To me if a certain method of organizing fails to give people power over their own needs without infringing on the needs of others than it should be avoided. Privatization of -everything-, which is core to ancap theory, is itself an aggression. The enclosure movement in the UK is a good example. The ‘best’ way for people to organize would incentivize people to be good towards each other and good stewards of the planet. It would not allow one person to gain power over anyone else’s right to exist. You should be highly skeptical of a movement whose theorists support slavery, free market organ sales, etc. which are antithetical to freedom of the individual (at least one person in the relationship is getting the shitty end of the deal).


I don’t even think a perfect blend would be possible to begin with. I know Chile tried this mindset because Pinochet got Rothbard’s former students to try to fix something up, but now they’re paying the price.

DessertStorms, avatar

For starters, the name, as well as the "ideal" itself is an oxymoron - anarchism is about abolishing hierarchy, and capitalism is the epitome of it. The two are inherently incompatible, in the same way nationalism and socialism are, and will lead to similar results.

In case you're not trolling (which I seriously doubt, but still) - stop watching whatever content it is that got you here, the pipeline you're on leads directly to a bunch of fascists and child abusers.


Bro lead with “after I read a mass murderer’s manifesto,” there’s no way

all-knight-party, avatar

To be clear, OP said they read about the manifesto, not that they read the manifesto and bought into that.



That’s worse!

agamemnonymous, avatar

To be fair, the manifesto notes some very valid observations. The conclusions, and definitely the praxis, may be wrong but the core idea that modern civilization is at odds with human nature has only gotten more obvious since it was written. An-cap is absolutely not the answer, and would definitely make things worse, but there is a valid question.

DessertStorms, avatar

I honestly hadn't even processed the content of the post and just replied to the title🤦‍♀️
Glad I went with my gut and didn't invest any more than bare minimum energy in to replying to this..

fubo, (edited )

Free markets can’t exist without enforcement of rules against violence and fraud. Without such enforcement, race-to-the-bottom effects mean that employment devolves into slavery and all markets in goods become dominated by “lemons” (fraudulent goods).

An actual free market in labor requires limits on what a powerful employer can demand from workers. An actual free market in goods requires protection of customers from fraud, and arguably also from monopolies. Both of these require something like a state, an entity empowered to intrude into other people’s business in order to enforce rules.

Even starting with anarcho-capitalist principles, consistency ends up endorsing a minimal state: see Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia. (However, Nozick’s path is not the only path by which a state-like entity could arise; rather than from ‘protection agencies’, we could imagine it arising from labor unions or cooperatives instead.)

In gist, “freedom isn’t free” — if you want to have a free market in labor or goods, you have to have enforcement against those who would deprive others of freedom through force or fraud.

Kaczynski was not an anarcho-capitalist, in any event, but an anarcho-primitivist — whose beliefs led him personally to commit murder, and who endorsed the mass murder of almost all humans. It’s worth noting that Kaczynski was also arguably manufactured by psychological abuse; he was a gifted mathematician until he became the victim of an MK-ULTRA program.


So, what is the optimal system in your opinion?


It’s not clear there is one! One of the nice things about liberal-democracy is that different people can create different forms of social and economic organization to meet their needs and interests. A family business, a worker-owned cooperative, and a publicly traded corporation can coexist in the same economy (and even on the same street). People can start monasteries or communes in the woods if they want to; or move to the big city to seek their fortunes.

But again, freedom isn’t free: there has to be enforcement of individual rights and fair trade to ensure that the most powerful & successful don’t get to run over everyone else with force and fraud. Right now I suspect this looks like some form of liberal social democracy; probably with more worker protections than the US has right now, but probably with less bureaucracy than the EU has right now.


It will default to despotic states, corporations, or gangs where the one who has the most gold makes the rules.


So, what is the optimal system in your opinion?


A highly regulated capitalist system with high graduated taxes to support a resilient social safety net. This is usually called “Democratic Socialism” or “Nordic Socialism” - by the time you’re paying really punishing taxes you earn enough money for it not to matter in terms of your happiness.


