The Constitution - as viewed by ideology

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I didn't say that I answered all of your questions. I said that those questions have been answered. They have given endless answers to those questions of how things could work in an anarcho-capitalist society. Even wrote a few books on the subjects which I linked to in my last post.

OK, fair enough. Anarchy is your ideology, so I expected more than "read a book" as an answer. However, as this is a message board, you have the right to give that answer, and I have the right to not be satisfied by that answer. All is good.

Your claim was that anarchists never give answers. I proved that they in fact have given these answers. Your claim, in other words, was wrong. I suppose, however, that you still retain the right to continue lying about anarchists if you like, but it would be rather sad at this point.

 

[kaz]

I didn't say that I answered all of your questions. I said that those questions have been answered. They have given endless answers to those questions of how things could work in an anarcho-capitalist society. Even wrote a few books on the subjects which I linked to in my last post.

OK, fair enough. Anarchy is your ideology, so I expected more than "read a book" as an answer. However, as this is a message board, you have the right to give that answer, and I have the right to not be satisfied by that answer. All is good.

Your claim was that anarchists never give answers. I proved that they in fact have given these answers. Your claim, in other words, was wrong. I suppose, however, that you still retain the right to continue lying about anarchists if you like, but it would be rather sad at this point.

Again, we disagree on that. I do not think I don't know, or read a book, are answers, you do.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

OK, fair enough. Anarchy is your ideology, so I expected more than "read a book" as an answer. However, as this is a message board, you have the right to give that answer, and I have the right to not be satisfied by that answer. All is good.

Your claim was that anarchists never give answers. I proved that they in fact have given these answers. Your claim, in other words, was wrong. I suppose, however, that you still retain the right to continue lying about anarchists if you like, but it would be rather sad at this point.

Again, we disagree on that. I do not think I don't know, or read a book, are answers, you do.

So books written by anarchists on the subjects that you're concerned about under anarchism are not evidence that anarchists have answered your concerns?

 

[OKTexas]

The Founders did not envision a government based on kaz's libertarian model.

End of discussion. Let's move on.

And the Federalists were nothing like libertarians.

Madison and Hamilton believed the Constitution charter empowered whatever needed to be done by the national government, and they both thought the Bill of Rights was an unnecessary restriction on national power.

Really, this is what Madison had to say on the subject, of course you have to have a level of comprehension thus far not demonstrated by you to understand what he is saying.

You have not the integrity to note that Madison wrote this 43 years after the Constitutional Constitution and 41 years after Madison argued for its Big Government nature.

I provided a quote supporting my point, how about you do the same.

 

[FA_Q2]

Your ignoring the fact that anarchists have endlessly answered any questions you may have, while always acknowledging that the market is unpredictable and that new innovation causes new ways of thinking about how to do things, isn't the problem of the anarchists.

Well, we're going to have to disagree on whether saying I don't know and I'm not omniscient so I can't give you any idea at all are answering the question by informing me of your dearth of knowledge of how your system will work or whether it's not answering the question.

I didn't say that I answered all of your questions. I said that those questions have been answered. They have given endless answers to those questions of how things could work in an anarcho-capitalist society. Even wrote a few books on the subjects which I linked to in my last post. The fact, however, is that the market is not a static state of affairs, as a libertarian ought to understand. It's constantly changing with new ideas and innovations, so the ideas of Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe, for example, may be rendered obsolete by advances in the market leading to new and better ideas in those areas. So no, we can't say for sure how anything will happen, and can only give indications of how it could happen.

This is a good summation of the point I'm making:

This is not the place to present a detailed account of how the private provision of what today are considered "public goods" would work (though the lack of a priori knowledge of how the market would solve countless specific problems is the naïve, facile objection of those who favor the current status quo under the pretext, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"). In fact, we cannot know today what entrepreneurial solutions an army of enterprising individuals would find for particular problems — if they were allowed to do so. Nevertheless, even the most skeptical person must admit that "we now know" that the market, driven by creative entrepreneurship, works, and it works precisely to the extent that the state does not coercively intervene in this social process.

