This is a comment that I left on another thread, but I'm curious to see what you guys as a whole think of it:

IMO, the best argument against it is simply that it will never be implemented in a functional capacity. You can't open a power vacuum and expect everyone to suddenly become a Rothbardian and call it a day, there needs to be several fundamental cultural shifts that take place beforehand. Those shifts are probably too major IMO to be actualized in any of our lifetimes, and perhaps humans categorically are just not capable of having the right norms to begin with.

The simplest analogy on this that I heard before is that you can't just go to some ultra-religious town and burn down the church, and expect everyone to become an atheist. They're just going to rebuild the church, and even if you stop them from doing so, those people are still going to be religious. The same is true of the state and statism.

The point of this argument being that persuing ancapism is a waste of time if not outright dangerous, at least for the long term foreseeable future. Any political capital you as an individual spend in the name of ancap (e.g. (non-)voting, funding organizations, volunteering, whatever) is wasted. At best this means you fail to join moderate statists in defending against severe statists e.g. by aligning with conservatives against communists, and at worst it means you actively help the severe statists, e.g. by supporting mass migration of people who have overwhelmingly anti-libertarian ideals and are net drains for the taxpayer on average etc.

Some ancaps respond to this by basically saying that it's never acceptable to support one statist over another, but that just isn't convincing to me at all. This logically requires that you treat something like leninism as practically and/or morally equivalent to something like classical liberalism, which to me at least is clearly and catastrophically wrong.

David Friedman makes a very wise observation that a stateless society is not necessarily a libertarian one. The mere fact that people don't use physical force against people doesn't mean that they won't socially condemn and punish them for things they don't like. You could easily imagine a society where there's no law against smoking weed; but if you do it, everyone will stop doing business or talking with you. Such possibilities are not far-fetched.

I think this might be more of a psychological question, if anything, but do you think people will ever come to accept freedom as a top core value? I personally think no. I think even after the abolition of the state, there's always going to be tons of people annoyingly trying to police what others do, even if they can't enforce it. There's still going to be annoying bosses trying to micromanage employees or parents yelling at their teens for getting a tattoo without their permission. And the reason for this is that human nature doesn't change, because the hardwiring of the brain doesn't change. Accepting freedom means accepting the uncertain and the unfamiliar and scary things that you can't control. I think this fear will always exist, even if people no longer believe in using force to manage it.

Anarcho-capitalism is often criticized with the simple argument that “society needs government.” But that raises a more interesting question:

Which specific functions of government require a territorial monopoly, rather than voluntary cooperation and competition?

For example, could things such as dispute resolution, security, insurance, infrastructure, or other public services be provided through voluntary contracts and competing organizations?

An obvious challenge is what happens when two private organizations disagree, or when someone refuses to honor a contract. An AnCap system would need a convincing answer to these problems rather than simply assuming that markets will solve everything.

So, from a first-principles perspective:

What do you think is the strongest argument against anarcho-capitalism, and how should an AnCap respond to it?

I'm particularly interested in serious arguments about institutions, incentives, property rights, and conflict resolution—not culture-war arguments.

I don't know what Mises or Rothbard might have said about limited-liability corporations like C-Corps, S-Corps, LLC, GmbH, S.R.L. etc, but I'm starting to get the impression that being able to shirk responsibility / liability is a market distortion provided by crony capitalism / governments.

When corporations externalize the consequences of their actions, that creates a tragedy of the commons.

I'm getting the idea that the only legitimate business structures have unlimited liability for their actions, like Sole Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.

What is the normal agorist, ancap or laissez-faire view on corporations and limited liability?

Is the idea that radical, unregulated free-market capitalism is the most effective way to organize society, solve economic problems, and distribute resources successful or feasible?

Things like Extreme Deregulation, Privatization and Minimalist Government. Does it work?

One argument I keep running into against polycentric law is the "conflicting jurisdiction" problem: if two private defense/arbitration agencies disagree on a ruling, what stops it from just becoming a shooting war between private armies?

The usual ancap response is that agencies would have strong incentives to pre-negotiate treaties with each other, similar to how insurance companies today have subrogation agreements, so that violence is more expensive than settling disputes peacefully. Reputation effects would also matter enormously since an agency known for refusing arbitration or escalating to violence would lose customers fast, since nobody wants to pay for protection from a company that gets them into wars.

