[nickik]

Actually no.

Humans as they are now, not some PhD. Again, its that same analysis used when talking about democracy or any other system.

You can go back to David Hume. How can we design democracy so that we can limit what the worst people can do.

This exact same way I approach any system. The reason why I think AnCapism might work, is exactly because I don't think it needs any change in human psychology, IQ or whatever else.

[AstralStorm]

In other words, solve a minimax problem over human behaviour. Good luck with that - we do not even have strong scientific notion of how people make decisions in various conditions on micro level.

AnCap likewise does not work, because we do not know when people would renege on their contracts (essentially steal, injecting accumulation of wealth due to lack of information about what was stolen). Not to mention it does not start from zero and accumulation of wealth is obviously easier when you already have it and becomes easier.

Result is a state = a monopoly, oligopoly or a cartel.

Such a result is only avoidable if somehow economics is not a zero sum game and individual progress/gain is quick enough to outweigh all such initial tendencies, which would only happen in the singularity.

An alternative would be an utopian uncorruptible oracular jury with unlimited power = God.

[nickik]

Hacker News is not the right place for such a discussion.

We do not have perfect information on everything, but we still need to do the best we can to make informed choices. So I use the same we use in standard Science.

There is a ton of literature on law in non-state situation, from legal, political and economic scholars. I suggest you look at it. Its the basis of AnCapism.