Anarcho-capitalism

[[File:Anarcho-capitalist flag.png|thumb|right|165px|Anarcho-capitalist flag.]]{{Economics}}{{Anarchism}}{{Bronze}}

{{cquote|Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism.|||[[Murray Rothbard]]<ref>[http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard103.html ''Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard''] The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal (25 February 1972)</ref>}}

'''Anarcho-capitalism''' (with its proponents being referred to as '''anarcho-capitalists''' or '''ancaps'''), is a [[Fringe|fringe]] political ideology that prioritizes the freedom of the individual from state coercion<ref group=note>State coercion being, by anarcho-capitalist definitions, pretty much anything a state does - cue a reference to their somewhat mistaken {{wpl|Max Weber|Weberian}} definition of a state as an entity possessing a "{{wpl|monopoly on violence}}" rather than old Max's specific definition, namely the ''[[monopoly]] of the '''legitimate''' use of physical force''.</ref> and advocates market-based solutions to all social needs.<ref group=note>Because it's not like markets would ever include any coercion, right?</ref> Anarcho-capitalists believe that compulsory [[taxation]] is a violation of individual liberty, and that law enforcement, courts, and all security services should be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors, such as [[Private defense agency|private defense agencies]]. Anarcho-capitalism is, in effect, an [[oxymoron]].<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20180215172315/http://www.thegeneralist.org/2009/why-anarcho-capitalism-is-an-oxymoron-2161 Why “Anarcho-capitalism” is an Oxymoron]. Archived from ''The Generalist'', 16 November 2009.</ref>

Anarcho-capitalism is mainly furthered in the public sphere by American [[reactionary]] [[think tank]]s; its visible supporters mostly congregate online. It has never constituted a socially active movement or organized political power base. It's one of the youngest philosophies to try to place itself under the umbrella of "[[anarchism]]", having only existed as a discrete philosophy for a few decades, although antecedents date back to the nineteenth century.<ref>Specifically, Gustave de Molinari's essay [https://mises.org/library/book/production-security The Production of Security] outlined some of what is now called anarcho-capitalism.</ref>

Ancaps are as much anarchists as [[Christian Science|Christian Scientists]] are scientists. Traditional anarchist movements originated on the left, and do not consider [[anarchy]] and [[capitalism]] to be compatible due to the inherent hierarchy in the latter (anarcho-capitalists see anarchy as the absence of hierarchy supported by illegitimate force), and thus consider anarcho-capitalism not to be an authentic form of anarchism. Ancaps have proven to be one of the greatest tools for anarchist unity in living memory, as more or less every single major anarchist group and tendency stands united in despising them. Needless to say, [[socialists]], [[communists]], [[social democrat]]s, [[progressives]], [[liberals]], and centrists aren't exactly fans of them either and will more than often unite even with the aforementioned anarchists to beat up on the ancap. (Or, possibly, they're simply the biggest tools, period.) Even [[conservatives]] (even and especially of the [[Neoconservative|neo]] variety) aren't above taking the occasional pot shot at them.

==Definition==
The term "anarcho-capitalism" is a portmanteau of [[anarchism]] and [[capitalism]]. (One guess as to which of those two concepts gets priority...) Actual anarchists oppose both [[state]] authorities and elite economic classes in that both impose authority over people. They therefore see anarchism and capitalism as incompatible, because in a capitalist system, one has no choice but to work for capitalists. Anarcho-capitalists, on the other hand, believe anarchism is incompatible with the [[totalitarianism]] they believe is required to prevent the establishment of capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists focus on the state dimensions of power but believe that in a free society, workers will, through various forms of free association, have options other than selling their labour to the [[bourgeoisie]]. Thus anarcho-capitalists do not see a contradiction between capitalism and freedom from coercion.