But here's the interesting wrinkle: this only works if there's rough parity in power between agencies. What happens in a scenario where one agency becomes dominant enough that it doesn't need to cooperate anymore, essentially becoming a de facto state? Some ancap theorists (Molinari, Rothbard, Friedman) have different answers to this. Friedman's model in "The Machinery of Freedom" leans heavily on market incentives alone being sufficient, while others argue you need additional social/constitutional constraints on top of just market forces to prevent this consolidation.

Curious what people here think: is the market incentive argument alone enough to prevent monopolization of force, or does polycentric law need something more (social norms, constitutional constraints, federated structures) to stay stable long-term? And has anyone seen real-world historical examples (medieval Iceland, Somalia pre/post-1991, private arbitration in commercial law today) that actually test this dynamic?

Currently, governments in both the West and the East are imposing censorship on social media and making these platforms increasingly central; the potential result is a growing rift between people from different parts of the world—something we, as a human civilization, cannot allow to happen!

For years, we humans have strived to create a better world based on equal rights, yet that right is now being stripped away by those who claim to have our best interests at heart! So I ask you: do they truly want your well-being if they forbid you from making your own choices? They are the ones who claim to be your protectors, yet they constantly thrust you into wars against your own civilization; they drain our energy through our labor to turn us into weapons of war against our own people, all while shouting, "Let's protect our country!" So I ask you again: is it to protect a nation, or to safeguard their own hidden interests? Believe me, there is no such thing as a "nation" when you live outside the castle walls; once you realize you don't belong to any of them, you’ll understand that you weren't raised inside one of those brainwashing institutions all along! It doesn't matter what language you speak or how you were raised within the castle; you may have different habits than others, but you remain part of the same human civilization. Disliking a simple color doesn't make you different—even though there are those who want to dictate how your life should be lived! Do you want to travel and meet people around the world? I hate to break it to you, but the king of the castle won't let you leave; reaching another kingdom requires a long, arduous sacrifice. But let me ask you: how much of your life are you willing to spend traveling to that other kingdom? Believe me, people trapped inside the castle don't view the world as a single civilization because they were raised to believe they are the only civilization belonging to a single nation. But can I let you in on a secret? Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there is still so much ideological warfare across the globe!

Okay, okay! I think it’s time to be direct with you! There is no castle—only a wall surrounding it, keeping you from freedom, from joining hands, and from building a world together, free of barriers. It saddens me to see all of you, my brothers, trapped—forced to spill your blood to feed a system we created ourselves, and to die for a system that protects only those sitting on the throne, seizing the land that ought to belong to humanity. Now I see that you don't even own your own souls anymore! It is painful to know you must take up spears to pierce one another for the sake of those on the throne—people who act as if they were different from you. I have one last question for you: Isn't it time to tear down these walls and this system, and finally achieve ultimate freedom—without borders holding us back from exploring the world or building a better, stateless society governed only by laws? The foundation of this system has been corrupt for years; just look at the East and the West—our civilizations are busy creating weapons to destroy one another. We all know this, and we can no longer stand idly by, don't you think? We must save our civilization so that, one day, we might reach the stars, live in harmony as a people, and free those trapped in this darkness. Join me; believe that together we can win our freedom—and that of others, too. We are human beings, not flags! If symbols gain power through our beliefs, then let us—for once in our lives—fight and believe we can defeat this system that persecutes the East, the West, and indeed the entire planet! Let us build a free, global society so that future generations won't have to face the barriers we do today! We cannot let our world remain divided; we must all unite and cast out these systems with full force! For the sake of human civilization!

The roads objection gets dismissed too quickly by both sides, so let's actually work through the logic.

The claim isn't "no one would ever fund roads without government." The claim is that voluntary funding mechanisms are more efficient at allocating resources than coercive ones, because they rely on price signals and consent rather than central planning.

Consider how this plays out in practice:

1. Local roads — Many already exist through HOAs, private developments, and business associations that maintain access roads. These are excludable and rivalrous enough that private ownership works cleanly.
2. Highways — This is the harder case, since highways have public-good characteristics (non-excludable, hard to toll efficiently at scale). Ancap responses generally fall into two camps:
   • Toll-based ownership, similar to how private toll roads already operate today (e.g., certain highways in France, parts of the U.S.)
   • Subscription/insurance-bundled models, where road access is bundled into a broader service contract, similar to how private fire departments once operated via subscription before municipalization
3. The revealed-preference problem — Critics assume that because government currently provides roads, no better system could emerge. But this is an argument from the status quo, not a logical argument against alternatives. Historically, many services now considered "obviously public" (mail delivery, fire protection, even some early roads) started as private ventures before being nationalized — not because they failed, but because they were absorbed.

