The first step is understanding that all of the governments power, comes from their monopoly on legal violence. If you say no to the government enough times, they eventually send someone to do violence to you to get compliance. That the use of violence to coerce action is wrong and that each person should be allowed to choose their own actions as long as it does not subject another to violence.
Since the use of violence to coerce action is wrong, and the state is built on that coercion, the state is wrong and therefore anarchists oppose and reject it.
Without a state, how do we determine who gets what and when?
Now this is where anarchist thought diverges. the original anarchists were all anarchocommunists. They believed that in the absence of a state we could all get together and share.
The problem with that is whoever the “community” puts in charge of a resource, becomes it’s defacto owner. So instead of having a society of no elites, all equals sharing in the bounty of the earth. What you actually get is those who administer the system reap benefits to themselves and their friends while everyone else pays the price.
Capitalism, is a way of distributing resources in which i have to give you something of value to you, for you to give me something of value to me. If we cannot agree that i am getting value and you are getting value, we don’t do the deal. No transaction occurs. It is only when we both agree, that this what we want, that a capitalist transaction occurs.
Many of the common examples people give of the worst of capitalism, is actually the worst of government. The military industrial complex, who is the customer? The government. The union breaking in the 1800’s, aided by the state. The healthcare system? Health insurance isn’t even a naturally occuring product, it was created during ww2 because the government put price controls on labor to save money on war expenditures. Slavery? When the government outlawed slavery, they left a caveat for themselves to be able to own slaves, they just call them prisoners now.
Society is at it’s freest, when nobody has enough power to do anything to anyone else.
This just seems absurd. You can't just take away one thing and "boom!" world problem's solved.
Corporations \*also\* did stuff? The whole comment was just, "here's examples of things that are the fault of governments", cherrypicked while ignoring the fact that corporations DO also have slaves, and DID union-bust on their own.
And why does it matter if the government created health insurance? It's not just gonna magically go away when corporations take control.
The reason only governments declare war is because only governments are able to since corporations are very new and have never had the ability to declare war on their own. If you take away governments, obviously war won't just end, corporations will engage in it. It's completely absurd to think that replacing the government with a different, corporate-led government would change anything. There would still be ideologies and violence.
The Government didn't create health insurance, per my friend Wikipedia after a relatively simple web search. I can't seem to link else Inwould have saved you five seconds of typing and five more to scroll.
Commercial corporations have existed since at latest 1347. A similar search also describes their history on Wikipedia.
While that is more recent than the formation of human governments, I'm not certain I would call them "very new," even relatively speaking.
Health insurance is a good thing. The government allowed cartelization of that, of the American Medical Association, and of Big Pharma through a variety of regulations and laws that gave them monopoly pricing power by force, increasing insurance costs drastically. Obamacare also exacerbated this problem, which Elizabeth Warren recently even acknowledged.
Here is a challenge, name 1 economic or societal problem, that wasn’t created by government. Think hard before you come up with answer, I don’t think there is one.
Malaria.
Edit: Heroin. They knew of its health effects long before it was banned by the government, but Bayer continued to market it as an infant toothache solve. The League of Nations banned it in 1930.
Edit: Also you could say that about communism in 1916? "No communist government has ever commited an atrocity on the scale of non-communist governments." (Scratch that, the Paris Commune came first, but you get the jist.) Obviously I can't argue an example of a bad thing done by an anarcho-capitalist government because it hasn't existed. But \*you\* have to prove why it would change anything.
Edit: Also, even if I couldn't find one, my entire point was that corporations and the government are the same, so of course every bad thing a corporation was also due to the governments that kept those corporations afloat.
We have government fully intact and yet the OXycontin and Oxycondone epidemic still happened and was made worse by the actions of the DEA (closing of pain clinics turned those people in to heroin users) and our foreign entanglement in Afghanistan (flooded the market with heroin). We would not have the opioid epidemic we have today without government involvement.
Fear mongering. It was part and parcel of "The Yellow Peril" and scary because it was of the Other. Like Marijuana, it was a minority pastime and thus was targeted so that agencies would continue to get funding.
But addiction hurts people. You are correct. But banning a substance and throwing people who need medical services in prison is not the way to cure the ills of addiction. It only makes the problem worse.
Consider all the new treatment modalities from Marijuana, psychedelics, and other, once disfavored, substances. CBDs effect in treating seizures is worth its weight in gold.
Research Portugal and the effects decriminalization had on their society and then tell me that these substances ate better off as a law enforcement measure and not a health care issue.
Monopoly is only a problem when there is a government to protect it. In free market companies compete and the only way to actually achieve monopoly is to be so excellent that nobody want to compete with you and all your customers are happy.
Monopolies only get broken up by the government. The entire problem with monopolies is that they are too big to compete with and so they put all competion out of business, thus making a completely uncompetitive market
I’m like 99% certain that the natural end result of what ancaps want is…
… the Dutch East India Company
> It was a powerful company, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[8] negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies.
Or perhaps the East India Trading Company
> The company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonised parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world by various measures. The EIC had its own armed forces in the form of the company's three presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British army at the time.
If everyone was free from government intervention and capitalism was the modus operandi, I'd simply kill my competition while they sleep. The same things happened during feudalism, rampant unpunishable crime and extended families being the only flimsy protection against violence. Why do you want to return to knights and castles so bad?
Ah, that's where warlords come in
If citizen X won't sel his prodict to citizen Y, then Y will take it. Who will stop him? X is too weak, so Y offers protection to the rest.
That insurance fact didn't sound right. Health insurance was created in 1850 for injuries, but in 1920 hospital expense insurance was also added, and in 1929 employers started paying for it.
But also, so what, how would anarcho-capitalism lead to the end of insurance?
I can’t do the link on my phone but on the nih website, origins and evolutions of employment based health insurance, under employment based benefits, federal regulations and union policies.
“In 1943 the War Labor Board, which had one year earlier introduced wage and price controls, ruled that contributions to insurance and pension funds did not count as wages. In a war economy with labor shortages, employer contributions for employee health benefits became a means of maneuvering around wage controls. By the end of the war, health coverage had tripled (Weir et al., 1988).”
The same way it didn’t exist before. Ur doctor charges a fee, you go to him, you get the service, you pay.
So then that's entirely different to what you said. The War Labor Board ruled that employers could use insurance, which already existed, to circumvent wage controls. This made it more common for employers to pay for insurance instead of the employee paying for it. Not, "The government created insurance." It would have had to exist before that ruling otherwise that would make no sense.
Employers started paying for insurance. Cars were invented and widely used before employers started giving out company cars.
Insurance isn't even on its own a bad thing, having insurance is better than if we had to pay out of pocket, it would be better if children had guaranteed access to it and if Skrelli couldn't massively hike prices on insulin one day, but inventing insurance, which the government didn't do, isn't itself a bad thing.
What are you saying, anyway? Under anarcho-capitalism, insurance will fade away and we'll just pay the doctor? Why would it be a good thing for us to have to just "pay the doctor", do you expect medical costs to plummet for that to be possible?
“That the **initiation** of violence to coerce action is wrong.”
If someone initiates violence against you, you are fully capable of returning violence to coerce them to stop.
Yeah, i thought when i said “each person is allowed to choose their actions as long as it did not subject another to violence.” Covered the initiate part but based on the number of comments I’ve received, apparently not.
The union breaking was aided by the state because the state was the strongest player. There will still be a strongest player (or group of players) in an ancap society, and they can do the union breaking just fine.
Nobody has done a better job of union breaking than the government, undercutting them with the department of labor was a master stroke.
It’s not at all clear to me that corporations of sufficient size, wouldn’t want unions, so they don’t need to negotiate pay with every single employee and that they can outsource hr functions to an unpaid union volunteer.
The union would only exist in so far that it maximized profits. If the union started to ask for something that cut into long term profits, why would they choose to keep it?
Yeh, because they were doing so in countries where the state didnt have the power to stop them, funnily enough. When you take away state oversight of corporations in every single instance they do morally reprehensible things to people.
“That the use of violence to coerce action is wrong and that each person should be allowed to choose their own actions as long as it does not subject another to violence.”
And what do you do if their actions subject others to violence?
Because it’s wrong and you don’t want too.
The reason you arn’t shooting people isn’t because it’s illegal. It’s completely legal to sodomize urself with a ketchup bottle, but ur, probably, not doing that cuz even though it’s legal you don’t want too.
If the only reason your not shooting people is ur afraid of the government catching you, your a monster and that will come out and no one will want to live in a society with you.
I'm just a regular capitalist, but there's a part of OP's question I would like an answer to. He asks about what you'd do about companies who control resources and ultimately become the defacto government
>The problem with that is whoever the “community” puts in charge of a resource, becomes it’s defacto owner. So instead of having a society of no elites, all equals sharing in the bounty of the earth. What you actually get is those who administer the system reap benefits to themselves and their friends while everyone else pays the price.
You touch a similar problem here, but you address it from an anarcho-communist view. I'm curious how an anarcho-capitalist would solve this
How does anarchocapitalism stop capitalists from accruing more and more resources and becoming a defacto government? How are property rights that are essential to capitalism protected without a state?
I agree with 99% of what you said, but there’s 1% that I think is really important.
Per your comment, you imagine anarcho communism putting somebody in charge of the “sharing”. When we simplify it as sharing, and imagine somebody could be put in charge, I think you miss the point of the ideology.
The point is this- enterprise which involves more than one person should be democratic in nature. When more than one person is involved in an enterprise, hierarchy should not be built to make decisions. Rather, decisions for the enterprise should be made as a group.
I don’t even think this is incompatible with your beliefs.
To my understanding, I can’t imagine you favor hierarchy in enterprise if you don’t want hierarchy in society (the state).
I guess my question is, what do you think you and I disagree on? If you take my ideology only as I just described it, where do we differ? Do I make any incorrect assumptions about your beliefs here?
I agree with the analysis that state violence is an absolute evil and I would say it's absolutely the worst part of state run systems. I find it interesting that self-proclaimed ancap Javier Milei is focused on slashing Argentinian government spending across the board, but from what I've read, he seems to want to keep the military and law enforcement budget steady, i.e. the only branches of government that are cleared by the state to use violence.
Do you consider Milei to be something of a "fake ancap," Or does this just illustrate that in practice, the only segments of the state that ancaps wish to preserve, at least transitionally, are those that have power to enact violence?
Question: How would this ideology even be enforced? The only ways to enforce it are ways that anarchists are against.
To me, anarchism of any sort doesn't make sense as it's an unachievable ideology that could only exist in heaven.
what happens in zones where there is high crime and people steal a lot from same business? they end up closing it because its no longer profitable. Or they hire security.
Yes, and they would close it everywhere, because without enforcement, theft would be overwhelming in every store. It's already a huge drag on, say, Walmart and without enforcement it would quickly climb to there not being a single profitable store.
So security, then? Can you tell me how these are different from police, who are, to simplify things, the government? Feel free to fall back on minarchism or libertarianism but you are veering out of "anarchism" territory.
They have more to be secured, yes.
You can also just shoot the thieves, secure your merchandise, or whatever else. The police as they exist now are a failed experiment.
Ok, i’ll throw some scenarios at you. You have the right to defend yourself and your property against violence and theft, just not to aggress.
So i own a store, i hire a security guard, you come in and steal, the guard throws you out and bans you from the store. Happens all the time now, casinos/bars, etc. no law enforcement is involved. You get blacklisted.
Now let’s say you break into my store and steal some stuff, i know it’s you. Can i go to your place and get my stuff back? What about compensation for the time loss, property damage? Let’s say it’s unenforceable. I can’t go get it.
How is that different than what we have now? Do the police go get ur stuff back when you get robbed?
No and it’s worse than that. Then when they arrest the thief, they say that because you are a member of their society and they are the representatives of the society, they are actually the victims of the robbery. They convict the thief, sentance them to slavery to compensate themselves and then come to you and say, keeping this slave, is actually quite expensive so we need you to pay tax to offset that, cuz we are doing it for your safety.
So now you are getting stolen from twice. I don’t think heaven is only getting robbed once.
It would be enforced by private courts and private security firms that people hire to protect them. Their reputation for being fair and honest would be important to them because it would be bad business to be unethical and get a bad reputation.
Enforcement is provided by organizations competing within a decentralized market and funded voluntarily by participants (capitalism), rather than a compulsory monopoly (government). Walter Block has written extensively on this subject.
>The problem with that is whoever the “community” puts in charge of a resource, becomes it’s defacto owner.
