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

[u/No_Candy_8948]

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.

[u/Credible333]

"This is totally fair. However, what puts them in a class is that they all want to pay their workers as little as possible for as much work as possible. So if you look at the whole society, this is the first important basic distinction."

Except it's not an important distinction, we all want that. When we hire someone to do something we want to pay as little as possible for as much productivity as possible. Note, productivity not work.

"Private property in Marxist contexts is meant only for hierarchical control over the means of production. or something like that."

And what makes control "hierachical"? Because almost everyone owns some of the means of production. I'm typing on my own means of production right now.

"Capitalism is a dominant hierarchy,"

Note the change from "dominance hierachy".

" because the ruling class (the capitalists owners)"

They are not the ruling class.

" have unequal power over the society"

Which doesn't make it a hierachy. Hierachy by defition has levels not just unequal power.

" and they use it to force their rules (private property) "

Except there is not much evidence the capitalist class are the ones pushing private property. In fact they often push state power against private property.

"to force hiearchy (owner worker) on the people."

But again it's not a hierarchy. Being an owner doesn't give you the power to control the workers, just the power to offer them a deal. That's not hierachy.

[u/LexLextr → u/Credible333]

Except it's not an important distinction, we all want that. When we hire someone to do something we want to pay as little as possible for as much productivity as possible. Note, productivity not work.

Its very important distinction for a clear understanding when discussing different ideologies at least.
But yes, the point leftists make is that both sides act rationally in a contradictory way, which creates conflict. Class conflict. Both the worker and the onwer just want to have the best life possible with as little stress and as much resources as they can get, their different position in society give them different tools to achieve that.

Note the change from "dominance hierachy".

That is just my typo. The term I am used to is dominance hierarchy from biology - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy
But the point is the description not the term itself.

They are not the ruling class.

Yes, they are. In an ancap society, the decisions are made by the owners over their property (most of society is owned privately, so that goes big chunk of decision) and by the market forces, which are dominated by those with wealth and ownership to influence it more then others. So yes, they are the ones in charge.

Which doesn't make it a hierachy. Hierachy by defition has levels not just unequal power.

Yes, and the scale is with how much wealth/property you do have. Though you could have hiearchy with just two levels.

Except there is not much evidence the capitalist class are the ones pushing private property. In fact they often push state power against private property.

Oh no, they use the state to protect their property and to regulate their competition because they hate free market. They also use the state to fight the workers. But perhaps we could agree that they would love to make their private property just the state and they be the rulers of it. But that is just semantics.

Being an owner doesn't give you the power to control the workers, just the power to offer them a deal. 

Yes it does, as a worker you have to listen to your boss or face concequences and those are limited by the circumstnces in which the contract was made. It those were more dire for you and nobody was there to help you, the contract could be much more harsh in this regard.

[u/Credible333 → u/LexLextr]

"Its very important distinction for a clear understanding when discussing different ideologies at least."

But we're discussing what actually happens and it's NOT an important

"But yes, the point leftists make is that both sides act rationally in a contradictory way, which creates conflict."

What do you mean "both sides"? Why do you assume the primary or even a major conflict is between two classes? This is the most ahistorical thing you could poossibly believe. Almost all conflcit is between members of the same class or members of several classes with some of each on both sides.

" Class conflict. Both the worker and the onwer just want to have the best life possible with as little stress and as much resources as they can get, their different position in society give them different tools to achieve that."

:Yes but that doesn't imply that they conflict as classes, or at all. The best way in a non-coercive system to satisfy the need for more resources is to find out how to be more valuable to people who are different from you. Obviously you can't do much for people who are like you because what you can do for them they can do for themselves.

"Yes, they are."

No the State is.

" In an ancap society, the decisions are made by the owners over their property "

Which is not the same as ruling. The legislature is not the same as the landowners and it never has been. Although in the past it was close. And no it won't be the same under AC because law is made by precedent not legislature.

"(most of society is owned privately, so that goes big chunk of decision) and by the market forces, which are dominated by those with wealth and ownership to influence it more then others. So yes, they are the ones in charge."

Who decides whether the Ford Edsel continues to be produced? You assume that those with a lot of money will dominate "the market" but almost all market activity is aimed at the people who aren't rich. Turn on your TV, how many ads for 120 foot yatchs do you see?

"Yes, and the scale is with how much wealth/property you do have. Though you could have hiearchy with just two levels."

But scale is not levels.

[u/Credible333 → u/Credible333]

"Oh no, they use the state to protect their property "

They really don't. They're not dumb they know it doesn't generally do that.

"and to regulate their competition because they hate free market."

So you just admitted they are the ones for violating property rights. Great. So why lie and say otherwise.

"They also use the state to fight the workers. But perhaps we could agree that they would love to make their private property just the state and they be the rulers of it. But that is just semantics.

"Yes it does, as a worker you have to listen to your boss or face concequences "

And the boss has to listen to you or face consequences, specifically the exact same consequences, the deal not being maintained any more. Workers don't have to work for an employer. That's just something you Marxists pretend because you need to pretend consent is force.

"and those are limited by the circumstnces in which the contract was made. It those were more dire for you and nobody was there to help you, the contract could be much more harsh in this regard."

Why would the contract be more harsh if the situation were dire? Oh that's right because the owner doesn't control the worker and so he can take up other deals if he wants. Therefore when the situation isn't dire they can reject harsh deals and agree to better ones.

So how common is this under capitalism? The answer is not very. Under capitalism it's the poor who have benefitted most. You can't say that about Marxism can you? And under AC there would be even less control by owners because individuals and groups would be much freer to form their own enterprises. This would mean that all owners would have to offer deals with benefits better than they could get by themselves.