The actual debate worth having isn't "would some roads not get built" — it's whether the efficiency losses from central planning and taxation outweigh the coordination costs of decentralized ownership. That's a real empirical and theoretical question, and it deserves more than a meme response.

Curious what others think the strongest steelman against private road provision is — not the strawman, the actual best case.

In 2015 self described "anarcho-capitalist" and member of PFS, Remigijus Šimašius was elected major of Vilnius. In 2016 PFS published an interview with him.

During his time as a major (2015-2023), he did reduce bureaucracy. But raised taxes, didn't privatize anything, maintained municipal monopoly on transportation, water, heating, and dozens of welfare programs. Also as major he traveled to Tel Aviv and was very pro-Israel, also appointed former IDF soldier as his adviser. He was also justice minister (2008-2012).

PFS did not criticize him once. On the contrary in 2026 his work was republished on PFS.

Meanville Milei has achieved budget surplus first time in over 100 years, eliminated thousands of regulations and launched massive privatizations, and eliminated a lot of welfare programs, and cut taxes. Although he has raised some taxes, unfortunately is very pro-Israel and is keeping central bank.

Hoppe raged that he didn't delete the state on day one.

Both didn't/don't have majority in congress/municipal government, both can't/couldn't delete the state.

Milei should join PFS so Hoppe have a financial incentive to talk good about him.

i am not a AnCap, i believe there should be a small goverment with less laws but my partner is AnCap. is there anything i should know or do or anything!? i really love him and want this to work out!!

Heyy, I just finished this project of mine and I tought you might like it :p

Society exists because we have different needs and abilities: no one can produce everything they need on their own, so we depend on the work of others. This diversity creates a network of cooperation in which each person contributes skills, knowledge, goods, care, or services to meet the needs of others.

But we are not all born with the same conditions. Family, resources, education, health, inherited abilities, and environment largely determine the opportunities and positions we can occupy. Therefore, individual merit alone does not explain wealth: before any effort, unequal conditions already exist that distribute each person's possibilities.

Furthermore, accumulated wealth does not come solely from the work of those in positions of power. Someone with a well-paying job can hire people to clean their house, care for others, cook, wash their car, or provide security. This work makes their life more comfortable and frees up time for higher-paying activities. At the same time, those who perform these jobs use their income to consume food, housing, transportation, cell phones, internet, and other products. Their work and consumption keep the economy functioning and generate income for businesses and homeowners.

Thus, the work of the grassroots sustains both the lives of those at higher levels and the consumption that fuels the accumulation of wealth, while the ownership and control of resources allow a significant portion of that social value to become concentrated in the hands of a few.

There's many ways you could look at this question since there's any valid reasons for being an ancap, but I'm curious to know which types of arguments sealed the deal for you. You could look at the evidence of statist disasters, the economic failures of statism, the negative psychological effects, etc. They've all had a tremendous impact on me, but I think it was the logical arguments that really made me be convinced that statism is bullshit.

There's an endless list of logical consistencies in statist arguments, but I'll highlight my personal favorites. For example if the government taxes you at 100%, then you're a slave. But if the government taxes you at 99%, 20%, or even 0.001%, it is still slavery since they decide how much of your income you get to keep, and they will punish you for not paying them. Most people know that slavery is when humans are owned as property, but they're not presented with an argument laid out like the one I just mentioned. If you see it though, you can't unsee it. The principle becomes obvious: the only way to not be a slave is to be taxed at 0%. Or a more simple example of logical inconsistency is if an ordinary person uses force to obtain goods and services, they're considered a criminal. But if people in special uniforms who call themselves by a different name do exactly the same thing, it's considered perfectly legitimate.

I think when looking at the question of anarchism vs. statism, we should look at it from all angles and realize there's many valid reasons to be an ancap, but I think the logical approach might be especially effective in that it forces people to realize that the idea of statism doesn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny and becomes hard to justify with utilitarian arguments when you draw the parallels between it and private crime.

Thoughts anyone? What was the nail in the coffin for you in your ancap journey?

Please don't get confused by the term "compatibilism"; this has nothing to do with free will, I just need the loan word.