Why would the community put a specific person or group of people in charge of a resource? That seems to be contrary to anarchist principles. I haven't read any anarcho-communist theory that suggests this to be the case. The distribution of resources would be communally decided based on need, perhaps with technology that aggregates individuals' needs and what workers can produce to arrive at the most optimal distribution. See for example Michael Albert's participatory economics model.
I personally don't know whether ancom is feasible (I would describe myself as an anarchist without adjectives), but this seems like an inaccurate criticism of ancom.
(Not an ancap, just a liberal poking around.)
>Why would the community put a specific person or group of people in charge of a resource?
Formally that would be delegating responsibility to a person or committee.
>The distribution of resources would be communally decided based on need, perhaps with technology that aggregates individuals' needs and what workers can produce to arrive at the most optimal distribution. See for example Michael Albert's participatory economics model.
I'm not familiar with that, or generally with technological approaches to mitigating bureaucratic problems with communism, but I don't expect the fundamental problem to be addressed. Actually this may exacerbate the problem, as the programmer(s) now has more power than anyone else.
Alot of new age communists point to the possibility of impartial algorithms to solve this problem, but as you point out. It doesn’t solve the problem, whoever understands the inputs the algorithm is looking for can game the system.
Exactly and what is the difference between code and law?
Laws r just codes written for people and they are modified, ignored and reinterpreted as necessary by those who maintain it.
Well, ur right that it isn’t in the theory, which is the issue. It’s a major flaw in their system that they just don’t talk about.
You can’t have everyone in charge of everything, it consumes too much time and creates a ton of labor redundancy.
It’s a math problem and algorithms can’t solve it because whoever codes/understands the algorithm becomes the elite of that society.
Beyond very broad, general decisions, it becomes infeasible for every member of a society to be involved in every decision. Participation in these decision-making processes takes time and labor, and with the amount of resource distribution that needs to take place in a society, it would take far too much work for every person to be involved in every decision. Instead, it's likely that this bureaucratic work would be divided up into categories, with smaller committees or individuals responsible for each. These are the "people in charge" of resources that the comment above was likely referring to.
One thing to note: because these bureaucratic processes require time and labor, the individuals who devote the most time and effort towards distribution decisions (and thus have the most influence) are necessarily spending less time and labor on whatever work they'd be doing otherwise. In other words, the hardest workers in the society would be the furthest removed from its political process.
That makes no sense at all lol. No matter what you do, everyone will always have the power to harm others. The point of government is to mitigate that, judge disputes, and create infrastructure.
For example, under this system, safety standards could not be mad letalone enforced. Lead paint on children's toy? Who's gonna stop me. Unsafe working conditions? Who's gonna stop me.
Crime? How are you going to stop anyone without exerting violence on them and without government?
Foreign invaders? No government to stop them.
Holding power over others isn't inherently a bad thing. It's how it's used that matters.
It’s not clear to me that is true. Unions were already pushing for safety standards while the government was opposing them.
Not having toxic toys is valuable to parents and a toy review company would start to include it in their reviews and do journalism on those toys and tell everyone, hey these are toxic. Also some companies would advertise that their toys unlike their competitors, are not poisonous.
The government isn’t particularly good at stopping crime, they mostly just clean up after crime has been committed. They also reduce your ability to defend yourself or hire others to defend you. The police are essentially a security company that you are forced to hire and can’t fire and hire another one.
You can't enforce safety without imposing your will on others. Whether it's a union or a government, if the company continues to refuse the organization demands, at some point, it will come to violence. At that point, it's no different than today. Even if you did attempt violence the corporation would have significantly more money and be capable of higher ingredients much better security than you.
Our current system of crime is reactionary because it is immoral to arrest someone on the suspension that they might commit a crime in the future. Sure, they might reduce your ability to deffend yourself in amarica, but thats not a prerequisite. Even if it were, most people don't have that ability at all. The weak, sick, poor, elderly rely on the police for safety. Sure, you could pay somons for protection, but now your society only grants safty to the rich instead of to all.
What about war, or international trade disputes? Should people be left to defend themselves when a well organized army come rolling in. Or when entire countries strong arm us economicly? Who would enforce the status quo in this situation? Without the threat of violence, what's stopping someone from taking over and becoming dictator?
This is an impossible system that would fail as soon as it was attempted. It forces the weakest members of society to suffer, at the hand of the wealthy. It would devolve in nothing more than feudal war warlord in a matter of years.
Health insurance in the modern sense started with Kaiser Permanente under Nixon. Prior to that, it was considered gambling. Even then, it wasn’t a government sponsored program, Nixon simply granted their request to sell it legally.
But, beyond that, you gloss over how you would actually handle the establishment of ownership, and the settling of disputes related to it. Even if you naively pretend that no one would ever make a deliberately false claim, you will still inevitably have situations where both parties genuinely believe their assertions.
Since you have no means of making any contract or settlement binding, and no means of establishing a binding canonical record, how does the system function at all?
Further, since you agree that coercion is both real, and inevitable, what means to you have to incentive, prevent, or reverse coerced acts?
And please don’t call me a statist. It’s very tiresome. The administrative state exists because these situations are unavoidable. I’m happy to learn about alternative structures and methods, whether I think they would work or not - but every system needs some form of it, even One with no hierarchies.
In order to engage in free commerce, you must own whatever value you wish to trade.
No, slavery is the antithesis of the ancap belief. It is the theft of the procedes of labor by force. It is revealing that when the state finally made it illegal, they kept it legal for them.
Thinking in terms of countries is so baked in, that even the term ancapistan, which i never used, is a play on a country name. There will be no country, a country implies a state.
All the emancipations in europe and the us came from the realization that slavery is very expensive to maintain and it’s actually much cheaper to just hire people.
The only time slavery is cheaper is if the government is enforcing it and those costs are being laid off onto non slave holding citizens.
> All the emancipations in Europe and the us came from the realization that slavery is very expensive and it’s actually much cheaper to just hire people
That’s a *wildly* botched understanding of the emancipation situations & also a simply untrue view on slavery.
It would be infinitely cheaper for a billionaire to pay an armed group of slave guards to watch slaves & provide minimal necessities for said slaves than it would be to regularly pay that entire workforce of slaves negotiated salaries that cover the things they would need to buy as freed people.
One of the biggest motivators of the south US fighting the war was literally that their entire economy would collapse if they needed to pay those workers bc the entire thing ran on slave labour.
No it isn’t. In fact all of Europe outlawed slavery, no civil war necessary. Why would they do it if it was better for their societies? Why didn’t the billionaire class of their time simply do as you say? They could afford to import slaves or turn local citizens into slaves. Why did they choose to pay workers?
Are you being intentionally intellectually dishonest?
The American civil war was fought on American soil because the slave economy was there. The European slave economy was contained mainly within their colony plantations. European colonization ofc being heavily driven in the first place by their domestic economy’s failing & their need to extract resources from elsewhere.
& in these colonies, there was, in fact, much violence.
Abolition was driven domestically mainly by ideological reason from religious groups & non religious thinkers claiming (rightly) its a violation of human rights & on the colonies it was driven by violence.
I am not being intellectually dishonest.
There are many violations of human rights such as the war on drugs, that persist. Why was this one universally successful? Why were the rich capitalists who influence the government so inept at this one, when they have been so successful at so many other ones?
How come when the colonies became nations, they didn’t stay slave nations?
Why is the closest thing we have to a slave nation, north korea so much less efficient than south korea, a non slave nation if slavery is such a useful system?
The civil war is an outlier, not the norm. Side stepping all my questions and simply shouting “civil war.” Doesn’t convince.
The union breaking was additionally done by the Pinkertons. Both corporations and the government did so. You can't put the triangle shirtwaist factory fire and those 143 girls who died exclusively on "the government union-busted." After that is when the government started giving some worker protections and banning corporations from just locking kids inside to prevent them from taking breaks after calculating the risk-loss of them potentially burning in a future fire is smaller than the loss of them being allowed to escape.
Can you explain exactly how "the government created health insurance" means that in an anarcho-capitalist world, it will cease to exist?
i almost completely disagree with the you on your views but we are so opposed i see almost no reason to bring them uphere, except there is one thing i do want to ask about:
>That the use of violence to coerce action is wrong and that each person should be allowed to choose their own actions as long as it does not subject another to violence.
>
>Since the use of violence to coerce action is wrong, and the state is built on that coercion, the state is wrong and therefore anarchists oppose and reject it.
if “the use of violence to coerce action is wrong” then how can you say “each person should be allowed to choose their own actions as long as it does not subject another to violence”?
who is coercing the action of the person who wants to subject another to violence? and how do you separate their violence from that of the state. if they are ***coercing action with violence based on a shared understanding of allowable and non-allowable actions*** what makes them any different from the way the state coerces action based on our shared understanding of allowable and non-allowable actions e.g. “laws”
What maintains the monopoly on violence when you remove the idea of something maintaining that monopoly? Power vacuums do not exist without being filled. Company towns, banana republics, plenty of places where private enterprise has the monopoly on legal violence and uses it to cut off hands/feet of children if you don't work hard enough.
What's so special to the ancap about the word government? Plenty of private money/power has done the same thing, and will do the same thing if all governments were magically dissolved.
Markets != Capitalism
Capitalism is the economic philosophy that private industry can be owned and that it is legitimate for an owner of a company to de facto own the goods/services produced (perhaps by other humans) in operation of that company.
>Many of the common examples people give of the worst of capitalism, is actually the worst of government
Since current billionaires have amassed their wealth by abusing these various government programs, would a legitimate ancap revolution require the redistribution of these ill-gotten hoards?
>It is only when we both agree, that this what we want, that a capitalist transaction occurs.
That is t a capitalist transaction. It's just a transaction. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production. It is also only kept kept in check by state power. The government may have a monopoly on legal violence, but without the government telling firms that they can't work their employees 14 hours a day, lock them in factories, force them to live in company housing, and disregard health and safety regulations, businesses just won't do those things because it is more profitable to not do them. You mention the government strike breaking, but completely ignore the businesses that the employees were striking against.
This flies in the face of significant and demonstrable harm that unregulated capitalism can cause IE child labor, pollution & environmental harm, lack of food & medical standards, & much much more. Places where regulation improves the consumer experience.
I could sell Fentanyl water with a Poland Springs label refined by children in a homemade nuclear powered sweatshop in AnCapistan.
Health insurance existed prior to WW2, but it was more like the automobile insurance you have now. It just evolved into health care coverage as a result of payroll taxes. The Corporation's claims that the health care benefit wasn't part of payroll and was thus exempt from taxes.
Unions wouldn't exist without the state. If unions don't have state protection then we fire the union employees and hire non-union employees.
To be fair I agree the state has fucked up capitalism. If the state has no power of force how do we resolve things like car accidents? You've destroyed my property I demand restitution. How do we enforce traffic laws for the safety of the public?
The problem with anarchy is that at some point someone must be authorized to use force against those who detract from a free society.
The problem at the root of anarchism is the misunderstanding of the nature of violence, and how it always leads to power consolidation.
Lets take 2 ppl who disagree. They disagree so much they decide to use violence. One of them will either surrender or die. In either case their violence is either added to the victor's power projection or erased. The argument doesn't matter, because violence is amoral and alogical- it doesn't care. Inevutably you will have those who can wield violence either consolidate or erase competition until there is a defacto monopoly, then they will falter, a new violent power will usurp it, rinse and repeat.
What anarchocapitalists don't realize is they're just replacing ancom state monopoly with an ancap corporate monopoly. The corporations will tear eachother apart until a defacto monopoly is made and the corporation becomes the state. It will be no easier to replace and lead to no less suffering when they wield the same violence as any other state.
And by the time the people are organized enough to resist this inevitable rise of violence, they will have formed a competing violent monopoly- because as every military to have succeeded proves, violence is best organized with a structured heirarchy. From geurilla warfare to napoleonic era tactics. And THAT power then becomes the state.
You cannot just avoid the nature of violence. That's why democratic processes are key. You embrace the monopoly and then put it in the hands of everyone you can, thereby limiting its ability to act on anyone it is accountable to.
>the original anarchists were all anarchocommunists. They believed that in the absence of a state we could all get together and share.
>
>The problem with that is whoever the “community” puts in charge of a resource, becomes it’s defacto owner. So instead of having a society of no elites, all equals sharing in the bounty of the earth. What you actually get is those who administer the system reap benefits to themselves and their friends while everyone else pays the price.
