Anarcho-Capitalism

Anarcho-Capitalism (AnCap), also called Private Property Anarchy, Private Law Society, and Rothbardianism, as well a bunch of other names, is a political ideology, as well as a theoretical social order, based around Classical Liberal conception of  property rights,  individualism, and  rejection of the state but lead to its logical conclusion, the elimination of it. It favours market-based alternatives for all services that most modern states currently provide, including:
 * Security and national defense
 * Roads
 * Education
 * Healthcare
 * The issuing of currency and banking
 * Law
 * And more

On the political compass diagram, Anarcho-Capitalism is consistently identified as being on the absolute bottom and on the absolute (economic) right, with the only ideology surpassing it on both regards being the fictional ideology, Avaritionism, on cultural regards it is ambiguous and varies from person to person.

Proto-Anarcho-Capitalist Societies
Anarcho-Capitalist intellectuals have identified a set of historical societies to be in essence Anarcho-Capitalist in practice, or have practiced Anarcho-Capitalist ideas.

A relatively well-known example of proto-ancap society has been the Republic of Cospaia, an Italian micropolity which existed outside of the reaches of both the  Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire, and existed from 1440 and 1826. Cospaia lacked any centralised body which specialised in the initialisation of forced payment on others, the closest body which Cospaia had for a state (The council of Elders and Family Heads) was financed through a contribution of its volunteering members and only enforced its verdicts through disassociation.

Other examples of historical societies which practiced elements of Anarcho-Capitalist theory include the system of Brehon Law in Ireland said to be an example of private law and which lasted from around the Bronze to the interregnum of  Cromwell as well as the Italian city-state of Genoa which effectively practiced a system of private national defence. By far the most well-known example of a Proto-Anarcho-Capitalist society has been the Icelandic Commonwealth (less formally known as medieval Iceland).

David Friedman also holds in his book, "Legal systems very different from ours," that many societies have put in practice systems of private law, either where both prosecution and law enforcement were carried out privately, or, where prosecution was carried out privately but law enforcement was carried out by the state. Among the societies he says have had private law systems, either fully or partially, there are the afore mentioned Early Irish/Brehon and the  Icelandic legal systems, but he also writes about  Jewish law, Imperial  Chinese Law,  Feudal law, 18th Century  English law, among others.

Bryan Caplan, in his Anarchist Theory FAQ (version 5.2), states that both left-libertarians and  right-libertarians have written on the "nearly anarchistic"  free cities of medieval Europe. The former emphasize the role of community and mutual aid in these cities, while the latter emphasize their relatively free markets and how nearly everything was provided by private (or "semi-private") producers, including law and defense in many cases. Caplan says that, though anarcho-capitalists have written less on the subject, they generally praise Henri Pirenne's and Harold Berman's historical treatment.

Other anarcho-capitalists also cite the American "Wild West" as an illustration of anarcho-capitalist institutions. Others also note that, while the USA was never anarchist, pre-20th century America came the closest to its  laissez-faire ideals than ever. Murray Rothbard shows special interest in American colonial and  revolution periods, publishing four volumes on the topic and writing a fifth unpublished volume on the advantages of the  Articles of the Confederation over the  American Constitution. There he writes, among many other things, about a brief period in Pennsylvania's history when the state was essentially disolved due to lack of interest.

Proto-Anarcho-Capitalist Thinkers
There have been a number of individuals that have been described as being very similar to anarcho-capitalism in their thought, primarily in the Classical Liberal tradition.

A notable figure that has been identified as one of the first people to advocate for an anarcho-capitalist system in a modern form was the Belgian economist of the French liberal school, and student of Frédéric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), known for advocating a competitive market in the area of production of security services. Molinari was also an abolitionist and a critic of the French Revolution and the policy of  Statism it had brought.

A set of important figures to the development of Anarcho-Capitalist theory was the movement of Boston Anarchists, specifically Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939) and Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), to whom Murray Rothbard referred as "unsurpassed as political philosophers." He also stated that (he believed) politically, the differences between his ideal system and theirs were minor, but economically, that is, what he and they thought the economic consequences this political system would bring, the differences were substantial.

Another figure, whose political writings could be considered partially proto-anarcho-capitalist, is Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who pondered on the question of whether or not the evolution of society under a free market would lead to the abolishment of the state, although he himself did not come to a conclusion of whether it would or would not happen.

Auberon Herbert (1834-1906), who was largely inspired by Herbert Spencer's writings, is a figure who is also considered a 'proto-anarcho-capitalist:' Herbert is known to be the first person to use the term "Voluntarism" (or rather "Voluntaryism") within a political context, a term used by followers of Anarcho-Capitalism and other Libertarian circles to this day. Auberon Herbert's doctrine is based on the complete voluntarisation of the role of government authority, and the creation of a system of "voluntary taxation," and the creation of a system based first, and foremost, on private property and self-ownership. And, although Herbert largely dismissed the term, " Anarchist," he was described as a "true anarchist in everything but name" by Benjamin Tucker.

Lastly, out of proto-anarcho-capitalist figures there is the American Geolibertarian author, Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), whose politics are often described as  Anarcho-Conservative. Nock has criticized all forms of Economic Interventionism, both in the form of  Soviet Communism and the  Social Democratic policies of the New Deal.