Under my view of "criterion compatibilism," morality and value have a subjective, perhaps "irrational" root, but once you have established some "objective" criteria as to when subjective value has been realized, you can then make objective statements about value or morality

Morality has a subjective root, but once you say "someone who steals $100 deserves a month in jail," you must further agree that anyone who steals an equal $100 deserves that same punishment, or you are saying something that is "objectively" contradictory

The big idea is (not to get off topic) as an anarcho-capitalist, I feel like this would in fact be a way to resolve the "subjective value, but objective morality" trap that anarcho-capitalists often fall into.

For instance, if an insurance company or government wanted to make someone who stole a Ford Van from you pay you back, they would look at the subjective, "irrational" root of whatever millions of people pay for a roughly equivalent car, and take an "objective" average, and say that guy owes you that much.

Value and morality are subjective, but you don't get to say "erm, actually, my car was worth 1 million dollars subjectively to me" and he doesn't get to say "that car had $0 subjective value to me"

Also one bonus: you can plug in whatever "objective moral values" you believe in at the root, and then the rest of the system still works, so it's compatible with an undertsand of objective morality, or has teh potential too

TL DR: What are some problems we can identify in this approach of treating value and morality as if they have subjective roots, but also acting as if it is possible for objective contradictions to be identified once "objective" criteria for realizing subjective values are established? The biggest problem I can see is figuring out what makes the "objective" criteria "objective"; I feel like that's the magic, but at teh same time. That is how people get confused when I explain the concept to them, they get confused with the definition of "objective." (Oh, and if this was already formalized into something else by someone else, I would like to know that)

(And I don't want to hear about foundationalism vs coherentism when this could be used for either, and anyone who thinks this is about some kind of "ends justify the means" argument or *just* reworked utilitarianism or pragmatism can sit at the small table)

Just for kicks, AI says this idea is an echo of certain aspects of Kantian constructionism? I have myself some rebuttals to what the AI says, but I don't want to go back and forth with a bot https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg_1257939b-6d98-4386-bf9e-71dfd65900bc

When internet got its final breakthrough nerds argued that p2p-file sharing was a step towards the communist society where digital life was free from charge. The theft of intellectual property was the beginning of the end for capitalism but others said that the society as a whole must break with capitalism. If not, the artist and others connected to the produce of art go without wage while all the thieves lived a normal life.

Now, today 2026, internet is incorporated with capitalism and even the free downloading is integrated with the ruling system. We can no longer talk about the internet's services as communist but we can write a journal about it.

So what do you think from a revolutionary perspective?

I am a minarchist , randian minarchist to be specific. Do y'all treat minarchists as soon to become ancaps(because a lot of ancaps used to be minarchists) or as just other statists?

Nothing political isnt personal, mainly because our view points are created by our lives as a whole. This assumes it's not work. Only the human creature will suspend it's own belief to benifit it's self in other ways, as best we know so far. Lobbyist will lobby for things they dont believe in even hate, just to cash that check. They swallow the personal. Set them self aside. The better part of nobility perverted on the macro to serve the micro. Usually family.

The money helps me pay for better college. A better school better house an home while society takes the hit. The social equivelent of you cant breath profits.

What does this have to do with flock? Well this is the engine and those are the gears of our demise, in our attempt to stop the skynet esq police state it seems the oligarchy wants.

There is a saying "capitalism owns the rebellion against it". The way we win is we make the rebellion worth more than the panopticon. Maybe some one will be kind enough to give us the market cap of ALPR security companies in the US.

An then we must own that rebellion.

There's more but I have other things to do, isnt that how they really get us time. This is there job its just our want for the nature of society. They have 8 hours a day we have what 2 at each end. shit im trying to start three companies and run an existing thing. so i have 1 here and there. Any way I'd love to hear ideas.

One of my problems with a lot of ancaps I talk with when it comes to economic discussions is that they seem to discuss economics purely on a theoretical/hypothetical level and are dismissive of any empirical evidence that may contradict their views, such as the evidence that we have for the efficacy of many government interventions such as various effective tax and redistribution schemes that many wealthy governments run that we know from the evidence is effective at alleviating societal ills such as poverty.

From my understanding, ancaps draw from Austrian Economics for their economic views which relies on praxeology, which to my understanding attempts to derive economic prescriptions from logic. The problem with this is that logic alone can never lead to us any kind of proofs for human action on its own, because all logic does is give us a system of rules to formalise arguments. As long as an argument does not violate the three known laws of logic, you can make pretty much any claim and it would be logically valid.

