Anarcho-capitalism

Greetings.

I recently decided to begin a thorough study of anarchism as a way to cleanse myself of whatever residual attachments I have of classical liberalism. So far I've come across some of the different varieties of anarchism such as individualist anarchism, anarcho-communism, and market anarchism. There is another species of "anarchism" which, to me, doesn't belong within the anarchist spectrum at all, namely anarcho-capitalism.

Now, I have a pretty strong background in German philosophy, so I'm familiar with both Hegel and Marx. I know that Marx conceived of the state as the primary way in which class distinctions are maintained, and that private ownership of the means of production (private property) requires the state apparatus. In short, capitalism cannot exist without the state. Assuming one is approaching anarchist philosophy from something akin to a "Marxist" perspective, it strikes me as somewhat moronic to self-identify as an anarcho-capitalist given there is no "state," i.e., it seems downright ignorant. It would make more sense to self-identify as a market anarchist or something similar.

Have I missed something?

I’ve thought about this and since capitalism requires the existence of a state to enforce private property since without the threat of violence the workers simply wouldn’t respect property rights, how can anarcho-capitalism function without corporations assuming the functions of the state?

The issue I see with Anarcho-Capitalism is that it is often a power vacuum and highly susceptible to being taken over by more violent powerful forces.

Evidence in the real world seems to suggest this. There are many places and informal settlements in the world, typically in poorer countries, which are de facto ungoverned by any state, de facto Anarcho-Capitalism. Evidence from these communities show that many times the residents are unable to completely defend themselves from violent forces, often the communities become controlled by gangs and criminal syndicates. Kowloon Walled City and Brazilian favelas come to mind.

I haven't seen good reason to believe Anarcho-Capitalism is not at significant risk from this, especially if there are already pre-existing inequalities and power imbalances, and especially considering that capitalism seems to worsen inequalities and power imbalances, making it more likely over time.

Anarchism's definition is 'A removal of unjust hierarchy'.

However, an An-Cap society only encourages unjust hierarchies. In an An-cap society, all corporations are privately owned without any government restrictions. Therefore, those working for the privately owned companies will already be in some sort of hierarchy. It should be noted that working for something privately owned doesn't need to be totally unjust given that a wage that ensures a good standard of living ensured.

However, in an An-Cap society, there is no law enforcing a minimum wage or minimum standard of life. Therefore, exploitation with long working hours and low wages is legal.

In an An-Cap society, Tyranny exists in a private ownership sense.

This is an unjust hierarchy. Therefore, the term 'Anarcho-Capitalism' is self contradictory.

Feudalism is a very complicated concept which historians still argue about. It has been very different in different places and different times. So I am going to define clearly what I mean by feudalism. The key concepts of feudalism are fiefs and fealty. A fief is a type of private property, which a lord controls and can extract value from. Oaths of fealty form the hierarchy of reciprocal relationships between the different ranks of nobility and the king.

My argument is that the feudal society represents what an anarcho-capitalist society would look like in practice. As a matter of fact, feudal society is what arised after the disintegration of the centralized roman state, so my argument has some merit.

In feudalism, everything is the private property of individuals. The landowners are fully within their right to require payment from their tenants for the use of their property. Therefore a tithe collected by a lord is not really a tax, it's more like rent.

In feudalism nobody holds a monopoly on violence. There isn't really a police or national army, there are only private armies. People pay the owners of these private armies (lords) a fee for protection. In addition to being their landlord, the lord is also a private security provider. And he shouldn't provide his services for free, obviously.

Oaths of fealty are simply contracts for mutual security assistance. The king is simply a security coordinator for an association of private security providers.

I anticipate some objections to this analogy:

• Someone will probably say that fiefs are not real private property, because everything really belongs to the king and fiefs are only granted temporarily in exchange for fealty. And that's a valid historical point. However, that's not REAL feudalism. When a king is all powerful, we call it "absolute monarchy". When he shares the power with lords, we call it feudalism. Feudalism implies a degree of decentralization. So, taking feudalism to its logical extreme means lords having their property rights protected from the king. And historically that was the case in some places. So REAL feudalism requires absolute property rights, otherwise it's just somewhere in the middle between feudal and absolute monarchy.

• Another objection would be that all land holdings in feudalism are acquired through violence. I think for most of its history land holdings were actually acquired through inheritance. I mean just because your great-grandfather killed a bunch of people for you to have this property, doesn't mean you should give it back. And who should you give it back to exactly, when the previous owners are dead? It's not your fault.

• Someone could say feudalism features constant warfare so it couldn't adhere to the NAP. Well, most of that warfare comes from disagreements about property rights or inheritance. Usually it's lords who are in disagreement about who should own what. There's no centralized court, so how else can they settle it? It's all consensual anyway. In feudalism there is no draft, it's just a bunch of soldiers voluntarily agreeing to go settle their lord's dispute through combat. If they all consented to it, who are we to judge?