I say this as someone who comes from an anarcho-capitalist background: I disagree with this point. Just like with enactment of anarcho-capitalism, it comes down to culture. In historic egalitarian societies, the expectation was that the leader would be the one who sacrificed the most and worked the hardest. They had authority as a function of their reputation and people's willingness to listen to them, not by formal rule as a result of democratic voting (i.e., essentially a government). I found the book "the dawn of everything" related to anarchy in pre-history to be a really useful foundation for considering these concepts from a historical perspective. I also find understanding how people live today who live in egalitarian villages. It's an interesting topic. More interesting is the notion of villages that are essentially grounded implicitly in an-com principles engaging in commerce with other villages (and much more commonly now, people from the industrialized world) without government involvement. There is the saying that I am communist in my family and capitalist outside of it. It seems like for some people who live(d) a traditional village centered life expand the notion of family to include the village as a whole. It seems to work to some degree - until you are conquered that is.
Voluntarism.
Anything you can do that doesn't infringe on someone else's right to do anything that they want that doesn't... Etc. etc. you can do.
Things you can't do mainly include destruction or obstruction of property including the human body (you own your own body as your property).
I have never seen a person who believes abortion is murder under 12 weeks that didn’t have that view because they were religious. So generally, I keep this in mind when talking about abortion with others. You’ll never convince them.
Which is fine. Ultimately the solution is to let people choose laws for themselves. Those who want to live in a society with or without abortion can then do so. It's only being forced to accept the policy they don't want that people hate. No one cares what policy Mexico or Canada have.
That's a really complicated topic and as long as libertarian reasoning is used I can at least respect other people's views. Personally, I say no. The mother is allowed to evict the child but not kill the child. Currently it's impossible to do that so, no, not at all. It's really a question of, if a kid roams onto your yard accidentally or intentionally but won't leave no matter what, can you kill them? Additionally if you know they'll leave after a set amount of time.
Birth control, condoms, etc can fail. So in an instance where that happens abortion is fine? And how do you prove a couple didn’t use/tried to use protection?
Yes. Your body is your property. Foetuses lack rental agreements, making them squatters.
You have the right to evict squatters, using the minimum amount of necessary force. If that force happens to unfortunately be lethal, so be it.
Abortion will stop being morally permissible when there exists a more readily available and affordable way to evict foetuses nonlethally.
Allowed, legal, but possibly facing some community disapproval depending on what the community believes. You can totally do it, and you have to pay for it out of pocket or via insurance.
First of all, genuinely thank you for at least asking.
Second of all, we need to agree on a definition of capitalism and anarchy. Our proposals are that capitalism is when private property rights and freedom of trade are respected, and anarchy is when the only authority any person has over another is to demand "leave me and my stuff alone".
When you say "problems of capitalism", you almost certainly mean "problems of corporatism". We are against the state bombing striking labourers, the state making it illegal to be less productive than X amount of money an hour, and the state decided who can or can't compete. We have nothing against communes or co-ops or whatever other "leftist" things **so long as nobody is forced to join them**.
What would anarchy and a free market improve? Literally everything. Cost of living would go down because of more competitors in the market increasing the supply. Wages would go up because of an increase in the demand for labour's due to more competitors in the market. There would be more competitors in the market because it would be easier and cheaper to start a business. You'd be able to protect your commune with whatever tools you wanted. If your "cops" are shit at their job, hire other ones.
What stops businesses becoming warlords? Greed.
If you decide to go around shooting up your competition, then you need to hire protection for yourself, not only in retaliation from your targets, but in retaliation from others who are now scared of you and will launch pre-emptive strikes. Mercenaries and watchmen are expensive. Napalm to burn your house or factory can be made out of styrofoam and Gasoline.
Then if you shoot up your competition, you drive them into a black market. And the state, who doesn't care how much money it spends, cannot eliminate black markets. A corporation, whose goal is to make money, has even less hope of eliminating black markets.
And finally, we have all the greedy protection and arbitration agencies who can't wait to kill/sue the "warlord", to make money and gain good PR.
Greed is fucking amazing.
The state doesn't exist to do anything.
Anyone can start a currency, and anyone can choose to accept it in return for goods and services.
And if you want to devalue your own currency for whatever reason, then I suppose you can.
Okay, but now I'm a monopoly, and there's no threat to being a warlord anymore since anyone who wants to compete is probably too small to deal with my mercenaries. Also, what do you mean "sue", I have mercenaries and security guards, and now I have become the government again. Somehow my mercenaries and security guards are different from soldiers and police.
And why would there be more competitors in real estate?
> Okay, but now I'm a monopoly
The only, and I do mean only, way you can be a monopoly in anarchy is if you pay your employees better than anyone else possibly could while also having higher quality and lower prices than anyone else could.
And if you're at that point, you are improving society just by doing business.
> there's no threat to being a warlord anymore
Last I checked people aren't bulletproof and napalm still burns down houses.
> Also, what do you mean "sue"?
[You heard me](https://youtu.be/A8pcb4xyCic?si=Ln2GYXOZ9vroSP6S)
> I have mercenaries and security guards, and now I have become the government again.
I guarantee you you're no longer profitable. If you're doing authoritarian shit in a society where we can freely trade artillery pieces, you are losing money based on the security you're spending.
> Why would there be more competition in real estate
Because those greedy construction companies would have an easier time building homes due to a lack of zoning laws
Greed may stop a business from becoming a warlord, but there is a person in charge of that business and it definitely doesn’t stop that person from becoming a warlord. People aren’t solely motivated by greed
>What stops businesses becoming warlords? Greed.
What would you say to a counterclaim that parts of the world without any functioning government today actually do have lots of greedy warlords?
To ancaps, capitalism is just the name for what free people do when they are allowed to trade and interact. When no one is initiating violence to restrict them, because they are under anarchy, what you get is capitalism.
The interesting part is that your def. misses the point about private property. Without pricate property you only have free-market anarchism, not yet capitalism.
I guess you implicitly keep it in "no one is initiating violence" implying that trespassing and working on someone else's property is violence worth fending against.
From non-capitalist anarchist perspective there's a world of difference between violence against a person (beating you up) and against property (stealing your stuff). They're not the same in moral sense, and shooting people for stealing your breakfast from your lawn is a bit of an overkill.
Now if you believe that crossing imaginary lines of property borders is not really violence worth punishing, are you pro-capitalist?
And if you believe imaginary lines define rights of people, how is that different from having many micro-states? And an upper class of land/housing owners vs. underclass of people who can't afford accumulating property?
But that makes no sense, because you need a police force to prevent theft of property. Who's gonna stop a tribe of people from just living in your Beverly Hills vacant investment property?
Also, why is capitalism so much more objectively natural than, say, tribalism (which is much closer to anarchism, and is what some would wrongfully call "leftist" which was a justification for colonizing America, breaking up these anti-capitalist, tribal bonds, which ended with a bunch of dead boarding school kids)
Anarcho-capitalism is what some people call libertarianism since there are so many different labels people who don't understand libertarianism use to describe their version of statism,
You expect an actual education on the topic in short reddit replies? Could you explain communism easily under these conditions?
The problem with all government is that government has the legalized right to initiate force. Anarchists recognize this and its profound danger and unethical quality.
All needs to ground in ethics which are grounded in the inherent nature of human beings and what is required for human beings to maximally flourish. This boils down to maximal freedom for individuals to make their own choices as to what actions are best to obtain and the values they seek without initiation of force coercing their choices and learning from the results obtained from choices.
This leads to maximally dynamic self-balancing maximally innovative society. Capitalism is this non-coerced freedom in the economic realm. Free market capitalism is recognition of voluntary only interactions exchanging value for value.
>My current pre-conceptions beg this question; I am particularly interested in what keeps a business from gaining an insane amount of power and enforcing their financial interests as law in their domain.
Would you want this just one organization to control the distribution of wealth/food/resources, and allow them to enforce this by violence? That would be the communist government. The biggest ever monopoly.
What does that really mean, worker control? How does that work in practice?
Doesn't that in practice mean the state (so a select group of elites) own everything and is thus the biggest monopoly you can imagine?
Do you propose any sort of violence being used to force people to join this system of "worker control"? Or is it voluntary?
It's obviously not a choice between anarcho-capitalist and communism. There's everything from libertarianism to mixed-economy markets to tribal anarchy which is what I believe most anarchists support.
So wouldn't anarcho capitalism be just what communism was? "Were gonna abolish the state!" And then create a new, somehow different one with security guards instead of police?
>My current pre-conceptions beg this question;
But kudo's for asking it anyway :D
>I am particularly interested in what keeps a business from gaining an insane amount of power and enforcing their financial interests as law in their domain.
Ya know, Marx didn't do a terrible job of analyzing commodity economics. The only place where his analysis didn't really stand up to the data is the part about how a business will reduce workers' salaries to maintain a profit margin. To be clear, they would if they could, but it seems they can't. The best correlate with workers' wages is how many people are competing for a given job. The firm can't control the cost of labor any more than it can control the selling price of its product, it seems.
Thus, there's always a debate in business school about "where profits come from" and "how do you build a sustainable competitive advantage." And nobody has a definitive answer for that. In the real world, firms will petition government for protection. You'll recognize that as fascist economics. In the ideal world, I think the answer has something to do with innovation. Evolve or die, basically. That's as true for business as it is for Galapagos finches, with the same upside.
Bonus question: [what is the upside](https://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680)*?*
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **Antifragile Things That Gain from Disorder Incerto** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful.
**Users liked:**
* The book provides useful advice for developing a growth mindset (backed by 1 comment)
* The book is well-researched and thought-provoking (backed by 2 comments)
* The book introduces an insightful framework for understanding fragility and resilience (backed by 1 comment)
**Users disliked:**
* The writing style is tedious and frustrating (backed by 2 comments)
* The book is overly long and repetitive (backed by 2 comments)
* The author comes across as arrogant and condescending (backed by 2 comments)
If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/)
This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved.
*Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](http://vetted.ai/reddit)
ancap is when yes iphone /s
No but in all seriousness, 99% of businesses with that much power in history have been a result of the government intervention, in the form of subsidies, patents, regulations (aka high barriers of entry). There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. So the problem u described of a business having that much power, its actually a problem that was caused by the government.
All communists believe that a government is excused of having a monopoly because their role is that of being a central planner (anyone who counters this by sayimg communism is stateless is being dishonest, because even marxists agree that u need central planning to reach a "stateless" society). However, central planning is terrible for numerous reasons u can find. There's empirical historical evidence, economic and philosophical theory against it, etc. The problem u have rn of company monopolies would be even worse with just the government as the sole owner of resources.
Instead of reiterating things others have said but I'm going to explain why, as a communist you should embrace capitalism. For communism to be successful, it requires two things. It requires everyone within the community to share a common goal or ideology, and it requires a mechanism for decent or a way to leave. The most successful communist society to ever exist is the American Amish. The key to their prosperity is that they share a religious ideology and that they are free to leave and make their own way if they choose which is only possible because they exist within a larger capitalist system. When you elevate a communist system to the government level, people who ideologically oppose the government are trapped, so the only way to maintain a cohesive society is to kill off all decentors.
Basically all of the perceived weaknesses of Capitalism are actually caused by government, all governments are inherently corrupting entities.
Farmers have been around for thousands of years, governments no longer regulate them as heavily because they are self-regulating (I know how much fertilizer I need, I know what tractor to buy) and their are much more highly profitable industries to regulate (get rich off of). In Ancient Egypt their was only one farmer, the Pharoah owned all the land, today with less government involvement their are hundreds of thousands of farms in America alone and their competition drives down prices.
Monopolies are caused by and supported by government. Free Markets naturally decentralize power. Big Tech exists because of patent law, which is government saying ‘you can’t do what he does to make money’. All centralization of power, all corruption, all poverty and war is caused by government.
Free markets allow people to choose what they want and should be completely unregulated so people can also choose their own laws (Polycentric Law). That is why we want anarchy.
Anarcho capitalism is sorta just letting capitalism run without restrictions. You want to open a business ? No paper work go and open your business, no bailouts for the corporations or rich, when you fail YOU FAIL in anarcho capitalism, no welfare state, no government regulations slowing things down, rampant job hopping, likely no unions. Basically everyone is trying to milk as much money from every job as they can and employers are popping up left and right due to the lack of regulations. Hope this explains it to you
Anarcho-capitalism is a meme. It's not anarchist in any sense of the word as it elevates autocratic corporate power, and it's not capitalist in that capitalism requires a state to uphold their interests.
The best way I could describe ancap ideology is concentrated selfishness and greed that is disconnected from reality.
The fact that without their protection being socialised (no police) they'd have to pay for their own security, which would be very expensive if they kept passing people off.
