From the first link I provided:
"The purpose of this paper is to take us from the theoretical world of anarchy to a case study of its application. To accomplish our task we will first discuss what is meant by "anarchocapitalism" and present several hypotheses relating to the nature of social organization in this world.
These hypotheses will then be tested in the context of the American West during its earliest settlement. We propose to examine property-rights formulation and protection under voluntary organizations such as private protection agencies, vigilantes, wagon trains, and early mining camps. Although the early West was not completely anarchistic, we believe that government as a legitimate agency of coercion was absent for a long enough period to provide insights into the operation and viability of property rights in the absence of a formal state. The nature of contracts for the provision of "public goods" and the evolution of western "laws" for the period from 1830 to 1900 will provide the data for this case study.
The West during this time is often perceived as a place of great chaos, with little respect for property or life. Our research indicates that this was not the case; property rights were protected, and civil order prevailed. Private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in which property was protected and conflicts were resolved.
These agencies often did not qualify as governments because they did not have a legal monopoly on "keeping order." They soon discovered that "warfare" was a costly way of resolving disputes and lower-cost methods of settlement (arbitration, courts, etc.) resulted. In summary, this paper argues that a characterization of the American West as chaotic would appear to be incorrect."
Yes. You’ve posted that link a couple times, and it’s far from the first time an anarchist has tried (and failed) to use the “Wild West” as an illustration of how anarchy can actually work. It’s predicated on a series of logical fallacies.
The argument relies on the contradiction that the Wild West was not as lawless as history has painted it while simultaneously being more lawless than it actually was. Contrary to the argument, there was government, in one form and/or another, throughout nearly all of what we refer to as the wild west. Using it as an example of lawlessness, according to the true definition of the word, is dishonest. In the same breath, they will provide anecdotes about prosperity and peace, conveniently ignoring the countless examples of murder and theft, and then close the point as if they’ve somehow managed to prove a negative.
The hinge pin of Anarcho-capitalist justice is, in the context of the Wild West, private security services like Pinkerton’s. Using that as a proof of concept is inapt, though, given that Pinkerton’s was operating as a security augment in an era where government based justice existed but was only stretched thin, and completely ignores the documented corruption and abuses that Pinkerton’s agents participated in.
A modern adaptation of that would be the private security firms that were employed in the GWOT. Iraq, circa 2004 was even closer to an anarchic theatre than the US west circa 1870, and the private security contractors were serving the same functions as Pinkerton’s was in the old west. If one wants to use that illustration in their argument claiming how well anarcho-capitalism can work, they’d be challenged to construct that argument without leaving out Black Water.
The self-styled academic papers in support of anarcho-capitalism all end up being exactly as intellectually-dishonest as the ones written to claim how great communism can be. They are because they have to be. One can’t construct an argument in favor of either without having to cherry pick misleading isolated events while willfully ignoring the mountain of historical evidence that proves that neither can work.
In either system, the powerful have the power necessary to accumulate more power, and there is no baseline protection for the weak to protect what little power they have. The accumulation of power, unchecked by the rule of law becomes an unstoppable physical principle, like that of planetary accretion.
Of course, that won’t stop pseudo intellectuals with an agenda from writing papers about how they’ve singularly figured out how to overcome the laws of physics and create a communist or anarchist government that somehow won’t result in all of the power being consolidated into the hands of a select few individuals.
