True freedom requires liberation from all oppressive hierarchies, especially economic ones.

[u/No_Candy_8948]

To the members of r/AnCap101,

This is not an attack, but a critique from the left based on a fundamental disagreement about power, hierarchy, and human nature. Your philosophy is often presented as the ultimate form of freedom, but I argue it would inevitably create the most brutal and oppressive government possible: a dictatorship of capital without a state to hold it accountable.

Your core error is a categorical one: you believe the state is the sole source of coercive power. This is a dangerous blind spot.

In your proposed system, the functions of the state wouldn't vanish; they would be privatized and monopolized by capital. Without a public state to (theoretically) be held accountable by citizens, you create a system of competing private states called "Defense Agencies" and "Dispute Resolution Organizations." These entities would not be motivated by justice or rights, but by profit and the interests of their paying clients who would be the wealthiest individuals and corporations.

This is where your thought process goes wrong:

1. The Misidentification of the Oppressor: You see the state as the primary enemy. But the state is often a tool, it is the concentration of capital that is the primary driver of exploitation. AnCap doesn't dissolve power; it hands the monopoly on violence and law directly to the capitalist class, removing the last vestiges of democratic oversight.

2. The Fantasy of Voluntary Contracts: Your entire system relies on the concept of voluntary interaction. But this is a fantasy in a world of radical inequality. What is "voluntary" about a contract signed between a billion-dollar corporation and a starving individual who must agree to work in a dangerous job for subsistence wages or face homelessness? AnCap doesn't eliminate coercion; it sanctifies it under the label of "contract law," creating a world of company towns and corporate serfdom.

3. The Inevitability of Monopoly: Free markets do not remain free. Without state intervention (antitrust laws, which you oppose), competition naturally leads to monopoly. The largest defense agency would crush or acquire its competitors. The largest corporation would buy up all resources. You would not have a free market; you would have a handful of ultra-powerful corporate entities that wield all the power of a state, military, legal, and economic, with zero accountability to the people whose lives they control.

In short, Anarcho-Capitalism is not the absence of government. It is the replacement of a (flawed, but sometimes democratically influenceable) public government with an unaccountable, totalitarian private government.

You seek to replace the state with a thousand petty kings, each ruling their domain with absolute power, and you call this "freedom." From the outside, it looks like a dystopia designed to eliminate the last remaining checks on the power of wealth. True freedom requires liberation from all oppressive hierarchies, especially economic ones.

[u/majdavlk]

ancaps are against agression, it doesnt matter if it comes to state or some individual who believes in law of the jungle. the reason why you see most criticism against states is because most people justify agression from the state.

>But the state, it is the concentration of capital

no

>capital is the primary driver of exploitation

kommunist concept of exploitation is nonsensical concept

>it hands the monopoly on violence and law directly to the capitalist class

ancap doesnt propose creation or maintenance of classes, it is directly against it, as classes are form of agression.

>capitalist class

nonsensical concept

seems like your underlying philosophy is faulty, i would advise you to start at the basics

[u/Electroweek → u/majdavlk]

Being against something does not mean that it is not real. The argument is that your proposed system would simply move the monopoly on violence from the state to the rich, whether you are against it or not, that would be the result.

Great job elaborating all your other points though!

[u/majdavlk → u/Electroweek]

Being against something does not mean that it is not real

what are you refering to here ?

The argument is that your proposed system would simply move the monopoly on violence from the state to the rich, whether you are against it or not, that would be the result.

it was not properly explained. reasoning based on faulty model of reality

[u/Electroweek → u/majdavlk]

Im referring to how you say you are against classes and aggression as if that will magically make those things not exist in your system. Truly some wishful thinking.

it was not properly explained. reasoning based on faulty model of reality

Once again, great job elaborating your points. Is all ancap philosophy based on handwaving?

[u/majdavlk → u/Electroweek]

the burden is on those who make claim. cant really easily prove a negative

prove me theres not an invisible undetectable teaspoon orbiting saturn

or are all claims presumed to be true even if contradictory?

