I have been reading that they weren't actually socialists, but haven't been convinced either way, so what better way to solve this than to go to a debate sub and hear everyone's opinion?

I understand they did implement socialist policies like increased benefits, creating jobs by increasing the state, restricting wages so more people had a job, free daycare (state raised), nationalized healthcare, etc.

The only arguments I can find that they weren't socialists seem to be either axiomatic or that it wasn't some specific person's idealized socialism.

There are many definitions of socialism, but I believe the original is something like:

any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Specifics like abolition of private property seem to be added on later and apply to just a specific type of socialism, which doesn't reflect every type of socialism.

Just curious, I can think of 3 possibilities when it comes to stance on abortion. Let me know which it is, or if there is another.

1. They think a fetus is not a person, so a fetus' liberty makes no sense
2. They think a fetus is a person, so you can't violate their liberty and kill it
3. They acknowledge the pregnant person's liberty to live as they will, but they also think a fetus is a person, so they put the responsibility on the pregnant person because they engaged in an act that could possibly get them pregnant and they were educated about it beforehand, so they must acknowledge the consequences of their actions and have the baby (unless they were raped, then they can have an abortion)...since they think the fetus is a person, but had no say like the pregnant person did when they chose to have sex (like if you shit your pants. It feels good at first, but there are consequences to your actions).

+++

The words they say- "Without government, how would everyone get fed?"

What they're effectively imagining and narrowly framing due to how grossly government has stunted markets- "How would markets get people through borscht lines at the factory any faster?!"

The correct answer and reframing- "Maybe markets couldn't do that any better. But maybe markets wouldn't structure in such a way as to have factory cafeterias be the only place for all the workers to get lunch. Maybe markets would make people wealthy enough to own their kitchens where they could prep their own meals. Maybe markets would incentivize the creation of dozens, hundreds of competing establishments just outside of your workplace where you could go and get virtually any kind of food you want."

+++

The words they say- "without government, how would we deal with large, diffuse negative externalities like C02 emissions and resulting climate change?"

What they're effectively imagining and narrowly framing due to how grossly government has stunted markets generally- "The transaction costs are too high for tort or any decentralized legal mechanism to allow cosean bargaining or allow people to quantify their individual standing, let alone pinpoint the exact source of the harm done to them. Therefore markets are incomplete and government must step in."

The correct answer and reframing- "Maybe that's true. But also maybe less nuclear regulation and freer markets generally would have made nuclear power so ubiquitous and cheap, and made subsequent red hydrogen so abundant for the remaining energy needs which require chemical energy, that the vast majority of the c02 we've put in to the atmosphere over the past 50 years wouldn't even have happened. Maybe in a freer world, government wouldn't have subsidized so much sprawl and car culture or done so much ecologically harmful military testing and burning of fuels".

+++

The words they say- "Without government, how could you ensure good access to healthcare?"

What they're effectively imagining and narrowly framing due to how grossly government has stunted markets generally- "empirical evidence shows insurance markets clearly fall in to adverse selection spirals, people can't price discriminate when they're having a heart attack, and they aren't informed enough compared to doctors and providers to make their own rational healthcare decisions."

The correct answer and reframing- "that's true now, and maybe would be in a market-based healthcare scenario too. But maybe it's also true that if we had allowed markets and prices and property rights to operate at all in the healthcare space, then all the many government constraints on supply would not have made even basic care so expensive that we have to use insurance to pay for these things. Thus insurance risk pools would remain stable due to coverage being limited to more actuarially-unknowable events. Maybe providers wouldn't be prohibited from offering health-status insurance and/or prenatal policies (as they have been) which would limit the numbers of people possibly left without coverage for pre-existing conditions. Maybe insurers or medical clubs that people could join would pre-negotiate rates for emergency medicine and critical care. Maybe doctors and specialists would form in to (currently prohibited) group practices purchased as club goods or through brokerages or fraternities or friendly societies, which have to contract with patients on a more results based and holistic medicine arrangement. Maybe we wouldn't have an FDA and patent laws which create so many drug shortages and untold deaths from beneficial drugs not authorized or not allowed to be sold across borders. Maybe in a freer world we wouldn't have tried price controls leading to employer-based health insurance. Maybe prices wouldn't have to get obfuscated in a system which didn't enforce de facto universal healthcare by way of forced care, certificate of need laws, and cross-subsidization of medicare/caid recipients.

+++

Freed markets simply wouldn't work only within the narrow confines under which they are legitimately failure-prone. Don't let yourself fall in to the false and arbitrarily narrow framing that (even many economists) ignorantly apply to market dynamics; based on status quo observations. We do not have anything close to free markets, even in most markets in the U.S. Freed markets can and maybe would solve (in band or out of band) or route around nearly all market failure theorized or observed.

They would operate and structure radically differently than they do now; and it is no more possible, nor our responsibility as free market advocates to accurately plan or predict exactly how they would structure or overcome all failures, than it was the job of a complaining soviet peasant to explain to their comrade how modern western grocery stores and food logistics networks would do away with borscht lines.

