Sunday, May 28, 2017



I have decided to post this book without reference to chapter order. This is the internet and there is no rule that says order must be determined in advance. Chapters and their Parts will just be written. When there is enough of them they will be compiled, ordered, and published as a paperback book.

Moreover, I am not even going to name it yet. The name will be determined later, or never.

This is just a thought experiment, and not a manifesto. In my ongoing attempt to understand political systems, I am working through various iterations of political design. Each of these designs is an attempt to solve some crucial flaw in systems designed by others. First democracy was redesigned as exitocracy, which attempted to solve the problem no exit. As a convention of limited warfare, democracy is a contest where the troops show up to be counted. Sometimes it breaks down into open conflict. Exitocracy attempted to correct this factional problem with only partial success. But the new design introduced a greater flaw than it solved. In the end, a monarchical federal super-structure was imported to compensate for a conflict-prone local design. Inevitably, this structure would undermine the objectives it was designed to achieve. I therefore consider it to be a failure.

Now comes a second iteration of design. Many of these elements here can be used in a reactionary state irregardless of whether of not the anarcho capitalist program is kept. It was my desire to show that a pure capitalist society could be formed realistically. Thus I imported and corrected flaws in the design of David Friedman's private law society, and subordinated it within a licencing state that controls an army. It is my desire to show that a reactionary society could be practically constructed within the boundaries of anarcho capitalism. I also wanted to show that capitalism is not a monolithic thing, and that other forms are possible. I believe I have succeeded in both tasks. For those who do not know, anarcho capitalism is a system where private police agencies deliver rights enforcement within a market framework.

"Freedom" is such a relative thing: I am sure that some people would find what I am proposing here immensely freeing. Although I confess to having reservations about it. Whatever the case, it is certainly more practical than before. Anyhow, I present this second design for your consideration.



Our Human Destiny
Feedback Loops
Formalize Everything

The Executive Licensing Corporation

Components, including;
     The College of Leadership Indoctrination
     The Identity Easement (or turf) Market,
     The Family Easement Market
     The System for Retirees, Veterans, and Disabled
          Pensions, property in children, competitive bureaucracy
Part 2.
     The Zoning Market
     The Executive Compensation System
     The Reproduction Licensing Market
     The Patriarchal Welfare State
Part 3.
     The Governance Marketplace, or licensed anarcho-capitalist private law society
          Two methods: 1, 2
     Investigation System, Assassination Insurance System
     The Consumer Purchasing Unions

Our Human Destiny

Everything that is not capitalism will be destroyed by capitalism.

It is useless to resist. Fascists and communists alike have had their asses kicked. Progressives and reactionaries will have their asses kicked in the future. Humanities only salvation is to merge with the machine. We must be incorporated into it. Refuse and die.

The market is a natural selection machine that acts on the bodies of corporations. Like sex and asexual reproduction before it, it is a filtration machine for producing more effective machines. Wherein conventional life uses three processes for evolution; reproduction, mutation, and death, capitalism uses three processes for development; entrepreneurial spirit, technological development, and bankruptcy. The corporation is an organism made of humans like the body is made of cells.

An individual trying to control the corporation is like a cell trying to control the body. The way to control capitalism is to go one level above it — to design new markets (ecologies) that it (the corporate/organism body) inhabits. Since markets constitute a form of ecological selection pressure system, or filter, markets can be designed to perform actions as an automatic outcome of their filtering nature; the kinds of property rights they inhabit produce the selection forces that evolve the corporate machine. Since all governments are pozzed by corporations, true governance comes through designing the forces of selection themselves. This is done by inventing the markets/ecologies that bend and guide the bodies/corporations towards new evolutionary paths; in other words, control that which controls you by controlling the forces of natural selection it is subjected to. We will counter-pozz capitalism by infecting it with humanity.

People fail to realize a completely obvious fact: there are multiple species of capitalism. The property forms of a market system determine its behavior and values. The state enforces the values of property rights, but in turn, market values enforce themselves upon the state. Thus, the state is "pozzed" by capitalism — by the values embodied in its own property systems.

Consider the case of North Korea. As they posses no real private property the culture differs markedly from the hyper-materialism of its southern twin. But the absence of private property makes it incredibly poor. Thus, the state uses forced isolation to prevent the people from realizing the extent of their economic disadvantage. Vast amounts of force and indoctrination are brought brought to bear in order to prevent the people from realizing, and thus agitating for, private property rights. This is foolish since the correct way to implement communism is to invent an egalitarian property rights system: that is, a system where equal outcomes tend to be the automatic consequence of property use rules within market games. Then the values of egalitarianism act naturally through the market itself, and the government is co-opted by egalitarian values instead of materialistic ones.


Market formalism encodes reactionary values into capitalism by creating new property rights, (Property rights are possessive moral values enforced by state violence). The overwhelming force of globalism is little more than the selection pressure of its forms of property rights. The kinds of things that are defined as property rights dictate the embodied moral values of the system. There are capitalism(s) — plural, and what we have today can be called either parasitical capitalism, democratic capitalism, or maybe even autogenocidal capitalism. In contrast, what is proposed here is reactionary capitalism, or family capitalism. This is not a socialism or fascism, but a society based on a set of newly invented property rights. Since these new rights define new material values for a culture, they produce a new ecology/market for corporations to evolve under. They alter the environment and its selection effects, creating various evolutionary pressures for capitalism to evolve in a different direction. And they impose a new set of moral values which then seep into the mentality of the state. This is important because a set of property values that is at odds with a reactionary state will corrupt its morals and convert the state into a globalist regime.

What a society defines as property — and what it doesn't, defines it material values. Think about it: property is a moral agreement that the state enforces by violence. Nothing but the invention of new markets will allow you to escape being pozzed by globalism. It's morals are embodied in its property arrangements.

The only way to control neoliberal globalism is to hack it. And the only way to hack it is with new markets for all the things it does not currently value: community, family, tribe, race, ecology, genetics. To think a single lone monarch without a system to back him up could control this thing is to vastly underestimate its strength. For a thing to be valued it must be property. Democratic parasitical capitalism destroys the race, heritage, tribe, and ecology of a people precisely because it does not define these things as assets, and whatever it cannot profit from it cannot value. It does this because the parasitical and egalitarian nature of democracy allows some property rights while prohibiting others. Democracy will not let you define race as property because of "equality."

Everything political can be defined as a property right. If we perform this exercise we get an interesting list of property rights for capitalism under democracy: that is, for the democratic variant.

1. Affirmative Action, (parasitical property in job quotas)
2. Bonds, (property in debt)
3. Constitutions/Tort, (property in rights)
4. Contract, (property in agreements)
5. Frivolous Lawsuits, (property right to harass for economic rents)
6. Futures, (property in hedging risk)
7. Illegal Immigrants, (slave property in votes and wage suppression)
8. Insurance, (property in risk compensation)
9. Licences, (property in artificial supply constraint)
10. Marriage, (property in sex for men and resources for women)
11. Money, (property in other people’s work)
12. Patents, (monopoly property in ideas)
13. Real estate, (property in land/ houses)
14. Stocks, (property in corporations)
15. Title, (property in objects)
16. Trademarks, (monopoly property in creativity)
17. Votes, (equal property in a parasitical government)
18. Vouchers, (parasitical property in services paid for by a third party)
19. Welfare, (parasitical property in exchange for votes)

Observe some things: first, not all of these property rights exist everywhere. Not all countries have a version of 1, 5, 7, 15 (for land), 17, 18, or 19. Observe also that some of these property forms are parasitical in nature, that is, they depend on another supplying the productive capacity. (All parasitical forms of property are underlined.) Observe also that 7 is a form of de facto slavery within democracy. And lastly, notice that three forms of property that existed in feudalism are extinct. Those being;

A. Royal title (property in inheritable and transferable job titles)
B. Direct slavery (direct property in humans)
C. Barony (land title paid for with military service)

Reactionary capitalism does not have 1, 5, 7, or 17. It adds other forms of property instead, including;

20. Protection from force, (anarcho capitalist property in self-defense)
21. Identity, (property in race preservation, tribe preservation, and family clan preservation)
22. Zoning, (property in space use)
23. Extinction of barbarians, (property in nonviolent genetic improvement)
24. Private relationship contracts, (property in relationships)
25. Pollution mitigation, (property in solving ecological problem solving)
26. Scheduling, (property in traveling arrival times)
27. Family, (property in proximity to loved ones)
28. Tax offsets, (property in solving social problems)

This is what makes it reactionary.

