Busy week but don't worry, i'm back (for now).
Just a couple of food for thought questions regarding anarcho-capitalism (I swear that's an oximoron?).
1) If you had no government, what would our currency be? Gold? Chickens? Water bottles? There arn't enough to go around for even a basic trading system.
2) This is complete opinion so throw your citations at me after but surely a heirarchy is a natural human instinct? We have always had tribe chieftains, war leaders, politicians or someone.
3) Would you agree that anarcho-capitalism is in direct opposition to the Nash equilibrium?
I'll try to address points 1 and 2, hopefully guerrilla, or someone else, will chime in with a more thorough answer. I'll give #3 a shot, but I haven't really taken the time to fully understand the Nash Equilibrium - my apologies.
Anarcho-capitalism is far from an oxymoron. Capitalism is a market system with no interference from the state. Anarchy is the lack of a state/government. So really, they go hand in hand.
1) The currency would be whatever people are willing to accept in exchange for their goods and services. It wouldn't be a fiat currency, like we have now, because nobody would want useless, green paper.
2) I can't attest to whether or not a social hierarchy is human nature, but of course, not everyone wants to be a factory owner, for example. Most people will simply choose to "lease" space in the factory, and collect a smaller percentage of the full value of their production, in exchange for access to the means of production (tools, machinery, whatever) from the factory owner. This is a win-win trade. Workers get paid, and the factory owner collects a profit for putting his money on the line and assuming all risks. No body is exploited because it's immoral to use force against another to get what you want. Everything is purely consensual, and everyone gets what they want.
This is all simple stuff that I'm sure you understand.
However, things get tricky when the government steps in. No longer are people free to spend or save their money how they choose due to taxation. Instead, a large percentage of their money goes to causes that the majority, or more likely a select group political elite, believes should be supported. If you don't agree, you can expect to have your freedom and property stripped from you through force and violence.
You, of course, have to account for people with the desire to exploit others for their own benefit. These exploiters are drawn to positions of power, aka political positions, to further increase their ability to exploit.
OK OK, I'll finally get to the point.
I wouldn't say hierarchies (governments) are desired by humans as a whole, but rather, are desired by the corrupt so they can exploit the masses for their own benefit.
The desire for concentrated power, and the taking through violence that is spawned from it, is an incredibly primitive way to look at the world. I think many more people would agree if the corrupt weren't doing everything in their power to convince the masses that violence is the answer by veiling it under the guise of freedom and social justice.
3) In an anarcho-capitalist society, the only "rules of the game" are that nobody can infringe upon or take through force one's right to life, liberty, and property.
In today's society, the opposite is true because the rules apply to some, and not to others.
Again, I hope someone more intelligent than I can weigh in.
