Photograph via snooOG

A place for instructive conversation between AnCaps and curious people.

This subreddit is intended to have a more welcoming and informative tone than /r/Anarcho_Capitalism, to serve the simultaneous demands of newcomers for friendly teachers of the concepts of Anarcho-Capitalism and of allowing more space for in-depth conversation of those already familiar with the philosophy on /r/Anarcho_Capitalism.

Join our discord here. All subreddit and Reddit rules apply.

/r/AnCap101 is intended to be more welcoming and educational than /r/Anarcho_Capitalism. Our goal is to cultivate a forgiving and helpful atmosphere to address the needs of newcomers to the philosophy of Anarcho-Capitalism.

This is not a right-wing conservative subreddit. Libertarians are neither conservatives nor socialists.

Free association is rad: moderation is done at our discretion.

Subreddit Rules:

1) Don't be a dick. This is open to our discretion.

2) Put some effort into your thread titles.

3) No doxxing. Edit out personal identifying information before posting unless it is already public, like a comment on a public forum.

4) This is not the place to complain or post about your ban in another subreddit or general social issues. It's off topic.

5) Absolutely no pedophilia/related discussion.

6) Absolutely no racism, sexism, etc.

7) Absolutely no antivaxxer stuff. Do you have the right to not take the vaccine? Absolutely. Is the government violating your rights by mandating you do so? Yes. Are you a moron for choosing to not take it? 100%.

8) Ultimately, we cannot reasonably be expected to list ALL trollish behavior. We believe in Free Association and reserve the right to moderate the community as we see fit given the context and specific situations that may arise.

Go join our sister subreddit!


Anarcho-Capitalism Wiki
Responses to Ten Objections - R. Long
What It Means to Be an AnCap - N. Kinsella
Comprehensive AnCap FAQ - B. Orton


The Possibility for Private Law - R. Murphy
The Market for Liberty - M. & L. Tannehill
Market Chosen Law - E. Stringham


But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over? - R. Murphy
The Private Production of Defense - H. Hoppe
The Machinery of Freedom (Ch. 29) - D. Friedman


We Need Private Money - J. Herbener
The Ethics of Money Production - J. Hülsmann
A Free-Market Monetary System - F. Hayek


Voluntaryism Wiki
Fundamentals of Voluntaryism
Comprehensive Voluntaryism FAQ
Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) Wiki
The Non-Aggression Axiom - W. Block
Relating the NAP to Property Rights - S. Kinsella
Self-Ownership and External Property - R. Long



6,407 Subscribers


Nuke Ownership

Thoughts about nuke ownership ? There seems to be no consensus among ancaps when it comes to nuke ownership. Also now that we are talking about nuke ownership, what about the ownership of other weapons of mass destruction, both those that exist now and those that will exist in the future ? Wouldn't restricting them collectively be against the principles of maximum individualism that ancap ideology supports ?

17:15 UTC


In a libertarian society, what would be the appropriate legal action/punishment (if any) for false accusations of serious crimes?

I recently read Rothbard's book, "The Ethics of Liberty", and after reading his chapter on the legitimacy of blackmailing, this question has been bothering for some time.

Technically speaking, accusing someone of a crime (such as rape, for example), isn't per se a form of aggression against an innocent. Therefore, there is no violation of the NAP.

But I'm kind of on the fence here. There are huge risks and personal costs inflicted upon an innocent person, and a clear attempt of using force against them, even though it is done indirectly via the legal apparatus.

What are your thoughts about this?

16:13 UTC


Do the Rights protections of people correspond with their wealth and power in Anarcho-Capitalism?

In Anarcho-Capitalism, payment is the way to protection. Is it justified to say that wealth should be the key to protection?

I do see a good argument against attempts at guranteeing equal protection across all people and that is that even of a state or collective were to try to attempt equal protection, they wouldn't be able to, if not make things worse due to the monopoly powers and unexcused abuse that would occur as a result. In addition, to gurantee equal Rights protections to all is oxymoronic and contradictory to the idea of Natural Law. In order to provide such equal protection, theft must be engaged in (a Right violation) from one in order to provide for the protection of another. So in reality, the attempt to universally equalize the protection of Rights for members in society necessarily requires the violation of other people's Rights in order to provide such service. So, it'd be contradictory.

