Anarcho-Capitalism", being defined by me here as the advocacy of polycentric law, appears to not be a state.
I say this because it appears that anarchopac has accepted my definition of a state as monocentric law - one person, corporation, organization or agency that "makes the law" - instead of law emerging through the precedent set by mutually agreed upon arbitration.
I am out of the defining-the-state business, but I believe that the distinguishing element of what most people intuitively call a "state" is the ability to proclaim the laws, that is to be a monopoly on law. Polycentric law is NOT monopoly-law, and so given that anarchopac appears to have implicitly accepted my definition of a state, "anarcho-capitalism", defined as polycentric law for the purpose of this discussion, is not a state by anarchopac's definition of a state.
He continues to claim that it's "marketized statism". T3hsauce goes on to argue that the scary story of the rich controlling law is nonsense, which can be laid to implausibility this way: which is more likely to become corrupt and abusive - a formal legal monopoly, or something that is not a formal legal monopoly? If the FBI is corrupt, can you, as an individual, get an alternative? No. Maybe the voters will vote in a new FBI, but probably not, and stuff like this doesn't happen.
But then Anarchopac would claim that through their wealth the rich would re-establish a monopoly on law, even if it's not a "state" at the beginning by his definition, and so the next round of dispute would be on monopoly theory
