Subreddit Rules:

Hello I was interested in anarcho capitalism at one point then fell off the political scene for awhile and was wanting to really get into the philosophy of it more. I was wondering besides the basics if anyone had any good book recommendations or just some overall information or reasons in which you are an anarcho capitalist.

What is the difference between violating NAP and being a private police officer? How is the second one not breaking NAP.

🇺🇸 election day is gonna be wild 😂🔥

That's the part I can't get past.

I'm sure this is going to get excised.

"After studying over 8,000 reports of government-caused deaths, Rummel estimated that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century." Source.

This is excluding combat fatalities in war, which would add another couple hundred million to the list.

But sure, let's fearmonger about AnCap would lead to corporate overlords and rule by warlords, while the alternative does exactly what we're supposed to fear on a daily basis.

View Poll

So I heard this nonsense today as I heard from a statist that said this wild hilarious talking point to me when I was in a discord vc earlier talking with other statists and Libertarians about random. This one fool in particular decided to go out of his way to refer the scream movie series to use as a Halloween joke to make the claim of ancapistan being built off of it😂. I find this funny knowing scream still lives off of statism and Ghostface technically is a syndicated criminal that works in a crime ring which could be viewed as a state mafia group of their own. What makes me think of this stupid claim is that nobody wouldn't defend themselves, and somehow, the criminals like Ghostface would run rampant, having their own way without thinking violent retaliation won't come back to them. It's kinda funny knowing this point is similar to the purge movie series that I brought up in a different post a while back ago, lol. I would say honestly private security firms at their very strongest would be the biggest enforcer to kill criminals at will but if there is to be some evil idiot running a red market crime ring would it be justified under libertarian means of the NAP to kill off such bad institutions that may sprout out of that scenario? If anything the criminals who would be wild like Ghostface or any psycho character only go out of their way to commit insane crimes when they have a crime ring protecting them or they're in desperation to do so out of vigor/vengeance. What's your thoughts? Do you think this claim is just going back to Robert Murphys "what about the warlords" Argument?

I'm sure someone has already asked this in the past but figured i bring it back up. I want to say no primarily due the nature of conservatives being paleo corrupted but it wouldn't hurt being with the right people that are serious to grow libertarianism to a bigger success. What's your thoughts?

The Austrian economic definition of socialism typically characterizes it as an economic system where the means of production are owned or controlled by the state, or more generally, where there is central planning rather than free-market or even subtly mixed market allocation of resources. Austrians, following Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek, argue that socialism is inherently flawed because it lacks a functioning price mechanism. Without prices determined by free market competition, they claim, there is no rational way to allocate resources efficiently, leading to what they call “economic calculation problems.”

The Austrian definition reduces socialism to state ownership and central planning, which ignores the variety of socialist models. Socialism encompasses a range of economic systems, including market socialism, decentralized planning, and cooperative ownership, which may still use prices or quasi-market mechanisms. This narrow definition dismisses any socialist approach that doesn’t fit the central planning/state control model.

Let's free ourselves from semantic games (the act of using narrow or selectively chosen definitions to frame a debate or argument in a way that favors one side, while dismissing or ignoring other valid interpretations or definitions) And actually tackle the things so commonly misunderstood. I have read everything from classical Austrian to contemporary and have a wonderful library of socialist literature among other things so I would appreciate if you only talk about things you have access to, no random claims that reveal you've never read any texts or engaged beyond secluded shadowboxing. :)

He was going on about how the principles are really insecure and don't allow the family to be more than an extension of the ego of the father in a way that disserves the economy in favor of authority.

I asked this question on this post, and he insisted that it's not an oxymoron.