|
|
|
|
|
|
by boxy310
3810 days ago
|
|
|
This largely comes down to the state being primarily defined as a monopoly of force. When non-state actors end up wielding the most threat of force, then collective decision-making is effectively deferred to those most capable of enforcing its will. This is why I cannot give much credibility to anarcho-capitalist states. Simply removing a visible state does not preclude shadow governments from forming. |
|
|
If a government is formed, shadow or not, wouldn't that necessitate removal of the "anarcho" qualifier?
In a similar vein, it seems to me that the term "anarcho-anything state" is logically inconsistent, unless one exclusively uses the "chaos; disorder" definition for "anarcho-" instead of the "without rulers" definition.