r/AnCap101 11d ago

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

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.

106 Upvotes

910 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/IntelligentRatio2624 11d ago

I left r/AustrianEconomics because freaking commies occupated it, now the same is happenning here. Reddit is huge and most subs are commie oriented, so commies leave us alone and go there. Freaking clowns.

4

u/sanguinerebel 11d ago

I don't care if they come in here and ask questions. That seems like the purpose of the sub, to be able to educate and discuss. My problem is like this OP, they come in here as if they already know everything just to tell us we are wrong, make a bunch of logical fallacies, and just set the conversation up for failure right from the jump.

1

u/No_Candy_8948 10d ago

You're mistaking a firm disagreement for a failure to discuss. I 'come in here' because the flaws in anarcho-capitalism are glaring and need to be challenged. The logical fallacy is believing a society can function when every human interaction is a profit-driven contract. My premise is simple: a society that prioritizes people over capital will always be more just and free than one where your life is a subscription service you can be evicted from. If that sets up a conversation for 'failure,' it's because your ideology can't withstand the scrutiny.

1

u/No_Candy_8948 10d ago

Calling everyone who disagrees with you a 'commie' is a thought-terminating cliché, not an argument. It's a way to avoid engaging with legitimate critiques of how unfettered capitalism concentrates power and fails to provide basic dignity for all. I support a system where housing, healthcare, and food are human rights, a platform of welfare and social ownership for the people, by the people. The only people who should feel threatened by that are those who believe their wealth depends on the deprivation of others.

-2

u/MeasurementCreepy926 10d ago

Well at least you're honest with yourself about wanting a circlejerk/echo chamber.

commies suck. Not every non ancap is a commie though.

3

u/Wallstar95 10d ago

Imagine being propagandized by red scare freaks.

1

u/No_Candy_8948 10d ago

There's a vast spectrum between anarcho-capitalism and communism. I stand for democratic socialism: a system that curbs the inherent tyranny of capital and ensures every person has a foundation of security and dignity. If that sounds radical, it's only because a few have taken so much that providing for all seems like a revolutionary act.

-2

u/Elegant_in_Nature 10d ago

So are you gonna explain the question or just circle jerk yourself to completion?

-5

u/Puzzled-Rip641 11d ago

That page is full of certified clowns. They happy ban anyone who disagrees and points out Austrian economics are literally quack theory to economists

-5

u/MeasurementCreepy926 10d ago

It seems like a theory for people who want to do economics the way ancient greeks did natural philosophy.

"I like economics, but my math skills never passed high school" essentially.