Economic system? Anything that has policies prevent inequalities and massive concentrations of wealth. With the right frame of mind, capitalist, mixed market, or communistic systems can work. Even anarcho-capitalism, if it’s willing to stray from 100% purist theories of the system and allow some structure that prevent the haves from monopolizing economic power at the expense of the have-nots.


Not a serious concept and anyone who thinks otherwise is very mistaken.


Can you elaborate further?


Capitalism is almost by definition a tool to create hierarchies. You can’t have an anarchy where the entire economic system generates unbalances of power as a core feature.


You couldn’t come up with an argument against a man with serious mental health issues who terrorized people?


The guy who scored 167 at IQ test when he was a kid?

Sadly logic does not follow emotion.

If you want to argue back, then you need reason to be on your side.

bennieandthez, avatar

The unabomber was a reactionary, being good at solving math problems does not make you good at understanding our world.


Kaczynski’s madness was manufactured through calculated psychological abuse in the Harvard laboratory of one Henry Murray. Look it up, dude.


High IQ doesn’t mean someone is always correct. He was also a test subject in MKULTRA which fucked up his brain big time.

Also, don’t accuse someone else of being illogical when you are using one of the most basic logical fallacies (appeal to authority, ie. “Ted was smart therefore he was correct”)


I am answering his Ad hominem, as he did not dispute the problems raised within the manifesto.


Ah, one fallacy begets another. Very logical debating! Carry on then.


Scoring high on an IQ test as a child means you’re advanced compared to other children. It doesn’t mean you’re going to be a genius as an adult. It also doesn’t mean you can’t have stupid beliefs that don’t work.

highalectical, avatar

I don’t usually use forums or Lemmy, I usually just post comments on Ancap blogs like Molyneux or Cantwell’s blog, but they didn’t seem appropriate places to post my story. So here goes, I just wanted to share this with all of you.

Nov 3 I flew to Europe for a Eurotrip type tour. Not a guide or packaged deal, just going around by myself. I paid for half of the trip with the wages I earned over the last two years, my dad paid for the other half. I am 19, I guess that is normal starting college and all. (Before that I worked for my dad’s company part time, so I guess you could say he paid for all of it, lol).

I did France and then Italy and then Greece next. I am an Ancap so I wanted to see anarchists in these places. Yes, I know they are different kinds of “anarchists” and not really full anarchists like us. I went to an anarchist book store in Italy and it had a lot of English books, but no Rothbard or Ancap. Like I said, I expected that, not a surprise.

I went to Greece, which everyone knows is famous for its revolutionary anarchism, its economic crisis and everything going on right now. Here I found directions for a local anarchist center. I went and didn’t see anybody, but it was covered in graffiti, mostly in Greek so I couldn’t read it. Whatever, I started taking pictures. Then some people came out and confronted me.

This should have been my first warning sign something was not right, because photography is not a crime. They were not violent, but they were not friendly, like asking who I was, what I wanted. They all spoke good English actually. Not uncommon in Greece. I said I was a tourist and an anarchist and I just wanted to take pictures. Then they got friendly and told me I should have asked first (but pictures are no NAP violation so I don’t know why, but I didn’t say anything) and they invited me inside.

We hung out for a while and smoked hash (there is no good dank in Europe as you might find out like in Cali, everyone smokes hash with tobacco which isn’t as cool as it sounds). We started talking about politics and anarchism. I was trying to talk about the state, they were like yeah no doubt the state was bad. But they wanted to talk about capitalism, capitalism this and that. This is when we started to get into a debate.

I told them that what they called capitalism is different from the free market. They said capitalism is free markets. And I said I agreed. That is what I am saying. Real capitalism is free markets. And they said yes, that is what we are trying to get rid of. And I said no, but we don’t even have that right now. We need more free markets. And everyone at the same time was like “nooo” we are anarchists, we are against capitalism. Anarchists oppose capitalism.

And I said but not anarcho-capitalists. Anarcho-capitalists are the anarchists who support capitalism. I had a fanny pack (yeah, lame I know) for my camera and in that I had this yellow and black bowtie (also super lame, it was a joke but I wasnt wearing it). And I said look, these are the Ancap colors, yellow and black, like versus the communist red and black. Well, these guys had a lot of red and black in the building already so I thought they would get it.