Feedback Loops

The second reason to convert everything to a market is to eliminate feedback loops between the state and its client populations, supporters, and agencies. Nations acquire loops of money and power that feed on each other and grow. The ideology that supports these feedback loops then grows to support it. It takes on the character necessary to support the power that it serves, since ideology is just marketing for power. Let us go through some examples.

The defense industry gives campaign contributions to candidates for high office, including presidential frontrunners. The Presidents then support wars that enrich the defense contractors. The ideology that supports this feedback loop is called "democratization."

The democratic party gives affirmative action jobs to its client minorities. Minorities give votes to the democratic party. The ideology used to justify this is victimhood, and the blaming of the White race. The ideology necessarily grows more shrill every year even as the actual abuses of bigotry grow less real every day. This is because as the feedback loop grows it necessarily requires ever more blame to sustain itself. 

The pattern continues through everything the state does. Lawyers receive payouts from frivolous lawsuits and give campaign contributions to politicians. Ideologies like feminism provide the excuse for things like unnecessarily strict sexual harassment laws that generate revenue for attorneys. The vague nature of law is deliberate: it generates revenue for attorneys, and most congressman are lawyers.

The Democrats bring in illegal immigrants in exchange for votes. They then form a second feedback loop with their business clients who receive increased labor supply, wage suppression, and illegal immigrant slave labor in exchange for contributions to the party. The ideology to justify the perversity is anti-racism.

City politicians deliver restrictions on housing development. This increases housing prices. In exchange home owners deliver votes for reelection. The ideology to justify this feedback loop is environmentalism and "green spaces."

College subsidies are exchanged for the votes of college students under the guise of compassion. Union busting proceeds in exchange for campaign contributions in the name of a "right to work" laws. Campaign contribution are exchanged for favorable legislation because "money is free speech." Not reforming Social Security is exchanged for votes. Corn subsides are exchanged for contributions. It goes on and on. There is an ideology to support each one. People repeatedly argue against the ideology. This is foolishness. Ideology is an effect of power and not its cause. The correct strategy is to destroy the source of income that fuels it.

In a republic the sovereign power is divided. This creates a large number of competing actors in the system who are capable of forming feedback loops with client populations. Feedback loops cause state growth, which eventually grows to levels the underlying economy cannot support. Since the trick to a long-lived state is to minimize feedback loops, the plan of market formalism is to delegate all the functions of a bureaucracy to various markets. This minimizes the number of key supporters that power depends on, maximizes economic growth, generates a large revenue relative to the work invested, and allows power to reward his key supporters generously. It also creates freedom for the average man on the street. Most people will perceive themselves to be free because market formalism provides a vast amount of choice, since all law is privatized under a governance marketplace. (A system similar to anarcho capitalism).

Formalize Everything

The basic idea of formalism is that if the outcome of all conflict is known in advance then no actor will have any incentive to engage in violence. One method of delivering formalism is to simply guarantee that any conflict will be punished with an overwhelming amount of force that completely nullifies any advantage. But total war destroys capital and income for the state. Governments will be reluctant to use harsh techniques. And being perceived as unjust increases levels of insurrection. Greater brutality can breed greater resistance, escalating security costs, destroying trust, and toppling the government.

The second method is to gamify all conflict. It is far superior. This gives the actors the chance of winning nonviolently. It rewards the smartest rather than the most violent, and it captures revolutionary energies. This is our method.

The formalization of everything into the market converts all potential violence into market action. All is formalized as a game. It eliminates the ability of hierarchies to co-opt and subvert the power. All bureaucracies are forced to compete for business. This compels them to perform with competence. All aspects of human nature are provided for by the market, absorbing all discontent. The need for tribalism is provided by the market, eliminating ethnic conflict. Everything is formalized, ending all violence. All prestige games are provided for, destroying all revolutionary energies. All sexual reproduction is controlled, causing convergence with capitalism and closing genetic rift. All religions are commodified, annihilating the ones that won't play nice. All morals become brand management, punishing mere virtue signaling.

All competing power centers are democratized. All competing production centers are mutualized. All competing wealth is socialized. All executive pay is unionized. All firms are made to compete. All legal codes are made to compete. All bureaucracies are forced to compete. All government services are voucherized. All tribalism is subordinated. Market formalism is a system of total class warfare through gamification.

Everything that isn't the state is reduced to abject powerlessness within capitalism, and as much of the state as possible is converted into the private sector.

All markets are ultimately based on violence. If a stranger attempts to build a house on ones front lawn the trespasser is evicted. Property rights are secured by violence. The complete predictability of that security eliminates all violence by making the outcome of conflict known in advance to all would-be trespassers. Through formalization, violence and politics are destroyed. Gamification results. Success in the new system then becomes a matter of intelligence optimization rather than bullying, struggle, or other human monkey games. One wins by being superior at playing the game, and not by parasitism, theft, thuggery or politicking. The effect is a just discrimination against all the parasites in society. Order is imposed and civilization progresses.

Here we will provide an outline of that society, and the design of a new form of government that replaces nearly all aspects of the state with various capital markets. This is a form of licensed anarcho capitalism. We recognize that a pure form of anarcho capitalism is probably unrealistic at this point. Competing private police agencies would war with one another until one was superior. But a licensed system where all private police agencies are paid by state vouchers is imminently practical. There is no reason that a competitive bureaucracy cannot deliver all functions of the state within a market framework. The name we will give to this system is market formalism.


The Executive Licencing Corporation

In Moldbug's design a sovereign corporation, or sovcorp, is a business that owns a country, issues shares, and is governed by a CEO and board of directors. A market formalist state is essentially the same thing, except that is is vastly larger, (think the size of the Continental US), and instead of directly running everything it subcontracts out the whole operation to a market of contractors that compete with each other for its vouchers.

It is an alternate path for what feudalism would have become if it had continued uninterrupted by the revolutions of demotism.

The Executive Licencing Authority, or ELA, is a licencing agency that maintains a monopoly on military force. It regulates the entire society through a system of markets. The nation is a simple design: the federal government is the ELA. Rather than dividing its territory up in space, it divides it by market. Under feudalism, land was a proxy for genetic investment, allowing families to invest in their children through the gift of natural resources. In Reactionary Capitalism, the investment in ones people and family takes a more direct form.

The ELA commands the military forces of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, Nuclear Command, and Gendarmerie. It also had Regional Offices for the administration of its market regulations, and a system of competitive promotion from within. There are of course intelligence services, and other state agencies, as well as local utilities and trash pickup.

We will get to the internal construction of the SLC later, because unlike a republic, a market formalist state does not determine its own laws. It leaves that to the governance marketplace. All it does is regulate the market and command the armed forces. As such, it needs a form of federal government that is as resistant to corruption as possible, and as laissez faire as is reasonable.

Component # 1, The College of Leadership Indoctrination

Purpose: to maintain ideological sovereignty
Method: a college that controls all others,
and is controlled by the SLC.

Orphans are recruited from orphanages at age 14 and put through a series of schools and military boot camps until the reach the age of 18. Once adults, the ones among them that show the most promise are sent to the College of Leadership Indoctrination. They are given a rigorous education into the state doctrine. The ones who show the strictest commitment to the principles of the revolution are recruited out of college and placed in jobs with the Competitive Bureaucracy. If a person shows competence there, and unwavering dedication to the principles of the nation, then they are advanced to higher levels until they reach the executive strata.

