AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.

Two of the things I love about AnCap are [...]

CG, one of the things I love about you is your inability to accept an answer to any of your questions, thereby providing endless opportunities to answer them over and over for the benefit of new lurkers, or to emphasize by repetition for those of longer standing.

You're quite right, you can't have a formal lawsuit when there are no laws.  That doesn't stop us using "lawsuit" in what we might call a colloquial sense, a shorthand for "bringing a dispute to arbitration."  That you seem to think objecting to this use of the term is an objection to AnCap of enough power to be worth expressing does no credit to the rest of your philosophical armament, though.

In today's society, companies who can enforce use of their own pet arbitrators are backed up by the full force of government.

Who pays the arbitrator in an AnCap?  There are all kinds of possibilities.  The one currently in use in Fairbanks, Alaska's alternative system has some means of paying the "judge", the "court recorder" and all 12 "jurors" one ounce of silver per hour; I haven't listened to all the guy's talk to know just how theirs works, but it evidently does.

Another possibility is:  no one. Personally,  I'd serve as an arbitrator as a service, a duty if you will, to my community.  I don't think "arbitrator" as a career, a means of making a living, is such a good idea, but maybe that's just me.

Other clever folks will no doubt present still more possibilities.  See, in an AnCap, you're not bound by regulation to keep doing the same things over and over whether or not they work.

How does AnCap deter criminals?  Bwahaha, you ask as if you think that laws and police and jails and hangings do.

I know you read this of mine before, but thank you for allowing me to repeat it for new folks:

Those who commit crimes of passion are, by definition, not thinking ahead, so no threat of punishment is going to deter them.  Deterrence is only possible for those who have at least a possibility of having a second thought.

Of those, we have the smart, the stupid, and the ordinary thinkers.

Really, genuinely smart criminals can figure out how not to get caught, so any threat of punishment isn't going to deter them.  Indeed, some of them may find the threat of punishment just adds spice to the game.

Really stupid criminals think they're smart enough not to get caught, so deterrence doesn't work against them, either.

That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred.  At least some of those are simply going to take the risk, run the odds, and often, the immediate perceived benefit tends to outweigh a hypothetical later penalty.  Some may just not give a damn -- while others may actually want to go to jail.

How well did George III's capital punishment for treason work to deter Nathan Hale?

AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals -- and neither does any government.  Take your own question back, if you dare (if you can, which you can't, so you will ignore this, too):  how does government deter those who would use the very functions of government for criminal ends, such as a politician who rigs the vote so he can embezzle tax monies, or for the sheer rush of power, or to harass his enemies a la Nixon -- or all of the above?

There is a role for some kind of enforcement.  Todays world may not be perfect, but you can live in it.

Live -- like Steve Biko, you mean?  Like the unarmed fleeing 12-year-old in Pennsylvania shot in the back by two/2 armed cops, one of 'em a repeat offender, kind of thing?  At least, in an AnCap society, I can freakin' shoot back.

"[W]e most solemnly declare ... [that we are] with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves."  Jefferson & Dickinson, On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms -- which was, of course, quite illegal of them, dontcha know.

Go ahead, bend over and take it if you want to.


So you've presented, 1) a nitpick over choice of language; 2), the argument from incredulity ("if it seems an insurmountable objection to me, then it is truly insurmountable" kind of thing); 3) demanding that the other side solve a problem that your own side can't; and 4) well, sheer cowardice.  Dude.

How does AnCap deter criminals?  Bwahaha, you ask as if you think that laws and police and jails and hangings do.

I know you read this of mine before, but thank you for allowing me to repeat it for new folks:

Those who commit crimes of passion are, by definition, not thinking ahead, so no threat of punishment is going to deter them.  Deterrence is only possible for those who have at least a possibility of having a second thought.

Of those, we have the smart, the stupid, and the ordinary thinkers.

Really, genuinely smart criminals can figure out how not to get caught, so any threat of punishment isn't going to deter them.  Indeed, some of them may find the threat of punishment just adds spice to the game.

Really stupid criminals think they're smart enough not to get caught, so deterrence doesn't work against them, either.

That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred.  At least some of those are simply going to take the risk, run the odds, and often, the immediate perceived benefit tends to outweigh a hypothetical later penalty.  Some may just not give a damn -- while others may actually want to go to jail.

How well did George III's capital punishment for treason work to deter Nathan Hale?

AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals -- and neither does any government.