==Philosophy==

===Non-aggression axiom===
[[Murray Rothbard]] wrote:<ref name=rothbard1982>Murray Rothbard.  [http://www.mises.org/rothbard/lawproperty.pdf Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution].  ''Cato Journal'', 2(1)55-99.  1982.</ref>
{{quotebox|The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person.  It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society.  This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.}}

The non-aggression axiom is prohibition against the initiation of force of any kind, against persons (assault, murder) or against ''property'' (burglary, taxation). Thus according to the non-aggression axiom, taxation is a kind of ''force or coercion'' [[False analogy|equivalent to theft]]. But taxation isn't actually any more coercive than rent. In an anarcho-capitalist society, a tenant could claim that they are coerced for being born on someone else's private property and being forced to pay rent.<ref>{{cite web |last=Zwolinski |first=Matt |date=11 February 2013 |title=Against Moralized Freedom |url=https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/against-moralized-freedom |website=Libertarianism.org |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=6 May 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250504112628/https://www.libertarianism.org/blog/against-moralized-freedom |archive-date=4 May 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=An Anarchist FAQ – Appendix: Anarchism and "Anarcho"-capitalism |publisher=AK Press |location=Edinburgh and Oakland |url=https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/append1.html  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250702005637/https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/append1.html |archive-date=2 July 2025 |access-date = 2 July 2025  |url-status = live}}</ref> But assuming that landlord acquired the land legitimately, the tenant would have no right to that land unless they performed some sort of voluntary transaction with the landlord. If the tenant doesn't come to some agreement with the landlord, then the tenant is simply trespassing on private property and violating the non-aggression principle.

Additionally, it's not clear what counts as the limits of aggression: Rothbard thought the law should not protect non-physical assaults on [[privacy]] or reputation.<ref name=rothbard1982/> But what about pollution (chemical, noise, light, electromagnetic, nuclear…) or other [[negative externalities]]? Homesteading theory would allow one to [[Pollution|pollute]] air freely as long as it didn't belong to anybody else, but not to tamper with anybody else's air. A strict interpretation would ban all emissions from one's property; Rothbard initially held to this, suggesting that lawsuits would prevent all pollution.<ref>{{cite web |last = Mckay | first = Iain | year = 2008 |title=An Anarchist FAQ - section E.4 | location = Edinburgh and Oakland |publisher=AK Press |url=https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionE.html#sece4 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250324082818/https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionE.html#sece4 |archive-date=2025-03-24 |access-date=2025-04-03 |url-status=live}}</ref> Since this is unreasonably restrictive and unenforceable, he later moderated it, suggesting that tortious pollution would have to cause provable damage traceable to an individual (what if 100 people pollute the air?), and then only if it had not been homesteaded (if you move next to a noisy nightclub you have no right to silence). Nobody had the right to live "as if in a soundproofed room"; only "excessive noise" (excessive pollution in general) would be actionable.<ref name=rothbard1982/> Everybody would start with the right to homestead unclaimed air with pollution, and if you wanted true isolation you would have to pay for it. This shows that in practice there is no such thing as an absolute right, depending firstly on what is judged reasonable or excessive, and secondly on what is provable in court.

{{quotebox|The difference between libertarians and non-libertarians is not about whether aggression is permissible. Instead, it’s about what counts as aggression, or about just who has a right to what.<ref>{{cite web |last=Brennan |first=Jason |title=The Dialectical Impotence of the Non-Aggression Principle (Redux) |url=https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/12/the-dialectical-impotence-of-the-non-aggression-principle-redux/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250221095148/https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/12/the-dialectical-impotence-of-the-non-aggression-principle-redux/ |archive-date=21 February 2025 |website=Bleeding Heart Libertarians |date=December 2013 |access-date=2025-02-23 |url-status=live}}</ref>}}

In response, Jason Brennan (while agreeing with the right libertarian thinking) argued that this slogan, by itself, has no meaning without knowing exactly what the definition contained within the word means.<ref>{{cite web |last=Brennan |first=Jason |title=The NAP Isn’t a Knock-Down Argument for Libertarianism |url=https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/12/the-nap-isnt-a-knock-down-argument-for-libertarianism/  |website=Bleeding Heart Libertarians  |date=December 2013  |access-date=2025-03-09  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250119095301/http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/12/the-nap-isnt-a-knock-down-argument-for-libertarianism/  |archive-date=19 January 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Brennan |first=Jason |title=The Dialectical Impotence of the Non-Aggression Principle (Redux) |url=https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/12/the-dialectical-impotence-of-the-non-aggression-principle-redux/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250221095148/https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2013/12/the-dialectical-impotence-of-the-non-aggression-principle-redux/ |archive-date=21 February 2025 |website=Bleeding Heart Libertarians |date=December 2013 |access-date=2025-02-23 |url-status=live}}</ref>