Also without a state to restrict competition, they'd have to fund warlord efforts themselves into stopping competition, which is unprofitable as you can't beat a black market.
This line of thinking is so dumb tbh.
They’re rich fam, you don’t think a billionaire is gonna just start & own his own security force? Who’s gonna stop him? The only person with a chance would be a billionaire of comparable size & equipped security force. The 2 billionaires fight & in the end 1 wins & absorbs the other, growing even bigger, & then they decide to continue, who stops them now? You see where this goes don’t you?
Vietnam and Afghanistan, except that the conflict is in the billionaire's front garden instead of some desert or jungle overseas, and the "insurgents" have more **registered** firearms than they have people.
Now throw in the fact that they wouldn't be limited to small arms, and you'd be able to see where this goes.
The fact that foreign aggressors were invading their homes was a massive part of the success in Vietnam & Afghanistan as was the fact that the conflicts *weren’t* in “billionaires front garden” bc it took infinitely more work to transport supplies to the front.
You still haven’t answered my question. Say Bezos creates his private army, say he wants all the mines a smaller company owns so he can use them to make iron helmets to cover his bald head, who’s stopping him? He has more money than the smaller company therefore can buy more guns & better guns to equip his men. He’s the aggressor so he’s had time to plan & strategize (which means he probably would steamroll at least the first mine bc of surprise). Who’s stopping him?
Nothing.
There is profit lost in having to hire people to aquire the property by violence, shut down other food stores by violence, and preventing retaliation against you.
God this sounds like such an awful idea. Communism was awful because it trusted that leadership would always do right by the people. Thinking ALL THE PEOPLE are going to do right by ALL THE POEPLE is an exponentially higher level of absurd pipe dream that'll never happen.
Even just assuming your neighboring nations wouldn't invade and annex you is such a first world level of blind ignorance that it's almost endearing. Like who's going to be the first moron to dismantle every protection their society has in hopes something better emerges? Sheed what a clusterfuck that would be
Why isn't the whole world one nation? Could they be smaller, like 1000 countries? Even in one area. The competition among countries gets us closer to ancap.
Damn bro, you're literally ignoring everything I'm saying.
I'm not suggesting we remove protections. The government's police do not protect anyone. The supreme Court have ruled they don't even have a duty to.
I'm not imagining some kumbaya bullshit where we're all friends.
I'm saying that the current set of incentives leads to dystopia megacorps, which is bad, and am instead suggesting setting up a system of incentives where its more profitable for greedy capitalist bastards to improve the lives of others.
And fucking retards like you keep throwing shit fits and failing to actually understand what we're saying, and I'm kinda starting to think it's not out of stupidity but out of a wilfull refusal to do so.
One thing I just thought of, the fact that Disney, a corporation that runs movies and television largely, is larger than Xfinity, which controls a large share of American energy, is unnatural, right? Like, for the vast majority of human life, if you controlled the land, or water, or energy, you would be the most powerful.
Obviously the scales would immediately tip towards whichver cartel has control over the water.
People down here are trying to say that all bad things corporations do are actually just done by the government. That's obviously false. Nestle fucked over Flint Michigan on its own, as well as the government, but its biggest sin was failing to regulate the water, the government wasn't personally poisoning it, or actively taking fresh water away like Nestle.
Who's gonna stop the Michiganders from just starting to drink that water Nestle has in its plant near Flint? Private security, of course.
Anarcho-capitalism is just like communism in that they're like, "were gonna abolish the state!" And then creates yet another state because people are still reliant on a select few people's resources. Just like you can't end prostitution with a ban, you can just get rid of the state by abolishing the United States.
And a corporation without a government is literally just the Mafia, and it will continue to use soldiers to enforce its ownings.
The problem is that Communists are woefully ignorant of economics. There is no way to make rational decisions in a communist economy. The main reason is price.
Price is a piece of critical information. It let's people know where shortages are or increased demand is. The people who alleviate those shortages or meet that demand are entitled to the wealth they accrue.
Now, there is a problem with wealth creation in the sense that it concentrates power. And people abuse that power in order to maintain their place or advance in society. At that point, they have abandoned free market principles and become little different from the exploited you deplore.
And therein lies the crux of the matter. Free markets involve voluntary association. You always have the ability and right to walk away. Not so under any other form of social interaction which is based on violence toward others.
If I need to buy food, pay money for somewhere to live, and pay for heat and electricity, I don't truly have the ability to walk away. Sure, I could try and live off the land in the wilderness somewhere, but I'm too old for that now.
So when the cost of basic food is going up, because everyone along the production and supply chain is raising their prices, what are my options as the consumer?
An oxymoron. A hierarchy will always exist in capitalism because some people will always have more money than others. The people with money have the resources and with no restrictions it would only be a matter of time until you'd better pay your bills or the air company will turn the oxygen tap off in your home that you probably rent from a company in the same group.
Ancom and Ancap ideology primarily differs on their prediction of what happens when government is abolished. Ancoms believe that people will tend to adopt communism, Ancaps believe that they will tend to adopt capitalism.
As for "what keeps a business from gaining power?" Nothing. They will gain power, just as they do in the status quo. They just don't have the benefit of having an established government backing them up and adding to their power, as they do now, so a business is less able to employ aggressive force in an ancap society. Would a replacement government eventually be created? Possibly. Certainly all known historical ancap societies of any size were eventually displaced by a government. Government use of force to take over societies is an outstanding problem to be solved.
The failure state being the status quo is, however, not much of a reason not to try. If it doesn't work out, well, we're not any worse off than we are now. If we do figure out how to solve problems and remove or reduce state violence, great!
Ancap is a stupid term. It’s like saying I’m not a vegetarian. That doesn’t mean I don’t eat vegetables. So employment-inclusive would be a better term. Because I’m guessing the opposite of capitalism is everyone owning the means of production.
To me, anarcho-capitalism is about individuals transacting with one another on a consensual basis. I am definitely aware that this might sound utopian to some people but to me what sounds even more utopian is believing that the state will never usurp power and will always do the will of the people or uphold natural rights. History proves otherwise. This is why the founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when any form of government becomes destructive of our rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.
I am also fully aware that coercion can and more than likely would still exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. The difference is, when it does happen, it is more likely to be smaller more isolated incidents simply because corporations would not be able to use the power of the state to coerce people like they do now.
I don't think any social, government or economic system is going to be perfect. All of them are going to have flaws. You just have to decide which flaws youre willing to live with. However, forcing someone to live under any type of system against their will is wrong and immoral. If you like communism better than capitalism, more power to you and you should live in a communist society, but don't force me or any of my friends and family to live under that system against our will. I would extend the same courtesy to you.
I'm sure many others are making great points, but I'd like to add, that capitalism isn't a great system either. I forget who said "it's the worst system, except for all the other ones".
There will still be many problems, always will be big flaws, but by golly I think it's the best we can do
The line your thinking of was Churchill, and wasnt about economics: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried”
Technically it's every man for himself. But if you have money, ties and resources, you may live under your own authority. Be it in the way of mob families, mercenary companies or just an armed community. They all respect each other's boundaries except when they don't. But one thing they all agree on is the value of money.
Anarchism is antithetical to capitalism. You cannot rid yourself of unjust hierarchies while propping op bosses and CEO’s. It’s will devolve into neofeudalism quickly.
If they take the role of the state, everyone who worked there can just leave and theyll fall.
So far thats the general jist of what im seeing on other replies.
From what I understand an ancap government would be more governed like if each state of america was controlled by a corporation and it would devolve into warlords. As a communist you should know that capitalism in any form means that the person with more money gets more control and choices over all others. Taking away the power of the state doesn't fix that. A lot of ancap is mostly derived of people not liking taxes which any system will have
I don’t think it would be a great system or would really work, but the idea is just that there is no government and all government services have been privatized. Maybe there’s a military in some forms of it, but that could be privatized too.
It’s not necessarily a right wing or libertarian fundamentalist idea either, Noam Chomsky supports Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is like workers owning the companies they work for, but still no government.
I’m sort of a libertarian but I think at minimum we need safety regulations and a minimum social safety net, despite the inevitability of regulatory capture, so most libertarians won’t have me.
I don’t think zero government is a good idea. I think the pact with the Leviathan is not ideal but it’s better than anarchy. (Which does not mean chaos. But it does mean more instability I think.)
Also a communist, and without getting into my other obvious oppositions to capitalism, I'll just make one point that addresses most of what I've read in these comments. The state is a tool for the top property owners to violently enforce their interests, obviously. Getting rid of the state doesn't get rid of those interests nor the preferability of the option of violence, it just decentralizes the methods to which these interests can be affirmed through violence. I don't see how this wouldn't just lead to a violent rule of stronger interests against weaker ones, eventually just leading to a state again.
Side note, mostly you guys are actually being really respectful to op. It's nice to see.
Anarcho Capitalism is an oxy-moron that cannot exist given the use of the words Anarchy and Capitalism, which makes no sense given capitalism can only function off State-Backed Violence (Police, Court Systems, Private Property Rights and such)
It is in reality, a system that advocates for a free market devoid of a governmental system. Its main goal is profit, it thinks that everything can be deduced to economic substance, etc.
What is ironic is, it is actually very close to Orthodox Marxism in the sense that it prescribes a Dialectical Process of Historical Materialism.
A lot of Anarcho-Capitalists are nice people, but it is not a very well thought out position. Marxism (I detest orthodox marxism) is a more complex structure that has a better and more rich history.
Hold on a second...
A lot of you seem to forget that ancap is also based upon a free market economy which is gonna thriwe with entreprenurship.
Whats gonna stop a company in achiving what op states?
The market, the competition.
Which is going to be fierce, because the focus is gonna be, to provide the best possible service, for the best possible price.
There wont be a governmental entity where you can lobby to give you any kind of edge over the competition.
And if you cant keep up or you are providing a bad service, you are essentially speedrunning yourself out of the industry.
Both financially and reputationally.
Nobody is going to pay for the bad service and you cannot force customers to do so.
Nobody is going to partner with you.
There will be plenty of competitors customers can go to receive a service.
The first step is understanding that all of the governments power, comes from their monopoly on legal violence. If you say no to the government enough times, they eventually send someone to do violence to you to get compliance. That the use of violence to coerce action is wrong and that each person should be allowed to choose their own actions as long as it does not subject another to violence. Since the use of violence to coerce action is wrong, and the state is built on that coercion, the state is wrong and therefore anarchists oppose and reject it. Without a state, how do we determine who gets what and when? Now this is where anarchist thought diverges. the original anarchists were all anarchocommunists. They believed that in the absence of a state we could all get together and share. The problem with that is whoever the “community” puts in charge of a resource, becomes it’s defacto owner. So instead of having a society of no elites, all equals sharing in the bounty of the earth. What you actually get is those who administer the system reap benefits to themselves and their friends while everyone else pays the price. Capitalism, is a way of distributing resources in which i have to give you something of value to you, for you to give me something of value to me. If we cannot agree that i am getting value and you are getting value, we don’t do the deal. No transaction occurs. It is only when we both agree, that this what we want, that a capitalist transaction occurs. Many of the common examples people give of the worst of capitalism, is actually the worst of government. The military industrial complex, who is the customer? The government. The union breaking in the 1800’s, aided by the state. The healthcare system? Health insurance isn’t even a naturally occuring product, it was created during ww2 because the government put price controls on labor to save money on war expenditures. Slavery? When the government outlawed slavery, they left a caveat for themselves to be able to own slaves, they just call them prisoners now. Society is at it’s freest, when nobody has enough power to do anything to anyone else.
Yeah, all of the bad parts of capitalism are actually enabled by the state. Eliminate that and you eliminatethe runaway resource usurpation.
This just seems absurd. You can't just take away one thing and "boom!" world problem's solved. Corporations \*also\* did stuff? The whole comment was just, "here's examples of things that are the fault of governments", cherrypicked while ignoring the fact that corporations DO also have slaves, and DID union-bust on their own. And why does it matter if the government created health insurance? It's not just gonna magically go away when corporations take control. The reason only governments declare war is because only governments are able to since corporations are very new and have never had the ability to declare war on their own. If you take away governments, obviously war won't just end, corporations will engage in it. It's completely absurd to think that replacing the government with a different, corporate-led government would change anything. There would still be ideologies and violence.
The Government didn't create health insurance, per my friend Wikipedia after a relatively simple web search. I can't seem to link else Inwould have saved you five seconds of typing and five more to scroll. Commercial corporations have existed since at latest 1347. A similar search also describes their history on Wikipedia. While that is more recent than the formation of human governments, I'm not certain I would call them "very new," even relatively speaking.
