Is that no different from the "protection agencies" (basically insurance agencies that protect people and arbitrate contracts and disagreements) anarchism wants?
Anarchism doesn't "want" anything. You're missing the entire point. Under anarchism, people can choose what they want freely. Some people might choose to hire police services, some may choose to defend themselves. Some may choose pacifism. It is their individual choice.
The warlords are effectively the "protection agencies" theorized by anarcho-capitalist writers. Their purpose and role is functionally no different, that is, to collect a fee in return for protection and to arbitrate disagreements.
Right, but there isn't a monopoly arbiter, so there is competition between arbiters, and thus more accountability to the consumer. You're also appealing to ancap writers but that has me at a disadvantage, because not all ancaps are the same. Can you name them specifically please?
In other words, the true reality of anarchism = gangs and constant civil war.
This is a strawman. And a non sequitur.
Along with minimal economic development!
So you're saying that a state is necessary for economic development? Why did the Soviet Union and East Germany collapse then?
Compare stateless somalia to bostwana and gabon, two examples african countries with states and prosperous economies! I hardly call it even a fair comparison. Somalia is still at the bottom of most indicators even in Africa lol.
Somalia is not ancap. It is stateless. You're calling an turkey an eagle, and then criticizing it for being flightless.
And don't cite human history as proof of your theory.
Why not? I agree, it is less than perfect, but you have cited history numerous times in your post. Has our turkey become too good for goose and gander?
Modern society functions much differently from small roving bands of hunter gatherers. Theres alot more at stake (property, capital etc) that simply did'nt exist in those times.
Ancap is not anarcho-primitivism.
Theres alot more at stake (property, capital etc) that simply did'nt exist in those times.
You haven't explained why this is an issue for ancap.
A central, constitutional government provides the framework where those rights and claims on property can be consistently protected.
It provides one framework, however it cannot fulfill its purpose because in order to have a monopoly arbiter, you have to violate the property rights of anyone who wants to operate outside the monopoly. So from the beginning, it is not a logically consistent idea. Also, you're arguing by assertion. I can make claims too. The point is to provide a foundation for their truthfulness, otherwise we can spend all day casting our positions back and forth and the discussion can't advance.
And how will laws be decided upon with no central authority? What is "right" and what is "wrong" according to whom? Will protection agency "A" take heed of the "laws" of protection agency "B" in a dispute or just make up their own as they go?
Common law and merchant law both emerged in the marketplace (without the state), just as the earliest forms of money did. Nearly everything (including the state) emerges from the market (voluntary consent) and then changes into something involuntary. Law emerges from contracts and convention. If you want a source to read on this, look up the essay, "The Myth of the Rule of Law".
As to how they will figure out disputes, how does Portugal and Japan figure out their disputes? How does China and India figure out their border disputes? Those states are all in a state of anarchy with one another. Neither is sovereign over the other one. And yet they find, through negotiation and diplomacy, peaceful ways to coexist and cooperate. is it perfect? Of course not. Sometimes there is violence. But I would argue, a lot more anarchic disputes are handled peacefully than with violence.
Anarchism is just utopian nonsense that ivory tower, arm chair intellectuals work on in their copious spare time.
Assertion. Insult. Strawman. Sloppy.
I want to see this theory actually tested in real life, under the so-called circumstances that make it possible according to anarcho-capitalists.
Happens all around you, if you can recognize it.
A minarchist system is the only functional and proper way to set up a capitalistic society.
Assertion. Why?
Early America is more or less proof of this. It has minimal government interference and maximum protection of property, which is the original purpose of government in the first place.
The reason why monopoly states don't work in the long run (not some idealized notion of the past that is more fiction than reality) is that they are the sole judge of what their constitutional limit is. Who decides what the government can and cannot do?
The government.
If you are in government and you want more power, what way will you decide to interpret the laws?
I would say, you would be inclined (and empowered) to expand the power of the government for your benefit.
That's based on the premise of Lord Acton, that
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Footnotes,
1. The Soviet Union had a constitution as well.
2. You should read
Lysander Spooner's
No Treason. He explains why a Constitution has no legal authority as a social contract.
)