if the turf system turns out to be profitable, then indeed could happen. i doubt that though, because pda-s like other companies are composed of civilised people and are all interested in expanding their business, which contradicts rigid borders.
Nonsense. In a highly political market, the PDAs would stick to serving a group of customers who are sympathetic to each other, who share the same culture, interests and customs (the PDA would probably be native as well). They would do this in order to reduce the risks, because when you're serving a widespread multidute of communities and groups, you run the risk of having your business sabotaged by political groups in areas unrelated to a conflict or dispute, and you also risk having your business seized by groups in areas where they take sides in political fights. So for instance, you have culture A, which has a dispute with culture B, and the dispute turns into a skirmish between their PDAs. Subsequently, the conflict escalates and spreads into other sympathetic communities. Now, imagine, one PDA serving both sides and how incredibly risky its situation would be. The PDAs would try to avoid developing so far and wide, instead they'd specialize in concentrating their services to one culture.
International PDAs would be marginal. Instead, PDAs, together with their customers, would form political and military alliances with others who they and their customers trust.
Indeed, the PDAs interests would be intricately tied with the interests of local regimes, cartels and turfs.
Instead of expanding alone, the PDA would support physically expanding the turf where they operate, again in order to minimize risk. The PDA would coax and co-operate with the local regimes in aggression.
Of course, in many cases, PDAs wouldn't even exist as such. Private regimes would simply rely on their own mercenary armies.
also the demand for different variations of defense services within an area could prevent a monopoly from forming.
Political coercion would guarantee a monopoly or a cartel.
further, there is no govnerning as such, it is just a service.
Yes, there is violent enforcement of private property, regimes and rules. Thus there would be politics and governance.
people generally dont want to surrender their freedom, which would be necessary for an areal monopoly to form.
Contractual relationships are not always voluntary. People can be forced to surrender their freedom in many situations.
to protect their increasing capital which needs more troops in proportion as they are attractive targets for counterattack.
Axiomatic: as capital expands, so does the military strength.
Guarding capital is elementary in warfare. In almost all wars, states have used more armed men to guard and protect bridges, roads, railroads, factories, warehouses and workshops than they have actually deployed into battle. But this is not inherent to powerful empires or powerful rich organizations, all societies in war must do so. Even the small.
In a highly political and volatile economy, anyone who wants to keep his economy secure, designs his capital deployment with potential conflicts in mind like medieval Europe where they built hundreds of thousands of castles and fortifications to protect their human and economic capital even in horrendous wars.
rich people have the most to lose if they are to organise aggression.
No. The small have the most to lose because they're weak. The rich and powerful will believe that they have greater risk and damage taking capacity if an aggressive business endeavour fails.
authoritarian state != ancap
The British Empire and the Roman Empire were private tyrannies; they were large, but private. In anarcho-capitalism, there’s no reason to assume that a private tyranny wouldn’t or couldn’t be authoritarian.
i meant as in retaliation and loss of one's own capital
War can be self-destructive, but it’s also very profitable, which is why it has been waged so much.
so the other people wont agree to use such arbitrators and will use those that have positive reviews, good reputations(the spread of which can only be limited with a totalitarian government)
No. They will become meaningless institutions. Paper machines at best. Perhaps capable of solving some minor cases occasionally, but the powerful could largely ignore them.
think you are overemphasizing this, the whole world isnt a gaza sector where radically different worldviews clash. and if they do, the police arent any better at solving that either. they never even go to the bad neighbourhoods of islamic france
Actually, the Federal Government and other governments have been capable of bringing down such cultural and social clashes. Savage traditions have been rooted out forcibly as they should.
But anyway, I am not overemphasizing it. In anarcho-capitalism, all the political institutions as we know them would be abolished. Politics, however, would never dissipate. The essence of politics would recontextualized in the private regimes and entities, which might develop into something like the warring Greek cities or petty monarchies in the medieval Germany, and then into a larger empires. Cultural and political barriers wouldn't probably dissipate; on the contrary, they'd be re-invigorated. The inevitable result would be a society that might organize against foreign aggression, but would wage war against itself even more. Soon you would have private regimes, gated communities and gated cities.
A good example of how culture influences the markets is the labour market. Despite government policies to open up the labour market, only approximately 20 % of jobs are advertised openly, thus only 20 % are open to somewhat unfettered competition. The rest 80 % of jobs are filled by the employer through informal links and associations, i.e. through a market that is distorted by various people's personal biases and preferences. Some employer knows a guy who knows another (white) dude who can do good accounting. Or, someone looks for a job and knows someone who knows an employer (a good Muslim) who might hire. In these sorts of situations, the cultural barriers are a major obstacle to success for people of different ethnic and cultural background. So there's no one vast human resources centre where an employer/potential employee can go shopping. (So the libertarian argument against anti-discrimination laws also fails.)
uneconomical, even one lost trained troop costs a lot(after all, it takes good competitive paychecks and insurance to attract soldiers in the first place,training,insurance,
First of all, there’s no reason to assume that soldiers cost a lot. There are hardy third world folks who can shoot a gun for hundred bucks. And due to the rush to the bottom, extreme inequality would permeate in an anarcho-capitalist society; many mercenaries wouldn’t afford to demand fancy insurance or pay. Furthermore, some communities could have conscription or a citizen militia system.
falling morale among troops as theyre against aggression)
This is merely an assumption. There are mercenaries in history that had no qualms with conquering other nations. One good example of this is the great moral hero of Spartacus. When he served in the Roman army, he had no qualms about serving in the Roman slaughter machine and conquering alien peoples for the Empire. But only when the Empire ordered him to turn on his own folks, he deserted, but was captured and sold to slavery.
