There are several ways of creating an anarcho-capiatalist society out there.
One hundred fifty years ago, when monarchies were popular, the only thing needed to be done was convincing the king about anarcho-capitalism. This is a top-down reform.
It would have been necessary only to force the king to declare that from now on, every citizen would be free to choose his own protector, and pledge allegiance to any government that he wanted. That is, the king would no longer presume to be anyone’s protector, unless this person had asked him, and met his prize that the king would have asked for such service.
What would have happened in this case?
Everyone, upon this declaration, would have regained his unrestricted right to self-defense, and would have been free to decide if he wanted more or better protection than that afforded by self-defense, and if so, where and from whom to secure this protection. Most people in this situation undoubtedly would have chosen to take advantage of the division of labor, and rely, in addition to self-defense, also on specialised protectors.
It is safe to say that no one would have considered an elected parliament up to this task. Instead, almost everyone would have turned for help to one or more of three places: either the king himself, who is now no longer a monopolist; or a regional or local noble, magnate, or aristocrat; or a regional, national, or even international operating insurance company.
Other great way was described by Hoppe.
Since the world no longer consists of monarchies and instead cluttered by democracies, top-down method is no longer possible. President does not longer exercise ultimate governing authority as head of state and head of government. Even if he’d declared something like that, congress / parliament / whatever may ban the law.
So, in democratic world one should use democratic means of achieving the goal. Local democratic methods without violence, that’s it. It is much easier to win elections in a small area (city, region) rather than country-wide.
- The hardest part is converting the majority of voters in one small area to libertarianism. There are some moves in that direction currently — for example, Free state project. Then, winning an election by libertarian candidate is just a matter of time.
- The first central plank of one’s platform should be: one must attempt to restrict the right to vote on local taxes, in particular on property taxes and regulations, to property and real estate owners. Only property owners must be permitted to vote, and their vote is not equal, but in accordance with the value of the equity owned, and the amount of taxes paid.
- Further, all public employees—teachers, judges, policemen—and all welfare recipients, must be excluded from voting on local taxes and local regulation matters. These people are being paid out of taxes and should have no say whatsoever how high these taxes are.
- In this government funding crisis which breaks out once the right to vote has been taken away from the mob, as a way out of this crisis, all local government assets must be privatised.
- An inventory of all public buildings, and on the local level that is not that much—schools, fire, police station, courthouses, roads, and so forth—and then property shares or stock (which can be freely traded) should be distributed to the local private property owners in accordance with the total lifetime amount of taxes—property taxes—that these people have paid.
These steps will surely limit the size of government and reach of possible future reforms which reverse steps.
Since government stuff will be privately owned, it is likely that many public employees will be fired. Then, many will re-join their job sector as private employees.
This in particular includes judges and police. Protection, security, defense, law, order, and arbitration in conflicts can and must be supplied competitively—that is, entry into the field of being a judge must be free. Democratic protection monopoly in particular must be rejected as a moral and economic perversity.