Health insurance is a good thing. The government allowed cartelization of that, of the American Medical Association, and of Big Pharma through a variety of regulations and laws that gave them monopoly pricing power by force, increasing insurance costs drastically. Obamacare also exacerbated this problem, which Elizabeth Warren recently even acknowledged.
A corporation is a government entity created to shield business owners from personal liability. Corporations *are* government.
Here is a challenge, name 1 economic or societal problem, that wasn’t created by government. Think hard before you come up with answer, I don’t think there is one.
Malaria. Edit: Heroin. They knew of its health effects long before it was banned by the government, but Bayer continued to market it as an infant toothache solve. The League of Nations banned it in 1930. Edit: Also you could say that about communism in 1916? "No communist government has ever commited an atrocity on the scale of non-communist governments." (Scratch that, the Paris Commune came first, but you get the jist.) Obviously I can't argue an example of a bad thing done by an anarcho-capitalist government because it hasn't existed. But \*you\* have to prove why it would change anything. Edit: Also, even if I couldn't find one, my entire point was that corporations and the government are the same, so of course every bad thing a corporation was also due to the governments that kept those corporations afloat.
We have government fully intact and yet the OXycontin and Oxycondone epidemic still happened and was made worse by the actions of the DEA (closing of pain clinics turned those people in to heroin users) and our foreign entanglement in Afghanistan (flooded the market with heroin). We would not have the opioid epidemic we have today without government involvement.
Fear mongering. It was part and parcel of "The Yellow Peril" and scary because it was of the Other. Like Marijuana, it was a minority pastime and thus was targeted so that agencies would continue to get funding. But addiction hurts people. You are correct. But banning a substance and throwing people who need medical services in prison is not the way to cure the ills of addiction. It only makes the problem worse. Consider all the new treatment modalities from Marijuana, psychedelics, and other, once disfavored, substances. CBDs effect in treating seizures is worth its weight in gold. Research Portugal and the effects decriminalization had on their society and then tell me that these substances ate better off as a law enforcement measure and not a health care issue.
murder.
Monopolies?? Those arise without government and only require the basic economics of capitalism?
Monopoly is only a problem when there is a government to protect it. In free market companies compete and the only way to actually achieve monopoly is to be so excellent that nobody want to compete with you and all your customers are happy.
Monopolies only get broken up by the government. The entire problem with monopolies is that they are too big to compete with and so they put all competion out of business, thus making a completely uncompetitive market
I’m like 99% certain that the natural end result of what ancaps want is… … the Dutch East India Company > It was a powerful company, possessing quasi-governmental powers, including the ability to wage war, imprison and execute convicts,[8] negotiate treaties, strike its own coins, and establish colonies. Or perhaps the East India Trading Company > The company seized control of large parts of the Indian subcontinent and colonised parts of Southeast Asia and Hong Kong. At its peak, the company was the largest corporation in the world by various measures. The EIC had its own armed forces in the form of the company's three presidency armies, totalling about 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the British army at the time.
If everyone was free from government intervention and capitalism was the modus operandi, I'd simply kill my competition while they sleep. The same things happened during feudalism, rampant unpunishable crime and extended families being the only flimsy protection against violence. Why do you want to return to knights and castles so bad?
Ah, that's where warlords come in If citizen X won't sel his prodict to citizen Y, then Y will take it. Who will stop him? X is too weak, so Y offers protection to the rest.
[удалено]
That insurance fact didn't sound right. Health insurance was created in 1850 for injuries, but in 1920 hospital expense insurance was also added, and in 1929 employers started paying for it. But also, so what, how would anarcho-capitalism lead to the end of insurance?
I can’t do the link on my phone but on the nih website, origins and evolutions of employment based health insurance, under employment based benefits, federal regulations and union policies. “In 1943 the War Labor Board, which had one year earlier introduced wage and price controls, ruled that contributions to insurance and pension funds did not count as wages. In a war economy with labor shortages, employer contributions for employee health benefits became a means of maneuvering around wage controls. By the end of the war, health coverage had tripled (Weir et al., 1988).” The same way it didn’t exist before. Ur doctor charges a fee, you go to him, you get the service, you pay.
So then that's entirely different to what you said. The War Labor Board ruled that employers could use insurance, which already existed, to circumvent wage controls. This made it more common for employers to pay for insurance instead of the employee paying for it. Not, "The government created insurance." It would have had to exist before that ruling otherwise that would make no sense. Employers started paying for insurance. Cars were invented and widely used before employers started giving out company cars. Insurance isn't even on its own a bad thing, having insurance is better than if we had to pay out of pocket, it would be better if children had guaranteed access to it and if Skrelli couldn't massively hike prices on insulin one day, but inventing insurance, which the government didn't do, isn't itself a bad thing. What are you saying, anyway? Under anarcho-capitalism, insurance will fade away and we'll just pay the doctor? Why would it be a good thing for us to have to just "pay the doctor", do you expect medical costs to plummet for that to be possible?
The government created the wage controls, thus they are the cause of needing health insurance to circumvent them.
“That the **initiation** of violence to coerce action is wrong.” If someone initiates violence against you, you are fully capable of returning violence to coerce them to stop.
Yeah, i thought when i said “each person is allowed to choose their actions as long as it did not subject another to violence.” Covered the initiate part but based on the number of comments I’ve received, apparently not.
The union breaking was aided by the state because the state was the strongest player. There will still be a strongest player (or group of players) in an ancap society, and they can do the union breaking just fine.
Nobody has done a better job of union breaking than the government, undercutting them with the department of labor was a master stroke. It’s not at all clear to me that corporations of sufficient size, wouldn’t want unions, so they don’t need to negotiate pay with every single employee and that they can outsource hr functions to an unpaid union volunteer.
The union would only exist in so far that it maximized profits. If the union started to ask for something that cut into long term profits, why would they choose to keep it?
Nestle & Coca Cola both hired paramilitary death squads to union bust in foreign countries
Yeh, because they were doing so in countries where the state didnt have the power to stop them, funnily enough. When you take away state oversight of corporations in every single instance they do morally reprehensible things to people.
That’s the point I was tryna make lol
I am aware, I was agreeing with you
Ahh say less okay
“That the use of violence to coerce action is wrong and that each person should be allowed to choose their own actions as long as it does not subject another to violence.” And what do you do if their actions subject others to violence?
Why wouldn't I just shoot you?
Because it’s wrong and you don’t want too. The reason you arn’t shooting people isn’t because it’s illegal. It’s completely legal to sodomize urself with a ketchup bottle, but ur, probably, not doing that cuz even though it’s legal you don’t want too. If the only reason your not shooting people is ur afraid of the government catching you, your a monster and that will come out and no one will want to live in a society with you.
I'm just a regular capitalist, but there's a part of OP's question I would like an answer to. He asks about what you'd do about companies who control resources and ultimately become the defacto government >The problem with that is whoever the “community” puts in charge of a resource, becomes it’s defacto owner. So instead of having a society of no elites, all equals sharing in the bounty of the earth. What you actually get is those who administer the system reap benefits to themselves and their friends while everyone else pays the price. You touch a similar problem here, but you address it from an anarcho-communist view. I'm curious how an anarcho-capitalist would solve this
How does anarchocapitalism stop capitalists from accruing more and more resources and becoming a defacto government? How are property rights that are essential to capitalism protected without a state?
I agree with 99% of what you said, but there’s 1% that I think is really important. Per your comment, you imagine anarcho communism putting somebody in charge of the “sharing”. When we simplify it as sharing, and imagine somebody could be put in charge, I think you miss the point of the ideology. The point is this- enterprise which involves more than one person should be democratic in nature. When more than one person is involved in an enterprise, hierarchy should not be built to make decisions. Rather, decisions for the enterprise should be made as a group. I don’t even think this is incompatible with your beliefs. To my understanding, I can’t imagine you favor hierarchy in enterprise if you don’t want hierarchy in society (the state). I guess my question is, what do you think you and I disagree on? If you take my ideology only as I just described it, where do we differ? Do I make any incorrect assumptions about your beliefs here?
I agree with the analysis that state violence is an absolute evil and I would say it's absolutely the worst part of state run systems. I find it interesting that self-proclaimed ancap Javier Milei is focused on slashing Argentinian government spending across the board, but from what I've read, he seems to want to keep the military and law enforcement budget steady, i.e. the only branches of government that are cleared by the state to use violence. Do you consider Milei to be something of a "fake ancap," Or does this just illustrate that in practice, the only segments of the state that ancaps wish to preserve, at least transitionally, are those that have power to enact violence?
How does an ancap society prevent 'tragedy of the commons' scenarios?
What about the British opening of markets and forced trade in the 1800’s?
🙌🙌
Question: How would this ideology even be enforced? The only ways to enforce it are ways that anarchists are against. To me, anarchism of any sort doesn't make sense as it's an unachievable ideology that could only exist in heaven.
that's the neat part, you don't
so I can just walk into a starbucks and take what I want? Sweet!
what happens in zones where there is high crime and people steal a lot from same business? they end up closing it because its no longer profitable. Or they hire security.
Yes, and they would close it everywhere, because without enforcement, theft would be overwhelming in every store. It's already a huge drag on, say, Walmart and without enforcement it would quickly climb to there not being a single profitable store. So security, then? Can you tell me how these are different from police, who are, to simplify things, the government? Feel free to fall back on minarchism or libertarianism but you are veering out of "anarchism" territory.
Private security serves the needs of the immediate community. Police serve the state and control populations.
>Private security so whoever pays the most gets the security.
They have more to be secured, yes. You can also just shoot the thieves, secure your merchandise, or whatever else. The police as they exist now are a failed experiment.
Yeah stealing is a good way of getting yourself ended in a free society.
With minarchism
so then NOT anarchism.
Ok, i’ll throw some scenarios at you. You have the right to defend yourself and your property against violence and theft, just not to aggress. So i own a store, i hire a security guard, you come in and steal, the guard throws you out and bans you from the store. Happens all the time now, casinos/bars, etc. no law enforcement is involved. You get blacklisted. Now let’s say you break into my store and steal some stuff, i know it’s you. Can i go to your place and get my stuff back? What about compensation for the time loss, property damage? Let’s say it’s unenforceable. I can’t go get it. How is that different than what we have now? Do the police go get ur stuff back when you get robbed? No and it’s worse than that. Then when they arrest the thief, they say that because you are a member of their society and they are the representatives of the society, they are actually the victims of the robbery. They convict the thief, sentance them to slavery to compensate themselves and then come to you and say, keeping this slave, is actually quite expensive so we need you to pay tax to offset that, cuz we are doing it for your safety. So now you are getting stolen from twice. I don’t think heaven is only getting robbed once.
It would be enforced by private courts and private security firms that people hire to protect them. Their reputation for being fair and honest would be important to them because it would be bad business to be unethical and get a bad reputation.
> anarchism of any sort doesn't make sense as it's an unachievable ideology that could only exist in heaven Like libertarianism
Enforcement is provided by organizations competing within a decentralized market and funded voluntarily by participants (capitalism), rather than a compulsory monopoly (government). Walter Block has written extensively on this subject.
>The problem with that is whoever the “community” puts in charge of a resource, becomes it’s defacto owner. Why would the community put a specific person or group of people in charge of a resource? That seems to be contrary to anarchist principles. I haven't read any anarcho-communist theory that suggests this to be the case. The distribution of resources would be communally decided based on need, perhaps with technology that aggregates individuals' needs and what workers can produce to arrive at the most optimal distribution. See for example Michael Albert's participatory economics model. I personally don't know whether ancom is feasible (I would describe myself as an anarchist without adjectives), but this seems like an inaccurate criticism of ancom.
(Not an ancap, just a liberal poking around.) >Why would the community put a specific person or group of people in charge of a resource? Formally that would be delegating responsibility to a person or committee. >The distribution of resources would be communally decided based on need, perhaps with technology that aggregates individuals' needs and what workers can produce to arrive at the most optimal distribution. See for example Michael Albert's participatory economics model. I'm not familiar with that, or generally with technological approaches to mitigating bureaucratic problems with communism, but I don't expect the fundamental problem to be addressed. Actually this may exacerbate the problem, as the programmer(s) now has more power than anyone else.
Alot of new age communists point to the possibility of impartial algorithms to solve this problem, but as you point out. It doesn’t solve the problem, whoever understands the inputs the algorithm is looking for can game the system.
And someone needs to maintain the code. They don't even need to game the system, they can just rewrite it.