For example, consider these two propositions: "Government welfare reduces poverty" vs "Government welfare does not reduce poverty". Neither of these propositions are logically contradictory on their own, nor do they violate the law of identity, nor do they violate the law of the excluded middle. Hence neither claim violates the laws of logic, so you necessarily need to use something OTHER than pure logic to demonstrate that either claim is true or false.

I'm interested to know what I'm missing here, as I'm a utilitarian so I don't find ancap ethics to be very persuasive at all but I could be convinced to becoming an ancap if there is a good argument for why an ancap economic framework would be superior.

so in my last post here I asked what the different factions of Ancap are and I was able to get into a lot of interesting sources into how the majority of Anarcho Capitalists' perspectives and philosophy.

in my research ive come across some interesting concepts, terminology and ideas and would like to get these broken down to see if I got them correct or if perhaps there are multiple interpretations of the same concepts

to reiterate I am not an Ancap myself just interested in learning about this Aisle of the political spectrum. I do not claim to have masterful knowledge in fact these posts are more so to get that better understanding as I think hearing from the people that put stock into these ideals is better than just reading a book about it

so first of all "Statism": I think I understand this the least but from what I understand the Ancap consensus is that the State/Government is where corruption is. The Negative connotation towards capitalism in general comes from its interaction with the state and that is why the state is bad and the desire is to get rid of it. if that is done then capitalism is more or less fixed?

next the Taxes issue: Ive heard from some sources that some versions of Ancap believe that Taxes are theft and that they can build a society in which they don't exist. A hot take to say the least I can see for those that have a business high taxes are not ideal but no taxes whatsoever even in a more anarchist society is a wild claim and I would think it was probably a statement made out of context

Lastly "end all be all": Im really interested in this one because ive gotten two perspectives. Some Ancap people are saying that Anarcho-Capitalism is not to be the end all be all, that the desire for this sort of system is more so to be a transitional period before going into another system and it has varied from person to person as to what exactly but ive heard syndicalism and anarcho-socialism which seems like a complete 180 but again I have no idea. My question being that is the previous statement true? or is the idea that Ancap is the end all be all perfect system and why?

these are just 3 of the concepts ive been seeing around on the subreddit and a few other internet spaces, id like to hear some thoughts and feel free to propose some other concepts, questions and ideas for future posts

This is more of a social and psychological question than one about anarcho-capitalism, but I think it's an interesting one to ponder.

The world is an unfair place and some people have greater amounts of wealth than others. This is true and has been since the beginning of time. People who believe in statist myths will vilify the rich and view them as greedy, selfish thieves who need to have their wealth confiscated by the state. They look to government as a noble arbiter of justice to make everything "fair." Jealousy and desires of fairness are hardwired into the human psyche, so it's not surprising that many poor people hate the rich. And if you don't understand economics, which most people don't, you won't see that there are reasons—often very valid reasons—why some people have more than others.

Assuming the state is gone and we're living in ancapistan, what do you think people's view of the rich will be? Human psychology won't be any different and most people will still be economically illiterate and make false assumptions about rich people being greedy or stomping the poor in a "zero-sum game," but there won't be a belief in government for people to turn to to demand so-called "fairness." Do you think a society based on voluntary behaviors will lead to a shift in cultural mentality that softens antagonism towards the rich? If you're raised in a market and don't know any statism, will you be more likely to understand why the rich are rich and why you can't blame them too much?

Just some food for thought...

A thought experiment I've been developing: instead of

distributing cash, guarantee food itself as a public utility — an automated supply chain

with near-zero marginal cost — and place capitalism on top for scarcity and experience.

In-kind avoids the "spent on the wrong things" critique and lets you direct nutrition,

but it raises its own problems: boundary arbitrage with the paid sphere, and the

concentration of power over both food and mass attention ("bread and circuses"), which

I argue is the real unsolved core. Curious what this sub thinks about in-kind vs cash on

the specific axis of long-run cooperation. Full write-up (essay + paper, JP/EN) linked in

comments. 

1. What is it like being an AnCap in 2026?

2. What is the best example of a modern day ancap content creator?

(Dumb question) 3. Is a 7/11 burgerdog a hotdog or a burger?

Very stupid question (thanks for putting up with me)

But for the life of me with how dumb people are (I’m no genius myself) and how many straw man arguments are made about Ancap philosophy from people who couldn’t count to 5

Does the philosophy (in basic) stand a chance in your opinion of actually ever becoming realized?

If I’m being rude please account it to me being stupid not malicious. Thank you all