Modern Anarcho-Capitalist Thinkers
Moving on to recent times, there are a number of thinkers that identify as "Anarcho-Capitalists," They have slight differences, but they all agree the state should be abolished, and laissez-faire capitalism is either the system compatible with the most amount of freedom or the system that would lead to the most generalized well-being, or (usually) both.

Most Anarcho-Capitalist thinkers are followers of the Austrian School of economics, such as: Murray Rothbard, the formal creator of Anarcho-Capitalism,  Lew Rockwell,  Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block,  Roderick T. Long, etc. However, there are exceptions, such as  David Friedman, Milton Friedman's son.

Anarcho-Capitalism can be divided between consequentialist and deontological. Friedman may be characterized as more of a consequentialist, who sees Anarcho-Capitalism as the best political system. On the other hand, Rothbard and his diciples criticize the state from an ethical standpoint (while also making practical critiques to it).

Internal conflicts
Within the anarcho-capitalist movement (and more broadly, the libertarian movement) there are some disagreements worth metioning:

Abortion
Abortion is typically regarded as the topic that divides libertarians the most. One may identify 4 sides on this debate. The pro-choice, evictionists, departurists, and pro-life. Pro-choice and pro-life are the more standard views on this debate, while evictionism and departurism are particularly libertarian since their justification stems from property rights (however there can also be seen as sub-variants of the pro-life stance).
 * Evictionism: It is the idea that a pregnant woman is allowed to evict the fetus at any time (take the fetus off of her womb) but she must do so in the "gentlest way, a way that doesn't directly kill the fetus unless needed, and only after notifying the local authorities (such as hospitals, orphanages, churches, local parents, etc...) that she has given up custody of the child if they desire to take care of the fetus (homestead the right to take care of it). This is based on the idea that the woman is a self-owner and the fetus is a trespasser who she is allowed to evict from her property (her body) as long as the force employed is proportional (not killing it) and, since the fetus is considered under custody of the mother, abandoning it also requires her to notify others. This view is held by thinkers such as Walter Block.
 * Departurism: It, similarly to evictionism, views the fetus as a distinctly human being mens rea trespassing, and both separate the concept of eviction, which both see as broadly justifiable (if carried out in the gentlest way possible), with the concept of abortion (lethal eviction), which both conceive more narrowly. However, opposite to evictionism, departurism holds that, if the mother's actions are to conform the gentleness requisite of eviction, she must allow for the "continued departure" of the trespasser (fetus) until the eviction is no longer indirectly lethal (the fetus is viable outside of the womb). This comes from the comparison with a case similar to abortion where there is a trespasser who is unable to act or leaving the property it's on on its own, but posses no danger to the owner or his property and the eviction will result in its death, case under which libertarian law would see the eviction in the earlier (deathly) stages as unrightful. Since the mentioned conditions apply for both cases, the verdict for one should apply for both.

Children in ancap
When talking about ancap children, the most important concept to understand is the concept of a guardian. Children are usually incapable of taking care of themselves and making informed decisions, especially when very young. Because of that, children voluntarily go under the custody of guardians, which voluntarily take care of them. The guardian is usually the parents of the child, but can be anyone. The guardian does not have any special right over the child and is not allowed to violate the property of the child. The child or the guardian can cease being so at any time they wish.

However, since children often do not have the resources to make complicated decisions, guardians are usually allowed to ignore the child's decisions, as long as the decision made was due to ignorance, and as long as the assumed decision could reasonably be made by a more mature version of the child.

For example, restricting the access of a person to the outside could be considered kidnapping, however if the guardian is restricting this access to protect the child from a harm they don't understand, this violation of the child's property is not considered an aggression. On the other side, if the guardian used unjustified violence against the child, it would still be considered aggression.

The main points of disagreement between ancaps is how far should this assumption of good intentions go. Is hitting the child to teach them a lesson acceptable? Should we respect cultures that marry at a very young age?

Corporal Punishments
Anarcho-capitalists believe that restitution to the victim is the most important thing in criminal justice. For example if a criminal steals something or damages something, the most important thing is for the criminal to give back the stolen item or pay for the damages. However how do you repay damages to a person's body? How much is a punch in the face worth?

Due to a lack of any objective ways to handle situations like these, ancaps are highly encouraged to create private legislation that contain arbitrary prescriptions like punishments, fines and expulsion to handle such cases, which need to be voluntarily agreed upon by all parties.

However in cases where the aggressor and the victim have no contractual relationship to each other, one proposed solution would be to inflict to the aggressor the same harm he inflicted on his victim, and allow the victim and the aggressor to negotiate an alternative form of compensation. For example if the aggressor punched the victim in the face, the victim would be entitled to punch back, but instead of punching back, the victim offered replacing the corporal punishment with a fine of a specific value, which was agreed upon by the aggressor.

This corporal punishment solution is considered a last resort and far from the ideal way to handle situations like these. The corporal punishment could also be replaced by "equivalent" punishment, especially in cases where the damage caused by the aggressor has "secondary effects", such as in the case of rape, crippling damage, and things of this sort. In these cases the secondary effects are handled by for example a payment equivalent to the loss of revenue caused by the lost limb, or something similar. Crippling back or raping back is considered to be extremely counter productive.

While this is a well accept among ancaps there are several gray areas within it where a lot of disagreement can happen, for example how do we even decide what equivalent is, and this becomes especially polemic when discussing the issue in current state run systems since the rules that could result in corporal punishments are arbitrary and imposed through aggressive violence. While some ancaps argue that corporal punishment is far better than prisons, due to the prisons being run with tax payer money, others see this being used by governments in extremely cruel and unusual ways.