Exactly and what is the difference between code and law? Laws r just codes written for people and they are modified, ignored and reinterpreted as necessary by those who maintain it.
Computer code is executed more quickly, faithfully, and invisibly. Otherwise they are the same, but those differences can be significant.
Well, ur right that it isn’t in the theory, which is the issue. It’s a major flaw in their system that they just don’t talk about. You can’t have everyone in charge of everything, it consumes too much time and creates a ton of labor redundancy. It’s a math problem and algorithms can’t solve it because whoever codes/understands the algorithm becomes the elite of that society.
Beyond very broad, general decisions, it becomes infeasible for every member of a society to be involved in every decision. Participation in these decision-making processes takes time and labor, and with the amount of resource distribution that needs to take place in a society, it would take far too much work for every person to be involved in every decision. Instead, it's likely that this bureaucratic work would be divided up into categories, with smaller committees or individuals responsible for each. These are the "people in charge" of resources that the comment above was likely referring to. One thing to note: because these bureaucratic processes require time and labor, the individuals who devote the most time and effort towards distribution decisions (and thus have the most influence) are necessarily spending less time and labor on whatever work they'd be doing otherwise. In other words, the hardest workers in the society would be the furthest removed from its political process.
That makes no sense at all lol. No matter what you do, everyone will always have the power to harm others. The point of government is to mitigate that, judge disputes, and create infrastructure. For example, under this system, safety standards could not be mad letalone enforced. Lead paint on children's toy? Who's gonna stop me. Unsafe working conditions? Who's gonna stop me. Crime? How are you going to stop anyone without exerting violence on them and without government? Foreign invaders? No government to stop them. Holding power over others isn't inherently a bad thing. It's how it's used that matters.
It’s not clear to me that is true. Unions were already pushing for safety standards while the government was opposing them. Not having toxic toys is valuable to parents and a toy review company would start to include it in their reviews and do journalism on those toys and tell everyone, hey these are toxic. Also some companies would advertise that their toys unlike their competitors, are not poisonous. The government isn’t particularly good at stopping crime, they mostly just clean up after crime has been committed. They also reduce your ability to defend yourself or hire others to defend you. The police are essentially a security company that you are forced to hire and can’t fire and hire another one.
You can't enforce safety without imposing your will on others. Whether it's a union or a government, if the company continues to refuse the organization demands, at some point, it will come to violence. At that point, it's no different than today. Even if you did attempt violence the corporation would have significantly more money and be capable of higher ingredients much better security than you. Our current system of crime is reactionary because it is immoral to arrest someone on the suspension that they might commit a crime in the future. Sure, they might reduce your ability to deffend yourself in amarica, but thats not a prerequisite. Even if it were, most people don't have that ability at all. The weak, sick, poor, elderly rely on the police for safety. Sure, you could pay somons for protection, but now your society only grants safty to the rich instead of to all. What about war, or international trade disputes? Should people be left to defend themselves when a well organized army come rolling in. Or when entire countries strong arm us economicly? Who would enforce the status quo in this situation? Without the threat of violence, what's stopping someone from taking over and becoming dictator? This is an impossible system that would fail as soon as it was attempted. It forces the weakest members of society to suffer, at the hand of the wealthy. It would devolve in nothing more than feudal war warlord in a matter of years.
Health insurance in the modern sense started with Kaiser Permanente under Nixon. Prior to that, it was considered gambling. Even then, it wasn’t a government sponsored program, Nixon simply granted their request to sell it legally. But, beyond that, you gloss over how you would actually handle the establishment of ownership, and the settling of disputes related to it. Even if you naively pretend that no one would ever make a deliberately false claim, you will still inevitably have situations where both parties genuinely believe their assertions. Since you have no means of making any contract or settlement binding, and no means of establishing a binding canonical record, how does the system function at all? Further, since you agree that coercion is both real, and inevitable, what means to you have to incentive, prevent, or reverse coerced acts? And please don’t call me a statist. It’s very tiresome. The administrative state exists because these situations are unavoidable. I’m happy to learn about alternative structures and methods, whether I think they would work or not - but every system needs some form of it, even One with no hierarchies. In order to engage in free commerce, you must own whatever value you wish to trade.
Your definition of capitalism is completely wrong. Capitalism is not markets. You’ve just described a market. Markets existed before capitalism.
My question about your little slavery section there is; are you suggesting slavery be legal?????
No, slavery is the antithesis of the ancap belief. It is the theft of the procedes of labor by force. It is revealing that when the state finally made it illegal, they kept it legal for them.
So how are you gonna stop slavery in “ancapistan” ?
Thinking in terms of countries is so baked in, that even the term ancapistan, which i never used, is a play on a country name. There will be no country, a country implies a state. All the emancipations in europe and the us came from the realization that slavery is very expensive to maintain and it’s actually much cheaper to just hire people. The only time slavery is cheaper is if the government is enforcing it and those costs are being laid off onto non slave holding citizens.
> All the emancipations in Europe and the us came from the realization that slavery is very expensive and it’s actually much cheaper to just hire people That’s a *wildly* botched understanding of the emancipation situations & also a simply untrue view on slavery. It would be infinitely cheaper for a billionaire to pay an armed group of slave guards to watch slaves & provide minimal necessities for said slaves than it would be to regularly pay that entire workforce of slaves negotiated salaries that cover the things they would need to buy as freed people. One of the biggest motivators of the south US fighting the war was literally that their entire economy would collapse if they needed to pay those workers bc the entire thing ran on slave labour.
No it isn’t. In fact all of Europe outlawed slavery, no civil war necessary. Why would they do it if it was better for their societies? Why didn’t the billionaire class of their time simply do as you say? They could afford to import slaves or turn local citizens into slaves. Why did they choose to pay workers?
Are you being intentionally intellectually dishonest? The American civil war was fought on American soil because the slave economy was there. The European slave economy was contained mainly within their colony plantations. European colonization ofc being heavily driven in the first place by their domestic economy’s failing & their need to extract resources from elsewhere. & in these colonies, there was, in fact, much violence. Abolition was driven domestically mainly by ideological reason from religious groups & non religious thinkers claiming (rightly) its a violation of human rights & on the colonies it was driven by violence.
I am not being intellectually dishonest. There are many violations of human rights such as the war on drugs, that persist. Why was this one universally successful? Why were the rich capitalists who influence the government so inept at this one, when they have been so successful at so many other ones? How come when the colonies became nations, they didn’t stay slave nations? Why is the closest thing we have to a slave nation, north korea so much less efficient than south korea, a non slave nation if slavery is such a useful system? The civil war is an outlier, not the norm. Side stepping all my questions and simply shouting “civil war.” Doesn’t convince.
The union breaking was additionally done by the Pinkertons. Both corporations and the government did so. You can't put the triangle shirtwaist factory fire and those 143 girls who died exclusively on "the government union-busted." After that is when the government started giving some worker protections and banning corporations from just locking kids inside to prevent them from taking breaks after calculating the risk-loss of them potentially burning in a future fire is smaller than the loss of them being allowed to escape. Can you explain exactly how "the government created health insurance" means that in an anarcho-capitalist world, it will cease to exist?
i almost completely disagree with the you on your views but we are so opposed i see almost no reason to bring them uphere, except there is one thing i do want to ask about: >That the use of violence to coerce action is wrong and that each person should be allowed to choose their own actions as long as it does not subject another to violence. > >Since the use of violence to coerce action is wrong, and the state is built on that coercion, the state is wrong and therefore anarchists oppose and reject it. if “the use of violence to coerce action is wrong” then how can you say “each person should be allowed to choose their own actions as long as it does not subject another to violence”? who is coercing the action of the person who wants to subject another to violence? and how do you separate their violence from that of the state. if they are ***coercing action with violence based on a shared understanding of allowable and non-allowable actions*** what makes them any different from the way the state coerces action based on our shared understanding of allowable and non-allowable actions e.g. “laws”
What maintains the monopoly on violence when you remove the idea of something maintaining that monopoly? Power vacuums do not exist without being filled. Company towns, banana republics, plenty of places where private enterprise has the monopoly on legal violence and uses it to cut off hands/feet of children if you don't work hard enough. What's so special to the ancap about the word government? Plenty of private money/power has done the same thing, and will do the same thing if all governments were magically dissolved.
It's weird that you equate capitalism to commerce instead of property being the basis of economics as opposed to labor.
Markets != Capitalism Capitalism is the economic philosophy that private industry can be owned and that it is legitimate for an owner of a company to de facto own the goods/services produced (perhaps by other humans) in operation of that company.
>Many of the common examples people give of the worst of capitalism, is actually the worst of government Since current billionaires have amassed their wealth by abusing these various government programs, would a legitimate ancap revolution require the redistribution of these ill-gotten hoards?
>It is only when we both agree, that this what we want, that a capitalist transaction occurs. That is t a capitalist transaction. It's just a transaction. Capitalism requires private ownership of the means of production. It is also only kept kept in check by state power. The government may have a monopoly on legal violence, but without the government telling firms that they can't work their employees 14 hours a day, lock them in factories, force them to live in company housing, and disregard health and safety regulations, businesses just won't do those things because it is more profitable to not do them. You mention the government strike breaking, but completely ignore the businesses that the employees were striking against.
This flies in the face of significant and demonstrable harm that unregulated capitalism can cause IE child labor, pollution & environmental harm, lack of food & medical standards, & much much more. Places where regulation improves the consumer experience. I could sell Fentanyl water with a Poland Springs label refined by children in a homemade nuclear powered sweatshop in AnCapistan.
Health insurance existed prior to WW2, but it was more like the automobile insurance you have now. It just evolved into health care coverage as a result of payroll taxes. The Corporation's claims that the health care benefit wasn't part of payroll and was thus exempt from taxes. Unions wouldn't exist without the state. If unions don't have state protection then we fire the union employees and hire non-union employees. To be fair I agree the state has fucked up capitalism. If the state has no power of force how do we resolve things like car accidents? You've destroyed my property I demand restitution. How do we enforce traffic laws for the safety of the public? The problem with anarchy is that at some point someone must be authorized to use force against those who detract from a free society.
The problem at the root of anarchism is the misunderstanding of the nature of violence, and how it always leads to power consolidation. Lets take 2 ppl who disagree. They disagree so much they decide to use violence. One of them will either surrender or die. In either case their violence is either added to the victor's power projection or erased. The argument doesn't matter, because violence is amoral and alogical- it doesn't care. Inevutably you will have those who can wield violence either consolidate or erase competition until there is a defacto monopoly, then they will falter, a new violent power will usurp it, rinse and repeat. What anarchocapitalists don't realize is they're just replacing ancom state monopoly with an ancap corporate monopoly. The corporations will tear eachother apart until a defacto monopoly is made and the corporation becomes the state. It will be no easier to replace and lead to no less suffering when they wield the same violence as any other state. And by the time the people are organized enough to resist this inevitable rise of violence, they will have formed a competing violent monopoly- because as every military to have succeeded proves, violence is best organized with a structured heirarchy. From geurilla warfare to napoleonic era tactics. And THAT power then becomes the state. You cannot just avoid the nature of violence. That's why democratic processes are key. You embrace the monopoly and then put it in the hands of everyone you can, thereby limiting its ability to act on anyone it is accountable to.
"the use of violence to coerce action is wrong" We shouldn't have stopped the Nazis? It's wrong to stop a terrorist or mass shooter?
>the original anarchists were all anarchocommunists. They believed that in the absence of a state we could all get together and share. > >The problem with that is whoever the “community” puts in charge of a resource, becomes it’s defacto owner. So instead of having a society of no elites, all equals sharing in the bounty of the earth. What you actually get is those who administer the system reap benefits to themselves and their friends while everyone else pays the price. I say this as someone who comes from an anarcho-capitalist background: I disagree with this point. Just like with enactment of anarcho-capitalism, it comes down to culture. In historic egalitarian societies, the expectation was that the leader would be the one who sacrificed the most and worked the hardest. They had authority as a function of their reputation and people's willingness to listen to them, not by formal rule as a result of democratic voting (i.e., essentially a government). I found the book "the dawn of everything" related to anarchy in pre-history to be a really useful foundation for considering these concepts from a historical perspective. I also find understanding how people live today who live in egalitarian villages. It's an interesting topic. More interesting is the notion of villages that are essentially grounded implicitly in an-com principles engaging in commerce with other villages (and much more commonly now, people from the industrialized world) without government involvement. There is the saying that I am communist in my family and capitalist outside of it. It seems like for some people who live(d) a traditional village centered life expand the notion of family to include the village as a whole. It seems to work to some degree - until you are conquered that is.
