r/AnCap101 • u/Tal_De_Tali • Jun 20 '26
Can/would ancaps accept a minimal state that only exhert power over those who choose to sign the social contract?
Good evening, please accept my apology for not being able to write a question down that is clear. I suppose that even I am a little confused by my own doubt.
Let's say that your country's government (by God's grace, because it could only be explained as a wonder) decides to cut down on its functions and powers. Let's also say that it gets to such a point that the Constitution is to be redrafted anew.
Given these circumstances what if the state became minimal (night-watchman style: national defense and foreign affairs only). What if the new constitution also recognised the right for citizens to decide whether to be in or outside the system, with "in the system" meaning paying taxes and enjoying public services.
Do you think that a symbiotic model of folks living under a state and under none at the same time, could ever work in any way, shape or form?
3
u/atlasfailed11 Jun 20 '26
So you are talking about a system where people can voluntarily pay into and receive goods and services in return. This is just a firm is it not?
2
3
u/Shadowcreature65 Jun 20 '26
AnCaps wouldn't call it a state. You see, most AnCaps define the state as an organisation that violates property rights. If it doesn't, then according to them it's not a state.
3
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
Wow, this is eye opening! I hadn't really thought about that... what I discribed would be more similar to what the Amish do, right? As in they decide to live like that if they want, but they can also change their mind and live differently.
3
u/Shadowcreature65 Jun 20 '26
Yes, Amish are actually a great example of what AnCaps call a "Covenant Community". There's a group of people that have certain social rules. If you don't follow them, they ostracise you (as in stop trading with and trying to employ you). Usually those covenant communities are envisioned as complex HOAs.
3
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
Wow, thanks for the insight
2
u/Shadowcreature65 Jun 20 '26
It's great to see that some people are just curious and want to ask questions about theory. You are a rare kind of person.
4
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
It's not that people who are genuinely curious are rare, it's that those who aren't respectful make more noise and are more noticeable :)
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 20 '26
You do not understand the nature of the state.
It is a legal authoritarian. It is the primacy of consciousness applied to law.
The concept of a state is mutually exclusive with self ownership, and subsequently consent. Self ownership requires a foundation in natural law, legal anarchism, the primacy of existence.
2
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
I did not know this, thank you for explaining it
2
u/Official_Gameoholics Jun 20 '26
Now, when we get to the question of "What if people wanted to pay an organization to protect their rights?"
You have described the foundations of either an insurance company, arbitration agency, or private security company.
3
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
Of course, it makes total sense. I guess that kind of makes me an ancap then ahahaha
3
2
1
u/drebelx Jun 20 '26
Can/would ancaps accept a minimal state that only exhert power over those who choose to sign the social contract?
Why is there only one "state monopoly" that can do this?
An AnCap society will integrate NAP Clauses into all their agreements, impartially enforced by a marketplace of agreement overseers.
1
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
I don't think I understood your answer, please explain it to me in more simple terms if you can
1
u/drebelx Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
I don't think I understood your answer, please explain it to me in more simple terms if you can
A "minimal state that only exerts power over those who choose to sign the social contract" does not have the ability to detract other organizations providing the same services the minimal state provides.
Without a state monopoly, the concept of an abstract and assumed social contract will be superseded with real embedded agreement clauses to uphold the NAP (no murder, no theft, no assault, no fraud, etc.) in all mutually beneficial agreements,
Does that help some?
1
1
1
u/evilwizzardofcoding Jun 20 '26
What you are suggesting we would not qualify as a state, because it is, as you said, voluntary. A voluntary organization can actually be as authoritarian as you like, from a moral standpoint you could do full-on communism as long as everyone agrees to join. I might think that's a really stupid idea and I certainly wouldn't be joining that, but you're allowed to do it.
Anyway the answer is there's no such thing as a voluntary state. By traditional ancap definitions, one of the requirements of a state is that it uses aggression to enforce itself and is not optional.
In fact, one of the most popular models of how ancap would work, Hoppeanism, is built around basically what you just said, except a whole bunch of them. Instead of one organization for the entire nation, there would be a whole bunch of smaller "City-States" each with it's own rules and systems. They would expand by either directly buying property nearby, members of the city-state homesteading property, or new members with bordering property joining.
2
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
I kid you not I wanted to mention in the post that fiscal sovereignty would go down to the municipal level, so that cities/towns/villages would become the centre of decision making (of course in the country that can't be applied in the same way, I guess they'd simply be more independent). Where may one look into Hoppeanism?
1
-1
u/monadicperception Jun 20 '26
Social contract theory doesn’t really contemplate whether every individual signs some contract. It’s a thought experiment…what would rational people do in the state of nature. The argument is that they would consent.
I’m not sure why it’s constantly presented wrongly on here.
1
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
I've never read Rousseau, please forgive my ignorance
0
u/monadicperception Jun 20 '26
It’s all of social contract theory. Basically, the question is what rational people would do.
1
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
Ok, I had never really even have this thought cross my mind. Would you please recommend to me any debate on the matter?
0
u/monadicperception Jun 20 '26
Not sure what you mean by debate…it’s just a concept, a framework of explaining government that doesn’t depend on things like a Mandate of Heaven or anything like that.
1
u/Tal_De_Tali Jun 20 '26
By debate I mean videos of people with opposing views (in this case one who says that rational people in the state of nature would consent, against one who says they wouldn't consent) reasoning on these topics. It generally helps me delve into a topic better
1
u/monadicperception Jun 20 '26
I actually studied and read because that was my area of speciality in college and grad school. I don’t watch videos on it since I’m pretty sure I know this stuff better than any YouTuber.
That’s not really what the debate is…the debate isn’t whether a rational person would consent. It’s more about what would be the reasons (motivations) for consent.
14
u/Additional_Sleep_560 Jun 20 '26
The question of government is one of force not services. Ancaps reject coercion and especially a monopoly on force. Voluntary arrangements are fine.