. refuse to live on the coast out of fear (and refusal to pay for protection to cover that fear), the less competition the companies there will have, and the more lucrative it will be to do business there, rewarding the companies who do and making defense insurance "a drop in the bucket." In other words, the economic bonuses of living closer to commercial hubs will pay for the defense insurance required.

And countries fight for resources, control, spheres of influence too, not because that country has an imperialistic foreign policy. Or just out of people being brainwashed into it through religion or other ways.

Well, fighting for resources, control, and spheres of influence with an anarcho-capitalist society essentially means fighting for control of land and waterways though. I think we both know that no country is going to invade an anarcho-capitalist society by land ("a rifle behind every blade of grass" and all that)...but if they were really so brainwashed that they'd do it anyway, they're free to come and be slaughtered. We could always sell their flesh and organs as delicacies on the international market (okay, bad joke).

When it comes to waterways, that's somewhat trickier. Because an anarcho-capitalist society would have such an efficient economy, its companies would be selling goods at extremely low prices. Most other countries would WANT to trade with them, and those countries would need the anarcho-capitalist society as a trading partner far more than vice-versa. If one troublesome nation decided to create some kind of blockade or take out merchant ships - whether for control, out of spite, or for psychotic religious reasons - other countries' economies would be so negatively affected that they'd likely consider it an attack on themselves and therefore intervene (unless the aggressor was a completely dominant empire). Otherwise, well - anarcho-capitalist courts aren't exactly going to condemn heavily-armed merchant ships traveling in large packs who fight back against a hostile foreign navy. Moreover, the hostile country's ships would probably be considered free game for pirates. What anarcho-capitalist jury is going to convict pirates in an anarcho-capitalist court for attacking the ships of a country that is maliciously attacking the anarcho-capitalist society's merchant ships? With a virtual guarantee that the pirates attacking a hostile country's ships will not be convicted or extradited, that would create a whoooole lot of incentive for people to turn pirate. Seriously, if people think the problem with mere Somalian pirates is bad, no country in their right mind would ever dare face the consequences of waging war on an anarcho-capitalist society's peaceful merchant ships...especially if the society spans a geographical area even a fraction of the size of the current United States. (To clarify: Of course, piracy would not be permitted under ordinary circumstances, and extradition of criminals would be just as commonplace as today to avoid unnecessary conflict. After all, allowing piracy across the board would not only be antithetical to the principles of a libertarian society, but it would also give every country in the world a constant economic incentive to launch an invasion.)

If some nation ever wanted to launch some sustained attack on peaceful anarcho-capitalists - which would be an insane loss of money without any economic benefit, but let's assume they did, because people are crazy like that - the people of an anarcho-capitalist society would be just as pissed off and ready to fight back as the people anywhere else...and considering the strength an anarcho-capitalist economy would have, they'd have a significant economic advantage. You'd see militias organizing and gearing up to go kick some ass, weapons companies ramping up manufacturing like crazy, and social pressure to fund the defense effort among the populace similar to the pressure to buy "war bonds" during the World Wars. Just because the people wouldn't have a state to worship doesn't mean they would have no pride or dignity, or that they would take abuse lying down. Interestingly, I think that despite not having state-worship, an entirely free society would still have its own brand of "national pride" develop (minus the nation part), because the fiercely independent people would recognize their uniquely free situation in the world and be unwilling to let any usurper take it away from them.

Finally, in the extremely unlikely event that foreign armies might actually defeat the anarcho-capitalists...they'd still have a hell of a time occupying the country and setting up a state, because there would be no existing state apparatus to take over that any of the people recognized as legitimate! It wouldn't be impossible to do, but it would take considerably more effort than it would take to overthrow a nation of similar geographical area and population and install a puppet government there. The British eventually overthrow the essentially anarchist system in Ireland and established a state...but it literally took them centuries to do it.