Zwolinski argues that Rothbards' attempt to extend Mises' economics concepts into normative ones led to major confusion between normative and factual statements([[is-ought problem]]).<ref>{{cite web |last=Zwolinski |first=Matt |title=Reading the Ethics of Liberty, Part 3: Rothbard's Confusion about Self-Ownership |url=http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/10/reading-the-ethics-of-liberty-part-3-rothbards-confusion-about-self-ownership/ |date=October 1, 2012 |website=Bleeding Heart Libertarians |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241201012644/https://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/10/reading-the-ethics-of-liberty-part-3-rothbards-confusion-about-self-ownership/ |archive-date=December 1, 2024 |access-date=2025-04-16 |url-status=live}}</ref>

===Private property===
Self-ownership is a concept central to anarcho-capitalism. [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe]] writes:<ref>Hans-Hermann Hoppe.  [http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html Rothbardian Ethics].  LewRockwell.com.  2002 May 20.</ref>
{{quotebox|Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him.}}

This ownership of "{{wpl|Original appropriation|originally appropriated}}" places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not change the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person.  In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in [[John Locke]]'s phrase, "mixing one's labor" with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary&nbsp;— contractual&nbsp;— transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.

Ancaps are divided on their theories of property ownership. Many Ancaps favor {{wpl|Stephan Kinsella|}}'s {{wpl|first possession theory of property|}}, whereas others like Larken Rose favor the labor theory of property. There are even Geo-Anarchists, who are basically Anarcho-capitalists who support the [[Georgism|Georgist theory of property]].

===Intellectual property===
Anarcho-capitalists tend to be divided on the issue of [[copyright]]. Rothbard supported copyright<ref>Murray Rothbard.  [https://web.archive.org/web/20040528215058/http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10e.asp#7._Patents_Copyrights Patents and Copyrights]. ''Man, Economy, & State''.  2004.</ref> while Stephan Kinsella opposes it.<ref>N. Stephan Kinsella. [http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf Against Intellectual Property]. ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'', 15(2)1-53.  2001.</ref> [[Samuel Edward Konkin III]]'s position is difficult to discern; he doesn't appear to have taken one directly but published his books under {{wpl|copyleft||.}} [[Andrew Joseph Galambos]] took his support of copyright to such extremes that he believed its term ''never'' expired, even with the [[death]] of the creator. Galambos felt that even scientific insights (such as [[Newton]]'s theory of [[gravity]]) were intellectual property whose uses required permission from the owner. He was infamous for symbolically dropping a penny into a jar each time he'd used a word someone else invented (i.e. nearly all of them) and even slightly changed his name to distinguish it from that of his father, as they had the same one, which he felt his father owned and he would be infringing otherwise (apparently he didn't feel his father had given permission for him to use it simply by naming him). All anarcho-capitalists oppose patents.

===Private defense agencies===
Some anarcho-capitalists advocate [[private defense agency|private defense agencies]] (PDAs) for ensuring law and order.  Some would simply leave the matter of protection up to whatever evolves in the market, with some hiring private security or rent-a-cops, and others relying on their personal marksmanship skills and arsenals of firearms. It is important to note that as anarcho-capitalists advocate abolition of the state, law and order would be completely based around defense of private property; there would be no body of "law" ''per se'', excepting possibly some recognition of [[natural law]] residing in absolute private property rights. There would likewise be no national defense, except and unless individuals freely agree to pool their resources and hire a private [[mercenary]] army for some sort of collective defense (say, of a town or a group of properties).

