RE: Can Capitalism Exist Without a State?
Let's argue that you took a empty island without any buidlings or government and gave it to capitalists. What would they do with it?
When you talk about a State what you are really talking about is institutions eg the Parliament, Executive, Judiciary, Security/defence, healthcare etc.
So the capitalists build a port, roads and bridges. They run power lines, drains etc.
They draw out plots of land. Operate grocery stores, gas stations, real estate offices, banks, cinemas, bars, whore houses etc
They could do this all without a state. But eventually there would always be the demand for a state. This demand would arise from business elites who want to use the state to their advantage by means of political donations and by members of the public who feel that business elites are taking advantage of them. And all you need is one violent crime eg a murder and people will want to lynch the suspect that is when the demand for a state to enforce public order & justice will be finally complete.
Whether it's a tribal leader or a President there will always be a powerful person this is a fact of nature. Primates often have a leader and it can also be a female. Canines have leaders also bees. This is a recurring theme in nature, humans are no different.
All of the institutions that are provided by the state (like security, defense, and judiciary) can be provided equally well, or more likely better, by the market. If that were to happen, after a while people would get used to it being that way and I doubt there would be any reason for anyone to demand a state, excepting those who would use the power of the state to steal from and control people.
Interesting, so the State becomes a corporation?
No. If a single corporation took on all of the institutions that are currently provided by the state, then that corporation would be a state and we'd be right back where we started.
What I am referring to is competitive markets providing the services that the state currently provides. An individual would never be forced to pay for a service that he or she didn't want or wouldn't use, and people would have choices of service providers. This means that if you are dissatisfied with your current security service provider, for instance, you can stop paying them and choose another provider, or choose not to pay for security at all. Contrast that with the current way of doing things, where the state extracts money from your paycheck to provide a police service whose main job is to extract more money from taxpayers by catching them engaging in victimless crimes like driving without a seatbelt. In a competitive market system, you always have choices and you always have recourse if you are dissatisfied with the services you receive. In a system of state provision of services, you have no choice, no recourse, and one powerful entity has an enormous amount of control over many aspects of your life--and is likely to abuse that power.