Subreddit Rules:

Can I own a fighter jet and equip it with nuclear warheads? Serious question.

The concept of private property itself, the one we currently understand and use in Western societies, was not a product of free association, mutual aid or any other anarchist principles. The particular concept of property we have in the West comes, as I understand it comes from Ancient Rome, which we should note, was a large and aggressive empire that subjugated an entire continent and more. The indigenous peoples of Europe, of which many practiced communal ownership of land, resisted this, and throughout Western history from then on, the various empires completed the conquest of indigenous European peoples. The concept of private property was always imposed on these peoples as a way to divide the land up between the ruling classes and exploit it, and the consequence was that these peoples needed to be suppressed or exterminated. By the time the Europeans arrived in the "New" World, with a fresh new Papal Bull saying that all land that was found could be immediately claimed regardless of whether people were already living there, the European empires were already well practiced in genocide, government usurpation and occupation.

We can follow the spread of the idea of Western private property with the spread of colonial powers, and the extermination of indigenous peoples. We cannot understand it as natural to humans, as we can understand solidarity and altruism. To be clear, I'm not referring to personal possessions, but to the ownership of land and other means of production. It's popularity today throughout the whole world is not a product of the progress of individual freedom, but mostly the conclusion of the conquest of an entire planet by one, sick society.

It's not clear to me how Anarcho-capitalists and right libertarians believe in freedom from a government, but not freedom from a capitalist ruling class. Is corpotocracy any more permissible than a Republican government? Do ancaps pretend that laissez-faire economics will produce equality?

It is also not clear how private property will be managed in a society with no coercive body to enforce it. Can I own a river? What if a member of Town A owns a river and does what they please with it, although Town B depends on it and is further along the river? More straightforwardly, could this member of Town A charge his neighbors for use of the river? How do I become the owner of something? How can I prove that I am the owner of something? Wouldn't you need a standardized system for codifying ownership? If every individual is responsible for the enforcement of their own property, once (and I believe it's quite inevitable) certain members accumulate disproportionately more than others, wouldn't they need to contract others to help them enforce their ownership? From here I think its obvious that an oppressor could quickly develop, taking control of more and more land and resources, enveloping more and more of his neighbors into the fold of his influence, and using it to control others.

The issue with private property is that as a concept and as a reality in a society it is only as real as one's power to enforce it. Under a state, capitalists have a dedicated institution that appropriates the money of the general population to defend their property rights violently. And let's talk about the NAP. What if I own a slave? Slavery is one of the most efficient strategies in capitalism, and if I deprive my slave of their ability to resist my authority, would other members come in and free the slave? It seems to me like anarcho-capitalists rely on a selfishness and a greed that is so effective in capitalism but is incredibly harmful everywhere else. You can't have equality with economic inequality, and in a system where everyone is free to acquire the property of others, it's so easy to see how, I don't know, one bad harvest for you and one good harvest for me would allow me to buy a little bit of your land. The fundamental issue is that, like with all hierarchies, it's a positive feedback loop, where random discrepancies early on, even in a perfectly equal initial state, are magnified over time.

I posed many questions and meant most of them. If it wasn't clear I'm a libertarian socialist, basically an anarcho-communist. I'm very open to hearing the arguments. Also please be nice :)

Isn't that essentially a state with a subscription fee and operates on the basis of profit ? Private courts, private police, private law, etc., will exist under a private city. Coercion and all the so-called negatives of the state that libertarians constantly complain about will still exist. If you argue that under a private city model people can move from one city to another freely according to their liking, that is why it's anarchist, then why not move from one state to another favorite state? Isn't that essentially the same ?

Can I own slaves in AnCap society?

Let’s say I loan someone millions of dollars and they default on the loan. Can we contract a deal before the loan is solidified as to were I can take his sons as slaves for a certain amount of time or indefinitely as collateral ?

Or will I at least be able to own slaves without government interference?

Serious question

Basically title, I'm a minarchist myself, but I enjoy listening into your conversations, and find great merit to a lot of the arguments presented. I'm merely curious.

Edit: for my wonderful shitposters, I will do a "wrong answers only" for the same topic after this. Please continue edging until then, then blow your load.

How do you think people would care for their health in an AnCap society?

Many disseases are extremely expensive to treat and can ruin oder kill people in societies without socialised health, where the cost of health care aren't distributed on the whole society. Cancer treatment or a heart transplantation is too expensive even for most people with a well paying job.