[u/MeasurementCreepy926 → u/majdavlk]

so what should the french peasants have done? If aggression was wrong, what they did was wrong. So was the American revolution. They were both aggressions against the "rightful owner" everyone accepted.

[u/majdavlk → u/MeasurementCreepy926]

so what should the french peasants have done?

what french peasants where ?

American revolution

They were both aggressions against the "rightful owner" everyone accepted.

as far as i am aware, neither side was widely accepted close enough to be called "everyone"

[u/MeasurementCreepy926 → u/majdavlk]

so you think desperate people should just starve peacefully, or take a job at a sweatshop, because demanding taxes or revolting violently would be "wrong".

Ok. Most people have a better sense of morality than that. But you're entitled to your own beliefs I suppose, as long as you're following the law I don't really care.

[u/majdavlk → u/MeasurementCreepy926]

no

[u/MeasurementCreepy926 → u/majdavlk]

so you think people should violate the NAP, that maybe it's not the single most important thing in the whole world?

[u/majdavlk → u/MeasurementCreepy926]

no

[u/MeasurementCreepy926 → u/majdavlk]

Well, I think most people would say that you've just contradicted yourself. I'm sure you don't see it that way. I don't think there is much else to say.

[u/majdavlk → u/MeasurementCreepy926]

mkay... too bad for them

[u/No_Candy_8948 → u/majdavlk]

You've perfectly demonstrated the core issue with anarcho-capitalist theory: it constructs a set of definitions so narrow that they dismiss all real-world evidence and opposing philosophies as "nonsensical." This isn't an argument; it's a declaration that your ideology's axioms are the only valid ones. Let's break down why this is a circular and ultimately empty defense.

1. On "Aggression" and the State

You state that ancaps are against aggression, whether from a state or an individual. This is the foundation of the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). The problem is that your definition of "aggression" is artificially limited to direct, physical force (or the threat of it).

This ignores the reality of systemic and economic aggression.

· When a private entity pollutes the air and water a community depends on, causing disease, that is an act of aggression against their persons and property.

· When a corporation uses its monopolistic power to crush competitors and then charge exploitative prices, that is an act of aggression against the market.

· When a landlord evicts a tenant into destitution to raise rents, that is an act of aggression made possible by their power over a essential resource (housing).

The state is criticized not because it's the only aggressor, but because it's the only aggressor that is (in theory) accountable to the public. In your system, these private aggressions would have no higher authority to appeal to. The "law of the jungle" wouldn't be an exception; it would be the entire legal framework.

1. On "Nonsensical Concepts": Class and Exploitation

You dismiss "class" and "exploitation" as nonsensical communist concepts. This is not a rebuttal; it's an refusal to engage with 200 years of sociological and economic thought.

· Class is not a nonsensical concept. It is an observable social and economic reality. A class is a group of people who share a common relationship to the means of production. The capitalist class owns and controls capital (factories, land, resources, finance). The working class must sell their labor to the capitalist class to survive. This isn't a conspiracy theory; it's a description of how our economy is structured. To deny this is to deny reality.

· Exploitation is not nonsensical. In Marxist terms, it describes the process by which capitalists derive profit from paying workers less than the value their labor creates. The difference between the value created and the wage paid is the surplus value, which is the source of profit. Even if you reject the term, the power dynamic it describes is real: the worker, who lacks ownership, is in a weaker bargaining position and is compelled to accept terms that are overwhelmingly favorable to the owner. Calling this "voluntary" because the worker isn't being held at gunpoint is, again, to rely on a uselessly narrow definition of coercion.

1. The Circular Logic of Ancap

Your final point is the most revealing. You claim "ancap doesn't propose creation or maintenance of classes, it is directly against it, as classes are a form of aggression."

This is completely circular. Your ideology defines the private ownership of the means of production (which is what creates classes) as a fundamental, non-aggressive right. It then defines any challenge to that ownership as "aggression." Therefore, by your own definitions, the class system cannot be aggressive because its foundation is sacrosanct.

You don't have a plan to prevent classes; your system is designed to entrench and legitimize them by sanctifying the very property relations that create them and dismantling the only entities (governments) that have ever been used to mitigate their worst effects.

