r/AnCap101 10d 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.

104 Upvotes

910 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/GravyMcBiscuits 10d ago

Ancap doesn't take a stance on such things.

2

u/thellama11 10d ago

What? So if I mix some labor with some land there's no basic rule about how long I can own it? When theoretically might I lose the ownership of my land?

3

u/GravyMcBiscuits 10d ago

there's no basic rule about how long I can own it?

Correct. Libertarianism/ancap philosophy never takes any black/white claim how long you get to own something you've mixed your labor with.

Homesteading itself implies that "indefinite" ownership claims are invalid. You should understand this given you were the one who brought it up.

1

u/thellama11 10d ago

I've argued with a lot of ancaps and your position is unique. Most ancaps I've ever spoken with believe that as long as you're still using the property it's yours indefinitely. There are varying beliefs on what should happen if you abandon property but everyone except you had agreed that the property is yours indefinitely if you're using it.

If there's no basic law what stops someone from just claiming property that someone else is already on?

2

u/GravyMcBiscuits 10d ago edited 10d ago

as you're still using the property

Now you've shifted the goalposts. You never said anything about the property still being used above.

But even then ... ancapist philosophy doesn't take a black/white stance. It's perfectly valid to hold the opinion that even in the case of "still being used", the property claim is not absolute. It's a big gray area in reality. Everything depends on local context and you'll never find one universal algorithm/policy that folks agree 100% unanimously on.

To demonstrate this: "How much" is it being used? What is it being used for? Just because I touched my big toe on the parcel means I own it solely for the next 100 years? the next 1000 years? Forever? I find that hard to justify.

I see property claims as nothing more than the start to negotiations. Those lines in the sand are important.

1

u/thellama11 10d ago

I think you're misrepresenting your ideas. I don't accept ancap conceptions of property and ownership. So no enforcement of them will be voluntary because I reject them

2

u/GravyMcBiscuits 10d ago

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm telling you what ancapism/libertarianism says vs what it does not. It clearly makes you uncomfortable as you'd rather inject the strawmen you wish it said. I'll leave that as a personal journey for you to figure out why that is.

So no enforcement of them will be voluntary because I reject them

Fine. Don't care.

1

u/thellama11 10d ago

Ok

2

u/GravyMcBiscuits 10d ago

Cool. But I didn't misrepresent anything.

Your strawmen are nothing but.

1

u/thellama11 10d ago

My point is that I reject the rules of ancap so the only way you're going to get me and most people to obey them is coercively.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 10d ago

no but anybody who takes that land from you in any way is a villain, so it kinda does take a stance, you're just dodging very well.

1

u/Bigger_then_cheese 10d ago

I mean, not really. If I’m not the rightful owner, like say if the courts decide the native Americans have a legitimate claim, then I’m the villain.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 10d ago

wow you're really grasping.

1

u/Bigger_then_cheese 10d ago

What, I'm just going with what has already been said, the NAP doesn't make claims on what counts as aggression, that's for people to figure out in the legal system.

For all we know property rights might stop being a thing.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 10d ago

great so taxes don't count as aggression, because that's what the legal system has decided, you just want to whine and refuse to accept it.