I think that is when it started to get a really bad vibe, really tense in the air. The free market thing was funny, we disagreed but I think they thought I was just confused. Everyone was uncomfortable now. Then someone said markets wont work with democracy. And I said exactly, that’s it, democracy is against anarchism. And they kind of agreed, and said yes, we don’t have real democracy, just governments, and we needed more democracy. I said no, we need less democracy, democracy is the enemy. And we need to end democracy to have anarchy. Then they were all like “noooo” again. You know that thing people do in groups when everyone all says “nooo” or expresses some disapproval at the same time.

And one of them said “but we do want to stop democracy” and then they kind of spoke back and forth in Greek. I didn’t really understand it. And they asked me what I meant.

So I said okay, I had the floor, I was going to tell them about ancapism. And I tried to explain to them some Rothbard and Hoppe. I said the natural order in anarchy is that the best rise to the top, the market picks who is the best. They compete and are peaceful. They said what do we want instead of anarchy. I said we want private owners to own their own land and businesses, and to employ people. They said that is what we have now. I said no, it would be even better. One of the guys said it was like feudalism. And I said it is not feudalism.

Eventually one of the guys spoke up and I thought he was Greek, but he spoke English perfectly so he may have not been. He said he knew what anarcho-capitalism was and that we were basically fascists. He asked me if I thought everything should be private. And I said yes. And he asked me if I thought people were unequal. And I told him yes. And that not everyone would have equal rights. I said everyone has the right to own property and not be done aggression against. But that not everyone had to be treated equally by the owners. He said what about immigrants and racism. And I said that would not happen in a free market, but yes property owners could be racist if they wanted to. They had to respect property.

Then he called me a fascist again, and someone else said I was a fascist. And then they basically all started shouting fascist at me, and one of them grabbed me by the wrists. They pulled me out the door, it was up three floors, and basically drug me down the stairs on my back. It hurt really bad and I remember yelling “you’re breaking the NAP” and things like that. “Stop initiating force against me.” Then they kicked me around on the ground in the hallway, before they took my camera and threw me outside. I was crying and stuff, I just sat there. I was in shock because it was so sudden. Looking back there were warning signs though.

I think they felt bad for me and gave the camera back, but when I looked later they stole the memory card with all of my Greek photos.

So they initiated force and theft. They broke the NAP. I knew the left anarchists were not real anarchists, but I never knew they would do something that bad.

I wasnt seriously hurt, just kicked around a little, lots of bruises and little cuts. I am fine guys so don’t worry. Just needed to share.

highalectical, avatar

I was shooting heroin and reading “The Fountainhead” in the front seat of my privately owned police cruiser when a call came in. I put a quarter in the radio to activate it. It was the chief.

“Bad news, detective. We got a situation.”

“What? Is the mayor trying to ban trans fats again?”

“Worse. Somebody just stole four hundred and forty-seven million dollars’ worth of bitcoins.”

The heroin needle practically fell out of my arm. “What kind of monster would do something like that? Bitcoins are the ultimate currency: virtual, anonymous, stateless. They represent true economic freedom, not subject to arbitrary manipulation by any government. Do we have any leads?”

“Not yet. But mark my words: we’re going to figure out who did this and we’re going to take them down … provided someone pays us a fair market rate to do so.”

“Easy, chief,” I said. “Any rate the market offers is, by definition, fair.”

He laughed. “That’s why you’re the best I got, Lisowski. Now you get out there and find those bitcoins.”

“Don’t worry,” I said. “I’m on it.”

I put a quarter in the siren. Ten minutes later, I was on the scene. It was a normal office building, strangled on all sides by public sidewalks. I hopped over them and went inside.

“Home Depot™ Presents the Police!®” I said, flashing my badge and my gun and a small picture of Ron Paul. “Nobody move unless you want to!” They didn’t.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care that a fortune in computer money invented to buy drugs was missing.

