There would be less wars, no useless, unprofitable wars, less soldiers, higher wages for soldiers, and damages done on civilians and civilian properties would have to be replaced by the military companies. They would also care a lot about only attacking where profits can be expected, where they don't risk loosing too much soldiers, and they would require the consent of the attacked party and priory agree on the terms of the fight. It is only statal armies that go into useless wars, because they can simply force their citizens to go to war for cannon fodder and not even pay them something, because they dispose of a next-to unlimited amount of soldiers for free, something no private army could ever afford.

Not meant to be a "gotcha" type of thing --I'm genuinely curious. I feel that I'm an anarchist at heart, but a libertarian/minarchist for practicality's sake. I hope that you'll understand why after reading this.

The default state of humanity is anarchic. States, therefore, must have emerged from this anarchy. States have endured this long, and have only grown in strength and number. Nearly every human is a member of a region governed by a state. It would seem, then, that there is a natural selection pressure towards states. From a purely Darwinian point of view, anarchism just doesn't seem to be practical.

And it's easy to see why. Much like nuclear deterrence, everyone needs a state to protect them from someone else's. That's one of the primary functions of the state, after all: security against other states. Once one state exists, every other place needs one, too --or else they might end up under their thumb. That's pretty ironic and dumb: "We need a state. We don't need it for any other reason than to keep other states from reigning over us."

In a hypothetical Ancap world, who's to say that a state wouldn't emerge in a similar manner to the original states millennia ago? It'd only have to be one singular state, I think, to kick off an "arms race" to for people to equip themselves with states to fend off the others.

Again, I'm not trying to be an ass. I've just been thinking about this. What do you think? Would an Ancap society be able to fend off an emergent state? Would it be a violation of the NAP to rip down any new states that popped up? Or would it be more appropriate to leave them alone and let their (in theory) uncompetitive nature cause them to fizzle out?

The winners of the 21st century will be the countries that dismantle centralized and unaccountable regulatory bureaucracy.

The Dutch Republic, despite their small size, rocketed to the top of global power rankings in the 1600’s by being the first to dismantle their guild system.

Trade was controlled by monarchies who coordinated regional guilds into larger monopolies creating an oligarchy around highly lucrative trades.

After a century of Spanish controlled monarchy the Dutch abandoned their King in 1588, forming the Dutch Republic, also known as the United Provinces. A little known precursor and inspiration for the United States.

Without the centralized control on standards, regional Dutch guilds began to differentiate and specialize.

If one province loosened their restrictions on textile production, allowing non guild members to participate in certain parts of the process, others would be pressured to follow suit or become uncompetitive in that trade.

Without a strong Monarch to hold it together it was a free for all. This kicked off early mass production, leading to the development of batch processing, assembly lines, rudimentary automation and advanced supply chains.

By the mid 1600’s the Dutch had become the leading producer of textiles in Europe. This was devastating to the oligarchies formed by the French, English, and Spanish monarchs.

Despite all the protestations that guilds were necessary to maintain high quality production standards and exports, the countries with strong guilds were falling behind in every way.

After trying and failing to stifle the Dutch trade with tariffs, French leaders, unwilling to give up their monopolistic control of trade, concluded that military action was necessary to curb Dutch economic power.

The English helped the French in an invasion which by all contemporary accounts should have crushed the Dutch republic.

However, the Dutch were so much more advanced technologically they were able to implement complex engineering solutions and mass produce entirely new military gear which allowed them to innovate tactically.

New spear points were designed with a broader leaf, sharper tips and a wide circular base which would devastate cavalry with stopping power while enabling the retraction of the spear. Canals were flooded and water redirected with precision to block armies. The Dutch supply chains kept them constantly well equipped.

In a brutal six year war the Dutch defeated the French, pushing them out, absent minor territorial loss.

With the Dutch holding firm, the English were forced to accelerate the dismantling of their own guild system. This made them competitive, eventually surpassing the Dutch trade empire and levels of industrialization.

The French monarchy upheld the oligarchy for another century before collapsing in a violent revolution.

Although equally or more wealthy for centuries before industrialization, neither the French or Spanish have caught up to their northern neighbors since.

The US had fewer trade restrictions than anywhere in Europe making us the powerhouse of the late 19th and 20th century.

However, the old world regime has been reaserted through increasingly centralized power in D.C. which functions indistinguishable from the previous imperial monarchies.

We must throw off the unaccountable bureaucrats who presume to be our kings, and destroy the regulatory cartels they uphold.

The winners of the 17th century were the countries that decentralized power from the monarchy, which eroded the guilds monopoly on the regulation of trades and sparked the industrial revolution.

If the US revives our founding values, decentralizes power to the states and crushes the centralized bureaucracy we will enter an unprecedented era of prosperity, security and human flourishing.

If we defeat this final incarnation of the ancient regime, the flame of liberty will shine forever.

We will be the beacon on the hill we were always meant to be, technologically unassailable and reaching towards the stars.

What is the Ancap position on Code Enforcement citing people for having messy yards, tall grass, or too many vehicles on your own property?

I know a lot of people will default to the argument that these things depreciate surrounding property value, but if I'm not mistaken, public schools can also depreciate surrounding property value, but is the city willing to cite the school, or does that school generate enough money for the state for it not to be an issue for them, thus partly exposing their hypocrisy?

Not only that, but even if citing people for these things can even be considered "justified" (which I do not take that position), then how do we keep Code Enforcement from corruption and not having them cite people for miniscule issues?

I've been reading things like The Great Taking, and found that Warren Buffet sold all his shares of major banks. Trying to be careful. Besides bitcoin/crypto, metals, cash in a safe, looking into credit unions.

Where does one place their funds, and their paycheck?