One could bring up a utilitarian argument that more protection would result but in reality the entire idea of Natural Law (and the Rights thereof) is deontological. So to view it utilitarian makes no sense. To say that an individual's Rights only matter if their freedom DOESN'T result in the freedom of a few others being indirectly hindered, is to say that the idea of Natural Rights are an illusion that only matter when convenient, which completely contradicts the idea of them being unalienable and natural.

In addition, such utilitarian ideas can be heavily abused to justify very unlibertarian things. How can we even be for sure that letting people be free will necessarily and indirectly cause harm to another'a freedom in a certain area? To use an example, politicians will say that we should tax/steal from Americans more in order to fight for the freedoms of others overseas, such as in Iraq. However, how can we be so sure that the US government will intervene correctly? Plenty, and probably even most, of post-WW2 US interventions have failed and resulted in the US military commiting horrible Rights violations, such as with the Abu Gharib prison, giving bombs to Israel that have been used to kill innocent Palestinians, Agent Orange in Vietnam, and so on. Why don't the utilitarians in this case ever see that violating the Rights of Americans via taxes to fight overseas may also give the government a dangerous interventionist prescedent that can cause even more Rights violations on top of the already exsisting mountain?

Is this the 'correct' Libertarian justification?

05:37 UTC


My recommended work for the new free market anarchist: "A Spontaneous Order: The Capitalist Case for a Stateless Society" by Christopher Rachels

16:10 UTC


A way to think about decentralized law enforcement (anarchism): imagine if the State universally criminalized aggression within its territory

Decentralized law enforcement is hands down one of the hardest things for people to wrap their heads around in political theory. A lack of understanding regarding this has led to the vast majority of people to accept the contradictory proposition that "it is necessary to submit to a ruler because without a ruler one would inevitably have to submit to a ruler". A key realization is that law enforcement can exist without a monopolistic final arbiter, see below.

Here I have an analogy which I hope can clarify the idea of decentralized law enforcement, as I think it is good to at least have wrapped one's head around. If all that one can relate to is State power to the degree of desperately clinging on it, then one becomes very predictable and easily controllable, which is something politicians love. Even if one disagrees with the idea, I think it is important to at least be familiar with it as to be able to think outside of the box.

An expropriating property protector is a contradiction. Anarchism is by definition freedom from rulers, not freedom from laws: it is decentralized law enforcement, not lawlessness

Statists usually claim that anarchy will inevitably lead to lawlessness and to criminals gaining power, which thereby necessitates a State over a territory to serve as the final arbiter for all conflicts within the territory to which the population must give tributes. In other words, because an anarchy among the actors A, B, C and D risks having the rights of at least of one of them to be violated by at least one of the others, it is necessary that S asserts a right to violate the rights of A, B, C and D such that S can ensure that they do not violate each other's rights.

This of course also begs the questons:

  • What if S becomes tyrannical more than A, B, C and D would be to each other, what then would they be able to do?
  • If it is the case that they can retaliate against unjust acts against S, then why is it necessary that S is able to violate their rights; why can't they just live in an anarchy to each other and punish the one who starts to act aggressively among them?

To that one may point out:

  1. The international anarchy among States in which powerful and less powerful States exist and in which only a handful of conflicts can be counted, and in which the States surprisingly enough interact with each other (States don't have legitimate property claims) in accordance with the libertarian ethic. Conspiciously enough, we can count many small countries like Liechenstein, Panama, Bhutan and Togo which are not subjugated in spite of the ease of doing so.
  2. That "anarchy" simply means "without rulers", i.e. "S" in the aforementioned scenario, and is thus the only political philosophy that can abolish lawlessness.

Just think about it: S is able to unilaterally set laws upon the population but does not have to follow said laws itself. Citizens may not steal from or kidnap each other, yet the State reserves the right to tax and many times to conscript.

The State is an institution which can create whatever laws it likes (how well has the constitution prevented the emergence of Big Government?) and is thus an institution functionally not bound by any laws - i.e. it is a lawless institution.

In an anarchy, there would be no rulers with the legal privilege to violate others' rights and thus no institutionalized lawlessness: all would be subject to the non-aggression principle.

One way to establish an anarchic legal order: make the State universally criminalize aggression. An analogy for understanding decentralized law enforcement.

If you have a given State, all that which would be necessary to establish such an anarchist legal order is to codify a law criminalizing the initiation of uninvited physical interference with someone's person or property, or making threats thereof (aggression): i.e. codify the non-aggression principle (NAP).