Component # 2, The Identity Easement (or turf) Market,
and The Family Easement Market

Purpose: to force capitalism to value the race
Second purpose: to end racial violence by
formalizing it as a market game
Method: a market for racial space

Trade inculcates a value system that encourages the codification of human beings. The tendency to treat so many things as commodities bleeds over into treating people as that way. The result is alienation and degradation. People begin to see others as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.

In its present form, capitalism tends to convert the world into one vast fungible strip mall of standardized things and standardized people. This threatens the ability of human being to form tribes, clans, and even family units. Capitalism refuses to pay for the reproduction of its own workers and consumers. It does not price the work of the stay-at-home mother, just like it does not price environmental degradation. What capitalism cannot price it cannot respect; even worse, what it cannot profit from it cannot value. Property is a moral code that is assigned to an object. It is a moral that a society is willing to use police violence to defend. When something is defined as property, society is saying "this thing can only be controlled by a certain person, its owner, and we will us violence to ensure that." Thus, property is violence assigned to an object as a moral imperative. It is the last remaining tribal ritual, the ritual on which the market is built. It is a moral code made manifest as a hyperstition. In other words, it is a thing willed into being by belief. What a society defines as property is naturally the highest moral code in that society, since it is defended by violence of the state. Thus, the invention of new forms of property is the invention of new morals, new markets, and new corporate ecologies.

New Property Rights

A person can purchase an easement from a corporation that places their property within a category of identity. It is enforced by the state under contract law. Let us say the identity is "vegans," since this is a relatively inoffensive example of a type. Through this act the object is taken out of the multicultural market of world capitalism and placed into a sub-market of its easement category: in this case vegans. Any identity can be crafted; Christians, atheists, gays, progressives, Black Mormons, mothers with children, White libertarians, Whites themselves, whatever. This creates various sub-markets within capitalism of trade only within those communities of shared values/identities.

A condition of identity is defined as a legally binding condition that can be placed on a property. Every successive owner of the property must abide by whatever bylaws are attached to the identity and must be a member of the identity. An identity specifies first, whom may own the property; the property can only be traded among people with that identity, and whatever basic standards of conduct are in place, (bylaws), apply to it.

The individual can sign themselves into an identity category but only the controllers of that category can release them from that condition. An identity category is basically a type of privately owned easement. The contract instrument may specify a time limit or methods of withdraw. Indeed, to attract people to sign, the businesses that own these easements will need to give certain guarantees to property owners. The identity business owns the easement, not the property it entails.

What this allows for is the creation of stable ethnic enclaves and identity-based communities. Conventionally, the creation of identity-based communities is done either though gentrification, (the White method), ghettoization, (the minority method), or simply domination of the space through numbers, (like Asian communities). Gentrification is based on monetary exclusion while ghettoization is based on violence and "attitude" (intimidation) towards Whites.
Humans are going to segregate themselves. All aspects of the system which are not formalized create black markets. Human nature cannot be suppressed. People self-segregate even when they are allowed to integrate. Suppression of human nature is impossible, and political orientations that seek to suppress human nature are irrational, totalitarian, and insane. There is always an ideological justification for these irrational attempts at prohibition, and it is always wrong. The cause of suppressing human nature is always the same: meat robots (human beings) believe what they are told, and they are told by insane human robots that equality prohibits reality. As a result, nations wage impossible wars against drugs, alcohol, pornography, abortion, discrimination, and segregation. Prohibition never works.

Because all non-formalized systems create black markets, and because all black markets create crime and violence, rational governance dictates the formalization of discrimination. Furthermore, humans secretly crave tribes. It is impossible to have an "interior" without having an excluded Other. The left proves this by excluding and censoring conservative voices. Everything is tribal.

There are three essential methods of negotiating a conflict of identities; They are, authority, compromise, and markets. Authority is the king, dictator, or local jackboot. Compromise is politics and democracy — a kind of government where you are supposed to consent to be oppressed by the majority. Markets are the only true way to accommodate both the diversity of identities and the desire for segregation that those identities entail. Just give people what they want and stop being a prig tyrant. It's easier.

Brand Management
and Ethical Concerns

Placing ones property under an easement controlled by an identity corporation carries some risk involved. Joining an actual tribe, complete with internecine warfare, carries far more risk. Joining a movement of homo sapiens that seeks political action makes one a part of the madness of group politics, and carries a risk to oneself, and a parasitical risk to society. The only risk to oneself under a property easement is a possible reduction in property values as a result of the easement.

This is a matter of brand management. If an easement reduces property values then no one will want to join it. People will only be willing to sign these identity easement agreements if they are convinced that it will enhance their property values, or, if they judge the value of membership to be so great they are willing to reduce their property values as a trade-off. Additionally, nothing stops the market from providing an exit clause for these types of agreements in the advent that an identity brand is tarnished and property values decline. Indeed, competition between identity easement firms will undoubtedly make such a feature standard.

So the identity easement converts the violence and politics of tribalism into the management of a brand and its reputation. Any violence, such as gang violence, reduces the value of a brand by lowering property values. Communities based on identity will want to maintain a high reputation, expel criminals, and promote their brand of identity. Going back to our non-controversial example, a community of vegans will seek to promote their lifestyle and maintain a sparkling reputation. As a result, a violent tribal game is converted into a prestige game — a game of virtue signaling. This absorbs the revolutionary energies of the very types of people who would otherwise agitate against the state, protest, and cause havoc — the energies of leftists.

The market itself polices ethical concerns. Every community so constructed needs to maintain its reputation. This is the capitalistic equivalent of the feudal lord who has an image to maintain. Image has a habit of being internalized into morality so as to reduce the burden of cognitive dissonance. The need to look respectable has a habit of making most people behave more respectably. And so while the market maintains the ethics of these non-violent tribes through competition, the tribes themselves maintain the ethics of their members. The result is a market for virtue, instead of for mere virtue signaling. This compels the ultra Calvinist to actually behave himself.

The tribes then compete on prestige non-violently, each seeking to raise their brand value, and market capitalization. The nasty politics of identity has been transformed into the market behavior of status competition between tribes.

The Identity Market Formalizes "Turf,"
Ending Gang Warfare, and Outrageous Housing Costs

Right now, the primary way that (liberal) Caucasian and Asians establish "turf" is through neighborhood gentrification. In essence, they buy up properties in an area and perform a peaceful ethnic cleansing of the people of color and conservative whites. Non-Asian minorities are simply priced out of the market through artificial restrictions of growth and redevelopment that raises housing values above their ability to pay. Sincere believers in the principle of equality go to truly fantastic lengths to live far away from melatonin gifted individuals. Many of these liberals spend thousands of dollars every month, and tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to escape the minorities they love so very much. This does not appear to produce in them the typical characteristic that psychiatrists call "cognitive dissonance" — proving that in some people, the capacity for self-deception is enhanced above the baseline of the rest of homo sapiens. No doubt this is an evolutionary advantage for a politically orientated caste of humans.