=== Fraud and breach of contract ===
From this perspective, there is a long-standing debate about the criteria or concept of fraudulent transactions and how to deal with the problem.<ref>Child, J. 1994. Can libertarianism sustain a fraud standard? Ethics 104: 722–738. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/293652?journalCode=et </ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Kinsella |first=Stephan |year=2006 |title=Problem: Fraud, Fraud Threat and Contract Breach – Types of Aggression |url=https://mises.org/mises-wire/problem-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contract-breach-types-aggression |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250329182925/https://mises.org/mises-wire/problem-fraud-fraud-threat-and-contract-breach-types-aggression |archive-date=29 March 2025 |publisher=Mises Institute |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>Friedman, M. D. (2014). Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World: The Politics of Natural Rights. USA: Bloomsbury Publishing. p.26-28 </ref><ref>Benjamin Ferguson. "Can libertarians get away with fraud?" Economics and philosophy : 165-184. https://web.archive.org/web/20180614001210/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/economics-and-philosophy/article/can-libertarians-get-away-with-fraud/3324B0979DFF2E87514B8172240BA8B3 </ref><ref>Steiner Hillel. "Asymmetric information, libertarianism, and fraud" Review of social economy : 94-107. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00346764.2019.1602280 </ref> And breach of contract is a topic of debate from a similar perspective.<ref>{{cite web |last=Block |first=Walter E. |title=Classic Book Review: The Ethics of Liberty |url=https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1712 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250206200548/https://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?id=1712 |archive-date=6 February 2025 |date=Spring 2022 |publisher=The Independent Review |access-date=1 April 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dominiak |first1=Łukasz |last2=Fegley |first2=Tate |title=Contract Theory, Title Transfer, and Libertarianism |journal=Diametros |volume=19 |issue=72 |pages=1–25 |year=2022 |doi=10.33392/diam.1800 |url=https://diametros.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1800/1601 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250315070210/https://diametros.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1800/1601 |archive-date=2025-03-15 |url-status=live}}</ref>

==Origins==
Anarcho-capitalists claim descent from a body of 19<sup>th</sup>-century anarchist writers, of the ''individualist'' variety (Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner), the ''mutualist'' variety (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon), and the ''egoist'' kind (Max Stirner) which is a pretty dubious claim considering how Stirner was anything but a capitalist and his ideas are directly contrary to the anarcho-capitalist idea of property and rights.<ref>https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/dr-bones-the-stirner-wasn-t-a-capitalist-you-fucking-idiot-cheat-sheet</ref> They stop short, however, of trying to claim any descent from [[collectivist]] and anti-capitalist anarchists such as [[Kropotkin]] and Bakunin. But Tucker and Proudhon were also anti-capitalist, and even Spooner's [[Thomas Jefferson|Jeffersonianism]] did not exactly view modern capitalism in a good light, though anarcho-capitalists tend to support only voluntary aspects of capitalism. Leftist and collectivist anarchists also claim descent from the same body of early anarchist writers. Although anarcho-capitalists argue against [[minarchism]] as a philosophy, they are often associated with "[[classical liberal]]" writers during the [[New Deal]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] who wrote anti-New Deal books proclaiming the state, itself, as the problem and verged on anarchist rhetoric if not sentiments. Typical of these were ''Our Enemy, the State'' (1935) by Albert Jay Nock (a former [[Georgism|Georgist]]), and ''The Discovery of Freedom'' by Rose Wilder Lane (1943). However, anarcho-capitalists are generally critical of classical liberalism as they believe mostly eliminating the state is simply not enough.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20091031083044/http://mises.org/story/3791 Classical Liberalism versus Anarchocapitalism]</ref>

As the early [[libertarian]] movement was getting off the ground during the 1960s, libertarian interest in anarchism as an antecedent was sparked by James J. Martin's history of early American anarchism, ''Men Against the State''. Meanwhile, Robert LeFevre (see below) and [[Galambosianism|Andrew Joseph Galambos]] were both giving for-pay lectures on political theory in which they began with a set of postulates and then, taking those postulates to their logical extreme, concluded the state itself would have to be abolished in order to have a truly [[free market]]. LeFevre's lectures were influential (and involved, among other associates and guest lecturers, James J. Martin and Rose Wilder Lane); Galambos' less so due to his [[crank]] ideas on intellectual property. Many budding activists on the right moved in and out of political circles ranging from [[Ayn Rand]]'s [[Objectivism]], to the [[John Birch Society]] and [[Barry Goldwater]]'s presidential campaign during that period, and discovered the LeFevre or Galambos lectures.