I figured I could wait them out. I lit several cigarettes indoors. A pregnant lady coughed, and I told her that secondhand smoke is a myth. Just then, a man in glasses made a break for it.

“Subway™ Eat Fresh and Freeze, Scumbag!®” I yelled.

Too late. He was already out the front door. I went after him.

“Stop right there!” I yelled as I ran. He was faster than me because I always try to avoid stepping on public sidewalks. Our country needs a private-sidewalk voucher system, but, thanks to the incestuous interplay between our corrupt federal government and the public-sidewalk lobby, it will never happen.

I was losing him. “Listen, I’ll pay you to stop!” I yelled. “What would you consider an appropriate price point for stopping? I’ll offer you a thirteenth of an ounce of gold and a gently worn ‘Bob Barr ‘08’ extra-large long-sleeved men’s T-shirt!”

He turned. In his hand was a revolver that the Constitution said he had every right to own. He fired at me and missed. I pulled my own gun, put a quarter in it, and fired back. The bullet lodged in a U.S.P.S. mailbox less than a foot from his head. I shot the mailbox again, on purpose.

“All right, all right!” the man yelled, throwing down his weapon. “I give up, cop! I confess: I took the bitcoins.”

“Why’d you do it?” I asked, as I slapped a pair of Oikos™ Greek Yogurt Presents Handcuffs® on the guy.

“Because I was afraid.”


“Afraid of an economic future free from the pernicious meddling of central bankers,” he said. “I’m a central banker.”

I wanted to coldcock the guy. Years ago, a central banker killed my partner. Instead, I shook my head.

“Let this be a message to all your central-banker friends out on the street,” I said. “No matter how many bitcoins you steal, you’ll never take away the dream of an open society based on the principles of personal and economic freedom.”

He nodded, because he knew I was right. Then he swiped his credit card to pay me for arresting him.


Where is this from?

highalectical, avatar

Lol classic.

bennieandthez, avatar

There is no such thing as anarchic capitalism, private property is built on authority by private individuals.


Can you explain exactly why do you think that AnCap society would not have ownership ?

Also can you compare that to the current system in real life?

bennieandthez, (edited ) avatar

A couple of things you must understand before talking about “AnCap”:

The state, in this day and age, is run by the capitalist class.

“The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it ’the reality of the ethical idea’, ’the image and reality of reason’, as Hegel maintains. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ’order’; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state.” - The origin of the family, private property and the state by Engels

Now to answer your questions:

Can you explain exactly why do you think that AnCap society would not have ownership ?

I didn’t say that. How would it be capitalism if the capitalist themselves didn’t exist? The characteristic of the capitalist class is that it has private ownership of production, it pockets the products of the processes of production. How is this ownership enforced? With violence, laws are made to protect these relations of production and when broken violence is used to enforce them. Who enforces this ownership? The state, through police and military.

Also can you compare that to the current system in real life?

“AnCaps” want the same society we have but without the state, in their twisted mind the state is some commie plot and must be gotten rid of.

What would happen if the state magically disappears? There would be no one to enforce private property, the capitalists would have to enforce these relations themselves by turning into some sort of warlords, imagine a world where each capitalist needs a private army to enforce their property (who would stop their army itself of taking over?), it is literally going back to the past it is comically dumb.

Another point is that AnCaps are grifters, see Milei in argentina for example. He claimed to be an AnCap but he is doing everything in its power to turn argentina into a police state run by the US!


In those two months, the Milei government has signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States allowing members of the US Army Corps of Engineers to operate along the Paraná-Paraguay Waterway, including large parts of the river Plata basin, upon which roughly 80% of all Argentine exports travel. It has agreed to buy $300 million of second-hand, 40-year-old F-16 fighters from Denmark, with the help of US financing. It has also announced the establishment of a US naval base in Ushuaia, on the southern tip of Tierra de Fuego, often described as the last stop before Antarctica.

Accused of selling out his country’s sovereignty for seemingly nothing in return, Milei argued, with a straight face, that allowing the installation of a US military base in Usuahia is the greatest act of sovereignty of the past 40 years since it will strengthen Argentina’s territorial claims over the Antarctic.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • [email protected]
  • All magazines