In contrast to the preferred method of racism of the wealthy White or Asian liberal, the melatonin gifted individual depends on violence for his discrimination. While the white liberal drives out minorities with high prices, and drives out the conservative with overt social bullying, the person of color uses gang violence. Obviously they cannot afford to use price discrimination as their preferred method, so they resort to direct attacks on White non-liberals, and other racial minorities. At the time of this writing there is currently a campaign of ethnic cleansing to drive out the black race by members of Mexican gangs in Los Angeles. According to the profoundly virtuous and ever vigilant against racism Southern Poverty Law Center;
"Incredibly, even though these gangs are fundamentally criminal enterprises interested mainly in money, gang experts inside and outside the government say that they are now engaged in a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" — racial terror that is directed solely at African Americans."
' "There's absolutely no motive absent the color of their skin," adds former Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney Michael Camacho. Before he became a judge, in 2003, Camacho successfully prosecuted a Latino gang member for the random shootings of three black men in Pomona, Calif. 
"They generally don't like African Americans," Pomona gang unit officer Marcus Perez testified in that case. "If an African American enters their neighborhood, they're likely to be injured or killed."
A comprehensive study of hate crimes in Los Angeles County released by the University of Hawaii in 2000 concluded that while the vast majority of hate crimes nationwide are not committed by members of organized groups, Los Angeles County is a different story. Researchers found that in areas with high concentrations, or "clusters," of hate crimes, the perpetrators were typically members of Latino street gangs who were purposely targeting blacks.
Furthermore, the study found, "There is strong evidence of race-bias hate crimes among gangs in which the major motive is not the defense of territorial boundaries against other gangs, but hatred toward a group defined by racial identification, regardless of any gang-related territorial threat." '
Formalization is the act of taking an activity that is outside the legal market and bringing it into the legal market. Formalization makes reality legal. To formalize an activity is to accept the inevitably of its existence and provide a legal outlet for its expression. The benefit of formalism is the end of violence and black market activity. Identity easements formalize "turf," making gang warfare and ethnic cleansing unnecessary. What was formally a game of gang terrorism to drive out other ethnic groups is not a real estate strategy of slowly and relentlessly acquiring identity easement contracts and placing them under the control of an ethnic association, corporation, non-profit, or whatever. The association that owns these easements is not buying the properties, it is buying the easements attached to the properties and converting those easements to its own identity. This does not mean that a person of a particular race will be kicked out of their home when the easement trades hands. It means that the next time the property is sold it may only be sold to the ethnic group specified in the easement contract. Let us imagine a situation where there are two identity-based groups; Latinos and Blacks, and they are both slowly building up their respective "turf" through easement contacts.

Do these two groups engage in gang warfare? No. Of course not. Instead they meet in a room with a nice long conference table. The representatives of each ethnic association sit across the table from one another and negotiate. Remember, any violence will lower property values of their members, and alienate the clientele they are representing. The fist man, representing (say) the Latinos pulls out a map and says something like this;
"these are the easements that we control. If your will look at map grid G27 you will notice that there is a cluster of easements that we control which just so happens to be located within your neighborhoods. If you look at map grid A15 thru A17 you will also observe that there are some easements that you control adjacent to the neighborhoods that we control. What we propose is to swap the 18 easements in your neighborhood for the 14 easements adjacent to ours. The fair market value for the your easements comes to 1 million 270 thousand dollars. Ours comes to 990 thousand. For the trade, we propose to pay you the difference between these two sums which works out to the amount of. . ."
Then the other negotiator makes a counter offer.

No guns. No violence. No politics. No activists. Just a boring business negotiation.

Of course, if your ask the SPLC what they think about races, genders, homosexuals, vegans, or conservatives, owning "turf" and discriminating against outsiders, they will shake uncontrollably in religious ecstasy over the chance to prove their worthiness as Goodwhites, and loudly proclaim that you are satanic heathens racists!

Thousands of Black men die in gang violence every year because liberals need to feel holy. And democracy, always because of democracy.

None of this virtue signaling 
eliminates the violence between ethnic groups. But identity easements will. Because tribal violence is sublimated to capitalism. Tribal signaling is replaced by brand management. Virtue signaling is replaced by internal moral policing. Racial violence is replaced by a real estate negotiation. Everything is converted to capitalism. Yes, it has a sort of bland mall culture flavor. But mall culture is exactly what you would rather have when faced with internecine genocidal tribal warfare as an alternative.

And let us not forget the benefit to Whites and Asians. Obscenely high housing prices become unnecessary. Progressives can stop gaming regulations to drive up prices, drive out minorities, make people homeless, and overwork themselves just so they can pay their rent. This frees up energies for leisure and raising families, for backyard BBQs and time with the grand kids — because you know, now they can actually afford to have children?

All of this disagrees with their "enlightened" ideology.

The Problem With the Non-Aggression Principle

The NAP prohibits violence in any situation except self-defense. In my opinion this is wise. I believe that all non-defensive violence is evil. I don't think that evil is an idea. It is tempting to think that there are simply evil ideas, and that those ideas must be stamped out for freedom to exist. Then you go around stomping of evil and one day you wake up covered in blood and realized you have become the evil you sought to eradicate. Knowing what to do is really hard. So I think you have to work backwards from the results you intend to create. If you intend to commit violence you have to step back and reassess your priors. The goal should be to eliminate violence from the world as much as possible. "How did my beliefs lead me here?" You should say. If I believe in violence for non-defensive purposes then I must have made a wrong turn somewhere. In politics, nearly everyone who committed violence started with a desire to do the right thing. These are some of the most morally impassioned men. So the goal is always self-defense. If you are committing non-defensive violence you are the party in the wrong. Period.

But there are several problems with this.

The first is the fact that races of people are aggressed against. Whole races of people have been targeted with violence. The NAP is individual in nature. And what if the aggression is not overtly violent? What if it is mere displacement? Or propaganda to interbreed ones race out of existence? Or mere financial policies that suppress birth rates? Does a race not have a right to self-defense?

This presents and incredibly fiendish problem for the NAP because no matter how you answer it the result is a a potential violation of the NAP. If a race has no right to self-defense, if the NAP is only individual in nature, then a licence is given to exterminate it through economics and propaganda. This isn't just a concern for White people. What about employment discrimination against Blacks? Or unequal policing? What about antisemitism?

Conversely, if a race has a right to self-defense then you are basically going to wind up embracing nationalism. It is completely legitimate to worry that this could lead to Hitler. First you deport people. But where do we put all of them? So camps are opened. Governments are terrible at feeding millions of people. Even if you aren't trying to kill people they could die from the bureaucratic incompetence of the state.

So you give everyone an ethnostate, right? But then some states invade the others. We did this before. We — white people, invaded just about everyone. Yes they invaded each other. We were just better at it than everyone else. So that doesn't work either because people won't stay in their own boxes. I tried to design a solution in Chapter 4a of Neocameral Future. The solution was to divide everything up into a series of small democracies where each might wind up representing only one ethnicity or political ideology. This is still problematic. Even if you kick people out of a city state you still have to push then across a county line. Far less people are likely to die that way because the distances are shorter, but I want no deaths. The purpose of this work is to work out a second deathless iteration.

Applying Formalized "Turf"
to the Palestinian Israeli Conflict

If there is any test case that would prove the validity of formalized identity easement markets it would be the conflict between the Palestinians and Israeli settlers. Imagine setting up an identity easement market between the two groups. If a person buys an easement that is attached to a parcel of land then that plot is forever under the control of the non-profit corporate body representing either Palestinians or Jews respectively. From that point onward only members of the respective racial group that owns that property may trade it. This does not apply to holy sites like temples or mosques: only for private property.

Additionally, there is a quota set by agreement between the two groups. Lets us say that the quota specifies that no more than 40 % of the land in Israel may have identity easements attached to them by either Palestinians or Israelis. Also, easements are sold in pairs: for every Palestinian easement sold an Israeli easement is sold and vice versa. It is not the easement market itself that puts an end to violence: it is the combination of selling in pairs and a quota taken together with the easement market that does the trick. Now both racial groups know that no matter what happens the other side cannot achieve more that 40 % control of the land. Additionally, any person who is found to be (a), harboring terrorists, (b), training or indoctrinating their children to be terrorists, (c), preaching hate, (d) giving aid or material support to terrorists, forfeits not only their easement but the underlying land title to the opposing side.

Furthermore, to protect people from violence. If an easement is created in on a particular plot, the surrounding easements on plots touching the property line of the first plot cannot be sold to the opposing side. This encourages neighborhood formation.