Another book which proved influential was ''The Market for Liberty'' (1970) by Morris and Linda Tannehill, written with all the [[Zeal of the convert|zeal of new converts]] after the Tannehills had discovered, and eagerly devoured, the works of [[Ayn Rand]] and [[Ludwig von Mises]]. Somehow in the process of studying Rand and Mises, the Tannehills seized upon the idea (unlike Rand and Mises) that government itself should be abolished. It was from the Tannehills' book that the early development of such ideas as private defense agencies and marketplace systems of arbitration and restitution (to replace government courts and prisons) began to take form.

The biggest influence, however, turned out to be Murray Rothbard. Rothbard had gone from being a "Taft [[Republican Party|Republican]]" to an Ayn Rand follower to an independent "old right" conservative who advocated alliances with the "new left" over opposition to the [[Conscription|draft]] and the [[Vietnam War]]. He, along with former [[Goldwater]] speechwriter-turned-new leftist Karl Hess, were influential in starting the modern libertarian movement. But Rothbard went further: while his activities were in the political realm and he had no qualms about [[voting]] or involvement in trying to influence public policy, his real sentiments were in favor of the abolition of the state itself. His book ''Power and Market'' (1970) was the second major work in the modern anarcho-capitalist canon, after the Tannehills', followed in 1973 with ''For a New Liberty'', written as a manifesto for the libertarian movement as a whole. While an anarchist himself, Rothbard continued to be a major influence among most libertarians, most of whom stop well short of advocating abolishing all government.

[[David D. Friedman]] (son of [[Milton Friedman]]) is a major anarcho-capitalist figure today (Milton was a "[[Chicago School]]" market economist and a favorite of [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[Margaret Thatcher]], his naughty son David apparently going rogue down the anarchist path, although different from most other anarcho-capitalists he too is an adherent of the Chicago School). David Friedman's 1973 book ''The Machinery of Freedom'' was the third major anarcho-capitalist book, but took the "[[consequentialism|consequentialist]]" view of the Chicago School rather than the "natural rights" based anarcho-capitalism of the Tannehills and Rothbard.

Much ideological back-and-forth bickering has taken place since between followers of Friedman's [[Consequentialism|consequentialist]] versus Rothbard's natural law versions of anarcho-capitalism. One major difference between the two is that in Rothbard's model, a single body of law that had been reached by a consensus of legal scholars would be enforced by private parties, but in Friedman's model each private party could make its own law to enforce. This was an outgrowth of their opposing ethical theories.

==Variations==
These six are all forms of anarcho-capitalism, as they each advocate both [[laissez-faire]] capitalism and complete abolition of the state, but differ from other anarcho-capitalists in that they have a main area of emphasis ([[pacifism]], counter-economics, mobile living, etc.) not shared by most other anarcho-capitalists:

Robert LeFevre advocated a combination of anarcho-capitalism and pacifism, which he extended to total non-coercion in all relationships between individuals. (He defined voting, for example, as a form of coercion and therefore a violation of both pacifist and libertarian principles.) He called his philosophy "autarchism" (not to be confused with [[autarky]]) to distinguish it from anarchism.

[[Samuel Edward Konkin III]] advocated a variant on anarcho-capitalism which he called "agorism". He advocated that people drop out of the regulated and taxed above-ground economy and shift all their economic and other activity to the black market or to untaxed and unregulated avenues. He called this "counter-economics" and defined it broadly to include everything from people using offshore bank accounts and tax evasion, to engaging in illegal activities like drug use or [[prostitution]], to buying via yard sales, bartering, or shopping in another state to avoid paying sales taxes to the systematic employment of illegal immigrants precisely because of their illegality. Thus would the government become irrelevant and wither away, in both the public sense as it's deprived of any justification for its existence and in the practical one as it's systematically deprived of revenue. Agorists, however, do not generally self-identify as anarcho-capitalists, and indeed one agorist blogger, Brad Spangler, describes the "left-Rothbardian" philosophy of agorism as libertarian socialist (which term was a self-identifier frequently used by 19<sup>th</sup>-century anarchists critical of capitalism). 

