I am happy to hear Greg exploring the Anarchy topic! He occasionally references Anarcho-Capitalists with a touch of skepticism, so it's cool he gave the platform to Kokesh to plead the case. I was also glad Kokesh clarified the meaning of a voluntary society. Greg has been under the impression that voluntary refers to volunteering or charitable giving, which he also assumes most people would not do absent some mandate. Kokesh seems like a solid dude and I really applaud his candor regarding his Military service. He's been a fixture in the post Ron Paul Rev. Ancap community, and I believe is well studied on topics related to personal freedom and economics. That being said, he would not be my first choice as a spokesman for the philosophy. I would love to hear Greg engage with Libertarian/Ancap personas like Stephan Kinsella, Stefan Molyneux, and Larkin Rose. Throw a stone at Mises.org or LewRockwell.com and you'll find an author, philosopher, or economist who likely inspired Kokesh. For more left leaning Anarchists Greg might jive with Kevin Carson, John Vibes, or Derrick Broze.
I think the Ancap case is best presented from two separate angles. There is the moral argument embodied in the details of self ownership and the non-aggression principal(NAP). And there is the practical argument, which deals with the economics of personal freedom and the practical application of the NAP in society. Kokesh makes an effort at conveying the details surrounding self ownership and the NAP, but I'm not convinced Greg understands the extrapolation of those core concepts. Part of that may be due to the disjointed and indirect way Kokesh presents the case. Understandable considering the scope of the topic. The NAP and self ownership are the foundation of the entire philosophy. The what ifs, which Greg and Adam spend a lot of the time on are more thought experiments that have little bearing on the truth or legitimacy claims of the core principals.
Greg is hip to the notion that Government can be viewed simply as a tool to wield for good or ill. What he misses and Kokesh fails to express is that a right that a person does not possess can not be delegated to another. I believe it was Gordon who I heard refer to the State as a fulfillment mechanism for the rich. Such a great way to put it! It seems Government is there for each of us to use to our own advantage or to the advantage of our preferred group. Money and network strength largely dictate to what extent government can be captured for ones advantage. The Ancap crowd simply would like to see the power of that tool altered or diminished by establishing a privatized foundation or base to society. All goods and services, including those which the State purports to supply would instead flow from private individuals, corporations, and collectives, with whom association with would be entirely voluntary unless otherwise clearly contractually established.
Many proponents of Ancap view a property based, market economy, with businesses managed through traditional corporate hierarchies as the best system by which to organize society. However, the charm of the Ancap philosophy is that it leaves room for an individual or group to direct their property or capital to build any social structure they desire within the framework of the NAP. Is an Ancap Communist a oxymoron? Ancap philosophy certainly allows for an individual or group to reorganize their holdings or property into a Communist community. Hell, likely a whole bunch of folks would throw their energy into building a militant, quasi-republic, complete with a central bank, surveillance State, with ambitions of global hegemony.
The options for social structures are vast and the theory is that a voluntary society creates conditions in which wealth and creativity can flourish. How would this or that function without government? Your average Ancap proponent may have a bunk answer but it doesn't mean some crafty specialist isn't out there who has a good answer. For example, I might suggest some details on how a town could implement police/property protection services without government or taxation. But I'm a house painter by trade. Ask someone who runs a security firm or who specializes in crime prevention strategies and surely more intelligent and workable ideas will arise. That being said, it can be a thought provoking exercise to run through suggestions on how various services can be delivered without government regardless of ones specialty. At the very least you learn a little more about what you and those around you truly value in this life.
