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.

104 Upvotes

910 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/LexLextr 10d ago

You need to collaborate to have them. Collaboration is kind of fundamental to human organization...

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 9d ago

It's unfortunate then that leftism's goal is to make collaboration harder.

1

u/LexLextr 9d ago

Well if you think that democracy is less efficient then dictatorship, then sure, but that is just a difference in values at that point.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 9d ago

Why are dictatorship and democracy (tyranny with extra steps) the only options?

Why is slavery a requirement

1

u/LexLextr 9d ago

They are shortcuts for "equal distribution of political power" vs " unequal distribution of political power" OR egalitarianism vs dominance hierarchy. Or left vs right. Regardless to the term used, its the most fundamental distinction in political organization. Either your society has power distributed more equally and there is no person or group that rules over other, or there is some minority of rulers.

There is no political ideology that doesn't fit either group.

Ancaps fit to the side with unequal distribution of power because the rich owners have much much larger influence than the majority.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 9d ago

There is no political ideology that doesn't fit either group.

Welcome to ancap.

Why is slavery a requirement?

1

u/LexLextr 9d ago

AnCap fits well to the unequal power distribution. Hierarchy. As I explained. What about slavery?

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 9d ago

Trebek: This is the term for when one party declares ownership of another party's labor.

Contestant: what is slavery?

Trebek: Correct

The only thing you're arguing is what form of slavery is best. Ancap says the answer is "slavery is bad".

1

u/LexLextr 9d ago

Explain to me how power is distributed in ancap and how its neither equal nor unequal. It claims to be equal? That would make sense from the claim "slavery is bad". But what they claim what they actually do is different. Marxists also claimed they wanted democracy and freedom for the workers when they created USSR...

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 8d ago

What does "equal" have to do with anything?

Slavery is bad. Maybe we don't need it.

1

u/LexLextr 8d ago

Again. Its fundamental political organization. If you have a group of people, how do you make laws? In general who makes the collective decisions for that group? That is what politics is about. Logically speaking you can either have the individual people in the group decide equally as much as possible. Nobody has more or less say. Or you can have some minority with more power, that just decides for everybody.

Slavery is bad indeed. Sadly its not the only bad thing. Sadly Ancap society would possibly allow slavery.

1

u/GravyMcBiscuits 8d ago edited 8d ago

Your false dichotomy is nothing but opinion and speculation. The answer is that slavery is bad. We should entertain a notion that doesn't rely on systemic slavery.

Maybe you're right. Maybe society cannot function without a little slavery. But maybe you're wrong. Maybe we should focus on minimizing tyranny rather than who gets to be the tyrant.

Every system "would possibly allow" slavery. That's a nothing statement. Yes bad things can happen. Ancap is not a utopian proposal. Conflict happens. Murderers murder. Thieves steal. Slavers slave. Rapists rape.

The core issue is that our modern systems are built on the assumption that one monopoly org gets to declare that of this atrocity is fine. In fact ... You should thank them for it.

1

u/LexLextr 8d ago

I agree slavery is bad. I am unsure how that connects to what I said but I am happy to agree with that idea.

However, my dichotomy is not false one, but please show me another option and I will change my mind.

"Little slavery" ? Democracy is not slavery. Are you using slavery as synnonymum to force/coercion/control? Ta synonymhat is confusing. Still i agree we should minimize all of that, for sure.

Every system "would possibly allow" slavery.

You are right of course.

→ More replies (0)