"Voluntaryism", apparently a combination of LeFevre's pacifism and Konkin's counter-economics, found its most notable advocates in George Smith, Wendy McElroy, and Carl Watner, and has recently been taken up as a self-descriptor by some of the more radical enthusiasts of the [[Free State Project]] and alt-currencies such as [[Bitcoin]]. Voluntaryists assert they seek non-violent, non-electoral routes to freedom: "neither ballots nor bullets". Watner also seems to have had some involvement with [[Neo-Tech]] as he is the author of one of their books, ''Businessmen vs. Neocheaters''; McElroy is an "[[individualist feminism|individualist feminist]]"; Smith is a well-known [[atheism|atheist]] writer.

The concept of "vonu" was also advocated by several libertarian writers (many of them associated with Eden Press or the now-defunct Loompanics), which basically means living mobile and under the radar. This concept is somewhat similar to what is now being called "[[Going Galt]]", or to The Who's song "Goin' Mobile" ("watch the [[police]] and the tax man miss me").

Ancaps who oppose polycentric law tend to favor private cities, which would have fewer problems for society compared to polycentric law. However, private cities would be de facto city states, so it's dubious whether private cities qualify as true anarchist societies.

[https://old.reddit.com/r/Geoanarchism/ Geo-Ancaps] are Anarcho-Capitalists who favor the [[Georgism|Georgist theory of property]]. They are pretty rare since most ancaps believe that land value tax violates the NAP. Geo-Ancaps tend to be heavily influenced by GeoLibertarians like {{wpl|Fred Foldvary}}.

==Criticism and response==
===Criticism from minarchists and left-anarchists===
Anarcho-capitalism faces criticism from capitalists who support the existence of the state. On the other hand, anarcho-capitalists have accused them of [[No True Scotsman|not being true capitalists]]. Critics claim private defense agencies could create defense monopolies. Some critics claim they will be like [[mafia]] groups, and a "gang war" will arise among them. Anarcho-capitalists have dismissed this criticism by claiming that free market competition will prevent monopolies. Additionally, the other anarchist schools of thought stand united in critiquing anarcho-capitalism as not anarchism, since the rest view capitalism as inherently oppressive and hierarchical.<ref>{{cite web |title=Section F – Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism? |website=An Anarchist FAQ |publisher=AK Press |date=2008 |url=https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionF.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250214110015/https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionF.html |archive-date=2025-02-14 |access-date=2025-03-09 | url-status = live}}</ref> Some have labeled anarcho-capitalism to be merely "private state capitalism." [[Minarchist]] (minimal government) libertarians may support most of the same things as anarcho-capitalists&nbsp;— private roads, private certification associations replacing occupational licensing&nbsp;— but view complete anarchism as unworkable and recognize a need for a small government remaining in place to prevent the emergence of tyranny out of a power vacuum.

===Logical fallacies===
Anarcho-capitalist books tend to read like [[Marxist]] books&nbsp;— dense and full of provocative ideas that sound good in theory, but are presented as "this is the way it would work" when it has never really been tried. ''The Market for Liberty'' makes blanket statements such as "in a laissez-faire society, [[Gold standard (economics)|only gold would be accepted as the standard of monetary value]]" (how do they know?); competing educational systems would "forever end squabbles over curriculum" (how?); eliminating medical licensing would "end the doctor shortage and drastically reduce the cost of medical care" because "anyone could practice medicine in any area in which he was competent, regardless of the number of years he spent in college" but we needn't worry about [[quack]]s performing botched surgeries because "reputable physicians would probably form medical organizations which would only sanction competent doctors, thereby providing consumers with a guide" (and no quack would ''ever'' falsely claim endorsement, they aren't that shady); and we needn't worry about private defense agencies becoming like warring mafia gangs because "a defense company which committed aggression… would be left with no customers, associates, or employees except for undesirables." It's not reassuring. The book brings up many objections in a [[straw man]] manner and dismisses them without serious discussion, and uses "always", "never", and "will probably" far too much.<ref>Quotes are from ''The Market for Liberty'' by Morris and Linda Tannehill, 1970, Cobden Press 2009 edition.</ref>

Samuel Edward Konkin's ''The New Libertarian Manifesto'' posits five hypothetical stages in which government is supplanted by a black market "counter-economy" led by a "New Libertarian Alliance".  Again, this is purely hypothetical and smacks of Marxist [[historical determinism]] and Leninist vanguardism; how does he know?