Death Penalty
Some anarcho-capitalists believe that the death penalty violates the NAP. If the judge should give a penalty for the criminal (nap violator), it should be always (private) prison or some other alternative (like house arrest, etc.).

Others believe that the death penalty is legitimate, and does not violate the nap, because you are preventing the criminal (nap violator) from doing other nap felting stuff, when it is proportionally justificated (ex:Murder) and if the victim want that punishment for the criminal, this view was favored by Rothbard and also Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Raphael Lima,  Paulo Kogos etc....

Intellectual Property
Among libertarians, the general consensus in more recent times is that intellectual property is not a legitimate form of property, and shouldn't be protected as actual property rights of concrete goods. The main libertarian proponent against intellectual property is Stephan Kinsella, among others such as  Jeffrey Tucker and  Roderick T. Long, who writes that the Neo-Lockean principle of first appropriation, as basis of property, can only apply for scarce resources, since there can be no conflict regarding non-concrete and non-scarce goods. He also argues that one can only enforce intellectual property rights if one limits actual property rights over physical resources which are open to homesteading, thus IP would be little more than an arbitrary monopoly granted by the state that aggresses upon others' property rights. Murray Rothbard takes the stance that intellectual property may actually hinder innovation, opposed to what most proponents of it seem to think, but this is just an economics stance. Politically, he argues that "infinite copyright contracts" would arise in an Anarcho-Capitalist society (and they could only arise if voluntarily agreed), and no government would be required to uphold these contracts as they would be upheld by private agencies. On the other hand, there are thinkers such as Morris and Linda Tannehill, who argue that in an Anarcho-Capitalist society there would be private "data banks" whom inventors could buy insurance against unauthorized use from. These data banks would not only enforce the intellectual property rights, but they would also compensate the inventor for possible losses caused. However, though not an Anarcho-Capitalist, the biggest proponent of intellectual property rights within the libertarian movement has been Ayn Rand, who argued that "patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind [...]", though she argued that these rights, if held in perpetuity, would bring more bad than good. Finally, there is the Anarcho-Capitalist author David Friedman, who takes a moderate position on the issue, saying that both sides make good points.

[[File:Anin.png]] Individualist Anarchism
Within Individualist Anarchism, the two biggest proponents of intellectual property rights and against them respectively were Lysander Spooner and  Benjamin R. Tucker. Lysander Spooner defined wealth as anything that contributes towards a man's well-being, and property as simply wealth possessed, with an owner. He believed anything that met the criteria of contributing to human welfare could be appropriated and thus become property, including ideas. On the other hand, Benjamin Tucker made a very similar critique of intellectual property as Stephan Kisella does: He saw property as useful for assigning the usage of scarce resources to different people, thus avoiding conflict, but since ideas aren’t concrete things to be held in property, and can be employed by different people at different places at the same time (for example, a recipe for a meal), he didn't believe their use should be restricted by patents or copyright.

Immigration
This issue is and has historically been quite controversial, at minimum almost like abortion, within libertarian circles. Culturally right conservative factions have positions and views opposed to open borders, free migration and more aligned with  Right-nationalists  along with more privatization of all possible public property in state systems, while in the absense of the state, since everything would be privately owned, there wouldn't be any such thing as open borders; they ideally want property owners and communities to decide who can enter or not in their property. This mustn't be interpreted as saying that open borders don't increase productivity or that they decrease wages, or anything of the kind, their objection, generally, is not about economics, but rather is more concerned about social cohesion, and see open borders in the regular sense as a form of trespassing (and forced integration). They don't see open borders as comparable with free trade since immigration, opposite to trade, doesn't need to be agreed with by both parties. On the other hand, mostly made up of progressives and the culturally left, there are the  libertarians that favour open borders and free immigration in  state systems, with some few also proposing this for an Anarcho-Capitalist society. It's worthnoting that Murray Rothbard initially favoured this last position, opening the think-tank "Cato Institute" for promoting this idea in a libertarian perspective, which nowdays still does, but later his ideas would shift to the private property borders and more "rightist" position that would very influential in the Paleo-Alliance  circles, taking for example the Paleolibertarian think-tank Mises Institute and Rothbard's pupil,  Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

The way to Achieve an Anarcho-Capitalist Society

 * [[File:Right Reformism.png]] Reforms- 99% of ancaps believe, that revolution is never the way to achieve a better society. Reforms on the other hand can help.
 * [[File:Cryptan.png]] Crypto-Anarchism
 * [[File:Agorismf.png]] Agorism
 * Peacefully by spreading the ideas of ancap.
 * Separate the schools from the state
 * [[File:Inscap.png]] Violent Revolution - A pretty small minority of ancap groups and individuals propose this.
 * [[File:Sep.png]] Secession into small independent communities or cities (Proposed mainly by [[File:Hans Hermann Hoppe.png]] Hoppeans).
 * Some beliefs that markets competitivity along with technology development will eventually make the state obsolete so human progress through markets mechanisms will naturally abolish it.

Family Institute
Some branches (especially internationalist and progressive) of Anarcho-Capitalism is very sceptical about family institute (all three - extended patriarchal, extended matriarchal and nuclear), because viewing those institutes as a "main seeds of nationalism/statism/socialism/religion and authoritarianism in general", and advocating for "private gated polyamorous communes which childrens that can freely leave" + ownership of guns and security robots (future) for all childrens.