(The cheeky thing with the codifying the non-aggression principle is that it would override the State's other laws, as it would criminalize State action. However, the State's courts and law enforcement agencies would be tasked with enforcing it the State's laws which now would include the NAP which trumps the rest. The State's courts and law enforcement agencies will merely become freely financed entities in the market for enforcing the NAP.)

The non-aggression principle happens to also be followed by the vast majority of people currently, so there is little reason to imagine that codifying it into law would make people become savages who suddendly disobey the NAP en masse.

Further clarifications regarding the term 'aggression'

Admittedly, the definition of 'aggression' mentioned above could raise some questions:

Consequently: one way to wrap one's head around the question of 'But how would decentralized law enforcement prevent warlords?' - the State's old providers stopping warlords currently will remain at least in the beginning to enforce the NAP before any better alternative has arisen.

To aggress under this NAP-abiding State's law code will thus imply that you are criminally liable and a valid target for prosecution, as within a normal State.

In this NAP-abiding State, the State's old law enforcement agencies and the courts would be instructed to administer the NAP as it were any other law (but again, it would trump the other laws). In other words, the old State police and courts would remain as reserve law and order providers, but be repurposed for more just ends.

These institutions would suppress any NAP-violators, but tolerate the emergence of any other firms providing services for the purpose of enforcing the NAP. Remark that this suppression of NAP-violators will by definition include firms/actors who want to violate the NAP, i.e. the possible warlords.

The NAP-abiding State's courts and law enforcers will thus provide the initial impetus for the creation of a network of mutually self-correcting NAP-enforcing agencies which mutually keep each other in check from violating the NAP (if an 'NAP-enforcer' violates the NAP, then it is just criminal), but provide NAP-enforcement on different conditions, such as price, quality or e.g. insurance payment: there would arise a spontanous order of mutually self-correcting law and order not necessitating a monopolistic final arbiter to have the law be enforced. This is analogous to how scientists are able to keep each other in check without having to call upon the State to imprison someone for wrong conduct.

Thus, regarding the question of "But what would prevent warlords from arising?", this analogy demonstrates that it is a necessary precondition that there is a powerful group of wills willing to enforce the NAP which trumps any other criminal NAP-violators, much like how a State can only exist if it can successfully ensure that it can violate the NAP; the State does not provide any guarantees. The NAP-abiding State in the analogy is more a stand-in for that initial powerful will which is able to enforce it and set in motion the creation of the mutually self-correcting NAP-enforcer network/ecosystem.

  • In the case of the NAP-abiding State, people would still desire to not be enslaved by warlords and would thus at least continue subscribing to the old law and order providers unless there are any better around (If you think that people would not subscribe to them if not forced to and thus have themselves be enslaved due to negligence/laziness, then you need to kill the socialist in your head and have some faith in people). I don't see Statists lamenting the existance of warlords within the States the live in currently (if the Statist can point out such ones, then why the hell hasn't monopoly provision solved it at this point? Why should we believe that if we just subsidize the monopoly even more, it will finally fix the problem?), so clearly the current law enforcement agencies have the power to prevent warlordism. One must remember that the assets which are currently used to prevent assault, theft and other forms of aggression will still exist once an anarchy has arisen - anarchy will not mean that we start from scratch.
  • More realistically, this legal order would arise outside of the State, but the point still stands that the NAP has to be the legal principle which is enforced within the jurisdictions by wills wanting to use power to that end, which would due to the NAP's nature entail decentralized law enforcement. There has to be some initial powerful will which sets in motion the creation of the NAP-enforcement ecosystem.

The closest real life analogy would again most likely be the international anarchy among States in which States regard their own territories as their own 'property' and surprisingly enough relate to each other in an NAP-basis. This arrangement works so well that one can only count a handful of inter-State conflicts in spite of the common assertion that anarchy will inevitably lead to the weaker being subjugated by the more powerful. Countres like Liechtenstein, Togo, Bhutan and Panama are not subjugated in spite of the ease of doing so. (To think that having competing jurisdictions makes it unnecessarily messy and that it is thus more convenient to create a One World Government is a very foolish line of reasoning. One must be conscious of the horrors that such a superstate - of course inevitably to be run among the most ruthless of our current politicians - would be able to inflict on its populations once the population will not have anywhere to go to flee its wrath.)