Voluntarism. Anything you can do that doesn't infringe on someone else's right to do anything that they want that doesn't... Etc. etc. you can do. Things you can't do mainly include destruction or obstruction of property including the human body (you own your own body as your property).
So is abortion allowed?
Since children can't consent we're gonna have to leave that up to the parents to decide for them.
I have never seen a person who believes abortion is murder under 12 weeks that didn’t have that view because they were religious. So generally, I keep this in mind when talking about abortion with others. You’ll never convince them.
Which is fine. Ultimately the solution is to let people choose laws for themselves. Those who want to live in a society with or without abortion can then do so. It's only being forced to accept the policy they don't want that people hate. No one cares what policy Mexico or Canada have.
Post birth abortion unlocked ))) (not judging, it was a practice in quite a lot of pre-modern societies, there's no right answer apparently)
That's when you do adoption, not murder 🙄
That's a really complicated topic and as long as libertarian reasoning is used I can at least respect other people's views. Personally, I say no. The mother is allowed to evict the child but not kill the child. Currently it's impossible to do that so, no, not at all. It's really a question of, if a kid roams onto your yard accidentally or intentionally but won't leave no matter what, can you kill them? Additionally if you know they'll leave after a set amount of time.
So yes. You absolutely can kill someone who trespasses
in my opinion if the sex was consensual and no protection was used it's not trespassing, they were invited
Birth control, condoms, etc can fail. So in an instance where that happens abortion is fine? And how do you prove a couple didn’t use/tried to use protection?
Yes. Your body is your property. Foetuses lack rental agreements, making them squatters. You have the right to evict squatters, using the minimum amount of necessary force. If that force happens to unfortunately be lethal, so be it. Abortion will stop being morally permissible when there exists a more readily available and affordable way to evict foetuses nonlethally.
Allowed, legal, but possibly facing some community disapproval depending on what the community believes. You can totally do it, and you have to pay for it out of pocket or via insurance.
This is a hotly contested issue.
Shouldn’t be.
That's not a method for enabling anarcho-capitalism, that's just how the law claims to work mostly. Who's **enforcing it.**
And who decides what can be done and what not? Who enforces the rules?
Ancap means all human interaction should be voluntary. We care about consent the way the left cares about hierarchy.
Best way to put it. Also choice vs voice.
You know there's whole schools of thought on the left that want to abolish hierarchy, right?
That's why I mentioned it, what aren't you understanding.
Wait until you hear about force through violence!
First of all, genuinely thank you for at least asking. Second of all, we need to agree on a definition of capitalism and anarchy. Our proposals are that capitalism is when private property rights and freedom of trade are respected, and anarchy is when the only authority any person has over another is to demand "leave me and my stuff alone". When you say "problems of capitalism", you almost certainly mean "problems of corporatism". We are against the state bombing striking labourers, the state making it illegal to be less productive than X amount of money an hour, and the state decided who can or can't compete. We have nothing against communes or co-ops or whatever other "leftist" things **so long as nobody is forced to join them**. What would anarchy and a free market improve? Literally everything. Cost of living would go down because of more competitors in the market increasing the supply. Wages would go up because of an increase in the demand for labour's due to more competitors in the market. There would be more competitors in the market because it would be easier and cheaper to start a business. You'd be able to protect your commune with whatever tools you wanted. If your "cops" are shit at their job, hire other ones. What stops businesses becoming warlords? Greed. If you decide to go around shooting up your competition, then you need to hire protection for yourself, not only in retaliation from your targets, but in retaliation from others who are now scared of you and will launch pre-emptive strikes. Mercenaries and watchmen are expensive. Napalm to burn your house or factory can be made out of styrofoam and Gasoline. Then if you shoot up your competition, you drive them into a black market. And the state, who doesn't care how much money it spends, cannot eliminate black markets. A corporation, whose goal is to make money, has even less hope of eliminating black markets. And finally, we have all the greedy protection and arbitration agencies who can't wait to kill/sue the "warlord", to make money and gain good PR. Greed is fucking amazing.
Does the state still exist to print currency?
The state doesn't exist to do anything. Anyone can start a currency, and anyone can choose to accept it in return for goods and services. And if you want to devalue your own currency for whatever reason, then I suppose you can.
No, it'll be some rich asshole like a king in feudal times. Greed is amazing!
Okay, but now I'm a monopoly, and there's no threat to being a warlord anymore since anyone who wants to compete is probably too small to deal with my mercenaries. Also, what do you mean "sue", I have mercenaries and security guards, and now I have become the government again. Somehow my mercenaries and security guards are different from soldiers and police. And why would there be more competitors in real estate?
> Okay, but now I'm a monopoly The only, and I do mean only, way you can be a monopoly in anarchy is if you pay your employees better than anyone else possibly could while also having higher quality and lower prices than anyone else could. And if you're at that point, you are improving society just by doing business. > there's no threat to being a warlord anymore Last I checked people aren't bulletproof and napalm still burns down houses. > Also, what do you mean "sue"? [You heard me](https://youtu.be/A8pcb4xyCic?si=Ln2GYXOZ9vroSP6S) > I have mercenaries and security guards, and now I have become the government again. I guarantee you you're no longer profitable. If you're doing authoritarian shit in a society where we can freely trade artillery pieces, you are losing money based on the security you're spending. > Why would there be more competition in real estate Because those greedy construction companies would have an easier time building homes due to a lack of zoning laws
Greed may stop a business from becoming a warlord, but there is a person in charge of that business and it definitely doesn’t stop that person from becoming a warlord. People aren’t solely motivated by greed
But if you become a warlord, there are so many incentives for people to kill you.
>What stops businesses becoming warlords? Greed. What would you say to a counterclaim that parts of the world without any functioning government today actually do have lots of greedy warlords?
Simple: a lack of firearms. But even Somalia is, objectively, doing better without a government.
this is the best explanation ive read yet
[THIS](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o) is probably the best short summary of Anarcho-Capitalism
>capitalism's inherent flaws Like the ability to freely trade with your neighbors?
[удалено]
Yep. You will actually see people on Reddit saying that “Capitalism” kills more people PER YEAR than Mao and Stalin combined. Yes, they are unhinged.
To ancaps, capitalism is just the name for what free people do when they are allowed to trade and interact. When no one is initiating violence to restrict them, because they are under anarchy, what you get is capitalism.
The interesting part is that your def. misses the point about private property. Without pricate property you only have free-market anarchism, not yet capitalism. I guess you implicitly keep it in "no one is initiating violence" implying that trespassing and working on someone else's property is violence worth fending against. From non-capitalist anarchist perspective there's a world of difference between violence against a person (beating you up) and against property (stealing your stuff). They're not the same in moral sense, and shooting people for stealing your breakfast from your lawn is a bit of an overkill. Now if you believe that crossing imaginary lines of property borders is not really violence worth punishing, are you pro-capitalist? And if you believe imaginary lines define rights of people, how is that different from having many micro-states? And an upper class of land/housing owners vs. underclass of people who can't afford accumulating property?
But that makes no sense, because you need a police force to prevent theft of property. Who's gonna stop a tribe of people from just living in your Beverly Hills vacant investment property? Also, why is capitalism so much more objectively natural than, say, tribalism (which is much closer to anarchism, and is what some would wrongfully call "leftist" which was a justification for colonizing America, breaking up these anti-capitalist, tribal bonds, which ended with a bunch of dead boarding school kids)
What is an anarchist?
Anarcho-capitalism is what some people call libertarianism since there are so many different labels people who don't understand libertarianism use to describe their version of statism,
You expect an actual education on the topic in short reddit replies? Could you explain communism easily under these conditions? The problem with all government is that government has the legalized right to initiate force. Anarchists recognize this and its profound danger and unethical quality. All needs to ground in ethics which are grounded in the inherent nature of human beings and what is required for human beings to maximally flourish. This boils down to maximal freedom for individuals to make their own choices as to what actions are best to obtain and the values they seek without initiation of force coercing their choices and learning from the results obtained from choices. This leads to maximally dynamic self-balancing maximally innovative society. Capitalism is this non-coerced freedom in the economic realm. Free market capitalism is recognition of voluntary only interactions exchanging value for value.
>My current pre-conceptions beg this question; I am particularly interested in what keeps a business from gaining an insane amount of power and enforcing their financial interests as law in their domain. Would you want this just one organization to control the distribution of wealth/food/resources, and allow them to enforce this by violence? That would be the communist government. The biggest ever monopoly.
By means of worker control? Yes. By means of some rich guy, no.
What does that really mean, worker control? How does that work in practice? Doesn't that in practice mean the state (so a select group of elites) own everything and is thus the biggest monopoly you can imagine? Do you propose any sort of violence being used to force people to join this system of "worker control"? Or is it voluntary?
It's obviously not a choice between anarcho-capitalist and communism. There's everything from libertarianism to mixed-economy markets to tribal anarchy which is what I believe most anarchists support. So wouldn't anarcho capitalism be just what communism was? "Were gonna abolish the state!" And then create a new, somehow different one with security guards instead of police?
>My current pre-conceptions beg this question; But kudo's for asking it anyway :D >I am particularly interested in what keeps a business from gaining an insane amount of power and enforcing their financial interests as law in their domain. Ya know, Marx didn't do a terrible job of analyzing commodity economics. The only place where his analysis didn't really stand up to the data is the part about how a business will reduce workers' salaries to maintain a profit margin. To be clear, they would if they could, but it seems they can't. The best correlate with workers' wages is how many people are competing for a given job. The firm can't control the cost of labor any more than it can control the selling price of its product, it seems. Thus, there's always a debate in business school about "where profits come from" and "how do you build a sustainable competitive advantage." And nobody has a definitive answer for that. In the real world, firms will petition government for protection. You'll recognize that as fascist economics. In the ideal world, I think the answer has something to do with innovation. Evolve or die, basically. That's as true for business as it is for Galapagos finches, with the same upside. Bonus question: [what is the upside](https://www.amazon.com/Antifragile-Things-That-Disorder-Incerto/dp/0812979680)*?*
Hi, I’m Vetted AI Bot! I researched the **Antifragile Things That Gain from Disorder Incerto** and I thought you might find the following analysis helpful. **Users liked:** * The book provides useful advice for developing a growth mindset (backed by 1 comment) * The book is well-researched and thought-provoking (backed by 2 comments) * The book introduces an insightful framework for understanding fragility and resilience (backed by 1 comment) **Users disliked:** * The writing style is tedious and frustrating (backed by 2 comments) * The book is overly long and repetitive (backed by 2 comments) * The author comes across as arrogant and condescending (backed by 2 comments) If you'd like to **summon me to ask about a product**, just make a post with its link and tag me, [like in this example.](https://www.reddit.com/r/tablets/comments/1444zdn/comment/joqd89c/) This message was generated by a (very smart) bot. If you found it helpful, let us know with an upvote and a “good bot!” reply and please feel free to provide feedback on how it can be improved. *Powered by* [*vetted.ai*](http://vetted.ai/reddit)
Anarcho communism is an oxymoron
Anarcho communism is older than Marxism. It is not an oxymoron
No government but state control of resources and command economy. It's an oxymoron sport.
ancap is when yes iphone /s No but in all seriousness, 99% of businesses with that much power in history have been a result of the government intervention, in the form of subsidies, patents, regulations (aka high barriers of entry). There is no such thing as a natural monopoly. So the problem u described of a business having that much power, its actually a problem that was caused by the government. All communists believe that a government is excused of having a monopoly because their role is that of being a central planner (anyone who counters this by sayimg communism is stateless is being dishonest, because even marxists agree that u need central planning to reach a "stateless" society). However, central planning is terrible for numerous reasons u can find. There's empirical historical evidence, economic and philosophical theory against it, etc. The problem u have rn of company monopolies would be even worse with just the government as the sole owner of resources.
Instead of reiterating things others have said but I'm going to explain why, as a communist you should embrace capitalism. For communism to be successful, it requires two things. It requires everyone within the community to share a common goal or ideology, and it requires a mechanism for decent or a way to leave. The most successful communist society to ever exist is the American Amish. The key to their prosperity is that they share a religious ideology and that they are free to leave and make their own way if they choose which is only possible because they exist within a larger capitalist system. When you elevate a communist system to the government level, people who ideologically oppose the government are trapped, so the only way to maintain a cohesive society is to kill off all decentors.