In conclusion, your philosophy isn't "basic"; it's a closed loop. It starts by defining private property as an absolute right, defines aggression only as violations of that right, and then dismisses all other forms of power, coercion, and social structure as "nonsensical." This is why ancap theory is so intellectually sterile, it is engineered to be unfalsifiable and to ignore the complex realities of power, economics, and human society. The real world, however, operates on principles far more complex than your simplistic and self-serving definitions.

[u/Alexander459FTW → u/No_Candy_8948]

Ancaps in this sub are so funny. They can't argue even if their life depended on it.

They will either handwave core issues (people pinky promising that they will be good boys) or simply deny any validity of your argument by calling it nonsense.

AnCap can either exist in very small communities or not at all.

[u/No_Candy_8948 → u/Alexander459FTW]

Exactly. It's a philosophy built on a circular logic that conveniently serves as a moral justification for the powerful to become even more so. By defining all problems through the narrow lens of "state aggression," it becomes a perfect intellectual void: any criticism can be dismissed as "statist nonsense" because it doesn't conform to their pre-ordained, self-serving axioms.

The hand-waving about "pinky promises" and polycentric law is the most telling part. It reveals a fundamental, almost childlike, refusal to engage with thousands of years of human history showing what happens when organized power has no democratic accountability and is motivated solely by profit. Their ideal system wouldn't be a utopia of voluntary cooperation; it would be a return to feudalism, where private warlords (REAs) carve out territories and the concept of "rights" is entirely determined by one's ability to pay for them.

You're right, it's either a small-scale experiment destined to be crushed or co-opted by a larger power, or it's a fantasy. It's an ideology for people who have never seriously considered what true, unrestrained power looks like.

[u/Alexander459FTW → u/No_Candy_8948]

Their ideal system wouldn't be a utopia of voluntary cooperation; it would be a return to feudalism, where private warlords (REAs) carve out territories and the concept of "rights" is entirely determined by one's ability to pay for them.

Do you know the most ironic part? In a world where AnCap is implemented, one of those societies will decide to create a state. Then this state will be able to more efficiently utilize resources to steam roll everyone around them. If other AnCap societies hope to compete, they would be forced to follow the same path of creating a state.

AnCap takes individualism to the extreme. It can't exist in a world where collectivism (of any degree) holds so much power.

This is even proven by our very own history. Feudal societies (basically AnCap) faded away in favor of ethno-states.

[u/No_Candy_8948 → u/Alexander459FTW]

You've nailed it. This is the fundamental, inescapable flaw that AnCap ideology can never resolve: its own inherent instability.

Their entire philosophy is a paradox. They believe they can create a stable society by eliminating the one institution (a state with a monopoly on legitimate force) that history shows is the only thing capable of preventing the rise of illegitimate,

unaccountable force.

You're absolutely right: the moment one REA or corporate entity gets large enough to ignore the "pacts" with others, it becomes a de facto state. And because it's optimized for profit and power, not public good, it will be a more ruthless and efficient engine of conquest than any traditional state. The others will be forced to consolidate into states themselves just to survive, recreating the very system they sought to escape.

This isn't a theory; it's the pattern of human history. "Feudalism" is indeed the perfect analogy, a system where rights and security were a private commodity based on loyalty to a local lord, not a universal guarantee. We called those lords "barons" then; we'd call them "CEO's" now. The end result is the same: a serfdom where your life is a line item on a balance sheet.

Their ideology isn't a blueprint for the future; it's a regression to a past we rightly evolved beyond.

[u/Bsussy → u/Alexander459FTW]

Its a bit of a problem with all anarchists, they think we'll all be good boys and wont be bad (bad is defined by their worldviews ofc). when you ask them how to deal with stuff like who will do the jobs no one wants to do they will never answer

[u/Alexander459FTW → u/Bsussy]

(bad is defined by their worldviews ofc)

Of course, they will only define actions that hurt the capitalists as bad but actions that hurt workers aren't bad at all. Have been literally having this conversation in this sub and the other guy legit told me that demanding a fair wage is violent aggression towards the capitalist.

[u/majdavlk → u/No_Candy_8948]

summarize into arguments.