The State provides as many guarantees as an anarchic order does: it is ultimately dependent on the power of those willing to enforce it; the State does not provide any guarantees.

Someone may object: "But what if some individual or group of people within the territory successfully overcome this State's law code and its law enforcement agencies?". To that one can point out that...

  1. for any system to maintain itself, it is necessary that there are wills who are ready to enforce it. Even States require that the people operating it have adequate motivations which will maintain the system. As an extreme, if all people in the US government became marxists hell-bent on establishing a new order, then no separation of powers would be able to prevent the USSA from arising.
  2. If it is a one-time injustice which is unable to be corrected due to the perpetrator getting away, then it will simply be a case of injustice being uncorrected, as would be the case in a Statist paradigm, only that the victim would most likely be reimbursed by their defense insurance agency they subscribe to. It is also worth underlining that a free territory will promite self-defense and thus make it more expensive to aggress, which would increase the cost of doing so.
  3. If a gang of criminals continuously break the law and establish a criminal dominion in spite of the fact that doing such aggression is very expensive in both tangible costs and opportunity costs, then it just means that the NAP-abiding State's laws will no longer be enforced within their dominion for the moment, as would be the case under a non-NAP-abiding State's paradigm, to the dismay of all the other residents within the NAP-abiding State who will increase their security expenditures as to ensure to not be the next victims of this criminal gang. After all, States band together to contain States who breach international law because they know that such violations may have them be next. In the free market society, people would have a similar reason to be worried about belligerence.

Longevity and prominence does not make something just. Just think of slavery.

Many often point to the possibility of a State re-emerging within an anarchist territory as evidence of the futility of an anarchist project, which necessitates submission to a State as a 'necessary evil'. However, few would argue that one should submit to evil because there is a possibility that evil could happen. One could imagine someone in the antebellum south arguing that slavery is an age-old institution which is hard to imagine life without, and which should thus reasonably preferably be regulated in order to reduce the amount of evil in this necessary evil.

The very purpose of the anarchist project is to empower those who enforce the non-aggression principle while disempowering those who wish to violate it. If natural law is currently disrespected, it does not mean that natural law is invalid, but merely that it is currently not enforced. For a further explaination why natural law ought be enforced, I recommend this set of articles if you want to become a more knowledgable libertarian.

After all, even if Communism had conquered the world and lasted 1000 years, it would still not mean that Communism would be just a system.

One should not give in to evil, but march ever boldly against it.

16:08 UTC


Did the South have a right to secede from the Union despite the issue of slavery?

If the answer is yes, could I just declare myself and my house as my own government if I were to murder someone and void myself of all government punishment since I have a right to self-government?

This is a genuine question.

10:36 UTC


What prevents me from starting my own private court and enforcement agency to solve cases in my favor under ancapistan ?

I've been reading more into ancap ideology lately and the concept of private courts and enforcement agencies. One question that's been bugging me is: What prevents someone from starting their own private court and enforcement agency to solve cases in their favor?

In a stateless society, as I understand it, individuals or companies can establish their own courts and protection services. While the competition between these entities is supposed to ensure fairness and justice, what's stopping someone from setting up a biased court and enforcement agency that consistently rules in their favor?

For example, let's say I establish "XYZ Court and Enforcement." In every dispute where I'm involved, my court always rules in my favor, and my enforcement agency backs up these rulings.

01:17 UTC


Dear communist,

Dear communist,

Your political activism produces a social externality of cultural conflict, financial externality of higher prices, and economic externality of decreased Supply. This affects me negatively. Thus, I have a stake in the actions you take online.

Since I am a stakeholder in your online activities, I have the right to monitor and, in the event of a negative externality, control what you say and do hence forth.

I know that you of all people understand.

Sincerely, a fellow comrade

22:56 UTC


Are zoning laws designed by the state to restrict competition in a free market to give legal immunity to boost power for corporations to conduct their bad incentive practices?

This has been on my mind lately and i was talking with a friend the other day about zoning laws in nature in a state controlled mixed market economy. For example, i would say a good demonstration of this would be ISP companies being given legal immunity by the state to prevent other competitors to come in to provide better internet services. I would assume the only reason why this is in place is to conduct political bribery to give corporations the means to push political expansion for political establishments. If this wasn't there in the 1st place then all of these would eliminate themselves fast if competition was there defeating bad actors in the act of this manner. My main question is are zoning laws a necessity for govt to impose more monopolized power to prevent market forces to come in to beat out bad corporations that want them outlawed indefinitely?