It is also essential to recognize that difficulties and conflicts invariably arise precisely in areas where the free, spontaneous order of the market is hindered. Thus, regardless of the efforts made from the time of Gustav de Molinari to the present to imagine how an anarchocapitalist network of private security and defense agencies, each in support of more or less marginally alternative legal systems, would work, freedom theorists must never forget that what prevents us from knowing what a stateless future would be like — the creative nature of entrepreneurship — is precisely what offers us the peace of knowing that any problem will tend to be overcome, as the people involved will devote all of their effort and creativity to solving it.

Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism - Jesus Huerta de Soto - Mises Daily

I must but in here though. The central claim that limited government is no good by anarchists uses the fact that our government has slid into ever increasing central authority over its existence. The quote you brought up illustrates that point. I find deep fault in that statement though. You (or more correctly your quote) decries the constitution because of the government that sprung up anyway and its inability to prevent that. Holding that belief requires that you totally ignore that your own philosophy has fared no better. There is nowhere that anarchy has claimed the land and it worked out the way that you envision. At least those that are libertarians believing in small government can claim that liberty existed in some form for a while and, though it suffered from inroads and likely eventual fall, that liberty did exist in some form or another. Anarchy, however, has devolved into warring power blocks and dictatorship like government follows almost immediately. It has occurred many times over many places and yet never has there been more liberty during or after it immediately takes root.

If you are to be intellectually honest here, anarchy has failed WORSE than the constitution that anarchists rail against because it has failed to protect us.

 

[NightFox]

If you are to be intellectually honest here, anarchy has failed WORSE than the constitution that anarchists rail against because it has failed to protect us.

You make good points but I would go back to the assertion that it's a question of scalability, anarchism seems to be theoretically workable at a very small scale and thus isn't very durable. The Nation-State model is much more scalable but it also has it's limits (see: Roman Republic/Empire, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, All the European Empires).. it seems history suggests that Nation-States that grow to a certain point inevitably collapse in upon themselves, which suggests that there are limits on scalability there.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well, we're going to have to disagree on whether saying I don't know and I'm not omniscient so I can't give you any idea at all are answering the question by informing me of your dearth of knowledge of how your system will work or whether it's not answering the question.

I didn't say that I answered all of your questions. I said that those questions have been answered. They have given endless answers to those questions of how things could work in an anarcho-capitalist society. Even wrote a few books on the subjects which I linked to in my last post. The fact, however, is that the market is not a static state of affairs, as a libertarian ought to understand. It's constantly changing with new ideas and innovations, so the ideas of Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe, for example, may be rendered obsolete by advances in the market leading to new and better ideas in those areas. So no, we can't say for sure how anything will happen, and can only give indications of how it could happen.

This is a good summation of the point I'm making:

This is not the place to present a detailed account of how the private provision of what today are considered "public goods" would work (though the lack of a priori knowledge of how the market would solve countless specific problems is the naïve, facile objection of those who favor the current status quo under the pretext, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't"). In fact, we cannot know today what entrepreneurial solutions an army of enterprising individuals would find for particular problems — if they were allowed to do so. Nevertheless, even the most skeptical person must admit that "we now know" that the market, driven by creative entrepreneurship, works, and it works precisely to the extent that the state does not coercively intervene in this social process.

It is also essential to recognize that difficulties and conflicts invariably arise precisely in areas where the free, spontaneous order of the market is hindered. Thus, regardless of the efforts made from the time of Gustav de Molinari to the present to imagine how an anarchocapitalist network of private security and defense agencies, each in support of more or less marginally alternative legal systems, would work, freedom theorists must never forget that what prevents us from knowing what a stateless future would be like — the creative nature of entrepreneurship — is precisely what offers us the peace of knowing that any problem will tend to be overcome, as the people involved will devote all of their effort and creativity to solving it.

Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism - Jesus Huerta de Soto - Mises Daily

I must but in here though. The central claim that limited government is no good by anarchists uses the fact that our government has slid into ever increasing central authority over its existence. The quote you brought up illustrates that point. I find deep fault in that statement though. You (or more correctly your quote) decries the constitution because of the government that sprung up anyway and its inability to prevent that. Holding that belief requires that you totally ignore that your own philosophy has fared no better. There is nowhere that anarchy has claimed the land and it worked out the way that you envision. At least those that are libertarians believing in small government can claim that liberty existed in some form for a while and, though it suffered from inroads and likely eventual fall, that liberty did exist in some form or another. Anarchy, however, has devolved into warring power blocks and dictatorship like government follows almost immediately. It has occurred many times over many places and yet never has there been more liberty during or after it immediately takes root.