Most ancaps see family as a natural law institution that is a line of defense against the state therefore the rights of parents of educate and take care of his childs as they want, althought not in absolute terms, must be defended against statism.

Same-Sex Marriage
Some of them fall in being in favour, a small minority against, the majority position instead is one that stems from libertarianism which it is privatization of marriage arguing that the state must not define what is a marriage often arguing that must be a debate of civil society and institutions, this for example was proposed by the now defunct party Zehut.

Foundations and beliefs
One of the fundamental beliefs that Anarcho-Capitalists hold is that the existence of the state, defined as a  monopoly of protection and law-enforcement over a given territory, must lead to a more inefficient management of scarce resources, and a necessarily more violent and less productive system compared to one based on private property, even at producing security. They also make a praxeological argument in favor of the abolition of taxation (and consequently, the state), saying that any form of theft decreases stock of present goods of the individuals affected, thus increasing their time-preference (preference for present over future goods), but taxation, being constant and not considered theft by a majority of the population, not only increases time-preferences but changes its pattern (also decreasing, at an unknown rate, the future stock of goods), making people less forward-thinking, making investment less rewarding and slowing or even reversing the civilization effect that a lower social time-preferece rate causes.

Those could be considered the more economistic arguments against the state that Anarcho-Capitalists make, but most also make an juridical-ethical critique of the state. With regards to ethics, Anarcho-Capitalists argue that all use of force, when not employed in self-defence, is unjustified. They define coercion as any initiation force, or threat thereof, over another individual's property (which includes their body). The idea that there is a natural right to own oneself and appropriate the natural resources one employs before anyone else (one's private property), for Rothbard, stems from the fact that it's impossible to establish universal ethical norms if one is to deny this fact, that is, if the notion of self-ownership and  neo-lockean property appropriation is refused, there appears a set of untermensch and ubermensch and that set of ethical norms is no longer valid. On the other hand, for Hoppe, property rights stem from the fact that arguing against propertarian ethics inevitably leads to performative contradictions; just by engaging in argumentation, he says, one must recognize private property rights as an a priori condition of argumentation. Certain other anarcho-capitalists can be called "ethical intuitionists", one example being Michael Huemer, who believes natural rights exists since they can be naturally intuited. Because of this foundational philosophical view (which is deduced differently though almost universally agreed for, besides consequentialist Anarcho-Capitalists), Anarcho-Capitalists necessarily view taxation as theft, and any form of theft as illegitimate (though, depending on the case, some may argue not necessarily immoral). And they belive the same for any regulation on individuals' behavior or control over their property which doesn't result from a contractually-binding, voluntary relationship. In fact, because they don't see majority rule as a legitimate form of electing representatives (since voluntary contracts must be unanimous), anarcho-capitalists argue against democracy, viewing subjection through democracy as no better than subjection through any other kind of government, some believing monarchism to be a preferable system. The Anarcho-Capitalist would take this view to its logical conclusion as to say that the state itself should be dismantled, as there is no legitimate contract binding government and citizens together, and much less one that everyone has signed.

There are conjectures, about what are the REAL foundations of ancap. In short, most ancaps agree on:

a) absolute decentralization

b) absolute demonopolization

c) absolute voluntariness

d) rejection of aggressive violence

[[File:Volu.png]] Voluntaryism
Voluntaryism is a political ideology inhabiting the bottom right of the compass, with no specific cultural implications. It is one of the only Anarchist ideologies, alongside Autarchism, that doesn't call itself Anarchist.

It's main belief is that aggression is never, ever, justified to be initiated in a non-defensive way, and seeing taxation as robbery it believes it should be voluntary (services provided by public entities would be financed voluntarily and compete with private organizations).

However, unlike Anarcho-Capitalism, and being a mostly semantical issue, they define "government" as every kind of organization, while the state is the monopoly of violence.

It was founded in 1908 in Auberon Herbert's (posthumous) writing, "The Voluntaryist Creed", though these views were also exposed in previous works. It is probably among the first, full theoretical interpretations of a society completely based on liberty and property rights (probably only preceded by "The Production of Security" by Gustave de Molinari in 1849, and "Social Statistics" by Herbert Spencer in 1851), which greatly influenced Rothbard's thought.

Despite its creator never describing himself as an " Anarchist", he was called an "Anarchist in everything but name" by Benjamin Tucker, after his death in 1906.

[[File:Murray N Rothbard.png]] Classical Rothbardianism
Classical Rothbardianism is an ideology based on the classical views of economic historian, Austrian economist, philosopher and reputed founder of anarcho-capitalism Murray Newton Rothbard, who, even if most anarcho-capitalist theorists agree with most of his lessons, some lessons end up being rejected or ignored by many theorists.

