About the only level it works at is local, which can work fairly well based on what happened in Spain prior to the Civil War it had. Any bigger and it melts into shit as an ideology.
. How could that even work? "We won't fight and there'll be no political authoritative apparatus to protect our interests. What could go wrong?"
EDIT: a bit off topic but my wanderings in Wikipedia alerted me to the existence of anarcho-pacifism which is just
EDIT: a bit off topic but my wanderings in Wikipedia alerted me to the existence of anarcho-pacifism which is just
I can't speak to the differences between different schools of thought among anarcho-capitalists, but for the most part, any branch of anarchism evolved in opposition to communism. Communal anarchists oppose MLM theories of establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, and especially the Leninist notion of an intelligentsia-based vanguard designed to 'awaken' the revolutionary drive of the lower classes; any form of top down/centralized/rigid government institution building is the enemy.
Pretty sure anarcho-capitalists are anti-communes and anti-pacifism (at least the types capped in these threads, again, I'm sort of out of my depth on this end of the spectrum), it branches out of individualist anarchism which has some pacifist (even Christian) roots in Russia, but it's more every-man-for-themselves shit, and they assume that people/potential dictators won't fuck with others, or won't be able to because everyone else would fuck with them right back because everyone would be more or less armed and isolationist.
It was a government-chartered (and later government-controlled) company with a monopoly on force in the region, so they'll probably dismiss any criticism of anarcho-capitalism invoking the East India Company on its face.
If they were Hobbesians, they wouldn't be anarchists or even minarchists. Hoppe might be one of the exceptions to that, but since he endorses monarchy and supports some pretty statist policies (e.g., immigration restriction), I highly doubt that he'd even qualify as an anarchist. He and his ilk are closer to neoreactionaries (many draw their ideas and arguments from him) and some other alt-rightists than most ancaps.
Objectivists are explicitly minarchists and support a state, but objectivism is very rigid and authoritarian for an ideology that claims to allow for the greatest expression of free will. According to objectivism (or Rand's version of it, at least), charity is wrong because it enables parasites, and Israel should be supported above the surrounding Arab states because it's civilized while they aren't. Many people who claim to be "objectivists" are not objectivists but either simple minarchists or ancaps. That being said, I've seen a lot of people get nutty over objectivism. I remember a stupid Internet argument in which someone called his opponent an "objectivist" simply because they supported school vouchers. The latter mentioned that they were Catholic, any religion at all being anathema to objectivism.
I was thinking more in the sense of Hobbes' conception of human nature but you're right, it's not really what the term invokes at first thought. Sorry for any confusion.