This is combined with a voucher payment to the descendants of all Palestinians whose land was taken. They may not be able to return to the homes they once occupied, but they can buy a house and live secure in the knowledge that it will always remain in the possession of a Palestinian person as long as the nation of Israel exists. And they know that they can buy as much land as they can get and that they can place up to 40 % of it in the hands of their people, but no more.

So here is what formalism plus quotas and compensation has given them;

1. Compensation for what was taken at fair market value.
2. Ability to apply that compensation to new land and properties.
3. Ability to place up to 40 % of the land in Palestinian hands, with an equal amount being in Jewish hands.
4. A stable set of rules that protects Palestinians from ethnic cleansing and Jews from violent revenge.
5. The ability to form neighborhoods.
6. The knowledge that property remains within your group indefinitely.

It is an imperfect solution. Scenario: a Palestinian man buys a house using the compensation voucher he received from the state. He buys an easement and attaches it to his property. Now only Palestinians may own that property. In another part of the country, an easement is sold to a Jewish man. Same thing happens there. The easement attracts further buying in both locations by each ethnicity. Gradually, two neighborhoods begin to form; one Jewish and one Palestinian.

Component # 3, The Family Easement Market

The family easement market is exactly the same thing as the identity easement market, only it is for last names rather than races, lifestyles, or sexual orientations. It overlaps the identity market. It allows wealth to be kept within a family by stating that a property may only be transferred to someone with a particular last name.

Component # 4, Retirement, Veterans, and the Disabled

Purpose: care of the weakest members of society
Method: various

The formalization of every aspect of human nature requires the introduction of a welfare state, otherwise people will agitate for it and protest. This presents a problem because bureaucracies can become sources of subversion against the executive. Democracy is after all, a mediocre implementation of formalism. The purpose of formalist absolutism is not to resist human nature or dictate libertarianism to an unwilling population. The purpose is to end politics and violence once and for all. Everything that is outside the system is not controlled by it, and thus, a potential threat. Whatever the system punishes causes the activity so punished to route around the penalty. This is regulatory arbitrage and black markets. All prohibition does is create violence, enable cartels, and produce human criminality. Prohibition is the exact opposite of formalism. Formalism legalizes everything possible in order to control it with precise legal mechanism. Formalism brings order to the market by taking everything human within itself, and incorporating in into its matrix. Total formalism is the total absorption of human nature into the market. Total formalism is total capitalism.

Beyond concerns about protests and resistance, Anarcho capitalism is likely to leave the elderly and disabled out in the cold. A welfare state is needed for them, and only them. This part does not address matters related to pregnant women.

The Pension System

There is a simple pension system administered by the State. It works exactly like social security with one difference: the amount of social security you collect is linked to the number of children you have.
This is because all pension systems are ultimately wealth transfer systems where the young pay for the elderly. Social security is a direct transfer system. Money is taken out of your check each pay period and transferred to the Social Security Administration. The SSA then deposits money into the account of the elderly each month. The Trust Fund is simply there to cover temporally shortfalls. It is not a retirement savings.

With stock market pension systems, the ability of the market to grow depends on the ability of the population to grow. There are tow vast trends; first, the population of the Earth is relocating to urban centers: second, they are gradually achieving westerns standards of living. Once the process ends nothing can perpetuate growth except space colonization. Without growth the stock market cannot grow, and without that 401Ks, and other investment systems will not have the money they need to pay out. In the end, all retirement systems depend on the young to support the elderly.

Property Rights in the Wealth of Children

The original way that the elderly retired is by moving in with their children and receiving support from them. Children were the "poor man's retirement." Farmer would have children because they were an asset in the field and would continue to produce labor when he was too old to push the plow. Before this, tribal societies simply supported the few people who managed to survive to old age.

If pension systems fail under zero population growth then the state instituted a propaganda campaign to get the young to support the old. This may also include the institution of a new property right in the wealth of children where the child is obliged to support the parent, to allow the parent to live with the child, etc. This would go beyond mere "alimony for the elderly," to create a new form of property right.

The Competitive Bureaucracy

Because healthcare bureaucracies fail at serving the public, or fail at maintaining fiscal discipline, if there is any form of state-administered healthcare it is a competitive bureaucracy where non-profit corporations owned by the state compete for allocation of funding. The individual is allowed to choose which healthcare bureaucracy will serve their interests. They make their selection on the internet. The system then allocates more funding to the agency they are switching to and less to the agency they are switching from. They are given a window of opportunity to do this once per year. More funding is given for people with preexisting conditions. Bureaucracies compete within a rage of market share. none are allowed to exceed 5 % of the market or drop down below about .02 % of market share. Once an agency reaches its limit it can no longer accept new customers. The .02 % floor is maintained by have a fixed number of agencies in the market. If an agency is woefully incompetent, a new non-profit corporation can be brought in to replace it. all executive and management must be paid on a salary plus bonus system where the success of the company is attached to its success at attracting new customers. It is a competitive bureaucracy.

The competitive bureaucracy serves veterans, elderly, and disabled, (VED). It does not redistribute money to women, hand out welfare benefits, or the like. All matters related to maternity benefits, the female sex, state supported childcare, feminism, gender relations, welfare, alimony, etc., are addressed in the component on the Patriarchal Welfare State. This is only a system for the elderly, veterans, and disabled.






Component # 5, The Zoning Market

Normally, zoning laws are made by a city government under the influence and pressure of commercial interest. The result is a restriction on growth that artificially inflates the price of home ownership for the profit of home owners and increased expense of renters. This represents a de facto transfer of wealth from renters to home owners. since the transfer of wealth is profitable to one group in a democracy, a feedback loop is created between the municipal government and home owners where the home owners pressure local governments to provide more profitable restrictions, and the municipal government provides those restrictions in order to win reelection by appealing to the interests of a vocal constituency. This is a "votes for growth restrictions" feedback loop of mutual payoff. One party provides votes to the other, while the other party provides profitable housing inflation to the one. The cycle then feeds on itself and real estate prices explode, forcing the poor out of the city and generating homelessness. Within a democracy this becomes the true purpose of green belts, zoning laws, and height restrictions. They are economic rent machines for client populations.

Since elected officials depend on votes and financial sponsorship for gaining power, a potential always exists for a group to receive economic rents in exchange for dedicated support. This effectively turns democracy into a coercion market where the violence of the state is purchased by private actors for their profit — and against their competition. This process then grows relentlessly, and the state along with it, in a feedback loop until the economy is destroyed. At which point democracy is transformed into some form of feudalism, or communism (they are almost identical in practice).

The whole point of Comprehensive Market Formalism is to subordinate as many state functions to the market as possible. The purpose of this is allow the executive to conquer his own bureaucracy. Every state bureaucracy is a parasite. All parasites seek to grow, and everything that is not forced to compete for its survival inevitably forms a feedback loop with the state that induces state growth. This brings us finally to the issue of zoning, because a state needs to keep an explosive factory from locating itself next to a school, or prevent a smelly rendering plant from being upwind of a suburb. But the act of zoning itself is an opportunity for economic rents, and the principle–agent problem means that the executive agent may act according to his own profit rather than the executive interest. He may take bribes, which is the non-democracy version of campaign contribution corruption. How to solve both?

The municipal government issues zoning restriction certificates. These are simply given away to the renters in the community. They are a collection of building rules. One certificate may be a height restriction, say another prohibits building an industrial facility within a quarter mile. The poor are given these certificates on a one-time basis. Any new certificates are sold at auction. They can then sell these certificates to private parties that are interested in keeping industrial businesses out of their neighborhoods, maintaining a view of the mountains, or whatever. Private non-profits can gather the certificates up to form preservation trusts for views, scenery, historic preservation, or whatever. The entire business of maintaining good neighborhoods is privatized, and renters receive compensation for the trouble at market rates. The feedback loop of rent seeking is cut.