If you are to be intellectually honest here, anarchy has failed WORSE than the constitution that anarchists rail against because it has failed to protect us.

Give us an example of anarcho-capitalism failing.

 

[kaz]

Your claim was that anarchists never give answers. I proved that they in fact have given these answers. Your claim, in other words, was wrong. I suppose, however, that you still retain the right to continue lying about anarchists if you like, but it would be rather sad at this point.

Again, we disagree on that. I do not think I don't know, or read a book, are answers, you do.

So books written by anarchists on the subjects that you're concerned about under anarchism are not evidence that anarchists have answered your concerns?

I think that since you are an anarchist, you should be able to explain your views yourself. I do read far more books from views I disagree with, though anarchy hasn't been one that I've particularly focused on. I am putting more of those books in my reading queue. However, I have a long list, and as a business owner my current rate of reading is slower than it has been or will be in the future.

But basically, agree or disagree, I don't believe what any book tells me. I challenge what I think based on what I read. I would never say to read a book so someone can understand my views. I do find it ironic that an anarchist in particular would need to reference someone else's work to explain their views. But to each his own. And again, your answers to all my questions are in line with all the anarchists I've talked to. When discussing optional government, we both oppose it. When it comes back to those portions of government that libertarians support and anarchists don't, anarchists have no answers how it would work.

 

[kaz]

Give us an example of anarcho-capitalism failing.

The closest I can think of are the articles of confederation. They may not have been total anarchy, but they were anarchy at the Federal level.

However, that demonstrates my point on anarchy, that it can never exist but for an instant. The problem the anti-federalists had were issues like Libyan piracy and British Navy conscription, which the optional national government could do nothing about.

The world is a dangerous place. You talk us into eliminating the military and shutting down the government, and then you'll be learning Chinese or Russian to talk to your new rulers who will have set up a new government, and we don't have anarchy anymore. Or worse, the blood thirsty hordes from the north, Canada! Shiver...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Again, we disagree on that. I do not think I don't know, or read a book, are answers, you do.

So books written by anarchists on the subjects that you're concerned about under anarchism are not evidence that anarchists have answered your concerns?

I think that since you are an anarchist, you should be able to explain your views yourself. I do read far more books from views I disagree with, though anarchy hasn't been one that I've particularly focused on. I am putting more of those books in my reading queue. However, I have a long list, and as a business owner my current rate of reading is slower than it has been or will be in the future.

But basically, agree or disagree, I don't believe what any book tells me. I challenge what I think based on what I read. I would never say to read a book so someone can understand my views. I do find it ironic that an anarchist in particular would need to reference someone else's work to explain their views. But to each his own. And again, your answers to all my questions are in line with all the anarchists I've talked to. When discussing optional government, we both oppose it. When it comes back to those portions of government that libertarians support and anarchists don't, anarchists have no answers how it would work.

Here's the thing, you say anarchists never have an answer for anything, and that we just want to get rid of government for the sake of getting rid of government. Then you go on to say that anarchism isn't something that you're "particularly focused on." In other words, you admit that you're not well versed enough on the subject to even offer such a critique of anarchism. That's my objection, along with your closed-minded insistence that anarchists can't be libertarians, thus excommunicating some of the most important libertarian thinkers in the history of libertarianism itself. Would there even be a libertarian movement today without these anarchists? Your unbridled arrogance on the subject and dismissal of people like Murray Rothbard is the problem.

As for me, I never pretended to have all the answers. I'm an anarchist because I don't believe that organizing society through the threat of violence, even if it is "limited," is the best way to go about it. Nor do I think that any "limited" government stays limited for very long, as the history of the Constitution proves. What I know is that the market best supplies food, medical care, and computers, so I see no reason why the monopolist state is suddenly required to supply police and roads. I'm not an anarchist because I went through the minutiae of every single issue and independently figured out how every single thing could be supplied by the market and in what quantities. That would be a ridiculous sisyphean task, and the antithesis of a free market system.

Despite that, many anarchists have attempted to sketch out what could happen under an anarcho-capitalist society, and have thus answered any of your objections. To continue to claim then that anarchists have no answers would be dishonest on your part, especially considering your admitted lack of familiarity with the subject.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Give us an example of anarcho-capitalism failing.