Also, normal people can do hideous atrocities as well. People participating in the holocaust believed it was the right thing to do. Some of the worst atrocities of the colonial empires were committed by conscript soldiers. Yet, however, popular pressures forced governments to humanize their policies, not capitalists or traders.
, which is hard to offset with any gains; and free gun trade is the great equalizer, moving risks further up.
Doubtful: it will mostly make wars incredibly more destructive; gun trade already has empowered third world tribes to engage in aggression they could have only dreamed of previously. And no, contrary to the popular myth, an armed population will not stop an organized army. An army will always overcome a mob (and before you say anything, the Taliban isn’t a mob, nor were they cheap relative to the US since they’ve built up their military capital with the several year long repression of an entire nation).
while its nearly impossible to make a profit in an area where people have risen to arms against oppressors,
No, many have profited from war. You have yet to explain really how the war could be unprofitable since I’ve already explained how it can be.
there is no former bureaucratic power to take over that would simplify the process of controlling people.
Yes there will likely be something. There would be the previous private regime’s offices, infrastructure, camps and so forth. The private regime would also have to know identities of whoever it trades with.
(and why would those who already have a great successful business and money take such an UNECONOMICAL, as i specified above,risk).
There are thousands of plausible scenarios. First of all assuming that these mercenary riff raff will work like a firm, businesses do have an incentive to expand: they’re profit seeking entities after all since they likely to serve shareholders or allies. For example, a private regime might be facing gradually diminishing returns, bad investments, but has plenty of ready men and weapons in inventory. One day it might decide to make literal hostile takeover of few businesses.
with free gun trades a retaliation is extremely easy(rocket launcher aimed at rich bastard's skyscrapers to create terror like in israel)
The only reason why Israel won’t wipe Gaza off the face of the Earth is because of the decency of Israel's population and its collaborator state's population as well. US Israeli governments are quite corrupt in this issue and if they could summon an all out, solve-it-once-and-for-all kind of operation, they could ethnically cleanse not just Gaza but the West Bank. But the governments probably wouldn't survive.
breaks contract -> loses respect from other clients who choose different pda-s instead -> bancrupcy
Again, there can be countless of scenarios to contradict this line of logic. It might not even be a PDA, but a bundled company with multiple services (even thousands of different names all over the world).
centralised military bueraucracy being unprepared.. and sure they control the oceans, at what cost? the insane burden on taxpayers in return for crappy services and spend-o-mania is a joke
It’s about 4 % of the GDP, which is not very much. If you could scratch the corrupt contractors, stupid cold war projects, reduce useless nuclear arsenal, and stuff like that, you can further reduce it defense spending in proportion to GDP.
With roughly 2-4 % of US GDP, the US can control all of the world’s oceans and can project power into almost any crisis zone. That’s not terribly inefficient. Whether or not it’s worth it is another issue. It might not be.
biggest business freedom, no corrupted government business deals -> WAY HARDER to form monopolies, let alone make a profit at military aggression.
No, with ready access to violent enforcement, a cartel would easily expand.
Cartelization would occur rapidly. Companies would have the incentive to form a cartel because it would reduce competition and increase certainty for the capitalists. Now, the libertarian objection to this argument is: well, if they jack up prices, other companies will be formed to replace them and the cartel will disintegrate. While I think that line of reasoning has been refuted: usually technological, skill and economic scale barriers will prevent the quick formation of new companies in easily cartelized lines of business. And the cartel could respond by lowering prices temporarily, this bankrupting the competitors in their infancy. Of course, when prices are naturally high, the cartel will be weakened, but when they drop, the cartel will be reconsolidated again: thus, perhaps, creating a cyclical effect.
But in anarcho-capitalism, several private entities, perhaps united by culture and sympathies, will gather and form a cartel. In anarcho-capitalism, these cartels would also invite private PDAs to act as their enforcers or they’d form their own military, perhaps under some pretext. Thus, they could not only remove competitors from business, they could enforce their own law and protections. The population would be forced to purchase the goods of the cartel. Furthermore, they could remove competing Medias, and replace them with Cartel propaganda.
As for the other rival PDAs, they’d be impoverished when the businesses and communities they serve are sabotaged by the cartel’s subversion. Eventually, assuming they're international PDAs, they’d abandon the communities because of the extreme risk involved in protecting the weak and the poor in face of a much more powerful enemy. If they're local PDAs, they'd probably surrender.
As for the Cartel's trade relations. they could be reformed. The cartel might buy the loyalty of other private regimes through shared loot and spoils, through guaranteed privilieges in the annexed markets, or just through plain bribes. Also, often cultural and political symphaties could also work in consolidating alliance and trade relations regionally and abroad. And as for reputation. There would be a huge PR business as I explained already.
u coerce the forces u use to coerce? circular argument anyone?
This not a circular argument, absolutely not. You can coerce in a contractual relationship through the use of a disciplinary system. And sometimes this has been taken to the extreme: for example, many ancient phalanxes just placed foreign mercenaries and fresh recruits in the middle line, so that they could hacked down by experienced and more trustworthy mercenaries and soldiers placed in the back should they attempt to flee.
In modern armies, you could devise all sort of disciplinary methods.
Also a rogue firm from outside the state might be employed in making fake terrorist attacks against the new state, to convince people that the government is simply protecting its citizens against outside threats with the new rules and regulations. And that the invasions are simply to get rid of alleged terrorists. I think this excuse might already be used by someone in the real world... 
Basically people value their lives and even their comfort much more than (total) freedom. The brave and valiant resistors to corporate tyranny simply do not exist in the amounts that are necessary for an-cap to work properly. Even if they did, I still think coercion would win out in the end. But it would be much harder. However, this 'real' world is the only one we have, and you haven't yet demonstrated how this magical freedom-loving spirit would be instilled in the people. Like I said, I cannot think of a way for it to develop, other than just assuming that it already exists.