Sometimes the treatments a person needs is even more expensive then their economic productivity as a whole. Also expensive diseases often make you incapable of working, so nobody will invest in treating you from an economic point of view.

Private health insurance is no solution to this problem in my opinion either, because a part of people have disseases that are too expensive to treat for an insurance company to ever make a profit or for the sick people to pay for healthcare themselves. This leads to a situation where they are kicked out of health insurance when there isn't a government enforced compulsory insurance with a maximum for the height of insurance membership fees.

Also there are hereditary diseases that no insurance would cover that create the same problem. Of course you could say people should do a screening for hereditary diseases before having kids but what do people do with diseases that don't show up on screenings or with parents that don't care?

What's the stance of ancaps on the problem of healthcare?

​

At some time in the future countries won't need large workforce due to automation and AI.

Currently most countries might opt in negative income tax or UBI in order to mitagate it's negative impact.

How does AnCap deal with this?

View Poll

How do poor people get their rights?

If someone hit them or steal from them, how do they respond as they don't have any protection agency?

Unionization and collectivism causes distortions in the economy. If I’m not Union I get starved out of commercial / state work and am stuck doing residential work.

Meanwhile our sister company is Union and the union gives them the commercial/ state contracts. They say the solution is unionizing with them but if it wasn’t for them (the union) there would be no distortion and they’d give the contract to the best company. In other words I have to pay them dues or I work 10-20 hours less a week.

Let's say hypothetically under an AnCap society, people voluntarily created a state and government. Would that be allowed at all? If not, what would be stopping them?

https://youtu.be/H774z93VY60?si=wvtilAMDqnFs8XWS

I mean honestly, I feel like “insurance company” basically has as much of a bad connotation as “IRS” at this point so I would honestly feel a little dumb trying to spread the good word of AnCap by saying we would be way better off with the latter being replaced by the former.

Why do insurance agencies have such a bad rep currently? Are they actually in such a bad state right now? If so, how would they magically change in AnCap?

Im not great at wording things. Basically exactly what the title says.

Add private militiary contractors to that list as well.

So, I want to create a fictional fantasy setting for D&D based on Ancap.

What is the most likely way such a situation could come about? My current ideas are

There is some new previously undiscovered area of the world is discovered and there is no government there. But there is something like a gold rush inspiring a lot of people to move there. There are some city states, but no larger empires yet in some region. Various threats in the region from monsters or bandits cause the formation of a few mercanary groups that specialize in violence as a service.

Any suggestions for making this more realistic (economically speaking, not like "Don't have elves and dwarves") are appreciated.

​

I would argue that the worst (and unfortunately, most common) criticisms of Anarcho-Capitalism stem from people perceiving it as something like other ideologies. Pretty much every other ideology is (supposedly) deterministic in its outcome, and the support of this outcome is what causes people to support that ideology. Anarcho-Capitalism does not do this, so many people get confused.

Anarcho-Capitalism is simply the name for any ideology that consistently promotes Libertarian Ethics (i.e. Consent/“The Non-Aggression Principle”). That is why there are so many different forms of Anarcho-Capitalism (Rothbardianism, Hoppeanism, Propertarianism, Reactionary Libertarianism, Panarchism, Voluntaryism, etc.). These different forms are the “outcomes” that people actually care about when asking “How would [insert relatively trivial issue here] work?”

That’s why that question is fundamentally flawed. In “Anarcho-Capitalism,” literally any result is possible as long as it respects natural rights. I get that this response it kind of a non-answer, but the point is supposed to be that every outcome is subjectively-valued, and thus, shouldn’t be judged systematically like the critics of Anarcho-Capitalism would suggest.

(Generally, when people answer these kinds of questions, they default to Rothbardianism, but you should recognize that other outcomes are possible and remain consistent with Libertarian Ethics.)

How would Ancap deal with speeding, driving while drunk, ...etc?

I want to understand the way things would work if for example a male sexually harassed a female, how is ancap is dealing with this?

Would the absence of the law raise the amount of violence in the society 10x?

Would the Non-Aggression Principle be enforced by a specific private establishment that specializes in NAP enforcement or would it be enforced by all companies as a whole?

Also if an individual or company is in breach with the NAP, how would it be applied in a way that doesn't contradict its own principle which goes against forceful action?