The closest I can think of are the articles of confederation. They may not have been total anarchy, but they were anarchy at the Federal level.

However, that demonstrates my point on anarchy, that it can never exist but for an instant. The problem the anti-federalists had were issues like Libyan piracy and British Navy conscription, which the optional national government could do nothing about.

The world is a dangerous place. You talk us into eliminating the military and shutting down the government, and then you'll be learning Chinese or Russian to talk to your new rulers who will have set up a new government, and we don't have anarchy anymore. Or worse, the blood thirsty hordes from the north, Canada! Shiver...

The Articles of Confederation were not remotely anarchist at any level. To say that a document that established a government is anarchist is Orwellian in the extreme. It's true that the state governments held the most power under the system, but to say that the federal government established by the Articles was anarchist is absolutely ridiculous. Nor did the Articles "fail." They simply failed to create a national government the likes of which Madison and Hamilton preferred. In an anarcho-capitalist society merchants would still be free to purchase protection for their ships and cargo against pirates.

Your last paragraph is simply conjecture.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If a president can force the Courts to rule in his favor, do all presidents force the Courts?
And how does the president do this forcing?

FDR had the political power to have congress add more seats to the SC. he threatened to do so.

So how many more seats to the Supreme Court were added by FDR?

he did not have to the Court quit invalidating his new laws. His threat was all it took.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Really, this is what Madison had to say on the subject, of course you have to have a level of comprehension thus far not demonstrated by you to understand what he is saying.

You have not the integrity to note that Madison wrote this 43 years after the Constitutional Constitution and 41 years after Madison argued for its Big Government nature.

I provided a quote supporting my point, how about you do the same.

Plenty of quotes in the time era of the convention and ratification have been available.

Your dishonesty was pretending that a quite 43 years after the fact was what Madison was thinking in the later 1780s.

That, bub, is fail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, heavens the anarchists, the libertarians, and the weirds want to waste band width.

Out of here.

 

[FA_Q2]

I didn't say that I answered all of your questions. I said that those questions have been answered. They have given endless answers to those questions of how things could work in an anarcho-capitalist society. Even wrote a few books on the subjects which I linked to in my last post. The fact, however, is that the market is not a static state of affairs, as a libertarian ought to understand. It's constantly changing with new ideas and innovations, so the ideas of Rothbard, Block, and Hoppe, for example, may be rendered obsolete by advances in the market leading to new and better ideas in those areas. So no, we can't say for sure how anything will happen, and can only give indications of how it could happen.

This is a good summation of the point I'm making:



Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism - Jesus Huerta de Soto - Mises Daily

I must but in here though. The central claim that limited government is no good by anarchists uses the fact that our government has slid into ever increasing central authority over its existence. The quote you brought up illustrates that point. I find deep fault in that statement though. You (or more correctly your quote) decries the constitution because of the government that sprung up anyway and its inability to prevent that. Holding that belief requires that you totally ignore that your own philosophy has fared no better. There is nowhere that anarchy has claimed the land and it worked out the way that you envision. At least those that are libertarians believing in small government can claim that liberty existed in some form for a while and, though it suffered from inroads and likely eventual fall, that liberty did exist in some form or another. Anarchy, however, has devolved into warring power blocks and dictatorship like government follows almost immediately. It has occurred many times over many places and yet never has there been more liberty during or after it immediately takes root.

If you are to be intellectually honest here, anarchy has failed WORSE than the constitution that anarchists rail against because it has failed to protect us.

Give us an example of anarcho-capitalism failing.

It is hard to establish because I think that you are simply going to deny that those examples are relevant but in general, periods of anarchy are quite common across Africa and there are many places in the middle east that are in constant flux with common periods of anarchy. They don’t last long and they are all short lived for the same reason – someone with big guns moves in and installs themselves as the chosen leader (aka: King). There are even some examples in the Middle East where there is a semblance of anarchy as far as governments go but each are is essentially ruled by the local leader who does as he pleases to the people there. We dealt with these groups a LOT during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan because they were essentially the local governments headed by the eldest male. That, in general, was VERY close to anarcho-capitalism but you still ended up with oppression because the eldest male essentially had the powers of a King. In that society, only the top flourished while the rest were subjects.

