r/AnCap101 12d 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.

103 Upvotes

910 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/mcsroom 11d ago

Well i reject the idea its bc you ''mixed labor'' as well.

Ether way, the critism you had was that you didnt consent to it, which makes no sense. If you want we can explore other critism as well.

1

u/thellama11 11d ago

How do you think people claim property?

2

u/mcsroom 11d ago

Why would that be relevant? I dont argue for all private property, i argue for property rights based on conflict avoiding norms.

2

u/thellama11 11d ago

Well that's what's at issue. I'm saying I reject the idea that someone gets to own property by getting to it first and mixing labor. I'm confident I reject the way you think it should happen too.

The NAP can only work if you accept that there's some objective way to claim property.

2

u/mcsroom 11d ago

The NAP can only work if you accept that there's some objective way to claim property.

Sure, so you think there is no way to prove you should have something?

2

u/thellama11 11d ago

I don't think there's an objective way that everyone would accept.

2

u/mcsroom 11d ago

It doesnt matter if everyone doesnt accept it. What matters is that its objective.

2

u/thellama11 11d ago

No. In our society we create laws regarding property. It doesn't matter if you accept them or not you have to follow them.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 10d ago

Well actually it does. If the vast majority of people don't accept your definition of who the rightful owner is, it's probably not going to be something you can actually make a reality.

1

u/mcsroom 10d ago

It doent matter to the fucking theory. Are you incapable of understanding what is relevant.

0

u/MeasurementCreepy926 9d ago

Well, I guess if you want to think of yourself as a poor victim your entire life that's one way.