Chris Guida on Nostr: Thanks for the reply! I agree 100% with your philosophy. But I take issue with your ...

Thanks for the reply!

I agree 100% with your philosophy. But I take issue with your characterization of anarcho-capitalism as compatible with this philosophy, at least as defined by most ancaps.

>I see sovereignty and anarchy as being a descriptor of your relationship with authority. If you don't have to cede to an authority and other authorities are effectively your peers, you are sovereign.

That's a good way to define "sovereignty", but I really don't see how "anarchy" can be defined this way. Anarchism is an old philosophy with lots of history behind it; it seems that you're trying to redefine it in a way that most of its adherents would not agree to.

Anarcho-capitalism has "anarchy" right there in the name. Anarchy means no government. I don't know how you can call something "anarchism" if it includes a government.

Anarcho-capitalism is, as far as I understand, all about imagining how private enterprise would replace government entirely; that is, how private enterprise would generate laws, courts, police and military protection, etc, if all of these things weren't generated by a government.

Now perhaps the operative question is "what is a government?"

You imply that a government is nothing more than an "authority" that one "cedes autonomy" to. That's pretty vague, but enough to go on for now.

If a "government" is simply an "authority", and I recognize no authorities, then the world is ancapistan now, at least from my subjective viewpoint. In that case, anarcho-capitalism is more of a state of mind than a political philosophy. We already inhabit our ideal world; the only requirement is that we see it that way.

But clearly there are practical limits to my "autonomy", no matter what, even if I'm the current US government. The US government "cedes autonomy" to other governments like Russia, China, etc, especially over matters internal to those other governments' territories.

And an "individual sovereign", no matter how rich or well connected, will never be able to be "sovereign" in the same way as a nation-state, *absent the ability to own a piece of land and protect it, through force, from external invaders*.

In the potential future world presented in The Sovereign Individual, said individuals have the means to trivially move to a new jurisdiction when their current one becomes hostile. However, there still are jurisdictions as such (that is, monopolies on violence within a specific territory).

I disagree that this is compatible with anarcho-capitalism, as ancaps are against monopolies on violence.

However, if it is compatible with anarcho-capitalism, then I'm an ancap. I'm actually not 100% clear on this, which is why I suggested reforming anarcho-capitalism at the end of my article.