Certificates are standardized. Every restriction certificate covers a set area of 1 kilometer width and 1 kilometer length. A certificate holder attaches his certificate to a spatial grid point defined by latitude and longitude. He registers this information with a centralized software system open to public scrutiny. The first to file is first to have his rights enforced. Registration is mandatory for enforcement of whatever development and use restrictions the certificate places on a parcel. Some certificates supersede others depending on the rules of the certificate. Software keeps track of it all on a digital map updated in real time. There are also rights certificates that prevent a restriction from being placed on a property during development so that the developer can have certainty that he will be able to build. All of the rules regarding whose cert trumps whose cert and why are specified in the certificates themselves. with whoever registers their certificate first having their rights enforced first. However, rights themselves very based on what kind of certificate you bought and its particular rules.

Component # 6, The Executive Compensation System

Accumulations of wealth pose a threat to the executive of the Executive Licensing Corporation and its owners. Centers of wealth might attempt to purchase influence. An integral part of ensuring stability is to reduce all competing power centers to an equal state of total subordination. As a result, the SLC practices remarkably "progressive" politics in certain precise ways. Liberalism is a weapon against competing power centers. The mode of ensuring total hegemony is a never ending class war against all potential rival power centers. "Democracy for thee, and not for me." This is done through democracy in all rival power centers, socialism in all rival economic centers, mutualism in manufacturing, competition between firms, competition between rights enforcement agencies, competition between bureaucracies, and the "voucherization or everything." The reason the SLC presides over a market in governance is because competition is a method of reducing rivals by stripping their profits to the bare minimum. Part of this is bringing socialism into the workplace. Bosses determine the pay of workers. Workers determine the pay of bosses. Quite naturally this reduces executive compensation, and thus, accumulations of potentially threatening wealth. There are two possible methods.

Method 1

Executives and workers are divided unto two classes. Persons classified as "executives" run the company and may not comprise less than 1% or more than 20% of its staff.

Each executive is given several certificates that may determine the compensation of a worker within the company. Each employee is given a single certificate, that when combined with other people to reach a quota, may determine the pay of a single executive. The quota is determined as the number of workers divided by the number of executives. During the yearly time of negotiation no new employees or executives may be hired until all negotiations are concluded or a week has passed, whichever is less. Negotiations must conclude before the end of a week, or are forfeit for the year. All employees and executives who fail to conclude negotiations by the end of the week stay at their current previously negotiated rates x 90%. for employees and 50% for executives.

Method 2

All non-executive jobs within companies are titles to be purchased within the market. The market sells jobs in bundles to union workers. However, titles are purchased in bundles by the unions who collectively own the exchange. Only unions may own job title exchanges. The unions negotiate the pay and benefits of workers within their bundles of workers. Each bundles must have a minimum of 100,000 workers. The union broker is paid a percentage of the total benefits compensation that he negotiates.

All executive titles are sold directly to market and must be the 1 % top ranking positions in the firm, no more, no less. Only up to 3 % of titles listed on the exchange may be executive.

Regardless of the method used, the negotiation between the two classes reaches a market equilibrium which raises the pay of workers above what it currently is, and lowers the pay of executives below what it currently is. The resulting greater equality reduces the threat to executive power that hordes of wealth could create.

Component # 7, The Reproduction Licensing Market

In a world that is over-populated reproduction violates the non-aggression principle. The source of this violation is two-fold: first, the Earth has finite resources and human beings cannot grow forever. The background extinction rate has been raised dramatically and if it continues it will eventually threaten all human life. Secondly, children have rights. A pedophile, alcoholic, drug addict, or schizophrenic, is simply incapable of raising a child without abusing or neglecting them. The mere presence of such an influence in a child's life is abusive. Thus, all reproduction involves two potential acts of aggression; an aggression against the resources of the planet, and thus, other humans on the planet who depend of those resources, and two, a potential aggression against the child born. Addicts and pederasts cannot have a right to have children. That is just a de facto right to abuse.

Thirdly, reproduction may involve the aggression of the less civilized against the more civilized, since the less civilized pass on their genes, and their propagation lowers quality of life even for them. The very act of an uncivilized person reproducing is an act of violence against society. The non-aggression principle starts with genetics.

The truly libertarian state has a moral obligation to screen potential parents in order to safeguard the NAP. Some may claim that the state itself is a violation of the NAP. We may even grant this concession. But we do not live in a perfect world. Non-aggression must be reduced to its absolute minimum level, and that requires the aggression of the state in order to prevent the greater aggression that would occur under pure anarchy. It also requires a reproductive licensing regime.

The number of individuals in utilitarian terms who are aggressed against is not the issue. Taxation is a small aggression that causes no real trauma as long as the taxes are not onerous. Child molestation and neglect are far greater traumas. Thus, the measurement of aggression is not strictly a utilitarian numbers game: the severity of the abuse must be taken into account, and it is far preferable to make many people experience the small stress of seeking licences to have children, than let one child experience the abuse of a molester, even if the application process requires an invasive inconvenience, such as an an FMRI to detect sexual attraction to children.

There are three forms of violation of the NAP where reproduction is concerned; barbarian reproduction, environmental destruction, and unfit parents. We have the possibility address all of these concerns, serving justice, humanity, and the environment.

Since racial conflict is an ever present danger, no international system of reproductive licencing will do. Since the politics of such a system would favor the barbarians over the civilized, a licencing system must be administered by a single race for its own benefit within its own territory, and it must have solid control over that territory. Other groups can get their won systems.

Reproductive licencing serves three purposes in accordance with the three concerns we already discussed;

1. Eliminating the fecundity of destructive populations.
2. Conserving the environment.
3. Preventing child abuse.

Everything is about formalism. We want to turn everything into a game, into a system. We are tired of politics. Let the market decide it all. Inshallah. Even your ability to have children will be determined by capitalism.

Formalism is the act of placing a sphere of human activity within a framework of legal and market activity, by creating formalized procedures for its behavior. Formalism turns areas of conflict into non-violent games. Race, ethnic conflict, religious conflict, and values conflict, are massive areas of human behavior in need of formalization. We already formalized racial, ethnic, religious, and values conflict with the identity easement market. The identity easement mechanism creates a way for groups to carve out spaces for themselves in the realm of real estate. It is spacial in nature. This is genetic.

Total capitalism brings all aspects of human nature into capitalism. Everything that humans do is absorbed into its market structure. The reproduction licensing market will formalize capitalism in reproduction. This is necessary because there is a problem of growth, and the inevitable conflicts that growth produces. Because if low IQ people are allowed to reproduce exponentially, eventually their sheer numbers will destroy capitalism.

Formalism is accomplished with a series of quotas that tax and subsidize in such a way as to produce a eugenic tide raises all ships. The cost of licences is based on the social profile of the individual. The better the profile, the lower the cost. "Better" is defined as a standard based on the latest knowledge concerning the value of the individual to society, their tendency to commit crimes, terrorist attacks, etc. A detailed calculation is preformed based on the most factual and politically incorrect knowledge. One question is asked: how much vale will they bring to society? This factors in everything including their religion, race, income level, IQ, genetic profile, susceptibility to disease, etc. The more value the individual has, the cheaper the licence. High value people can even get paid to have children, while low of negative value people find licencing cost prohibitive.

Component # 8. The Patriarchal Welfare State

There is a level of government defined in terms of genetics rather than land territory. It is the
 Patriarchal level, and just like the county, municipal, state, or federal levels, it performs a certain function and only that function: it administers the welfare state, and collects all taxes related to it.

The Patriarchal, (a literal government defined in genetic information space rather than territory), collects all welfare state taxes for women, children, and matters related to families. It distributes all benefits related to women and children. It decides all matters related to alimony and child support, and divorce. When a woman marries a man she marries into his sexual government. His last name is his government. It may tax him and distribute benefits to her. Only her husband and other men with the same Y chromosome can serve on his genetic governing council.

