system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Anarcho-Capitalism is incoherent on the basis that capitalism depends upon a state or state-like apparatus to sustain its essential components

Preliminary points:

First: I do not require that you convince me that anarcho-capitalism is a *coherent* view. I only require that you convince me that it is not incoherent *on the basis* that I have given and will elaborate below.

Second: to change my view it will not be sufficient to note a fault in how I have *articulated* why I believe anarcho-capitalism is incoherent, but to demonstrate a fault in the substance of my view. If I have failed to articulate my view correctly, I will correct this in replies to a reasonable extent. This is a necessary evil. I am genuinely open to changing my view, but only so long as rebuttals target its substance. To this end, I have strived to be as clear and precise as possible. That being said, mistakes in articulation are always a possibility.

Third: A "state-like apparatus" is an umbrella term for an institutional entity that serves all of the relevant essential functions of a state. For example, a "corporatocracy" would be a state-like apparatus (it's in the name: corporato-*cracy*, a corporate *state*). In general, I understand a state to be a supervenient regulatory institution with the authority to enforce laws that it determines for itself autonomously.

Fourth: "incoherent" here is a technical term meaning "does not cohere", i.e., that its pieces cannot "fit together." I will argue below why I believe that capitalism requires a state or state-like apparatus. If I am correct, then anarcho-capitalism is incoherent on the basis that anarchy and capitalism cannot coexist.

On to the argument:

Capitalism depends upon the existence private property rights. Rights exist only insofar as their violation implies a genuine, non-negligible risk of unilateral and overwhelming violence exacted by some party upon the violator. This party cannot be the same as the violatee, or else the violation would not have occurred at all (i.e., if myself and my gun are all that protects my private property rights, these rights extend only as far as my line-of-sight, my aim, and my agility in determining friend and foe. This means there are countless opportunities for violators to violate my so-called "rights" - and as such, they are not *rights* at all). In line with this, a right does not exist if it can be violated freely without expectation of retaliation by an overwhelming force.

At the scale of macrosocial civilization (e.g., at scales larger than tribes or small villages), only a state or state-like apparatus can consistently exert such force in a manner sufficiently robust to secure the existence of private property rights. Smaller scales (e.g., tribes or small villages), for their part, cannot be sustained in anarcho-capitalism because (by conquest or diplomacy) larger-scale organizational structures will necessarily form as soon as a locality finds it to be in its interest to cooperate with or subjugate another locality. Without a state or state-like apparatus to regulate relations between localities, the emergence of large-scale organizational structure is inevitable, and with them, the dissolution of the *anarcho*\- prefix of anarcho-capitalism. As such, anarcho-capitalism is intrinsically incoherent. There is simply *no such thing* as anarcho-capitalism.

Commentary on the argument:

It may appear as if I have only argued that anarchy *in general* is incoherent. I have not intended to. As I understand it, my argument specifically targets anarcho-capitalism because other forms of anarchy (such as anarcho-communism) imagine the organization of localities in such a way that the formation of larger-scale organizational structures is not an inevitability because the pursuit of profit, and with it, the expansion of capital, would not be a tendency of the system, as it necessarily is in anarcho-capitalism - as such, the state may not be a necessary entity in these systems. That being said, whether the imagination of anarcho-communism or anarchy in general is also incoherent is irrelevant to the view I have offered for challenge here. *That* being said, I'd be interested in thoughts about this as well - but they will be irrelevant to the purpose of this post.
gpt
While it would be much more desirable to have a State system of courts in order to get your contracts sorted, it is not impossible to imagine a society where the force of culture and ostracisation is so strong that almost everyone follows their contractual obligations out of fear of shunning, the same way ancient Vikings had no formal army but had a lot of badass people armed to the teeth that would undertake military adventures together.