He published a considerable amount of political philosophy books that contain most of his political views, the best known being Anatomy of the State, The Ethics of Liberty, Man, Economy and State and the Libertarian Manifesto.
 * Anatomy of the State - One of the most notable works, which, in this book, Rothbard argues that the state would be the monopoly of force and violence and an institution that would violate what individuals would categorize as honest and moral. Rothbard tries to debunk (in his view) false auras of goodness and wrong notions about the state that would serve to favor it, such as that the state would represent the people.
 * The Ethics of Freedom - Another notable work, in which, in this book, he argues how ethics and morals would still exist in society without state intervention. In general, he defends an anarchist theory that even with the non-interference of the state, society would still live in an accepted manner as moral, without a state restricting freedoms to do so.
 * Man, Economy and State - One of the most important books of the Austrian school, working on macro and microeconomics with a set of axioms, curiously, the last eight chapters were removed for various reasons, but later they were published as Power and the Market in 1970. The book advocates as little government intervention as possible (at the anarchist level), valuing entrepreneurship, and a maximum laissez-faire economy.
 * Power and Market: Government and the Economy - As already mentioned, it was supposed to be part of Man, Economy and State, but it had been withdrawn for several reasons, including political reasons. In this book, he tries to differentiate private markets from intervened markets, also defending that we do not live in free markets, but in intervened ones. He also claims that regulations and plutocracy are caused by state and political reasons, also from an anarchist anti-state point of view.
 * For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - One of his best-known works, in which most of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy with a strong opposition to the left was emphasized. In this book, he addresses issues based on classical liberals such as Adam Smith and John Locke, also tracing libertarian origins with them and up to the American Revolution of 1765, as both would be a "revolution" to "the old order that dominated their subjects for centuries" . He also argues that conservatism came about to destroy the "liberal spirit" and that they wanted a hierarchical government with privileged elites. In the book, one of the main characteristics of anarcho-capitalism appears, the NAP (non-aggression principle), in which if an aggressor or a group attacked or injured a peaceful individual, they would be inherently wrong; whose book he emphasizes that the state would not follow this principle because it is already above the moral law. The book was held by many theorists to be responsible for today's "hardcore libertarianism", along with Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand.

Other principles he believes in can be seen in other books, interviews, etc. One of his beliefs would be his enormous appreciation for the American revolution, so much so that he wrote a book called "Conceived in Liberty", in which he states that the legislators wanted to oppress or reduce them to slavery, in addition to being anti- imperialist and extremely favorable to the American revolution for being inspired by "libertarian ideals". In Chapter 5, even though he was opposed to slavery, he still cited what he would see as advantages of the constitution of the Confederate states under the American Constitution, in addition to opposing government privileges given to banks at the time.

In a 1973 interview about wars in Reason magazine (antiwar.com), Rothbard is completely in favor of isolationism, opposing the wars caused by the American government and stating that the war in Vietnam was a mass murder, also uses Brazil and Paraguay as an example that wars are between states, not the people. He is also opposed to the rise of the American state and blames Woodrow Wilson for American foreign policy. Even though he opposes interstate wars, he is still in favor of revolutions and civil wars, using the American revolution as an example, as he would not have levied taxes at state levels, he also argues that he would need great support from the civilian masses, using Mao Tse- Tung and Che Guevara as examples. He also claims that in modern times, it is impossible not to kill innocent civilians in wars, also stating that if the situation were on a private scale (without states) it would be completely different, using the fact that the police don't need to machine gun people to find a bandit. In the magazine made by The Libertarian Forum, he opposed the state of Israel and was pro-Palestine, being Anti-Zionist and stating that he was "fueled by American arms and money'. There were accusations that he was pro-Russian after an excerpt from For a New Liberty appeared in the Libertarian Review magazine in 1978, defending Soviet foreign policy and that of some communist countries.

One of the most important parts of his philosophy is individualism, so much so that David Gordon's book about it, it is said that Rothbard would have based himself on the American individualists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker and mixed his ideals with the Laissez-Faire economics of the school Austrian. He fiercely defends human rights absolutism and separation of the individual from the state.

He also ends up defending the panarchy in the book Nations By Consent: Decomposing the Nation-State, in which he defends voluntary states properties and that the problems between them with something resembling police.

Even though he is against the nation-state concept, he still has beliefs in nationalism, because according to him in Nations by Consent: "Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions" . He also emphasizes on nationality consent, using Bosnia as an example of different nationalities also advocating private proerty/market borders. Even so, he defended black separatism in America, because according to him black people could flourish among them without the "oppressive power" and white power structure, but he also ended up criticizing integrationists and what he called "liberals", such as Martin Luther King Jr, showing himself as a huge fan of Malcolm X.

Other ideals of Rothbard would be the fact that he favors abortion, because according to him "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body" though later on he would advocate an alliance between the christian right and paleolibertarians for overthrow Roe V. Wade also saying that there arguments of abortion killing a person makes difficult this debate, in addition to defending a "market of children". He also defends police freedom to torture and beat suspects of some crimes, even if the police would be arrested if they were innocent.

Personality and Behaviour
AnCap is usually portrayed as AnCap Picardia memes personified, which tells you everything: His general absurd behavior is usually rationalized by the fact not a lot of people really wanting to believe in his ideology.

 Stylistic Notes 

This isn't Anarchyball, so no balding AnCap please.

How to Draw
Ancap_flag.svg The flag of anarcho-capitalism is a diagonal bicolour of Gold and Black, representing Capitalism (and hard money), and  Anarchism, respectively. The origins of the flag of anarcho-capitalism date back to Robert LeFevre's 'Freedom School' in Colorado that, in the years 1963-1964, held a winter and spring long 'Phrontistery,' in which the Anarcho-Capitalist flag was first shown in public.


 * 1) Draw a ball with eyes.
 * 2) Draw a diagonal Bicolour with Gold or Yellow at the top and Black at the bottom.

And you should be done.

