Memeverse

I am getting to the bottom of why anarcho-capitalism can work. Let’s start by defining “nature”, “laws of nature” and “human nature”.

Nature is everything in the universe which is not by human (non-artificial, existence of which is independent and completely agnostic to humans and their conditions and affairs).

Laws of nature are all processes and properties which are beyond human control and which no human can escape.

Human nature are therefore all processes and properties applicable to humans which are beyond their control and escape.

Since anarcho-capitalism is essentially a proposed system of human interaction (a “social system”) the last definition, “human nature”, is most relevant here. Some of the fundamental properties and processes which fit the above definition are the following:

1. Humans are living, self-aware beings capable of thinking, choosing and acting. Since this is their nature they are entitled to self-ownership, liberty and property as the product of their actions.

2. A human being, in any given moment, always acts in pursuit of to him or her maximum value.

3. A human being sees destruction of his or her value as immoral or “wrong” and construction of the same as moral or “right”.

4. What one human sees as a value can differ from what another human sees.

So in summary, all humans live, think, choose and act in pursuit of what is most valuable to them at any given moment while considering the destruction of the same as morally wrong, but what is most valuable differs from person to person.

One thing that we learn from nature as we understand it so far is that it always pursues the path of least resistance. To a particular human, what is most valuable is usually most motivating. Therefore pursuit of this value is also going to be the “easiest” thing to do, the most cost-effective thing to do. It may not seem so at first because most of us tend to have a limited perception of “value”. We therefore say that sometimes pursuing a moral path is harder and will encounter more resistance.

However, if one is set “against the odds” yet still proceeds this just means that proceeding is more valuable to him or her than giving up or conversely that not proceeding would encounter more mental resistance than proceeding. External obstacles are already taken into the value equation of this individual and deemed less resisting than the mental resistance he would encounter should he proceed otherwise or more worth than the mental reward he would feel should he proceed otherwise.

One of the most relevant principles involved with anarcho-capitalism is non-coercion. What is coercion? It is the process by which individual A attempts to affect the value judgment of individual B by the threat of force, in order to induce an action (s)he desires an individual B to take. “Force” here is defined as destruction of something individual B finds valuable, from his life to his property.

Coercion will fail if individual B finds mental reward of resisting the aggressor to be higher than the mental reward of giving in to the aggressor. Coercion, unsurprisingly, usually succeeds since avoiding harm or termination to life is usually found more mentally rewarding than getting killed or harmed. However, this is a choice between value destruction and value destruction, two wrongs - two evils of which individual B has to choose one which he deems lesser. If coercion fails anything of value to individual B that was threatened by the aggressor, from life to property, may be destroyed. If coercion succeeds, it is still individual B’s freedom which was destroyed.

And by nature of existing every individual values his freedom, to the extent to which he is aware of being entitled to it.

Anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally about establishing a laissez faire free market of individual humans. This market is self-regulating because it depends on the value pursuits of each individual in it. And since everyone has different values, but everyone seeks to maximize them, trade of values usually occurs. It is devoid of coercion because coercion means destruction of liberty, which is of value to every individual. When one individual in a free market exercises coercion (s)he is acting against the freedom value of an individual and therefore against the fundamental value of the market to which this individual belongs to, BUT also against the freedom of his/her own. This is because at that point the harmed individual, or its family, will be entitled to seek the aggressor and force him to pay the reparations. This is the only case in which force is not deemed destructive, because it merely restores the value destruction of an individual to which the force was initiated.

What this means is that coercion in a free market has a value price which involves not only the reparations that the aggressor is potentially going to be forced to pay, but the loss of freedom as well, something valuable to every individual. Since all humans act in pursuit of maximum value, coercion will be employed only when this is the method by which an individual believes he will achieve maximum value (which can be of both moral and physical kind). Given the abundance of other methods available in a market of individuals who trade in pursuit of value, this option is very likely to be unpopular, deemed too expensive, too much of a hassle, too risky or simply too immoral.

In addition, considering that anarcho-capitalists wont succeed in building such a free market without convincing enough people to believe that coercion is immoral (because this is the only way they can stop believing in the justifiability of government) it follows that if a laissez faire free market is established it will be consisted of people who largely find non-coercion to be immoral and furthermore risky, expensive and unpopular. Compared with the fact that coercion in a current government-led society is a norm rather than an act unlikely to happen, free market is degrees of magnitude more desirable to anyone who cares about pursuing the maximum of his values - hence every human.

Free Market is the path of least resistance *because* it is a path with least coercion.

And the only way it could not be the path of least resistance is if people were not acting in pursuit of maximum value - which is impossible - because acting this way is human nature - inescapable.

In summary, there is a connection between human nature and the moral of non-coercion in that by the virtue of being what they are humans are more likely to find the path of non-coercion to be the path of least resistance than any other method of pursuing the maximum of value.

This may seem to be a merely philosophical and theoretical statement, but it relies on certain fundamental testable axioms which if proven true prove the statement above. Those axioms are the presented definition of nature, natural laws, the three descriptions of processes and properties inherent in human nature and the link between coercion and destruction of value.