This seems so obvious! Why didn't I think of it before?

Oh, wait a moment.

Laws and prisons don't deter crime perfectly. Some crime still exists. The people who commit the crimes that still happen are the criminals, and none of them were deterred, and they fall into the categories above that you've listed.

Guess who does get deterred by penalties for crime? Dishonest people who would be willing to steal from others and so on, but who are smart enough to realize they would get caught if they did.

How many people are in that category? I can't prove anything, but most people think that there are lots of dishonest people who would commit crimes if not for our criminal justice system, but, because it exists, confine themselves to modest amusements like malicious gossip, malingering at work, and so on and so forth.

Your argument seems to simply make that category disappear by sleight-of-hand.

How does AnCap deter criminals?  Bwahaha, you ask as if you think that laws and police and jails and hangings do.

But you still didnt answer the question.  How does an AnCap society deter crime?

You'll notice that most neighborhoods are not hotbeds of criminal activity.  Thats probably true in AnCap as well; but why?

What deters criminals from committing crime?  You say its not the govt, ok; the govt may not deter crime, but yet, it may.

But if govt police dont deter criminals in todays world, what does?

And without those police, what is there in an AnCap society to deter criminals?
Sure the homeowner can shoot back; sure they can hire alarm companies and private police.  But if those dont deter crime in todays world, how would they deter crime in an AnCap world?

What is there to deter the smart burglar who attacks in the daytime while the homeowner is at work?  Police today dont stop carjackings.  So how would an AnCapper?
If a guy sticks a gun in your face, with the safety off and the hammer cocked, how are you going to pull your gun, take off the safety and fire it before the carjacker shoots you?

You see, whatever does deter crime today, might not be there in an AnCap world.  Especially in the case of the petty crook who hears Anarcho... and thinks "anarchy."  In an anarchy there are no laws, and no cops, so crime is easy(until he get his face blown off, of course).
But until that time, he is not deterred.

What deters crime in an anarchy? 

You never answered.

But its OK; I'll wait.

Guess who does get deterred by penalties for crime? Dishonest people who would be willing to steal from others and so on, but who are smart enough to realize they would get caught if they did.

Very true.  Guess what?  That same process works whether the penalties come from On High or simply from outraged neighbors.  So, I was wrong:  AnCap does have a process for deterring crime, or at least -- as you pointed out -- some crime:  since we're human and do live in community and therefore are hardwired to make some concessions to community standards, this deterrent process exists whether we have a government or not.  It arises out of our human nature, "human nature" not being a wholly evil thing, you know.

Your argument seems to simply make that category disappear by sleight-of-hand.

You mean, where I said:

That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred.

All I did then was remove the ones who don't care, or who, in the moment, weigh the possibility of punishment more lightly than the possibility of reward.

And in another place I likened government to tossing a blanket over your head for protection but you still get mugged, and said, "Since you believe the blanket protects you, you must think, 'Wow!  If it's this bad with the blanket, it must be ever so much worse without it!'"

Since you believe government does protect you, you infer that things would be worse without it -- in the absence of actual data to that effect.  I say, if you add up all the official, formally-defined crime (theft, murder, driving too fast on a road with a ridiculously-low but official limit, having sex with a minor who's only a few weeks younger than yourself) that occurs even with a government in place, and then add in all the things that a freeman would never put up with but which are accepted as the price of government protection -- taxes, TSA gropedowns, whimsical revocation of soi-disant "rights", kinds of things -- you get a sum total of crime to compare to that in a true anarchy.

Please to include "archogenic" ("ruler-caused") offenses in your evaluations.  It's so not fair to leave them out.

What deters crime in an anarchy?

You never answered.

But its OK; I'll wait.

I said,

AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals -- and neither does any government.

Emphasis added.  I also said,

CG, one of the things I love about you is your inability to accept an answer to any of your questions

and you immediately justified that.  Sigh.

But quadibloc just made me see the error of my ways.  My above answer was wrong.  Human nature impels us to commit crimes.  It also impels us not to.  This works whether we have overlords or not, i.e., it will be as true of an an-archy as of *-archy.

And, like quadibloc, you don't address, or even admit, crime committed by the very institutions and officers set up to deter crime -- the ones against whom it's illegal to defend oneself.  YOU never answered the question:  how does government deter those who would use the very functions of government for criminal ends?  Under government, who or what protects us from our protectors, when the dark side of their human nature emerges?

