Monarchy is closer to Anarchy than Democracy if the criteria is the number of formal sovereigns. The opposite is true if the criteria is social feedback.

NRx (And Hoppe) like Monarchy precisely because it cuts social feedback, leaving only the hobbesian feedback of inter-State competition. Neocameralism is a project of feedback substitution: Disenfranchise humans as the measure of sovereingty, enfranchise property.
-->

-->
It's democracy (The citizen is capital itself).
-->

-->
Capital attaches itself to humans it selects using the market as a brain, said humans attain power on the quality (And quantity) of their status as owners rather than as people or as inhabitants of a territory, they are thus hosts, avatars, for the symbiont.
-->

-->
Hoppeanism is also democracy, only that way it makes sense the idea of nationalism being preserved through the property assemble of multiple owners into private borders. Neocameralism is republican democracy, Hoppeanism is direct democracy (For Capital).
-->

-->
The central issue here is one of supposedly irresoluble enmity between market and social intelligence. Proponents of democracy-for-capital consider inevitable (And desirable) that market forces tend to accumulation, and thus if given voice on the basis of personhood-->

-->humans will, like an overzealous aristocracy, feel entitled to a rent on economic activity on the basis of blood (As members of humanity). Thus goes the theory: "(Human) Democracy allows the have nots (Unchoosen) to steal from the haves (Choosen)".
-->

-->
What is sought after by enfranchising capital and disenfranchising humans is most honestly described by Land: He considers the optimal, freest state of the market as one of catallactic genocide. Hoppeans are a bit more coy but not in a fundamental disagreement here.
-->

-->
Conversely in communism we see the opposite side of this enmity, the point of dismantling the market is to disenfranchise capital (What's a most effective way of disenfranchising someone than dismantling their brain?) so that Only social feedback determines distribution.
-->

-->
This has its own destructive, wasteful, analogue in the calculation problem. Barring perfect calculators, it seeks to be solved by economic simplification or "post-scarcity" (Megaproduction). Waste is an aceptable trade off to avoid the market stripping-->

-->from the socius the ability to dictate resource distribution, similar (But in no way morally equivalent) to how for Land the death of many individuals who could have contributed something is an acceptable trade off to avoid the socius stripping from the market-->

-->the ability to dictate the distribution of resources.

The core idea is tha the relationship between Humanity and Capital's freedom is one of zero sum.

As a mutualist I disagree with that conclusion, a mutually benefitial (Biologically mutualistic) relationship is possible between the two. The market is not a blind god who should be unconditionally respected (Hence the inherent sociality of property norms), but-->

-->the socius has its own accumulative dynamics (Into social capital) that can be undermined by circunventing global agreement on resource distribution. Human brains and the market brain can balance each other into generalized anti-sovereignty (Anarchy).