Well, AnCaps have ideas about national defense funded through voluntary means. They are entirely theoretical, because we don't have ancaptopia anywhere, just saying that we see the value of a national defense.
What guarantees people will actually voluntarily do it though? Logically you can convince people, but at the same time people aren't logical.
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I genuinely don't get it. How do you make something necessary for basic safety and survival of everyone collectively based on voluntary actions without it failing?
National defense is provided by private security companies. If it is worth it, people will pay for it voluntarily. You and I might not have enough cash, but Amazon and Walmart are very concerned about shipping lanes.
Well, the model I'm most familiar with is an insurance model. Your home insurance company has an interest in your property not being destroyed in an invasion, as well as your continued ability to pay your subscription fees. So, when most of the people in an area are insured, it's less expensive for the insurance companies to hire mercenaries to defend the area than it is for them to lose all their customers or pay to rebuild a whole city.
They don't do this right now because taxpayers are required to fund things, so they can profit from living under the national defense.
The threat of it actually being permitted to fail should be fairly strong as a persuader.
Like..well, this is a small scale example, but consider a town's police department. Only the citizens of that town should be funding it. If there's suddenly no funding for it, that can only really mean a few things. If everyone chose to not fund it, let them reap the consequences of no police. That town might burn down, or it could thrive, it depends on the citizens and how well they adjust to having to uphold the law on their own.
If the town burns down (literally or figuratively), it will affect import/export at the least. This causes trouble for outside groups who may have enough incentive to step in and put out the fire. Or, who knows, maybe the town gets quarantined so no one has to deal with them anymore.
It's kind of like legalizing suicide. You couldn't charge anyone in the first place, but there's a fear that everyone might commit suicide if you say it's okay. To me, ancap is like that, where you just bite the bullet and let populations destroy themselves if they choose to, while hoping that instead you end up with a more happy and productive set of remaining populations.
Well, AnCaps have ideas about national defense funded through voluntary means. They are entirely theoretical, because we don't have ancaptopia anywhere, just saying that we see the value of a national defense.
What guarantees people will actually voluntarily do it though? Logically you can convince people, but at the same time people aren't logical.
I'm not trying to be an ass here, but I genuinely don't get it. How do you make something necessary for basic safety and survival of everyone collectively based on voluntary actions without it failing?
National defense is provided by private security companies. If it is worth it, people will pay for it voluntarily. You and I might not have enough cash, but Amazon and Walmart are very concerned about shipping lanes.
Well, the model I'm most familiar with is an insurance model. Your home insurance company has an interest in your property not being destroyed in an invasion, as well as your continued ability to pay your subscription fees. So, when most of the people in an area are insured, it's less expensive for the insurance companies to hire mercenaries to defend the area than it is for them to lose all their customers or pay to rebuild a whole city.
They don't do this right now because taxpayers are required to fund things, so they can profit from living under the national defense.
The threat of it actually being permitted to fail should be fairly strong as a persuader.
Like..well, this is a small scale example, but consider a town's police department. Only the citizens of that town should be funding it. If there's suddenly no funding for it, that can only really mean a few things. If everyone chose to not fund it, let them reap the consequences of no police. That town might burn down, or it could thrive, it depends on the citizens and how well they adjust to having to uphold the law on their own.
If the town burns down (literally or figuratively), it will affect import/export at the least. This causes trouble for outside groups who may have enough incentive to step in and put out the fire. Or, who knows, maybe the town gets quarantined so no one has to deal with them anymore.
It's kind of like legalizing suicide. You couldn't charge anyone in the first place, but there's a fear that everyone might commit suicide if you say it's okay. To me, ancap is like that, where you just bite the bullet and let populations destroy themselves if they choose to, while hoping that instead you end up with a more happy and productive set of remaining populations.