Or does putting them in office have some magic power?

Guess who does get deterred by penalties for crime? Dishonest people who would be willing to steal from others and so on, but who are smart enough to realize they would get caught if they did.

Very true.  Guess what?  That same process works whether the penalties come from On High or simply from outraged neighbors.  So, I was wrong:  AnCap does have a process for deterring crime, or at least -- as you pointed out -- some crime:  since we're human and do live in community and therefore are hardwired to make some concessions to community standards, this deterrent process exists whether we have a government or not.  It arises out of our human nature, "human nature" not being a wholly evil thing, you know.

Your argument seems to simply make that category disappear by sleight-of-hand.

You mean, where I said:

That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred.

All I did then was remove the ones who don't care, or who, in the moment, weigh the possibility of punishment more lightly than the possibility of reward.

And in another place I likened government to tossing a blanket over your head for protection but you still get mugged, and said, "Since you believe the blanket protects you, you must think, 'Wow!  If it's this bad with the blanket, it must be ever so much worse without it!'"

Since you believe government does protect you, you infer that things would be worse without it -- in the absence of actual data to that effect.  I say, if you add up all the official, formally-defined crime (theft, murder, driving too fast on a road with a ridiculously-low but official limit, having sex with a minor who's only a few weeks younger than yourself) that occurs even with a government in place, and then add in all the things that a freeman would never put up with but which are accepted as the price of government protection -- taxes, TSA gropedowns, whimsical revocation of soi-disant "rights", kinds of things -- you get a sum total of crime to compare to that in a true anarchy.

Please to include "archogenic" ("ruler-caused") offenses in your evaluations.  It's so not fair to leave them out.

What deters crime in an anarchy?

You never answered.

But its OK; I'll wait.

I said,

AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals -- and neither does any government.

Emphasis added.  I also said,

CG, one of the things I love about you is your inability to accept an answer to any of your questions

and you immediately justified that.  Sigh.

But quadibloc just made me see the error of my ways.  My above answer was wrong.  Human nature impels us to commit crimes.  It also impels us not to.  This works whether we have overlords or not, i.e., it will be as true of an an-archy as of *-archy.

And, like quadibloc, you don't address, or even admit, crime committed by the very institutions and officers set up to deter crime -- the ones against whom it's illegal to defend oneself.  YOU never answered the question:  how does government deter those who would use the very functions of government for criminal ends?  Under government, who or what protects us from our protectors, when the dark side of their human nature emerges?

Or does putting them in office have some magic power?

You know the saying "it only keep honest people honest"?  Where is that magic force in AnCap?

Just to prove that I am not totally ignorant of evil policing, did you hear about the LA county jail gangs?
You know the gangs of sheriffs deputys, beating up the prisoners for fun.
The same deputys who wont ever be fired, because no-one else wants to be a jail guard.

Nothing deterred them from crime, so all police officers must be evil corrupt monsters, right? 
And all the fireman, and aid car paramedics, and hospital workers, and teachers, and mailmen.

They are all horrible, evil corrupt monstrosities that must be destroyed.

Its what all the AnCappers have said; all govt are evil, and evil must be abolished for the
betterment of all mankind.

I dare you to show me an honest policeman, or other government worker; if you can.

You know the saying "it only keep honest people honest"?  Where is that magic force in AnCap?

Beats the hell out of me.  Where is it anywhere?

Nothing deterred them from crime, so all police officers must be evil corrupt monsters, right?

Argument from absurdity, now?  It's so easy to defeat the other guy's argument when you turn it into something it isn't.

I'll recap what I think the "we need government" position is:  Humans are capable of great evil; also of lesser evils.  Some kind of system, or program is needed, or desired, or proposed, in order to deter the commission of those evils, aka government.

Did I miss something?  Did I exaggerate or misrepresent anything?

I agree that humans are capable of evils, greater and lesser.  I entirely, wholeheartedly agree.  I think, in fact, that it's indisputable.

Therefore all police officers must be capable of being evil corrupt monsters.  Heck, even if they were robots, they could be programmed to be monsters.

What do you gain when you take my perfectly reasonable assertion of potential -- "all can be monsters" -- and turn it into an assertion of identity -- "all ARE monsters"?

Obviously not all police are monsters.  Obviously not all humans are monsters, either -- but you still feel the need to be protected from them.  I'm still trying to figure out how the government-advocates figure that cops and judges and wardens and all are "humans I can trust", humans from whom we don't need to be protected, apparently very special humans.