Since only men may serve on the government, it may appear at first glance that this gives a raw deal to women. A bunch of men are going to determine what benefits she gets? If any? But keep in mind that these governments are last names, and not territories. All last names are in competition with each other to provide benefits. In other words, all men who share a last name are in competition with all other last named men to provide benefits to women. While the men in a patriarchy may determine the benefits to women, it is the market equilibrium which will tend to determine which last names succeed in attracting wives. Thus, if a last name is stingy it will have trouble finding a wife. Conversely, if a last name is generous in the wrong ways, it may encourage divorce. Thus, the market equilibrium ultimately favors those Family governments that maximize reproduction, and configure all rules related to divorce, alimony, child support, maternity care, child care, welfare, (if any) to favor successful marriages. In the long-term.

In the short-term it may reward profligacy and excessive generosity to wives. Thus, there is a constitutional/federal level to the federation of Last Name Governments. At this level there is a constitution, (a set of market rules), which limit competition, and limit compensation. The Family governments may compete for wives locally, but they cooperate/collude to limit competition and benefits federally.

All males who share the same last name vote for a council that sets tax rates and distributes benefits.
Males whose fathers were cuckolds are excluded from membership in the last name of their Last Name government, since they do not share the same Y chromosome as their fathers. A male without a Family government has no welfare state taxes to pay, or benefits to give a potential wife. As the legal son of a cuckold, his classified as a legal bastard.

He may make application to join his genetic fathers family. If they accept him then, he is adopted into that family instead. A Federal Patriarchal Constitution may force him to join his genetic fathers family, or at least force him to pay taxes to either his cucks Last Name Government or his genetic Last Name Government. The man must change his last name to the name of his biological father. There will be a Y chromosome registry that can be used to identify who that man is.

In conclusion, all surnames compete to give benefits to wives while colluding to limit the cost of those benefits. Benefit types evolve under market mechanisms to reward those that reproduce and punish those systems that do not. Last Name Governments borrow new tricks developed by other governments, and the market develops into an efficient mechanism for producing children.

There is also an average cash limit and it is determined by direct democracy of all males, and only males, regardless of last name. There is a ballot. On the ballot is a series of cash limits determined in $250.00 increments. The highest vote-getter price point determine the cash limit of all welfare states administered by all Last Name Governments. Two price points are listed above the average, and two below, on the ballot. Let us say the average is 1250 in benefits per year, per male. Then the ballot looks like this;

A: 1750 limit
B: 1500 limit
D: 1250 limit
E: 1000 limit
F: 750 limit

A plurality of males can then raise or lower the limit for annual benefits every year by taking whatever the current price point. However, the number of votes each male gets is equal to the number of children he has. As a result, marred men with children determine the outcome of every price point, and the vote is always biased in favor of men with big families.






Component # 9, The Governance Marketplace,
the Licensed Anarcho-Capitalist Private Law Society

Purpose: to achieve exit by privatizing law
Method: a market that turns preference into a property right

The Executive Licencing Corporation (ELA), is a territorial monopolist. However, it does not govern the population, nor make its laws, but rather, it licences the ability to provide police enforcement services to rights enforcement agencies (REAs) and the judgement of cases tried therein to Private Arbiters, (PAs). All government services are provided by a private model in the free market, including the law itself. The Executive Licencing Corporation, also known as the ELA, is merely a licencing agency that owns a gendarmerie (national police force), an army, navy, nuclear command, and air force. It does not make the law. It makes the meta-law, or law governing the rights enforcement agencies that it licences.

It's meta law is a constitutional smart contract located on a blockchain. Encapsulation within sovereignty is the only pragmatic way to maintain order and prevent invasion. In this respect it answers two challenges to AnCap design, namely; what happens when open war breaks out between REA's?, and, what about national defense?

It uses one of two methods.

Method One

The society then consists of three layers; a layer of pure sovereignty at the top, including its military command, a layer of private law, e.g., the governance marketplace, and a third free market layer of trade and private property. The governance marketplace is inspired by David D. Friedman's description of a private law society. To quote Friedman;
Imagine a society with no government. Individuals purchase law enforcement from private firms. Each such firm faces possible conflicts with other firms. Private policemen working for the enforcement agency that I employ may track down the burglar who stole my property only to discover, when they try to arrest him, that he too employs an enforcement agency.
There are three ways in which such conflicts might be dealt with. The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. When a conflict occurred, it would then be up to the two agencies to determine whether the accused customer of one would or would not be deemed guilty and turned over to the other.
—  For and Against the State, Law as a Private Good

The is NOT how private law is administered under the first method of market formalism. In Friedman's description, legal protection is a right purchased by an individual against an aggressor. This places the financial burden for self-defense on the victim. In this method, legal protection is a property sold by an individual. It places the financial burden for minimum rights enforcement on the offender first, and the state second.

All persons own their bodily integrity and to harm it it so violate their rights. The family or friends of the individual so harmed is entitled to compensation from the offender. The method used to the same method as that of medieval Iceland, as described by Friedman in Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case;
Another difficulty with private enforcement is that some means must be found to allocate rights to catch criminals--otherwise one enforcer may expend resources gathering evidence only to have the criminal arrested at the last minute by someone else. This corresponds to the familiar "commons" problem. One solution in the literature[19] is to let the right to prosecute a criminal be the private property of the victim; by selling it to the highest bidder he receives some compensation for the cost of the crime. This describes precisely the Icelandic arrangements.
This also describes our arrangement. The right to self-defense is a property right of the individual. When that right is violated it may be sold to a Rights Enforcement Agency in order to solve the case and apprehend the criminal. The criminal then owes the Rights Enforcement Agency payment for solving the case. But this presents a problem, because the cost of solving the case may exceed its value. In such cases a debt is generated that the criminal must pay back. If the criminal cannot pay, his life is sold by the REA to a bondsman who puts him to work.

Additionally, the state purchases an insurance contract for every individual at the time of birth, or retroactively insures the individual if the birth was not recorded immediately. The insurance protects the individuals basic rights, (freedom from murder, rape, theft, etc.), and supersedes private law in the advent of a conflict, if and only if, doing so produces more rights rather than less. The result of this system is the production of private law within a sovereign framework — of a governance marketplace for the enforcement of rights.

This is how basic rights are treated, not private law. Private law is a thing purchased in addition to basic rights. It is a contract that overlays the basic set of rights and allows for additional codifications, rights, etc., through up front payment of a monthly contract. The reason things are done this way, (the Icelandic way), and not the way that Friedman advocates in the Machinery of Friedman or his other writings, is because this way protects the rights of even the poorest members of society. Forcing people to pay for rights enforcement is immoral because it places the burden of enforcement on the victim, and discriminates against the poor who cannot afford to have their rights enforced. His system is a monthly fee system paid for protection. This is a fee for violation system backed up by an insurance bond purchased by the state. Friedman would have us live in a society where the homeless can be killed with impunity.

Basic rights are defined as those rights that 90 % or more of REAs agree on. Once the 90 % threshold is reached, a right is considered basic, and all Rights Enforcement Agencies must enforce it. This is codified in the blockchain itself as a meta rule.

Method Two

The second method also does not work the way Friedman describes. No one should ever pay an REA directly, for a reason that will become obvious.

The individual pays a mutually owned company the monthly fee. As a mutual, the company is owned by its customers. When you buy rights enforcement (police services) you select from a list of plans offered by the mutual. The mutual subcontracts REAs to provide police services to its members. The mutual acts as a collective bargaining union that gives market power to the customer. It also acts as an insurance company pooling risk, since it is willing to pursue and pay for justice far more than an ordinary individual could afford. It is required to be both a union and an insurer, and it is required to mail out ballots and hold elections for all of its executive appointments. It is both a company and a democracy controlled by its customers. It has to be, since having the ordinary citizen buy rights protection directly from the police agencies is insane. The police could extort the customer, or charge outrageous prices.