And furthermore, that as imperfect as even free markets would still be; these theorized failures pale in comparison to actual, observed government failures, political externalities, unintended consequences, corruption/capture/rents, waste, stifling of productivity, police/agent abuses, privacy invasions, war-making, democide and the looming near-existential threats that nuclear states pose.

+++

Additional reading and references-

https://www.johnhcochrane.com/s/Cochrane-time-consistent-health-insurance-JPE.pdf

https://www.econtalk.org/christy-ford-chapin-on-the-evolution-of-the-american-health-care-system/

http://www.freenation.org/a/f12l3.html

https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/

https://creators.spotify.com/pod/show/powerhourwithalexepstein/episodes/Rod-Adams-on-Nuclear-Policy-edq6ss

https://www.everand.com/listen/podcast/591438031

http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/regulatory-accumulation-and-its-costs

https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/how-market-failure-arguments-lead-misguided-policy#wrongly-labeling-all-government-activity-as-public-goods

https://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/PrivateProvision.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307527310_Asymmetric_Information_and_Intermediation_Chains

I promote anarcho-capitalism to Portuguese speakers (mainly from Brazil). I teach them about Bitcoin, Linux, Austrian School of Economics, ethics, [Matrix], Nostr, economics, philosophy, anti-marxism, anti-keynesianism, open-source, privacy, etc...

Here are the projects I have:

Facebook Page (28k followers): https://www.facebook.com/voceesocialista

Facebook Group (29.1k members): https://www.facebook.com/groups/libertariosbrs/

Facebook Group (7.9k members): https://www.facebook.com/groups/ancapszoeiros

[Matrix] Space Room: https://matrix.to/#/#liberdade.expressao:matrix.org

[Matrix] Group: https://matrix.to/#/#AncapBitcoin:matrix.org

Nostr Personal Profile: https://primal.net/p/npub17kytlyvd28tvpz9u8z2mrr3pq503pmvtv46qskjccfch9vwqhadsregenj

You can join the groups because a lot of Brazilians speak English.

If you want to help feel free to donate any Bitcoin to support the cause:

Native Segwit: bc1qfautwmdpj9734p4luces7f2djyh8t9xjxpx36w

Lightning Network: kuvshinov_ancap@lifpay.me

I’m curious how healthcare would work in an ancap system. Specifically, what would this do to innovation and competition in the medical and pharmaceutical industries? What about quality and affordability of care?

She is an idiot and there is a lot she could have done. But not as much as most people think

Believe it or not. It's complex. There are laws making it extremely complex for women to pick rich baby fathers offering good money.

https://preview.redd.it/71gcms8el08e1.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=b76aa1feac6fde49dd53656a4ac73bbc690bc921

Monogamy means she can only pick singles. Single men are single for a reason. Usually they are ugly or poor or both. And dumb too....

No transactional sex means she can only pick those who don't pay.

Insane child support amount proportional to men's income means she can't get knocked up for lower amount easily. That means she has a harder time to get richer men to agree to father her children

All those can be circumvented if you know what's really going on and is very careful. But even open discussion about this is difficult with people crying patriarchy, misogyny, misandry, incel or all nonsense.

This I think is far more subtle and insidious than even communism. We have unnecessarily high wealth disparity because inequality in number of children produced do not match inequality of wealth among men.

Men that's 1 millions times richer like Elon only has 12 kids. Not 1 million kids.

There are probably good reasons why Elon lives in Texas and have children with surrogates. Texas is the only states that limit child support amount. Also if you have children the normal fun, instead of through medical way, the mom can move to California turning your son into a trans and get a court to force you to pay the whole thing.

Not a lawyer. But as far as I know there is no way to ensure that doesn't happen. Hell, there isn't even any way to proof consent in sex.

The system is designed to make sex and reproduction extremely expensive and risky for rich men with minimal benefits for the children and minimal incentive for the mom to stay or be honest.

If government knows your income and they know due to mandatory reporting of income, the government will use your income to give incentives for women to leave you.

That is the real reason behind palimony, alimony, and child support. All those are obviously inferior to normal business contracts. But they are not just inferior. They are absurdly retarded no rich men would agree to it if they have to explicitly agree to.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02627-0

Some idiot left anti-vaccine bullshit in my car door and put the burden of disposal on me without my consent. I don’t want to hear your opinions on this crap either so don’t bother, it’s not relevant. In an ancap world this would not fall under “free speech” as it violates my property rights. Same with people leaving religious nonsense in my mailbox, or putting a political ad on my door. Just leave me the fuck alone. Buy ad space if you think it’s so important. I use my head instead of getting my opinions from random flyers shoved into my face by strangers. Hell I’d rather they had taped it to the ground next to my car because at least I could have just left it there and it would be on them for littering. Just don’t touch my shit, that’s all I ask. How do we fix this? What would happen in ancapistan if this took place?

(According to leftists we’ve been in “late stage capitalism” longer than capitalism has existed)