Ancaps argue that the roles that would be traditionally filled by government (police, courts, and army) should be filled by a free market, but this uses circular reasoning. The protection of individual rights cannot be supplied by a market since the very existence of a market itself requires the protection of individual rights. Government is necessary in order to establish, guarantee, and protect a free market, lest the market be neither free nor fair. An infinite regress occurs when trying to explain this away. In Ancapistan, the "free" markets are established by circular-reasoning.

Competing private courts enforcing competing polycentric bodies of law, as envisioned by David Friedman, presents an especially confusing mess. The implications of this are best left to the reader to imagine.

===Assorted crankery===
As with any [[fringe]] ideology, anarcho-capitalism is riddled with people stacking their own [[crank]] views on top of it, including views that conventional wisdom might hold to be incompatible with anarchism (and capitalism for that matter) to begin with.  A short list could include the aforementioned Galambosian view on intellectual property; Hans-Hermann Hoppe's view that [[monarchy]] is better than [[democracy]]; [[Eric S. Raymond]]'s [[wingnut]] views on the [[War on Terror]]; the [[Robert A. Heinlein]] fan club who think fascist tripe like ''Starship Troopers'' is their idea of a libertarian society; and [[Gary North]], a [[dominionism|dominionist]] [[Christian]] who runs in anarcho-capitalist circles (we don't know whether he considers himself an anarcho-capitalist, but he hangs around with them).

It also has a history of people who abandon it as soon as they find themselves in a position of power ([[Alan Greenspan]] and [[Dana Rohrabacher]]).

===Genocide through NAP===
{{main|Genocide}}
You know that [[meme]] where the Ancap kills a kid and his entire family because he trespassed on the Ancap's lawn, thus violating the NAP? Well, there is one event that came disturbingly close to that metaphor. During the [[American Indian Genocide#California Gold Rush and the "Extermination of the Indians"|California Indian genocide]], settlers would routinely exterminate entire families of Indians for stealing livestock. The White settler John Burgess testified that 10-15 Indians were killed for every head of cattle that had been killed.<ref>California Legislature, Majority and Minority Reports of the Special Joint Committee on the Mendocino War 1860, p. 24, John Burgess deposition</ref> 
A White farmer, John Lawson, admitted an attack killing 8 Indians, 3 by shooting and 5 by hanging, after some of his hogs were stolen. He stated that these killings were a common practice.<ref> California Legislature, Majority and Minority Reports of the Special Joint Committee on the Mendocino War 1860, p. 68, John Lawson deposition</ref> The California Indian genocide is estimated to have wiped out 80%<ref>Madley, Benjamin (2016). An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846–1873. </ref> of the native population, and as much as 95%<ref name=lew>https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302</ref><ref>Thornton 1987, pp. 107-109.</ref> or even 100%<ref>http://allthatsinteresting.com/story-ishi-last-native-american </ref> among the most heavily targeted tribes. 9,400 to over 16,000 of these deaths were caused directly by over 370 massacres perpetrated by settlers.<ref>Madley, Benjamin, An American Genocide, The United States and the California Catastrophe, 1846–1873, Yale University Press, 2016, 692 pages, ISBN 978-0-300-18136-4, p.11, p.351</ref> These massacres were sometimes committed in perverse brutality, such as ripping out the hearts of young girls and throwing them into the bushes in which their sister was hiding,<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Py2KNtgxeo</ref> and the perpetrators were usually private militas.<ref>Secrest (1988), p. 20.</ref><ref>California Legislature, Majority and Minority Reports of the Special Joint Committee on the Mendocino War 1860, p. 49, Dryden Lacock deposition</ref><ref>California Legislature, Majority and Minority Reports of the Special Joint Committee on the Mendocino War 1860, p. 22, William Scott deposition</ref> To be fair, the militias would often kill without justification<ref>Lindsay 2012, p. 194</ref> and were incentivized to kill more to receive bounty payment by the California Statehood,<ref>Assembly Bill 65 1850.</ref> though one may argue a particularly genocidal private company could do that as well. 