Now, you've agreed that the protectors can and do abuse their offices.  Tell me:  do they commit fewer crimes than the rest of us?  If so, why is that -- especially given that they are in prime position not to get caught, since they are the catchers, and thus have less power of deterrence working on them?

If not -- if they, being human, are just as likely to be criminals as the rest of us -- why should we give them special powers over the rest of us?  What, specifically, does that accomplish?

And, hey, you've just conceded the existence of corrupt, dangerous "protectors".  Please observe that no, not all police are evil corrupt monsters -- even though they are in so much better position to get away with it.  In fact, they really are precious few, aren't they?

What does that tell you about human nature and the "need" to be policed -- that not even those who can so readily evade or elude punishment nonetheless just don't misbehave all that often?

Its what all the AnCappers have said; all govt are evil

Government is evil because when the police do violate my trust, I have no defense against them; I am held helpless by the system -- by my neighbors who, even if they agree that the policeman is violating my rights, have been trained to stand back and let "the system" work.  In an anarchy, I can and do protect myself -- against anyone who offers me harm.  And, gosh, I'll even come to my neighbors' aid, simply because I am an animal of community.

Why do you trust a stranger with a uniform and a badge more than you trust a stranger without them?

CG and others never believe individuals are able to govern themselves without governments as overlords.  Regardless of the discussion, they believe all men seek power, are monsters to be controlled by other monsters given power ...  Masters to control their lives.  The lives they are afraid to take responsibility for.  In their fear, they see us as them. 

Governments have a vested interest in encouraging and institutionalizing this fear, for it means they continue to do business as usual.  This is done through civil rights restrictions....

Cultural and Societal Evolution continues to limit government power.  Government supplicants dream of the "good old days", and are the first to use force, to keep things as "they should be."  They condemn any act of self-defense or limitations on government power.

The TransProg dream of a world government controlling every aspect of an individual's life is already showing signs of being still-born.  De-evolution of government can be followed from the Emperors and other Royals to Representative Governments.  At each stage of government de-evolution, individual freedom has grown.  The ideal of freedom became pervasive with each improvement in individual communication and education. 

Government's (and their supplicants) greatest fear is an active movement promoting individual freedom.  In the U.S. the removal of arms prohibitions and subsequent education of individual responsibilities are the results of the individual reach and search for freedom.  The burgeoning demand for reduction in government and government regulation will continue.   As individuals learn individual responsibility they recognize the restrictions governments place on their lives and their hopes for the future.

As Libertarian Literature spreads (In-spite of the seaming censorship in places like Hollywood.) so will the ideals and ethics.

CG and others never believe individuals are able to govern themselves without governments as overlords.  Regardless of the discussion, they believe all men seek power, are monsters to be controlled by other monsters given power ...  Masters to control their lives.  The lives they are afraid to take responsibility for.  In their fear, they see us as them. 

Governments have a vested interest in encouraging and institutionalizing this fear, for it means they continue to do business as usual.  This is done through civil rights restrictions....

Cultural and Societal Evolution continues to limit government power.  Government supplicants dream of the "good old days", and are the first to use force, to keep things as "they should be."  They condemn any act of self-defense or limitations on government power.

The TransProg dream of a world government controlling every aspect of an individual's life is already showing signs of being still-born.  De-evolution of government can be followed from the Emperors and other Royals to Representative Governments.  At each stage of government de-evolution, individual freedom has grown.  The ideal of freedom became pervasive with each improvement in individual communication and education. 

Government's (and their supplicants) greatest fear is an active movement promoting individual freedom.  In the U.S. the removal of arms prohibitions and subsequent education of individual responsibilities are the results of the individual reach and search for freedom.  The burgeoning demand for reduction in government and government regulation will continue.   As individuals learn individual responsibility they recognize the restrictions governments place on their lives and their hopes for the future.

As Libertarian Literature spreads (In-spite of the seaming censorship in places like Hollywood.) so will the ideals and ethics.

Hi guys, I'm back.
I will grant that some individuals can govern themselves, and some cannot.
Governments problem lies in the fact that the governed willingly turn over their power to someone else.
You should trust a stranger in uniform just like you would trust any stranger: cautiously, but with respect.
The problem with lack of government is shown in multiple places in the modern world:
Somalia.  It has a government, technically, but not outside the walls of the government compound.  The Muslim warlords are practicing a type of Anarcho-Capitalism; obviously not the type seen in EFT, but a type nonetheless.