• Finally, I guess someone could say that serfs weren't really free. And well, that's not exactly true. Serfdom was a contract one entered into voluntarily. A serf exchanges his labor for protection and the right to work a part of his lord's land. One became a serf if they were very poor and had no land or means of protecting themselves. It's actually entirely rational for a self-interested individual to become a serf in those circumstances. It's also rational for the lord to require something in return. I mean, should the lord just give up his own land and protect the serf for free? Well, that would be slavery...

Any other objections?

Change My View: Anarcho-Capitalism is a Fundamentally Unworkable System. For those who do not know, Anarcho-Capitalism (Ancap(s) is how I would refer to them from this point on.) is a political system/ideology that is based of the abolishment of government and it's replacements being private companies. And it's flaws can be broken down into 2 basic categories: Internal & External threats.

1. External threats External threats are basically, a different nation invading the ancap nation (Ancapistan.) This basically impossible to prevent, even if citizen or companies had the capital to acquire & maintain weapons of modern war, & are willing to defend Ancapistan, which in itself is questionable, they would unable to stand up to a modern military (I would not debate on Nukes in this debate.) for three reasons: 1. Organization, A group of Private Security Companies could never reach the same level of multi front organization as a modern military, thus causing Ancapistan to be defeated. 2. Most companies lack the ability to operate the logistics required to operate a large scale military force, thus causing a defeat through logistics. And 3. Private Security Companies (Mercenaries) have been historically incredibly unreliable in fighting for the same side, often switching sides if the other side paid more, and so would most likely be true about Ancapistan. All of these reasons would cause Ancapistan to be defeated in any war with a modern military, unless Ancapistan is located in a location that is of no value, which would cause a limited economy to occur, going against capitalism.

2. Internal Threats Internal threats can be easily summed up in one phrase <<Companies forming their own governments to extract more profit, defeating the entire point of Anarcho-Capitalism.>> To expand on the idea, lets say we have a Private Security Company called "Blackpond" and Blackpond want's to expand their company, so they drive out their completion with a combination of buyouts, anti-completive & violence so they are now the only PSC in the area, leaving it able to force it's people to pay for "protection" and if they decide to not pay, they would be beaten up by some people from Blackpond, thus essentially creating a corpocracy. Now some counter this by saying "But the people would defend themselves." now I would counter this with 2 arguments, 1. People can take a surprising amount of oppressions before revolting, & 2. even if they revolt, Blackpond could simply partner with those who own heavy military equipment, by exempting them from the protection fee (Tax) so that if anyone revolted, they could only fight with relatively basic hardware, meaning the company, with stuff like Armored Vehicles could simply roll over them

Edit: Fixed formatting error & meant "Workable as Intended"

Anarcho-Capitalism is a subject i have been deeply effected recently by. However i either love it at times or hate it, im both fascinated yet disgusted. Anyone got a view on ac which isnt just " its shite " ?

A smirk slowly crawls across your face. You rub your hands together in excitement, for an AnCRAP has dared to post a comment on . This is your moment. Your time to shine.

Your heart thumps in your chest. You can barely contain your glee when you think about how defenseless, how utterly powerless this arrogant AnCRAP is against the destruction that is to come. They have no chance. They never did. Before you know it the first three words of your argument have already been written. You hadn't realized you'd been typing, but muscle memory had brought forth the deep magic. The ancient words, handed down by comrades through the decades. The kryptonite of AnCRAPS, the bane of pro-market fools, the ultimate weapon against all things capitalist. You pause for a moment to consider the glorious work of literary art contained in the small reddit textbox on your screen:

"But what if..."

Your fingers approach the speed of light, blue-shifted into a blinding flash of gamma rays as they fly across the keyboard.

"But what if all the stores in a town refuse to serve people named Steve?"

It's a simple and effective argument, but the AnCRAP is clearly prepared. They offer a response that seems somewhat reasonable. No matter. You're just getting started.

"But what if McDonald's injects heroin into their hamburgers?"

"But what if Burger King nukes Australia for fun?"

The AnCRAP deflects these arguments too, seemingly without effort. You are impressed. You put 10% of your power into those attacks. Things are really heating up. The corners of your mouth upturn into a smile. It's been a while since you've had a battle this interesting.

"But what if Walmart's army of child sex slaves poisons the water supply of your village?"

This argument is blocked as well. The power level of this AnCRAP must be off the charts. You're starting to sweat now. No AnCRAP has ever lasted this long in combat against such powerful attacks such as "But what if Bill Gates buys all of the food in the world and makes everyone starve to death?". Wave after wave of rock-solid, logical arguments are reduced to dust by this determined AnCRAP. You can't believe this is happening. It shouldn't be possible. Those arguments have never failed you before. Where does this AnCRAP draw his power from?