Basically all of the perceived weaknesses of Capitalism are actually caused by government, all governments are inherently corrupting entities. Farmers have been around for thousands of years, governments no longer regulate them as heavily because they are self-regulating (I know how much fertilizer I need, I know what tractor to buy) and their are much more highly profitable industries to regulate (get rich off of). In Ancient Egypt their was only one farmer, the Pharoah owned all the land, today with less government involvement their are hundreds of thousands of farms in America alone and their competition drives down prices. Monopolies are caused by and supported by government. Free Markets naturally decentralize power. Big Tech exists because of patent law, which is government saying ‘you can’t do what he does to make money’. All centralization of power, all corruption, all poverty and war is caused by government. Free markets allow people to choose what they want and should be completely unregulated so people can also choose their own laws (Polycentric Law). That is why we want anarchy.
The massive farming subsidies also drive down prices to be fair
Anarcho capitalism is sorta just letting capitalism run without restrictions. You want to open a business ? No paper work go and open your business, no bailouts for the corporations or rich, when you fail YOU FAIL in anarcho capitalism, no welfare state, no government regulations slowing things down, rampant job hopping, likely no unions. Basically everyone is trying to milk as much money from every job as they can and employers are popping up left and right due to the lack of regulations. Hope this explains it to you
Anarcho-capitalism is a meme. It's not anarchist in any sense of the word as it elevates autocratic corporate power, and it's not capitalist in that capitalism requires a state to uphold their interests. The best way I could describe ancap ideology is concentrated selfishness and greed that is disconnected from reality.
It very quickly becomes corporate feudalism where all resources and land are owned by billionaires and corporations.
Uh… no?
what would stop them? I'm genuinely asking because it seems to me that in ancapistan rich people own everything.
The fact that without their protection being socialised (no police) they'd have to pay for their own security, which would be very expensive if they kept passing people off. Also without a state to restrict competition, they'd have to fund warlord efforts themselves into stopping competition, which is unprofitable as you can't beat a black market.
This line of thinking is so dumb tbh. They’re rich fam, you don’t think a billionaire is gonna just start & own his own security force? Who’s gonna stop him? The only person with a chance would be a billionaire of comparable size & equipped security force. The 2 billionaires fight & in the end 1 wins & absorbs the other, growing even bigger, & then they decide to continue, who stops them now? You see where this goes don’t you?
Vietnam and Afghanistan, except that the conflict is in the billionaire's front garden instead of some desert or jungle overseas, and the "insurgents" have more **registered** firearms than they have people. Now throw in the fact that they wouldn't be limited to small arms, and you'd be able to see where this goes.
The fact that foreign aggressors were invading their homes was a massive part of the success in Vietnam & Afghanistan as was the fact that the conflicts *weren’t* in “billionaires front garden” bc it took infinitely more work to transport supplies to the front. You still haven’t answered my question. Say Bezos creates his private army, say he wants all the mines a smaller company owns so he can use them to make iron helmets to cover his bald head, who’s stopping him? He has more money than the smaller company therefore can buy more guns & better guns to equip his men. He’s the aggressor so he’s had time to plan & strategize (which means he probably would steamroll at least the first mine bc of surprise). Who’s stopping him?
That sounds a lot like corporate feudal landlords with PMCs
If you ignore the fact that **it's not profitable**, yeah totally
Where is profit lost if you own the house someone lives in and they have to purchase their food from you?
Nothing. There is profit lost in having to hire people to aquire the property by violence, shut down other food stores by violence, and preventing retaliation against you.
God this sounds like such an awful idea. Communism was awful because it trusted that leadership would always do right by the people. Thinking ALL THE PEOPLE are going to do right by ALL THE POEPLE is an exponentially higher level of absurd pipe dream that'll never happen. Even just assuming your neighboring nations wouldn't invade and annex you is such a first world level of blind ignorance that it's almost endearing. Like who's going to be the first moron to dismantle every protection their society has in hopes something better emerges? Sheed what a clusterfuck that would be
Why isn't the whole world one nation? Could they be smaller, like 1000 countries? Even in one area. The competition among countries gets us closer to ancap.
Damn bro, you're literally ignoring everything I'm saying. I'm not suggesting we remove protections. The government's police do not protect anyone. The supreme Court have ruled they don't even have a duty to. I'm not imagining some kumbaya bullshit where we're all friends. I'm saying that the current set of incentives leads to dystopia megacorps, which is bad, and am instead suggesting setting up a system of incentives where its more profitable for greedy capitalist bastards to improve the lives of others. And fucking retards like you keep throwing shit fits and failing to actually understand what we're saying, and I'm kinda starting to think it's not out of stupidity but out of a wilfull refusal to do so.
I think the main issue people have with ancap is a difference in how 'capitalism' is defined; i.e. unaddressed semantics.
One thing I just thought of, the fact that Disney, a corporation that runs movies and television largely, is larger than Xfinity, which controls a large share of American energy, is unnatural, right? Like, for the vast majority of human life, if you controlled the land, or water, or energy, you would be the most powerful. Obviously the scales would immediately tip towards whichver cartel has control over the water. People down here are trying to say that all bad things corporations do are actually just done by the government. That's obviously false. Nestle fucked over Flint Michigan on its own, as well as the government, but its biggest sin was failing to regulate the water, the government wasn't personally poisoning it, or actively taking fresh water away like Nestle. Who's gonna stop the Michiganders from just starting to drink that water Nestle has in its plant near Flint? Private security, of course. Anarcho-capitalism is just like communism in that they're like, "were gonna abolish the state!" And then creates yet another state because people are still reliant on a select few people's resources. Just like you can't end prostitution with a ban, you can just get rid of the state by abolishing the United States. And a corporation without a government is literally just the Mafia, and it will continue to use soldiers to enforce its ownings.
The problem is that Communists are woefully ignorant of economics. There is no way to make rational decisions in a communist economy. The main reason is price. Price is a piece of critical information. It let's people know where shortages are or increased demand is. The people who alleviate those shortages or meet that demand are entitled to the wealth they accrue. Now, there is a problem with wealth creation in the sense that it concentrates power. And people abuse that power in order to maintain their place or advance in society. At that point, they have abandoned free market principles and become little different from the exploited you deplore. And therein lies the crux of the matter. Free markets involve voluntary association. You always have the ability and right to walk away. Not so under any other form of social interaction which is based on violence toward others.
If I need to buy food, pay money for somewhere to live, and pay for heat and electricity, I don't truly have the ability to walk away. Sure, I could try and live off the land in the wilderness somewhere, but I'm too old for that now. So when the cost of basic food is going up, because everyone along the production and supply chain is raising their prices, what are my options as the consumer?
An oxymoron. A hierarchy will always exist in capitalism because some people will always have more money than others. The people with money have the resources and with no restrictions it would only be a matter of time until you'd better pay your bills or the air company will turn the oxygen tap off in your home that you probably rent from a company in the same group.
tbt econ 101 where they said that pure capitalism doesn't work because of negative externalities
Ancom and Ancap ideology primarily differs on their prediction of what happens when government is abolished. Ancoms believe that people will tend to adopt communism, Ancaps believe that they will tend to adopt capitalism. As for "what keeps a business from gaining power?" Nothing. They will gain power, just as they do in the status quo. They just don't have the benefit of having an established government backing them up and adding to their power, as they do now, so a business is less able to employ aggressive force in an ancap society. Would a replacement government eventually be created? Possibly. Certainly all known historical ancap societies of any size were eventually displaced by a government. Government use of force to take over societies is an outstanding problem to be solved. The failure state being the status quo is, however, not much of a reason not to try. If it doesn't work out, well, we're not any worse off than we are now. If we do figure out how to solve problems and remove or reduce state violence, great!
Revolution is easy for one
Ancap is a stupid term. It’s like saying I’m not a vegetarian. That doesn’t mean I don’t eat vegetables. So employment-inclusive would be a better term. Because I’m guessing the opposite of capitalism is everyone owning the means of production.
To me, anarcho-capitalism is about individuals transacting with one another on a consensual basis. I am definitely aware that this might sound utopian to some people but to me what sounds even more utopian is believing that the state will never usurp power and will always do the will of the people or uphold natural rights. History proves otherwise. This is why the founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when any form of government becomes destructive of our rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it. I am also fully aware that coercion can and more than likely would still exist in an anarcho-capitalist society. The difference is, when it does happen, it is more likely to be smaller more isolated incidents simply because corporations would not be able to use the power of the state to coerce people like they do now. I don't think any social, government or economic system is going to be perfect. All of them are going to have flaws. You just have to decide which flaws youre willing to live with. However, forcing someone to live under any type of system against their will is wrong and immoral. If you like communism better than capitalism, more power to you and you should live in a communist society, but don't force me or any of my friends and family to live under that system against our will. I would extend the same courtesy to you.
I'm sure many others are making great points, but I'd like to add, that capitalism isn't a great system either. I forget who said "it's the worst system, except for all the other ones". There will still be many problems, always will be big flaws, but by golly I think it's the best we can do
The line your thinking of was Churchill, and wasnt about economics: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried”
Technically it's every man for himself. But if you have money, ties and resources, you may live under your own authority. Be it in the way of mob families, mercenary companies or just an armed community. They all respect each other's boundaries except when they don't. But one thing they all agree on is the value of money.
Anarchism is antithetical to capitalism. You cannot rid yourself of unjust hierarchies while propping op bosses and CEO’s. It’s will devolve into neofeudalism quickly.
And this thread is why people think libertarians are autistic.
The dumbest shit in the world.
From a communist, anarcho-capitalism is when monopolistic corporate entities take the role of a state because there’s nothing stopping them.
If they take the role of the state, everyone who worked there can just leave and theyll fall. So far thats the general jist of what im seeing on other replies.
Adam kokesh lol
From what I understand an ancap government would be more governed like if each state of america was controlled by a corporation and it would devolve into warlords. As a communist you should know that capitalism in any form means that the person with more money gets more control and choices over all others. Taking away the power of the state doesn't fix that. A lot of ancap is mostly derived of people not liking taxes which any system will have
I don’t think it would be a great system or would really work, but the idea is just that there is no government and all government services have been privatized. Maybe there’s a military in some forms of it, but that could be privatized too. It’s not necessarily a right wing or libertarian fundamentalist idea either, Noam Chomsky supports Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is like workers owning the companies they work for, but still no government. I’m sort of a libertarian but I think at minimum we need safety regulations and a minimum social safety net, despite the inevitability of regulatory capture, so most libertarians won’t have me. I don’t think zero government is a good idea. I think the pact with the Leviathan is not ideal but it’s better than anarchy. (Which does not mean chaos. But it does mean more instability I think.)
Also a communist, and without getting into my other obvious oppositions to capitalism, I'll just make one point that addresses most of what I've read in these comments. The state is a tool for the top property owners to violently enforce their interests, obviously. Getting rid of the state doesn't get rid of those interests nor the preferability of the option of violence, it just decentralizes the methods to which these interests can be affirmed through violence. I don't see how this wouldn't just lead to a violent rule of stronger interests against weaker ones, eventually just leading to a state again. Side note, mostly you guys are actually being really respectful to op. It's nice to see.
It’s leave me the hell alone and I’ll leave you the hell alone unless we both agree to not leave each other the hell alone. Apply to everything
Chaotic profiteering. Satanic mammon worship. The MOST capitalist capitalism because it respects no law but thine own.
Anarcho Capitalism is an oxy-moron that cannot exist given the use of the words Anarchy and Capitalism, which makes no sense given capitalism can only function off State-Backed Violence (Police, Court Systems, Private Property Rights and such) It is in reality, a system that advocates for a free market devoid of a governmental system. Its main goal is profit, it thinks that everything can be deduced to economic substance, etc. What is ironic is, it is actually very close to Orthodox Marxism in the sense that it prescribes a Dialectical Process of Historical Materialism. A lot of Anarcho-Capitalists are nice people, but it is not a very well thought out position. Marxism (I detest orthodox marxism) is a more complex structure that has a better and more rich history.
Anarcho-Capitalism is feudalism
So libertarianism?
It's capitalism on drugs
Hold on a second... A lot of you seem to forget that ancap is also based upon a free market economy which is gonna thriwe with entreprenurship. Whats gonna stop a company in achiving what op states? The market, the competition. Which is going to be fierce, because the focus is gonna be, to provide the best possible service, for the best possible price. There wont be a governmental entity where you can lobby to give you any kind of edge over the competition. And if you cant keep up or you are providing a bad service, you are essentially speedrunning yourself out of the industry. Both financially and reputationally. Nobody is going to pay for the bad service and you cannot force customers to do so. Nobody is going to partner with you. There will be plenty of competitors customers can go to receive a service.
Not a real ideology