Freedom Partners

 * [[File:Libertarian.png]] Libertarianism - I agree with many things he says, but just a small state? The mere existence of the state is a threat to life, liberty, and property.
 * [[File:Minarchist.png]] Minarchism - My moderate brother.
 * [[File:Cap.png]] Capitalism - Duh.
 * [[File:Paleolib.png]] Paleolibertarianism - Pretty much the same as Libertarian, but conservative. We both like Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell.
 * [[File:Korwinism-Pikselart.png]] Korwinism - Crazy Polish statist friend and business partner.
 * [[File:Pinkcap.png]] Pink Capitalism - My LGBT sibling and more cultural left self.
 * [[File:Hoppef.png]] Hoppeanism - My more cultural right self. End Hoppephobia!
 * [[File:Anpacf.png]] Anarcho-Pacifism - You're cute and the only other person who supports Adam Kokesh 20 20 24.
 * [[File:Anin.png]] Anarcho-Individualism - You share and respect your love for individualism; collectivism is truly a damaging and an unnatural mindset. (Wait, what do you mean wage labor is immoral?!)
 * [[File:Anmark2.png]] Market Anarchism - You want to abolish private property? Forbid wage labor? No? Then what is left about you?
 * [[File:Agorismf.png]] Agorism - Brother and my dealer.
 * [[File:Austrobert.png]] Austrian School - Based economics!
 * [[File:Panarchy.png]] Panarchism - Voluntary adscription governments competing between them? Absolutely based.
 * [[File:Ecocap.png]] Eco-Capitalism - Private property rights is the best way to deal with contamination.
 * [[File:Seibt.png]] Seibtism - Good girl.
 * [[File:Yellow Unionism.png]] Yellow Unionism - Best type of trade unions.
 * [[File:Libertfem.png]] Libertarian Feminism - Understands that unrestrained free markets are good for women and minorities to exercise their freedom.
 * [[File:Natlib.png]] National Libertarianism - [[File:Bhl.png]] Modern libertarians often disregard [[file:nation.png]] nations by forgetting that everyone is born into family, with a language, and a culture, part of one or several ethnic group(s), and with specific values and traditions.
 * [[File:Anarcho-Fascismalt.png]] Nilssonian Anarcho-Fascism - The only fascist that can enter into my property, he's a great pal.
 * [[File:Buchanan.png]] Buchananism - Great pal and ally even if you're a statist.
 * [[File:MGTOW.png]] MGTOW - I really like your sigma male grindset.
 * [[File:Isolationist.png]] Isolationism - The state loves wars and globalism is statist.
 * [[File:Helv.png]] Helvetic Model - Also Switzerland and Liechenstein are deeply based.