You let out a nervous chuckle, but you're not too worried. For you still have a trick up your sleeve. You didn't want to have to do this, but this AnCRAP has left you no choice. Your hands tremble as you type it out. The sheer power contained in the words that you are writing leaves you breathless. A single teardrop trickles down your face as you feel a slight sense of pity for this AnCRAP. They have no idea what is coming for them. "Stalin forgive me," you whisper. "For I must go all out. Just this once."

"BUT WHAT IF Jeff Bezos buys the sun and turns it off?!?!?!"

You collapse in your chair as you hit the submit button. It's over. You've done it. You've won. The AnCRAP will never recover from an attack such as that, the argumentative equivalent of a hydrogen bomb. They have been completely obliterated. You raise your eyebrow as you notice a single message in your inbox. Clearly the AnCRAP has surrendered. You have to give them credit, they did put up one hell of a fight. You snort as you read their message. They are calling your last argument "ridiculous", but you know they're just mad that they lost.

Exhausted from the fight you crack open a beer and browse twitter posts masquerading as memes on . Another job well done. Another day spent keeping the world safe from the horrors of Anarcho-Capitalism. Which, by the way, is not real^TM anarchism.

I hope the above story was sufficiently entertaining that you read it all the way through. Although clearly hyperbolic I think I have gotten my not so subtle point across: namely that there are a significant number of people, both in this sub and outside it, that seem to believe that pure speculation constitutes an argument. Almost every "argument" against Anarcho-Capitalism follows the exact same format, which is typically something along the lines of:

1. Think of hypothetical situation which is highly unpleasant but doesn't technically violate the NAP.

2. If the AnCap provides a reasonable response, change the situation to become slightly more unpleasant (and, usually, significantly more unlikely) and then try again.

3. Declare victory when their responses are no longer satisfying (You earn bonus points for how contrived and ridiculous your hypotheticals are).

It is amazing to me how many people on this sub still haven't realized that Anarcho-Capitalism is based on principles, not sets of desired outcomes. Just because it is theoretically possible for Anarcho-Capitalism to produce a result that you don't like doesn't mean that Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't "work". This by itself should be obvious, but unfortunately when people talk about an ideology "working" what they typically mean is "personally pleases me". So, Anarcho-Capitalism doesn't "work" in the sense that there is absolutely no guarantee that you or anybody else is going to be "happy" in an AnCap society. But, last I checked, Anarcho-Capitalism is based on the fundamental principles of private property rights and the NAP. Anarcho-Capitalism is not a theory of "how to make sure everybody is happy".

As frustrating as it is for some of you to come to terms with, it is important to realize that as soon as you use the three magic words "But what if", anything you say after that is just white noise to most AnCaps. We may offer a response, but any such response is an attempt to placate you and meet you on your grounds. Our answers to these hypothetical questions are not related to any fundamental part of our ideology and are just pure speculation. Many people don't realize this, partly because many AnCaps (especially those who are inexperienced with debate) attempt to virtue signal when approached with these types of arguments.

This is not to say that speculating and thinking about how different forms of societal organization might play out in the real world, away from pure theory, is useless. Speculation, while imprecise, is still a completely valid thing to do. It is, however, by itself not an argument. I made this post because when it comes to debates between AnCaps and others (typically lefties) the go-to argument seems to be something along the lines of "thinking about Anarcho-Capitalism makes me feel bad". A significant number of people on this forum seem to genuinely believe that this is some sort of rock-solid logical refutation of the entire ideology, when in reality it is, at best, an explanation of why you would not personally participate in any sort of AnCap movement. I'm sure Rothbard, Hayek, Friedman, and every other pro-market intellectual would have reversed their viewpoints if only they knew that some people find the idea of markets unpleasant.

If you want to debate AnCaps, the only valid way to do so is to debate the core axioms: that of private property and the NAP. Any other method of argument, especially speculation about hypothetical outcomes, is going to be rejected a-priori. I'm not trying to convince you to become an AnCap. Just pointing our that many so called "arguments" against Anacho-Capitalism are based on assumptions that you pretty much have to reject in order to be an AnCap in the first place.

In Anarcho-capitalism the state is no more and all of its functions are done by private companies competing for profit on the free market. The functions include law enforcement, security, defence, etc. Legislation is also no more.

