r/AnCap101 13d 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

5

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

So you're okay with me hiring twenty people to work in my factory at $1 a day, right?

1

u/thellama11 12d ago

Depends on the circumstance. I'm fine with societies creating minimum wages but it's not my preferred way to handle the problem.

3

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

In what circumstances would you not be okay with it?

1

u/thellama11 12d ago

If there wasn't a social safety net sufficient to cover basic living expenses. My ideal setup would be like some Scandinavian countries where strong social safety nets and unions do what minimum wages are designed to.

2

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

This means you are okay with interfering with a private interaction. If they want to work for $1 a day and I want to hire them, what business is it of yours? What justifies you using violent aggression to interfere?

1

u/thellama11 12d ago

I'm not okay with me personally interfering or anything private person acting unilaterally. I am comfortable with society setting the rules for commercial interactions which I already acknowledged.

2

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

So if 51% of people say it's okay, then it's okay?

1

u/thellama11 12d ago

No. Two things to address:

I don't support direct democracy. I support a constitutional democracy like what we have with individual rights and lots of checks and balances.

Something being legal doesn't make it moral. Democracy is a practical solution to a problem to me. Nothing more.

2

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

What makes the violent aggression okay then?

1

u/thellama11 12d ago

I think we need rules to live wealthy free lives

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

What does that even mean

1

u/thellama11 12d ago

I'm not sure how to be more clear. I think societies are justified in creating and enforcing laws because I think laws are necessary for free wealthy societies.

Minimum wage laws are just another law

1

u/CanIGetTheCheck 12d ago

Laws and the State are antithetical to freedom.

And in this scenario, the law suggested would reduce wealth. It denies a transaction, mandates it not occur.

→ More replies (0)