The idea that anarcho-capitalism can thrive flies in the face of that because capitalism never really exists in those areas because the market there is never truly free. Instead, it is quickly taken over by a local warlord until he can be disposed where another short term anarchy exists before that new leader gains control. The idea of private armies providing security is a nice thought but in general unworkable. There is much more wealth to be made in the short term from plunder than there is in security so that is where we end up every time.

Essentially, at the end of the day a lack of official government does not mean that there will be no government. We like to think that is possible but the world shows that someone will take over that slot. A limited and controlled government might not be ideal as anarcho capitalism is the ideal but it perfect is simply not possible in the real world. With that in mind, that limited government puts controls on the subjugation of people through force.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh, heavens the anarchists, the libertarians, and the weirds want to waste band width.

Out of here.

ROFLMAO – this from one of the biggest wastes of bandwidth on this site. LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

If you are to be intellectually honest here, anarchy has failed WORSE than the constitution that anarchists rail against because it has failed to protect us.

You make good points but I would go back to the assertion that it's a question of scalability, anarchism seems to be theoretically workable at a very small scale and thus isn't very durable. The Nation-State model is much more scalable but it also has it's limits (see: Roman Republic/Empire, Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt, All the European Empires).. it seems history suggests that Nation-States that grow to a certain point inevitably collapse in upon themselves, which suggests that there are limits on scalability there.

Almost all things are workable on a small scale. Forget anarco-capitalism, MARXISM is basically the most effective ‘government’ on a micro scale and is extremely successful today in practice – usually in small family groups. We have something like that within my own family where everyone owns what they have but that ownership commonly changes hands without just compensation. Essentially, we share.

When I talk about government I am generally referring to systems that are workable on a national scale. Otherwise, the term ‘government’ loses its meaning. We do not have a ‘government’ within our family though you could say that my grandfather runs the family, keeping it together and ensuring that we are all taken care of if things do not go well for some reason. I don’t consider that our government though, it is our family.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I must but in here though. The central claim that limited government is no good by anarchists uses the fact that our government has slid into ever increasing central authority over its existence. The quote you brought up illustrates that point. I find deep fault in that statement though. You (or more correctly your quote) decries the constitution because of the government that sprung up anyway and its inability to prevent that. Holding that belief requires that you totally ignore that your own philosophy has fared no better. There is nowhere that anarchy has claimed the land and it worked out the way that you envision. At least those that are libertarians believing in small government can claim that liberty existed in some form for a while and, though it suffered from inroads and likely eventual fall, that liberty did exist in some form or another. Anarchy, however, has devolved into warring power blocks and dictatorship like government follows almost immediately. It has occurred many times over many places and yet never has there been more liberty during or after it immediately takes root.

If you are to be intellectually honest here, anarchy has failed WORSE than the constitution that anarchists rail against because it has failed to protect us.

Give us an example of anarcho-capitalism failing.

It is hard to establish because I think that you are simply going to deny that those examples are relevant but in general, periods of anarchy are quite common across Africa and there are many places in the middle east that are in constant flux with common periods of anarchy. They don’t last long and they are all short lived for the same reason – someone with big guns moves in and installs themselves as the chosen leader (aka: King). There are even some examples in the Middle East where there is a semblance of anarchy as far as governments go but each are is essentially ruled by the local leader who does as he pleases to the people there. We dealt with these groups a LOT during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan because they were essentially the local governments headed by the eldest male. That, in general, was VERY close to anarcho-capitalism but you still ended up with oppression because the eldest male essentially had the powers of a King. In that society, only the top flourished while the rest were subjects.

The idea that anarcho-capitalism can thrive flies in the face of that because capitalism never really exists in those areas because the market there is never truly free. Instead, it is quickly taken over by a local warlord until he can be disposed where another short term anarchy exists before that new leader gains control. The idea of private armies providing security is a nice thought but in general unworkable. There is much more wealth to be made in the short term from plunder than there is in security so that is where we end up every time.

Essentially, at the end of the day a lack of official government does not mean that there will be no government. We like to think that is possible but the world shows that someone will take over that slot. A limited and controlled government might not be ideal as anarcho capitalism is the ideal but it perfect is simply not possible in the real world. With that in mind, that limited government puts controls on the subjugation of people through force.