In the U.S., government powerlessness is being shown up every day.  Previous Republican governments have tried to shove the US economy as far toward An-Cap as they could, by removing regulations and restrictions.
The people with the money (and without it in many cases) took advantage of this and showed what an unrestricted free market (that is to say anarchic capitalism) looked like.
Enter the financial meltdown.
I'm sure none of you are aware of why Wall Street had regulations in the first place.  And no, it isnt because government is evil or TransProgs (who hadnt even been invented yet) wanted to rule the world with a One World Govt.
It was because Wall Street had a financial meltdown every 10 to 15 years.  Can you imagine a Meltdown every ten years?  It would be disastrous for businesses. 
And it was.  So, regulation.

This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

If you live in a city of, say, 10 million people, how do you enforce the no-aggression principle?
10 million people living in peace and harmony is Utopia.

Also, how do you prevent collusion among companies?  It has been said that you just quit using one company and go their competitor.
But, what if all the companies in your three state region (would you really drive 3 states away to avoid high prices?) in one industry, say dairy products, had secretly colluded to raise prices and keep them high?
Obviously you cant prevent that in An-Cap, but what do you do if its happening?
Just accept whatever they want to charge?  Drive three states away just to get a lower price on a gallon of milk?

This is why AnCap only works on communes and wild frontier communities.

The problem with lack of government is shown in multiple places in the modern world:
Somalia.  It has a government, technically, but not outside the walls of the government compound.  The Muslim warlords are practicing a type of Anarcho-Capitalism; obviously not the type seen in EFT, but a type nonetheless.

I have seen this example given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.

First, each of the warlords is the head of a de facto government.  These governments are almost constantly in dispute with one another, and are generally funded by outside interests (generally other governments) in the hope that a given set of warlords "wins" and will deal favorably with the outside funders.  With this multiplicity of governments, there is no anarchy.

Second, these warlords do not respect the property of others; without recognition of and respect for the property of others (be they other warlords or those who who are their victims) as the underpinning for the exchange of goods and services, there is no capitalism.

The problem with lack of government is shown in multiple places in the modern world:
Somalia.  It has a government, technically, but not outside the walls of the government compound.  The Muslim warlords are practicing a type of Anarcho-Capitalism; obviously not the type seen in EFT, but a type nonetheless.

I have seen this example given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.

First, each of the warlords is the head of a de facto government.  These governments are almost constantly in dispute with one another, and are generally funded by outside interests (generally other governments) in the hope that a given set of warlords "wins" and will deal favorably with the outside funders.  With this multiplicity of governments, there is no anarchy.

Second, these warlords do not respect the property of others; without recognition of and respect for the property of others (be they other warlords or those who who are their victims) as the underpinning for the exchange of goods and services, there is no capitalism.

I'd have to say that you're right:  The problem is that this is not your perfect AnCap, but rather what happens once people with some greed and power get their hands on it.  It doesn't matter too much where the funding comes from, as long as it's sufficient fora group of people to decide to enforce their will on another group.  How do you think the concept of a government got started in the first place?  It doesn't matter that most people are willing to live peacefully and with respect for eachother, as long as there's a few that are willing to take what they want by force.

The problem with lack of government is shown in multiple places in the modern world:
Somalia.  It has a government, technically, but not outside the walls of the government compound.  The Muslim warlords are practicing a type of Anarcho-Capitalism; obviously not the type seen in EFT, but a type nonetheless.

I have seen this example given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.

First, each of the warlords is the head of a de facto government.  These governments are almost constantly in dispute with one another, and are generally funded by outside interests (generally other governments) in the hope that a given set of warlords "wins" and will deal favorably with the outside funders.  With this multiplicity of governments, there is no anarchy.

Second, these warlords do not respect the property of others; without recognition of and respect for the property of others (be they other warlords or those who who are their victims) as the underpinning for the exchange of goods and services, there is no capitalism.

I'd have to say that you're right:  The problem is that this is not your perfect AnCap, but rather what happens once people with some greed and power get their hands on it.  It doesn't matter too much where the funding comes from, as long as it's sufficient fora group of people to decide to enforce their will on another group.  How do you think the concept of a government got started in the first place?  It doesn't matter that most people are willing to live peacefully and with respect for eachother, as long as there's a few that are willing to take what they want by force.