Tolerable Commies

 * [[File:Chilib.png]] Chicago School - We would get along a whole lot better if you simply dropped that whole [[File:Monet.png]] Monetarism thingy and stopped being so neoclassical.
 * [[File:Anqueer.png]] Queer Anarchism - Pink Capitalism's ideas are better. Sorry, not sorry. Thanks for buying my merch on pride month though.
 * [[File:Plcn2.png]] Paleoconservatism - Yes,the good ol' american right. We used to get along fine but now he became a statist [[File:Protect.png]] protectionist.
 * [[File:Conlib.png]] Conservative Liberalism - Stop ignoring me! TAXATION IS THEFT! 1776! No step on snek!
 * [[File:Clib.png]] Classical Liberalism - No taxation without representation? How about NO TAXATION?
 * [[File:Hayek.png]] Hayekism - Reduced taxation?! how about NO TAXATION, you [[File:Keynes.png]] Keynesian, [[File:Soc.png]] Commie scum!
 * [[File:Reactlib-icon.png]] Reactionary Libertarianism - I appreciate your libertarianism, but can you drop that whole feudalism thing?
 * [[File:Reactlib.png]] Reactionary Liberalism - Old Paleocon [[File:Plcnlib.png]], utopic is to believe that state can make something good, and once again, please drop the connections to feudalism.
 * [[File:Altl.png]] Alt-Lite - I appreciate your support for capitalism, but can you please distance yourself from that [[File:Altr.png]]scumbag and stop harassing my [[File:Pinkcap.png]]sibling?
 * [[File:Obj.png]] Objectivism - A walking contradiction and a borderline sect.
 * [[File:LeftRothbardianismPix.png]] Left-Rothbardianism - Your egalitarian sentiments are a revolt against human nature.
 * [[File:Capcom.png]] Capitalist Communism - 50% of the time, he is right. If only he was cut in half …
 * [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] Neoliberalism - Fellow capitalism fan, but please stop violating the NAP so much.
 * [[File:Juche.png]] Juche - Well, I know he's an tyrannical commie and all that, but he hates taxes, smokes weed and also my frequent recreational McNuke™ customer; I kind of have to respect the guy.
 * [[File:Mutalist.png]] Mutualism - Another free-market lover, except the whole socialism thingy is quite cringe (he does spit some facts every once in a while, though  ).
 * [[File:Avar.png]] Avaritionism - Basically me on LSD and crack but without the NAP. NAP is based; otherwise, it's just chaos.
 * [[File:Tito.png]] Titoism - "The principle in the Communist countries should be: land to the peasants and the factories to the workers."
 * [[File:Dengf.png]] Dengism - Most based commie I have ever seen: Even though you are a filthy statist, you at LEAST allow markets to prosper, and also, you have child-run sweat-shops, so you are cool in my book.
 * [[File:Guevara.png]] Guevarism - You're a cringe tankie but Rothbard praised you apparently? Also, I and my partners made a lot of money selling your face on shirts.
 * [[File:Polpot.png]] Pol Potism - Tyrannical genocidal commi- wait, you blew up the central bank of Cambodia?
 * [[File:Posadist.png]] Posadism - Always a reliable recreational McNuke™ customer; no matter how drastic, business is business.
 * [[File:Soul.png]] Soulism/Acid Communism [[File:Acidcomf.png]] - Great customers, regardless of our views on economics.
 * [[File:Tradcon.png]] Classical Conservatism - Right-wing statist, although [[File:Libclasscon2.png]] Powell was based.
 * [[File:Nrx.png]] Neoreactionarism - Formalism is absolutely based, yet you still support the state.
 * [[File:Natcon.png]] National Conservatism - Right-nationalist statist, some of you are somewhat based though.
 * [[File:Nalib.png]] National Liberalism - Same as above but classical liberal, which makes him better, also Farage is based.
 * [[File:Helicopter_Man.png]] Pinochetism - You're a dictator that threw commies out of helicopters? That's horrifying but totally based !
 * [[File:Rpop.png]] Right-Wing Populism - You can be useful but please be less statist.
 * [[File:Right Reformism.png]] Right Reformism - Same for you,also be more radical.
 * [[File:Libms.png]] Libertarian Market Socialism - Same as Mutualist but minarchist.
 * [[File:Trumpism.png]] Trumpism - Filthy statist and protectionist, but keep those tax and regulation cuts coming.
 * [[File:libfem.png]] Liberal Feminism - Fellow capitalism fan, but Libertarian feminism's ideas are better. Sorry, not sorry.
 * [[File:PolState.png]] Police Statism - I don't want a police "state", but private police is based!
 * [[File:Strato.png]] Stratocracy - Military State is not good but private militaries are based!
 * [[File:Theocrat.png]] Theocracies - Government imposing a religion is disgusting but if it is in voluntary property rights/contractual based communities I don't have any problem.
 * [[File:StateathFedora.png]] State Atheism - Same as above but anti-religion.
 * [[File:Natan.png]] National Anarchism - Stupid anti-capitalist but I really like your love for decentralization and freedom of association.
 * [[File:LeopoldII.png]] Leopold II Thought - He's not me, commies. But without the NAP violations he can be ultrabased
 * [[File:Carl Benjamin.png]] Carl Benjamin Thought - Classlib who has awesome takes EU, redtards, and globetards, but too statist and democratic.
 * [[File:Thatcher.png]] Thatcherism - Not perfect but at least you kicked Keynesianism’s ass out of Britain and in your last days you were against the EU.
 * [[File:LibertGeo.png]] Geolibertarianism - Just a more tolerable version of georgism.