So if there's no capitalism in those areas, as you state, how can it be anarcho-capitalism? Nor are tribal warlords evidence of any kind of anarchism, capitalist or otherwise. Just the opposite, in fact.

 

[FA_Q2]

Give us an example of anarcho-capitalism failing.

It is hard to establish because I think that you are simply going to deny that those examples are relevant but in general, periods of anarchy are quite common across Africa and there are many places in the middle east that are in constant flux with common periods of anarchy. They don’t last long and they are all short lived for the same reason – someone with big guns moves in and installs themselves as the chosen leader (aka: King). There are even some examples in the Middle East where there is a semblance of anarchy as far as governments go but each are is essentially ruled by the local leader who does as he pleases to the people there. We dealt with these groups a LOT during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan because they were essentially the local governments headed by the eldest male. That, in general, was VERY close to anarcho-capitalism but you still ended up with oppression because the eldest male essentially had the powers of a King. In that society, only the top flourished while the rest were subjects.

The idea that anarcho-capitalism can thrive flies in the face of that because capitalism never really exists in those areas because the market there is never truly free. Instead, it is quickly taken over by a local warlord until he can be disposed where another short term anarchy exists before that new leader gains control. The idea of private armies providing security is a nice thought but in general unworkable. There is much more wealth to be made in the short term from plunder than there is in security so that is where we end up every time.

Essentially, at the end of the day a lack of official government does not mean that there will be no government. We like to think that is possible but the world shows that someone will take over that slot. A limited and controlled government might not be ideal as anarcho capitalism is the ideal but it perfect is simply not possible in the real world. With that in mind, that limited government puts controls on the subjugation of people through force.

So if there's no capitalism in those areas, as you state, how can it be anarcho-capitalism? Nor are tribal warlords evidence of any kind of anarchism, capitalist or otherwise. Just the opposite, in fact.

That’s the point though. Anarchism evaporates almost immediately. Those areas do, in fact, see anarchies at times but as soon as they do it evaporates into some sort of totalitarian system. That is what happens to anarchism. Technically, there is capitalism during that time frame (unfettered because there is no controlling authority at all) but it never lasts long. That is the doomed outcome of any anarchy.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It is hard to establish because I think that you are simply going to deny that those examples are relevant but in general, periods of anarchy are quite common across Africa and there are many places in the middle east that are in constant flux with common periods of anarchy. They don’t last long and they are all short lived for the same reason – someone with big guns moves in and installs themselves as the chosen leader (aka: King). There are even some examples in the Middle East where there is a semblance of anarchy as far as governments go but each are is essentially ruled by the local leader who does as he pleases to the people there. We dealt with these groups a LOT during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan because they were essentially the local governments headed by the eldest male. That, in general, was VERY close to anarcho-capitalism but you still ended up with oppression because the eldest male essentially had the powers of a King. In that society, only the top flourished while the rest were subjects.

The idea that anarcho-capitalism can thrive flies in the face of that because capitalism never really exists in those areas because the market there is never truly free. Instead, it is quickly taken over by a local warlord until he can be disposed where another short term anarchy exists before that new leader gains control. The idea of private armies providing security is a nice thought but in general unworkable. There is much more wealth to be made in the short term from plunder than there is in security so that is where we end up every time.

Essentially, at the end of the day a lack of official government does not mean that there will be no government. We like to think that is possible but the world shows that someone will take over that slot. A limited and controlled government might not be ideal as anarcho capitalism is the ideal but it perfect is simply not possible in the real world. With that in mind, that limited government puts controls on the subjugation of people through force.

So if there's no capitalism in those areas, as you state, how can it be anarcho-capitalism? Nor are tribal warlords evidence of any kind of anarchism, capitalist or otherwise. Just the opposite, in fact.

That’s the point though. Anarchism evaporates almost immediately. Those areas do, in fact, see anarchies at times but as soon as they do it evaporates into some sort of totalitarian system. That is what happens to anarchism. Technically, there is capitalism during that time frame (unfettered because there is no controlling authority at all) but it never lasts long. That is the doomed outcome of any anarchy.

I'm not convinced that anybody could reasonably assert that Africa has anything resembling a free market anywhere. And as I said, transitioning from one warlord to another is not an example of any kind of anarchism. All this proves is that tribal warlords are unstable and not an ideal way to organize society.