I agree with Rule about Somalia; like I said its not a perfect example.

But neither he nor you answered my other questions at the end of the post.  If there are no answers, thats fine; if the answers havent been come up with yet, thats fine too.

I just wish that someone would say so.  What is the state of the answers to my questions?

I have seen this example [of Somalia] given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.

I'd have to say that you're right:  The problem is that this is not your perfect AnCap, but rather what happens once people with some greed and power get their hands on it.  It doesn't matter too much where the funding comes from, as long as it's sufficient fora group of people to decide to enforce their will on another group.  How do you think the concept of a government got started in the first place?  It doesn't matter that most people are willing to live peacefully and with respect for eachother, as long as there's a few that are willing to take what they want by force.

The error here is in assuming that there is some "perfect" AnCap structure.  Utopia is not an option, and AnCap advocates repeat this almost ad nauseum.    Utopia is simply a "straw man" deployed by AnCap opponents to facilitate their otherwise weak arguments.

That being said, assume (an AnCap adherents do) that there are similar numbers of people who will act unethically in both AnCap and government-based societies.  Those individuals will seek out power and wealth in both cases and further they will engage in unethical behavior to gain it.  Those in government-based societies will tend, in large part, to be attracted to positions in (or close to) government, as (a) government is a nexus of power and wealth, and (b) the tools of government (specifically the license to threaten and/or use force) make it both easier and less obvious to take act unethically.   Further, as that power is gathered, one use will be to support those sympathetic to that approach, which means even more individuals who accept (and likely engage in)  the unethical uses of power.

Compare this to an AnCap society.  The unethical individuals in these societies will have a much wiser set of targets to attempt to infiltrate.  They may succeed to some degree; however, their unethical actions will be more difficult to camouflage as they look far less like acceptable behavior.  Further, since the points at which they attempt to gain such influence will be more diffuse, and it will be much more difficult for a "critical mass" of similar individuals to gather significant power.  That diffusion reduces both their ability to do so safely (since they will have far less insulation), and the tools for disempowering them will be greater, since those who object can simply avoid doing business with them, instead relying on their more ethical competitors.  Even should they be able to cobble together a monopoly, they will still be hampered by others entering the market at competitors and thus break the monopoly (or at least keep them from being "egregiously" unethical).

In both cases, of course, these unethical individuals may seek to use violent force.  In the government model, the use of such force may be camouflaged by the idea that the government has the sole authority to use such force -- a fact that the unethical will use to their advantage.  In the AnCap model, the use of such force will be met with the use of violent force in response -- a fact that will be well-known to those deciding to initiate it, and one which (without being able to fleece taxpayers to pay for or to give tacit support to) will be quite expensive to maintain.

This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

Also, how do you prevent collusion among companies?  It has been said that you just quit using one company and go their competitor.
But, what if all the companies in your three state region (would you really drive 3 states away to avoid high prices?) in one industry, say dairy products, had secretly colluded to raise prices and keep them high?
Obviously you cant prevent that in An-Cap, but what do you do if its happening?
Just accept whatever they want to charge?  Drive three states away just to get a lower price on a gallon of milk?

Okay, I don't know why I bother because it seems you either can not or will not learn, but here's an answer to this point: If all the milk producers in 3 states who were selling milk at, say, 3.00 FRN/gal suddenly decided to charge 10.00, and NOBODY broke the embargo, then no, you wouldn't drive 3 states away for a gallon of milk, you'd rent a 10,000 gallon refrigerated tank truck, drive to a fourth state, fill it up at 3.00, drive it back home and sell your milk for 4.00.

you'd rent a 10,000 gallon refrigerated tank truck, drive to a fourth state, fill it up at 3.00, drive it back home and sell your milk for 4.00.

And make a handsome profit while doing a good deed and flipping the gits the proverbial bird.
While i might not be a 'beliver' in AnCap, this idea realy makes me grin.

This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

I propose a small correction to this; "Everybody who chooses to 'enforces' the ZAP".  In any given situation no one obligated to enforce it, although the aggrieved party is quite likely to if the aggression is significant (sufficiently "small" aggressions are likely to be overlooked in many cases).  Also, no third party has the right to intervene without the permission of the aggrieved party (or at least one of the parties, if there is more than one) -- in an "emergency" one might well intervene before getting such permission, but it that permission is not subsequently given, the one intervening may have to compensate anyone harmed by the intervention.