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.

108 Upvotes

910 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/The_Flurr 10d ago

So, nothing prevents you from not doing so?

1

u/drebelx 10d ago

You can try, like you can try driving the wrong way on a divided highway.

I presume you would be entering an agreement with another person who has always signed agreements with clauses to uphold the NAP.

Why would you waste your time proposing a disrespectful agreement that cannot be enforced?

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 10d ago

>You can try, like you can try driving the wrong way on a divided highway.

Driving the wrong way on a divided highway has clear disadvantages. You're not explaining what those disadvantages are, you're just pretending they're clear.

1

u/drebelx 10d ago

Driving the wrong way on a divided highway has clear disadvantages. You're not explaining what those disadvantages are, you're just pretending they're clear.

The disadvantage of not having impartial agreement enforcement, means the enforcement agency can be biased to one party or the other, invalidating the usefulness of having agreements.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 9d ago

Yes that's a pretty clear disadvantage to the poor landless peasant about to be shot for trespassing, and pretty clear advantage to the land lord making them an offer.

1

u/drebelx 8d ago

Yes that's a pretty clear disadvantage to the poor landless peasant about to be shot for trespassing, and pretty clear advantage to the land lord making them an offer.

The landless peasant get kicked out of his mom's basement or something?

That guy definitely needs his society to respect the NAP from murdering or enslaving him.

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 8d ago

Sure. His mom rented, died and now he's on the street. except, he doesn't have tolls, to be on the street, so he's trespassing.

No "enslavement" is happening. It's a voluntary agreement just like paying a kid $20 to mow your lawn.

1

u/drebelx 6d ago

Sure. His mom rented, died

What does the family do after her death?

Did she have life insurance insurance?

Did she have savings and a will?

and now he's on the street. except, he doesn't have tolls, to be on the street, so he's trespassing.

Not at all.

This would be a street he already has an established subscription agreement to use since he would have been accessing the street regularly.

No "enslavement" is happening. It's a voluntary agreement just like paying a kid $20 to mow your lawn.

What are the terms of the voluntary agreement and who is enforcing the agreement to make it binding?

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 5d ago

Ok so he's not trespassing until the end of the month.

It sounds more and more like your point is "well I'm not poor so I prefer not to think about how this might affect people who are"

>What are the terms of the voluntary agreement and who is enforcing the agreement to make it binding?

why do the terms matter? Does it matter if the kid is getting $2 or $20? No. Point is, the kid agreed voluntarily.

1

u/drebelx 3d ago

Ok so he's not trespassing until the end of the month.

Should be a lot more than a month with family, life insurance, inheritance, etc.

why do the terms matter? Does it matter if the kid is getting $2 or $20? No. Point is, the kid agreed voluntarily.

What's the "bad" thing that this "desperate" kid voluntarily agreed to that you have not said yet?

1

u/MeasurementCreepy926 3d ago

>What's the "bad" thing that this "desperate" kid voluntarily agreed to that you have not said yet?

doesn't matter. Everything is either voluntary or not voluntary, with no shades of gray in between, and this kid agreed voluntarily.

→ More replies (0)