16:59 UTC


Is a company polluting the air a violation of Property Rights since such pollution could damage one's health?

If so, all pollution would be considered destructive and all industry that relies on emissions would be unable to exist thus rendering the industrialization necessary for a developed society as impossible.

12:00 UTC


Annual gdp growth of ancapistan?

Since it’s much easier to start a business due to lack of regulations, and save much more money due to lack of taxes, with competition maxed out, no government to destroy worth of currency, and a stable society. What would likely be the annual gdp growth of this hypothetical nation? 5%? 10%? 15%? 20%? Thanks for any input.

22:18 UTC


Problems the state helped...?

A couple examples here:

Jim Crow and racial discrimination in the south. Jim Crow was helped and hurt by the equally by regulation.

The State allowed Jim Crow laws to exist, but they also got rid of said laws and fixed other issues like redlining and discrimination. Thoughts?

Drugs and Food labeling.

We are al familier with the "Cancer curing snake oil" of the late 19th and early 20th century. It took the US government to stop it. I imagine that a private entity would verify ingredients and such(Take over USDA and FDA duties) why was this not done earlier? In the same way PETA independently certifies things as cruelty free. I would posit that it maybe that only the government was capable of that scale of an operation at the time due to a lack of technology.

Equally, the US government lets people bend the rules on calling thing organic and allows quite a few horrid things to be in our foods.

Just some thoughts I had.

02:30 UTC


i have a theory about the Austrian school and the globalized market, what do you think about it?

Title: "Economic Interdependence and the Limits of the Minimum State in the Era of Globalization: A Critique of the Austrian School"

Summary: This thesis questions the viability of the Austrian School of Economics approach in a context of global economic interdependence. It is argued that even in a state that practices free market policies and minimizes state intervention, exposure to other states adopting interventionist policies can result in adverse consequences. The analysis is based on the understanding that, in the globalized economy, states are intrinsically linked through trade agreements, investments and financial flows. Therefore, economic crises in a country that practices state intervention policies can spread to other states, including those that follow a minimal state approach. The study examines historical and contemporary cases to illustrate how global interconnection can amplify the impacts of one state's economic policies on others. It is concluded that a unilateral minimal state approach may be insufficient to ensure economic stability in a globalized environment, and coordinated and collaborative policies may be necessary to mitigate systemic risks.

19:39 UTC


why not anti-state capitalists?

ancaps could keep calling themselves ancaps (anti-state "an" capitalists "cap") without the whole contradiction of anarchism being antithetical to rulership in all its forms, so opposing private property and the boss-worker structures

i saw a lot of ancaps proposing to change to voluntaryism, since it would explain better your ideals, but ancap already caught, you will not change this nickname, so use anti-state capitalists or right-libertarians, libertarian capitalists, isn't a better solution?

EDIT: the post wasn't supposed for debating ancap, it was a name suggestion, if you want to debate ok, but if anyone would like to talk about the name suggestion i would apreciate

02:38 UTC


would it be necessary for a state to exist to combat the expansionist policies of another state?

I would like someone to try to answer my question. In a hypothetical scenario we would have two countries, country X and country Y. Country X has just implemented a policy of artificial credit expansion and artificially boosts companies in the economy. These companies end up investing a large part of their capital in country Y, which adopts the free market and the minimum state system. This country, by accepting any and all types of investment, ends up receiving investments from the most varied countries, including country X. The amount of investment that country x gave to country Y was so large that it corresponded to the vast majority of its economy. It happens that at a certain point the bubble bursts and the country goes bankrupt.

01:55 UTC


What if the ancap society was attacked?

A question I have and would like someone to explain it to me. In a real world, where there are states, if there were an ancap society and there was an attack from some state that was formed, wouldn't there have to be an organized state to combat that?

