One of my main beefs with Bitcoin right now is that the most vocal people advocating it are extremist, non-mainstream ideologues. Although I'm not of the Austrian-school, I do consider myself a libertarian-anarchist which is probably just another word for your anarcho-capitalism. However it's not doing my/our cause any good to have Bitcoin move more and more out of the mainstream and the Bitcoin user community become more insular.
I used to be pretty normal person before I got interested about bitcoins. Now I think that the end of the nation state is near and my friends think that I'm a weirdo.
I don't think what you're saying is even well-defined. In other words, what does it mean for something to "back" an ideology?
I think "anarcho-capitalism" is abhorrent, but I think bitcoin is ideal for the political system I advocate, which is capitalism.
The only way to institute such a system is to have an institution that holds a self-enforced monopoly on retaliatory force, which is the government.
Under any form of anarchism, the gang that is most successful at weilding force gains control. "Market anarchism" is an oxymoron, because markets (freedom) and force are opposites. Likewise, "anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.
You're talking to someone who has studied the issue in depth. I'm not just going from an uneducated assumption.
I honestly think that a "market for force" would quickly result in something akin to feudalism at best.
Can you explain the mechanism whereby different groups weilding force would just agree to disagree and co-exist?
What would happen in practice would be that some groups are defeated, and the others pledge fealty in a kind of feudalistic system which just ends in a dictatorship.
Of course, it would be likely that some particular group (which might even win) would represent some specific ideology, and just turn back into a regular government (such as a constitutional republic).
I'd definitely be supporting the "competing government" in favor of establishing a constitutional republic.