In market formalism, all private companies that have an asymmetrical advantage over their customers are required to be mutually owned by their customers; all health companies, rights enforcement agencies, and banking companies. Market formalism does not allow billion dollar companies in these industries. That would threaten public health and safety. All banks must be credit unions. All health care companies must be co-ops. All rights enforcement must be purchased indirectly through a mutual/consumer union. Period.

Market formalism brings the market into the state, and democracy into the firm. This is the correct arrangement, since the solution to the tyranny of the state is competition, and the solution to the tyranny of the corporation is democratization.

Every member of the society receives a (tiny) basic income. The person is then required to use a portion of it to purchase rights enforcement. This guarantees that even the poorest members of society have their rights enforced. The amount of basic income is about double what is needed to cover rights enforcement.

This is the only way to make the Friedman method practical, since even the homeless would have rights protection. This is probably the method we would go for: subscription-based rights enforcement + basic income + an extra amount. The case for a subscription-based system is made by Friedman in Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case;
If "enforcers" contract in advance to pursue those who perpetrate crimes against particular people, and so notify the criminals (by a notice on the door of their customers), the deterrent effect of catching criminals is internalized; the enforcers can charge their customers for the service. Such arrangements are used by private guard firms and the American Automobile Association, among others. The AAA provides its members with decals stating that, if the car is stolen, a reward will be paid for information leading to its recovery. Such decals serve both as an offer to potential informants and as a warning to potential thieves. Under medieval Icelandic institutions, who was protected by whom was to a considerable degree known in advance.
Naturally, conflicts will arise between rights protection agencies. In For and Against the State, Law as a Private Good, Friedman describes the likely result of these interactions, stating;
A still more attractive and more likely solution is advance contracting between the agencies. Under this scenario, any two agencies that faced a significant probability of such clashes would agree on an arbitration agency to settle them-a private court. Implicit or explicit in their agreement would be the legal rules under which such disputes were to be settled.
Under these circumstances, both law enforcement and law are private goods produced on a private market. Law enforcement is produced by enforcement agencies and sold directly to their customers. Law is produced by arbitration agencies and sold to the enforcement agencies, who resell it to their customers as one characteristic of the bundle of services they provide.[4]
The resulting legal system might contain many different law codes. The rules governing a particular conflict will depend on the arbitration agency that the enforcement agencies employed by the parties to the conflict have agreed on. While there will be some market pressure for uniformity, it is logically possible for every pair of enforcement agencies to agree on a different arbitration agency with a different set of legal rules.[5]
We are not content to simply hope that rights protection agencies will behave themselves in the absence of a big stick to keep them in line. We mandate that REAs settle their disputes through arbitration. Indeed, a fundamental condition of receiving a licence from the executive is agreement to arbitration with all other rights enforcement agencies. The moment the REA enters the market it must chose an arbiter before it's first day of business. It can then renegotiate arbiters as time goes on. The state may even assign it a temporary arbiter during a probationary period. The purpose of our private law is not anarchy. That is merely a fetish of anarchists. Our purpose is to create freedom through choice.

Democracy is a marketplace for the purchasing of law. It is a single system of governance where the law is determined by a latent civil war where the troops line up to be counted in elections, and influence peddlers create legal change. These influence are lobbyists and activists, who buy with contributions, or extort with protests, (respectively), the state to receive new laws that transfer wealth and create economic rents. It is a system of purchased coercion that raids a market commons consisting of other people's wealth. It steadily builds up legislative accumulation and economic rents until it collapses. As the level of state interference in the market grows, the payoff for controlling the state grows until democracy produces either open civil war or dictatorship. As a result, the level of propaganda and cultural civil war rises because the payoff for controlling the state rises.

In contrast, absolutist market formalism is a governance marketplace controlled by an an executive manager. Individuals still have rights and choice in their legal arrangements. The law is still privately made — through the market. There is still a "market for the purchasing of laws," but this market is not for the purchasing of other people's wealth. Nor for economic rents, special privileges, handouts, etc. The reason that an executive would use such a system is not just to reduce administrative costs. This system eliminates to an absolute minimum the amount of sheer bureaucracy that one needs to run a country the size on the United States. Bureaucracy = a threat to ones power. The greater the administrative load, the more nooks and crannies subversive influences have to hide. One is confronted by a fundamental problem of organizational scale. If an executive increases the number of managers that it relies on for power, he cannot keep track of them all. He may have intelligence officers spy on them. But now he is reliant on the intelligence officers. He may have more than one intelligence officer. But now he has increased the number of managers again. He may have all of his managers spy on each other, but they may still conspire against him. He may reduce the number of managers of the state that he is reliant on, but he increases the odds that one of them will take his position through assassination. So increasing the number of managers can create bureaucracies he cannot control, while decreasing their number empowers more potential assassins by making each of them more powerful.

By giving the commoners choice in their law, he silences criticism of his rule. By subordinating all police functions to the market, he forces formerly subordinate and potentially subversive forces to worry about business concerns and profits. In short, the whole system is an elaborate way to control subversion, establish absolute control over the organs of the state, and produce freedom among the common people.

Concerns About Problems

A rights enforcement agency cannot be allowed to belong to only one man, otherwise a wealthy individual could attempt to place himself above the law. This is why the executive licences rights enforcement agencies. It gives him the power to prevent wealthy individuals from trying to make themselves above the law, because in so doing they become as much a threat to the executive as they are to the people. A man with a private agency is dangerous to the executive.

Also, their is a danger that a rights enforcement agency might try to go to war with the state. This is solved by making them mutually owned corporations that hold elections. Now one may wonder what is the difference between this and democracy? Choice and compromise. With this you have far more choice and cannot be compelled to compromise with parasitical interests. Unlike in a democracy, any group of people may start their own REA. This is akin to allowing people to start their own governments. Since law is privately made it cannot be imposed on the unwilling. One can always escape compromise with hostile interests. It is not a coercion market like a democracy is, but a rights enforcement market.

Next, a rights enforcement market is a system based on revealed preference and not virtue signaling. Since enforcement costs money to the individual there is a penalty for making a mistake. Since an individual chose their REA there is a penalty for choosing wrong. Democracy forces hosts to compromise with their parasites. The governance marketplace does not. All one needs to do is find a few hundred like minded people willing to live in the same general area and you have the ability to form your own state. The cost of Exit is virtually non existent.

Component # 10, Investigation System, Assassination Insurance System

Purpose: to deter rebellion by REAs
Method: assassination market for the states enemies

In the advent that there is an attempt on the life of one of the executive, a violent act by a private rights enforcement agency against another rights enforcement agency, the raising of a private militia, or terrorism of any kind, contracts for investigation are activated. The assignment is random so that no one may guarantee a profit from violence. There is a nationwide pool of investigators that all rights enforcement agencies use. Investigators are drawn from that pool.

All private rights enforcement agencies are required to purchase assassination insurance. This insurance is a smart contract located on the blockchain that releases funds in the advent that certain proscribed conditions are met. If a rights enforcement agency is judged by the executive to have behaved in an aggressive manner towards either the executive or other rights enforcement agencies, then funds are released for the assassination market to kill the individuals that are responsible. All rights enforcement agencies are required to buy the insurance that kills them in the advent that they go rouge. The executive head of an REA literally has to buy his own death warrant insurance to receive a business licence.

Component # 11, The Consumer Purchasing Unions

Purpose: to prevent abuse against private citizens by REAs
Method: safety in numbers

Without a union to collectively bargain with the rights enforcement agencies there is a potential for intimidation by rights enforcement agencies. The unions pool purchasers for the purposes of purchasing rights enforcement. They are required to take 10% of the people they serve pro bono. Their costs are absorbed by the others. They are required to take the poorest ten percent within society. This prevents the homeless and desperately poor from going without rights protection.