00:13 UTC


Intellectual property and "selling" information online

It's become really popular lately for people to make money online by selling courses, ebooks, photos, etc. But as an anti-IP ancap, something about this doesn't sit well with me. At least, something doesn't make sense. How do you "sell" an online course? If you're making people pay to get access to certain information, all it takes is one person copying the data and posting it for free to essentially render your business unfruitful. And if your reaction is to sue them for infringing on your copyright, well now you've used government violence against someone, and that's definitely not right. The same is true for "selling" or "leasing" photos online. You can't do that without state-sponsored IP laws (which are of course unjustifiable). So I guess my question is, are all these people selling information and photos online doing something less than ethical? Or is there a piece of the puzzle I'm missing here? And if it is unethical, how would these kinds of online business models be different in a market free of IP laws?

17:34 UTC



If ancap was an athlete and was called up to the national team, profitable from the budget. So should he play in it or not?

17:15 UTC


Aussie Ancap

I'm in Australia and quite a fan of ancap ideas. However, I'm wondering why the fundamental principles of ancap aren't really applying where I live.

Basically, it's been a news item that supermarkets (we have two main ones which control most the market) have been viciously price gouging customers which perpetuate the ongoing living crisis. With this example in mind, I take it that one principle of ancap is that markets arrange and coordinate peoples desires, such that the best system arises. Yet this is clearly not the case here in Australia - the ancap would hypothetically posit that "there will never be two price gouging supermarkets because there will be many other competitors, and even if they price gouge, new companies will arise to undercut the price gougers and steal the market" yet none of this seems to be happening.

Is there something I can learn or am missing, or is ancap just too idealistically at its core?

17:04 UTC


Private initiative solving big problens

Here in Brasil, There was a catastrophe in one of our states (RS) to repair/solve this, they estimated that would be necessary 20 billion dollars. who could afford that? and what would be the incentive?

13:49 UTC


Can't one just leave a government if they don't like it? Does that resolve the consent/voluntaryism issue?

I'm asking because somebody brought this up in a debate and I thought it was a pretty good point.

Thanks. :)

07:02 UTC


Ancap and pseudostate?

How do you respond to the argument that anarcho-capitalism creates a pseudostate controlled by the rich?

11:27 UTC


What is the argument for Property Rights?

I was debating a Leftist and they claimed that we don't have Natural Property Rights and they rejected my premise that states:

We have Property Rights and own our bodies + the fruits of our labor because in order to use something, we must rightfully own it. In order to use something, I must possess it for action, and possessing something for action is the very definition of ownership.

They responded and said:

I can use something while not owning it. We don't have Rights because I don't have to own something exclusively as Property in order to use it. I, and others can use a river, for example, without owning it. There are also many different definitions of "ownership" and "possession" so what makes this correct, especially if I reject these definitions?

How can I respond to this argument and better argue in favor of Private Property Rights?

06:00 UTC


Form Militias, not Political Groups

15:14 UTC


AnCap historical success (or lack thereof)

Can AnCap be considered a viable system if it's never even been attempted on a national scale in modern times? Communism was a failure, but at least it was attempted. AnCap is still in the realm of pure theory. It's like the coming of the Messiah - it will only happen until everyone independently and collectively decides they want it.

Real government and economic systems are messy, with competing interests, built-in inefficiencies, and remnants of incompatible prior systems. AnCap only "works" because it's an armchair philosophy that never has to compete in the real world. If we view these systems as products competing in a free and open marketplace, AnCap is a complete failure as no one has felt the need to actually "buy" it by implementing it and attempting to run a society based on it.

11:10 UTC


If we go ancap, wouldn't step one be to redistribute wealth?

Serious question. I'm not trolling, I need to understand the goal here. If the state is bad, it undoubtedly stems from both human nature when in positions of power as well as a monopoly of force. If we went ancap, wouldn't Amazon, Musk, Lockheed Martin etc just take over, becoming the new state? It doesn't matter if I can organize my entire community, if I can get everybody in my city armed and on my side if Bezos can nuke us from orbit for resisting. Look at the way they treat their employees and tell me they'd treat their citizens any better.

19:22 UTC


What are some things you disagree or hate about conservatives besides not wanting a state or taxes

It seems like a lot of ancaps are socially conservative and fiscally conservative.

I mean a lot of librartarians i see are against abortion, no fault divorce I've even seen quite a few agaisnt lgbt.

So a lot of leftists call yall republicans who smoke weed so prove them wrong tell me some things you don't like about republicans And conservatives.

08:36 UTC


What happens if the majority no longer supports the NAP and therefore protecting the NAP is no longer profitable for private defense and arbitration? Does the Anarcho-Capitalist society fail?

07:21 UTC

Back To Top