N.A.P Violators

 * [[File:Marxlen.png]] Marxism–Leninism - An ideology that only exists to oppress and enslave. He's governmental tyranny at its worst. All you commies do is worship St*lin, justify war crimes, simp for China, and beg for bread.
 * [[File:Ancom.png]] Whiny Commie - An oxymoron; you need a state to enforce communism. This ideology is just [[File:PCB-ML.png]] Marxism–Leninism but enforced by the majority. Thanks for buying my drugs, though.
 * [[File:AnSynd.png]] Anarcho-Syndicalism - What? It's just a more communist-looking ancom. How many ancom clones even are there?! (Psst, wanna buy this hoodie?)
 * [[File:Stalin.png]] Stalinism - The very definition of evil.
 * [[File:Feud.png]] Feudalism - I AM NOTHING LIKE HIM FOR FUCK'S SAKE!
 * [[File:Reactsoc.png]] Reactionary Socialism - Are you not just [[File:Feud.png]] Feudalism again?
 * [[File:Nazi.png]] National Socialism - A crooked statist: violated millions of people's rights by taking them to somewhere they don't want to go; therefore, he is a crooked NAP-violator and one of my biggest enemies!
 * [[File:Altr.png]] Alt-Right - Aren't you that scum above again?
 * [[File:Natbol.png]] National Bolshevism - The worst of Marxism-Leninism and National Socialism. Also, you made my [[File:Pinkcap.png]] sibling cry.
 * [[File:Fash.png]] Fascism - Cringe totalitarian collectivist, I'm nothing like you and never will be.
 * [[File:Anfashf.png]] Anarcho-Fascism - You're literally just a commie troll to make me look stupid, aren't you?
 * [[File:Keynes.png]] Keynesianism - Statist cuck who's devaluating our currency and ruining the economy!
 * [[File:Corp.png]] Corporatocracy - Big corporations can be just as exploitative (not only to the free market but to people's lives) as an authoritarian government; oh, and also, GAMESTOP TO THE MOON! $GME, $GME, $GME, $GME, $GME, $GME...
 * [[File:Klep.png]] Kleptocracy - Another crony fuck who exploits the free market for himself!
 * [[File:Plutocrat.png]] Plutocracy - What makes you think that I should simp for you? Just because you're rich doesn't mean you're automatically OK in my book! You'll be just like any other government officials.
 * [[File:Monet.png]] Monetarism - END THE FED! You cancerous NAP-violator!
 * [[File:Socdem.png]] Social Democracy - Stop raising taxes on the rich, you far-left communist! Just let the free market take care of everything!
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Georgism - Damn the land commies! At least you're a fellow capitalist, though.
 * [[File:Socliber.png]] Social Libertarianism - You call yourself a lolbert yet want the government to give you my money, perfidious socialist!
 * [[File:Necon.png]] Neoconservatism - Yo, so I heard you like to go to foreign countries and kill all their people for your statist agenda?! Bro, what the hell is wrong with you?! It's totally not the same when I use child slavery in the third world!
 * [[File:Dsa.png]] Democratic Socialism - Bernie is a tyrannical commie! Screw your dream welfare state: He's literally trying to turn the U.S. into a planned economy! Do you WANT our country to turn into the next Soviet Union?!
 * [[File:Ochlo.png]] Ochlocracy - Hive-Mind-lite that doesn't care about the individual and violates the NAP.
 * [[File:Hmind.png]] Hive-Mind Collectivism - The future the goddamn commies want!
 * [[File:marxfem.png]] Marxist Feminism - Only unrestrained markets can liberate women! Get to helicopter miss.
 * [[File:Regulationism.png]] Regulationism - Your socialist solutions only worsen the situation, the state can't solve anything!
 * [[File:Libsoc.png]] Libertarian Socialism - Socialism needs government! Oxymoron
 * [[File:Libmarx.png]] Libertarian Marxism - Oh. Another oxymoron. Just being against taxes and being pro-gun doesn't make you a [[file:libertarian.png]] libertarian.
 * [[File:Eugen.png]] Eugenicism - A NAP violator who does not understand choice.
 * [[File:Insarch.png]] Insurrectionary Anarchism - Ancom, but likes to violate the NAP even more! But [[file:Inscap.png]] he is based.
 * [[File:Anpostleft.png]] Post-Left Anarchism - Anti-Capitalist, Insurrectionist, likes Stealing, and is Anti-Work? What is even "post-left" about you?
 * [[File:Leftpop-0.png]] Left-Wing Populism - Demagogic commie scum!
 * [[File:Illeg.png]] Illegalism - Stealing wealth is EVIL! But stealing from government and crony idiots is based action against them. Also - wanna buy some guns and ammunition from me?
 * [[File:World.png]] Globalism - You basically want a world state which is gross, also your "free" trade agreements are a garbage.
 * [[File:Soclib.png]] Social Liberalism - The New Deal was one of the worst things that happened to USA.
 * [[File:Cball-EU.png]] EU Model - A mistake that will transform into a superstate and the Euro is a mess!
 * [[File:falgsc.png]] FALGSC - Yes, full scale automation, AI management and robots is great, but they don't bring communism magically. Also even if you have access to the natural resources of the entire galaxy, you still can't satisfy the unlimited greed of humans. And last note - please read about "Gamification of economics".
 * [[File:Falgsc.png]] - Actually, we got rid of unlimited greed of "humans" via transhumanist technology so screw you.
 * [[File:ancapf.png]] - So, you think that "greed" is a biological trait just like this [[File:eugen.png]] scumbag?
 * [[File:Annil.png]] Anarcho-Nihilism - Why you violate the NAP and hate private property rights? You claim you hate leftists too but if you go against markets and property you are one of them.
 * [[File:Annil.png]] Anarcho-Nihilism - You are closer to leftists because of your type of organization of society, especially Hoppe's one.
 * [[File:depopPosadist.png]] Demographic Posadism - Silly commie, that thinks that market economy is dependent on some auth-right type countries and that false fact, that capitalism needs "endless growth". Yes, populations can decline, and that harms mostly crony corporate lords and statist cucks, but not market itself! Even with small million population for entire planet, market is still exist.

Further Information
For overlapping political theory, see: Classical Liberalism • Austrian School •  Anarcho-Individualism •  Libertarianism  Objectivism •  Hoppeanism •  Agorism

Literature

 * Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard
 * For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard
 * What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray Rothbard
 * The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard
 * Man, Economy, and State by Murray Rothbard
 * Against The State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto (Preview) by Lew Rockwell
 * AnCap Reading Guide
 * The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman
 * The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer
 * The Production of Security by Gustave de Molinari
 * [[file:Chaosism - alt.png]] Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy
 * For An Emergent Governance by Ryan Faulk

Wikipedia

 * Anarcho-Capitalism
 * Murray Rothbard
 * Voluntaryism
 * Anarchism and Capitalism
 * Free Talk Live
 * Republic of Cospaia
 * Icelandic Commonwealth
 * Polycentric law

Videos

 * Intro to Anarcho-Capitalism by Shane Killian
 * Anarcho-Capitalism for Dummies & Intro to Anarcho-Capitalism:The Ultimate Guide by Mr. Dapperton
 * "Taxation is Theft" | Austrian Economics Metal by Finntronaut
 * The Essentials of Anarcho-Capitalism by Anglo Libertarian
 * IdeoLogs: Interview With an Anarcho-Capitalist by IdeoLogs
 * Analyctical Tools of Anarcho-Capitalism by EconJohn
 * Pure Capitalism is Anarchy (A.K.A. Anarcho-Capitalism) by Radical Capitalist

Music

 * Backwordz

Online Communities
Reddit Others
 * r/Anarcho_Capitalism
 * r/GoldandBlack
 * r/Ancap101
 * r/Ancap_bookclub
 * r/GenZAncaps/
 * AnCaps.win

Navigation
Anarchokapitalizm

Anarko_Kapitalizm 无政府资本主义