Imagine a world...?

Every theory of governance and society has a utopian vision underpinning it. Communists hold to an ideal where all people share equally in the work and rewards of life. Anarcho-Capitalism is another of these perfect models.

I have issue with both systems, but perhaps less so with the latter, because it more closely resembles the manner in which people are commonly believed to operate in early tribal societies. People in early societies knew implicitly that humans were not made equal. Afterall, they could tell with their eyes that one man ran fast, or that another was good at fashioning tools. Some women became excellent basket weavers while others prefered to stalk wild fields for berries. I'm just making this up off the top of my head of course, I really have no idea what people were doing thousands of years ago, but they sure as hell weren't living in a perfect union of equality. They knew that each person was fundamentally different. Fundamental differences in the strength, endurance, and cunning of individual humans contributed then and continues today, to produce great differences in "success."

Recognizing these differences and harnessing them to the betterment of an individual's situation is the fundamental premise of Capitalism. It is what allows for resources to be allocated effectively and efficiently across a population. Or at least, that's the premise of Capitalism. And it works, to an extent. The problem so far, as the utopian theorists see it, is the State. The imposition of a single, unified government upon the masses creates greater subsequent inequality because it uses force to enact the market system. If all people were able to function voluntarily within society to enact their will, then the Capitalistic system of distributing resources via the profit motive would function more efficiently.

In such a society, say Utopians, a person could choose to opt-out of the Market and live somewhere else on their own. As long as they considered themselves personally satisfied, they would be allowed to exist in perpetuity outside the realm of the Market. Of course, if they chose to access the Market on occassion, then it would be permitted. Entry and exit is free in an Anarcho-Capitalistic system, whereas in a governed State, it is mandatory.

Consider this: it is illegal to squat on United States land. You could get away with it in certain parts of the country, but if an officer of the peace ever found you, he is within his jurisdiction to ask you for a permit and fine you if you don't have one. We live in a society by coercion! It's a startling and unsettling thought that, by mutual concensus, we have enslaved ourselves to yearly taxation and the ownership of property. Even if we wanted to give it all away and exit society, there would be few places to go! Society acts to prevent this kind of "insanity" and if it found you, would punish you for it.

Anarcho-capitalists say that by rejecting the State model, we can transcend a forceful enactment of the Market, and create an entirely voluntary system. They feel that people who recognize the value of the market can participate in one without the coercion of a State. Every individual or group of indviduals has ownership over themselves alone and acts to preserve his or her own interests in a nonviolent, market-based manner. If a man is hungry, he performs a service which is valuable to the market community. And what does he earn? Instead of returning to a barter based economy, this would be a society built around contractual obligation.

For example, the man above might enact a contract with a farmer to work in exchange for the fruits of his labor. Such a contract might be made along with a group of individuals, who communaly decide to till a plot of land together and enjoy the bounty as a community. Let's say you're a contracted member of that farm, you might then notice that there are other such farming communities and that by having each farming communes specialize, the overal production of all the farms combined would increase ten-fold. So another contract is made between all of the farms to produce certain goods farm-to-farm and to then distribute those goods among the farms in such a way that everyone is well-fed. Quickly, we can envision a sufficiently complex society that is based around on contracts, rather than Statehood. In form and function, it would resemble a State, but without any Public entity to govern and control certain aspects of society. And it would be completely voluntary since participation is on a contractual basis, which is implicitly mutual.

... I'll move into part 2, along with some of my misgivings about this system, at a later date. I hope.