Debating about things os one of the ways to learn more about something. And i always like to debate about topics that are thoughtful to learn more about It, and in the process generate something better. That How dialetics Works.
And assuming what you dont know is more than the right way. And i ask because i dont know either. And i like the anarchy Idea, but i cant see a way that it would work.
But here is my thoughts:
Too many regulations kill the market/competition
Too little regulations kill the consumer.
Based on what i know, the central Idea would be that the market regulates itself.
But here is a real world example:
Small local foodstores/market were pretty normal and each neighborhood had their own local market. Small business, low revenue good enough for the owners to have some profit.
Then come Walmart. A Company that started small, an inteligent owner, gets big, and start to cannibalize the market, with really low prices, because got big enough to get cheap deals from the suppliers.
Ok, so far, normal competition.
But, the way Walmart aggressively grows, he doesnt brake none of the 2 rules.
It is Just big enough and have enough cash to sell with low prices with temporary losses for time enough to kill all the competition around.
This is called dumping. At this moment there is market regulations that forbid the dumping to allow a Fair playfield on the market(It may still happen, but, It is against the current law)
What i think would happen on acap? They would Just keep dumping everywhere they entered, rise the prices when there is no competition, and when somebody try to enter the market, they have enough funds to dump the price again until the New competition dies again.
This have been done in the past, and thats why antitrust, antimonopoly, antidumping laws appeared.
All markets are easily manipulated with enough money.
When you have a state, it is harder for you to establish a company and get all the authorization for everything for selling alcohol, food, etc.). But not in 1880s in the US:
I can use the Standard Oil example. They controlled 90-95% of all oil production in the US. They were trying to use some practices to destroy its rivals. But as soon as they set the price higher, the some rivals appeared on the market again.
This is an endless circle. You set high price, you have more rivals. In the ancap the rivals would appear instantly, because all you have to have is just the product you want to sell.
Walmart is a great example. But why is that so bad when they would have so big percentage on the market (and there is definitely not just Walmart who is big)? People like when they are able to buy everything on one place where you can find maybe everything. The department stores are the same. But when the price is so high, many people will notice and care it is high and they will buy it somewhere else. If the price is too high it would instantly motivate someone to produce those things.
Many people will always buy food in the small local foodstores, because here in many cases they know what they are buying.
So, I just think that in the free market, the rivals will response much faster than in the "state market". When Wallmart sets lower prices, it is OK for consumers. When the prices are higher, the competition will respond to that much faster.
There wouldnt be bureaucracy difficultying the process If creating a New Business but what about running the business?
A player big enough would buy almost all the suppliers production in the area.
Then comes a New Guy, tries to buy from that supplier a small quantity to start his business, then the big Guy say that If he sell to the small, he wont buy anything from them anymore ( wich could be 90% of the production)
The supplier now refuse to sell to the New Guy or he Will Go bankrupt. Then the New Guy never get competitive prices.
What happens if the big player buy almost all the suppliers production in the area? The price of the food will go higher. What happens if the price of the food go higher? It will be more profitable for people to start a business in food producing, so more people will have a business in food producing, so the price will stabilize itself.
If the big player buy almost all of the food again, more people will start a business in this area.
When a New Guy tries to buy from supplier a small quantity he will have someone from whom he will buy (but the price is too high) or not, so he might start a business in food producing (not just selling it).
You can't force everyone to sell just to you. And even if you somehow do this, new suppliers will start business because of this.
If you look again at the Standard Oil example, you would know, that they were using dumping of price, too. But the result was just that they make oil more affordable for everyone. If they buy everything from the rivals and then they set price higher, the only result was that new rivals came instantly to the market.
Why was that? Because in 1880s there was a (more or less) free market in this area. But if you have many regulations, the New Guy cannot become a supplier instantly, so the market will stabilize itself after a long time and these practices can be profitable for the big player.