So obviously without legislation there's no unifying or binding legal code, perhaps only one established by private security companies (PSCs). Because law is just an opinion without a means to enforce it, the PSCs would also be the de facto legislators either for their clients or through agreement with other PSCs. PSCs, like stated above are for-profit companies, meaning their goal is to maximise revenue and minimise costs. IF this is done by marketing oneself as adhering to some principles like NAP, then sure, but actually complying with these principles is a decision left to be decided by private owners of these companies. Essentially what I'm saying is there's no way to even tell whether such PSCs would market honestly or make up expensive ad campaigns like BP telling people they're doing something without actually doing it.

This will be important for the following scenario:

Suppose that I come to own some land in the city, I take out a $1m mortgage to turn the building into a complex for 12 tenants for $750 rent per month. I take on a mortgage at 3% interest for 30 years, coming down to $4729 per month. I rent it out to 12 tenants for $750 each, leaving me with $9,000 in income per month, untaxed. From this excess income, I need to pay a PSC to protect my property, which is a whatever amount, lets say $2,000 per month. This business generates for me $2271 in gross profit.

However, imagine my tenants realise that they together can skip out on rent and instead pay $4,500 (half the rent) to the PSC to instead stake their claim to the house, instead of mine. When I try to evict them, the PSC comes in and tells me to leave the property. What do I do? The bank has my name on the mortgage, I'm out of income and I need to find a new PSC to reassert my claim to my own property. But the problem is, I can never match the pooled income of 12 of my tenants when I'm out of work myself. They can in essence just pay every PSC in the area to legislate that the house rightfully belongs to them.

What can happen, is landlords could perhaps form a voluntary union with themselves to bail eachother out when such a thing happens. But there's nothing stopping their tenants from doing the same. Because the landlords income depends on the tenants, when tenants refuse to pay, the landlords are strapped for cash. Unless 100% of the rental income of landlords goes towards paying off PSCs to keep tenants at bay, the tenants can always offer the PSC more money to get free property.

Now, some PSCs may indeed hold true to their principles and state that the contract is legally binding on them to protect the landlord. However, this is doubtful to be the main reaction because

1. PSCs are legislators themselves. Cases can be simply dismissed like that. Dismissed

2. . It may be more profitable to simply side with the tenants, who can pay, than with the landlords, who can't. PSCs who choose the former over the latter will have increased incomes and higher profits, and this would allow them to become more dominant by hiring more men, buying better equipment etc.

So how does an anarcho capitalist society deal with this? If rights are in law, and law is privately enforced, then rights simply exist because it must be profitable for the enforcers that they do. If they don't (like in the landlord case) they don't. This just makes me think the moment anarcho-capitalism is established, it would quickly suspend property rights from "inalienable" to "profitable" for those enforcing them, leading to what can be called a class war between landlords and tenants, strikers and their employers etc.

Let me know what you think

Some definitions:

• State: a group of people organized in hierarchical structures that have the monopoly on violence. (Max Weber)

• Anarchism: Ideology that opposes non consensual hierarchy and authoritarianism.

• Capitalism: Economic system based on the private ownership of means of production and capital accumulation.

Let's see why:

1. Anarchism is against social hierarchies and Capitalism inherently creates hierarchies.

2. Capitalism prevents any kind of voluntaryism to exist in virtue of power relations created by it.

3. NAP is a joke without a state

4. Would soon degrade to a Oligarchical form of government.

5. Anarchism by definiton is an ideology that opposes itself to any form of authoritarianism and power imbalance that is not legitimated by a consensual agreement. Capitalism is a conceptual rule system for value distribution which is based around the "most efficient" distribution of resources amongst the people. of course this is structured in a way that a person that has more resources will be surely rewarded with the most resources in the future, as apparently this person is the one that has the most possibility to put it to use. this is extremely well described by reality.

As by anarcho-capitalism there is no system in place other than a capitalistic economy, the resource imbalance born of this inherently concentrating system will be the source of an effective (but not technical) servitude and therefore a hierarchization of society around the few resource holders. This of course should be antithetical to an anarchism view where freedom from power hierarchies is put at the first place.

2) following by 1, the power imbalance that exists in an ancap society acts as a coercive force that limits choices for the disadvantaged, effectively acting as a limiting agent to the freedom of society.

3) the NAP exists as a principle in an ideally balanced society, where the power to protect ones property or person from acts of aggression would be symmetrical. this of course isnt true in an ancap society as there is no limiting agent to the power imbalance created by resource distribution, and the monopoly on violence would defacto be property of the wealthy, who can use it or delegate it as they please with no real repercussion. this would mean that the principle of self defense which ideally is allowed is in most part futile.

4) Because of point 3, this kind of society would soon become an oligarchical form of corporate government, which would just be pointless as the whole concept of anarchism is to oppose the state.

just keep in mind that saying voluntary doesnt mean it concretely is. also, many critiques of anarchocapitalism probably apply to capitalism as well tbh.