These events make [[Ayn Rand]]'s belief that the [[American Indians]] forfeited their right to property because they were savages,<ref> Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A, edited by Robert Mayhew, 2005, NAL Trade, ISBN 0451216652, pg 102-104 Burns 2009, pp. 266</ref><ref> Mrs. Logic by Sam Anderson, New York magazine, October 18, 2009 https://nymag.com/arts/books/features/60120/</ref> and [[Stefan Molyneux]]'s denial<ref> https://web.archive.org/web/20160622010535/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNHKDJzgqJg&gl=US&hl=en </ref> that the [[American Indian Genocide]] even occurred even more disturbing.

===Would it work?===
{{cquote|Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of [[tyranny]] and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error.|||[[Noam Chomsky]]<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20040229155209/http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/19961223.htm</ref>}}
One question is whether anarcho-capitalism would work at all as envisioned by its proponents, or whether there would be so much [[chaos]] that private defense agencies, the owners of private highways, private courts with their own bodies of law, and private medical associations, among others, would soon coalesce into a new ''de facto'' state&nbsp;— with no clue as to what sort of state, which could be a minarchist one but possibly could be far more dictatorial than the one anarcho-capitalism replaced. Writer Paul Birch argues it would either turn into city-states before long, suffer the coalescence mentioned before, or descend into chaos.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20041209121834/http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/legan/legan028.pdf</ref>

Societies with minarchist governments have existed and worked; no examples exist of capitalist societies with no government that didn't soon evolve (or devolve) into government. Anarcho-capitalists cite [[medieval]] [[Iceland]] and 17<sup>th</sup>-century [[Pennsylvania]] but both were really minarchist societies&nbsp;— Iceland's ''althing'' and Pennsylvania's caretaker state government during the colonial era&nbsp;— and more to the point, both were monolithic, agrarian, and small, isolated cultures at the time; it worked in Pennsylvania at the time because of the [[Quaker]] influence of living in peace, and even then Pennsylvania got another government soon.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20050711005833/http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard81.html "Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690" by Murray Rothbard] describes a minarchist society with a government that did very little, not an anarchist society.</ref> What might happen in a [[multicultural]], [[Globalization|globalized]] world with high [[technology]], large cities, billions of people, and [[weapons of mass destruction]] is anyone's guess.  

One recent cautionary example of what could happen might be the [[failed state]] of [[Somalia]], where warlords, gangs, and organized crime could be viewed as the competing private defense agencies envisioned by anarcho-capitalists, but again, this is hardly reassuring. Somalia is riddled with crime and piracy (''actual'' sea piracy, with ''real pirates''&nbsp;— not the kind that [http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/751150-piracy-it-s-a-crime downloads cars]), and one's safety, let alone one's ability to conduct business, frequently depends on whom one can bribe. However, the question most anarcho-capitalists ask themselves when looking at cases like this is not whether such an example of anarchy is bad; they ask themselves how much worse it would be if there was a state in this anarchist territory. It was asserted that Somalia had shown improvement in all areas except education since the collapse of its state, before the 2010-2012 famine that claimed nearly 260,000 lives.<ref>http://www.observatori.org/paises/pais_74/documentos/64_somalia.pdf</ref> Also, neither different territories controlled by warlords nor the breakaway state of Somaliland are anarchies to begin with; they are ''de facto'' states. Some anarcho-capitalists cite Somalia as an example of a society that is better off without a state.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20100207154508/http://mises.org/daily/2066 Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It]</ref>

The problem is, how does one solve disputes without a government that maintains a monopoly on force to mitigate disputes under a single objectively defined framework of law? While there are very few known precedents within government-maintained economies, the consensus-based body of rules used to maintain order in the publishing industry before the advent of modern copyright law has been the subject of some attention.<ref>''Without Copyrights: Piracy, Publishing and the Public Domain'', by Robert Spoo. Oxford University Press, 2013. [http://www.amazon.com/Without-Copyrights-Publishing-Modernist-Literature/dp/0199927871]</ref> Some have also studied the political economies of outlaws, such as pirates.<ref>"An-arrgh-chy: The Law and Economics of Pirate Organization"[http://www.peterleeson.com/an-arrgh-chy.pdf]</ref>

Capitalism in an anarcho-capitalist society would mean a mode of production valuing individual property rights and voluntary transactions between individuals. An enforcer of property rights would be required. Anarcho-capitalists propose a voluntary means of enforcement such as private courts and private defense agencies. However, this would either not work or lead to some entity with the properties of a state. For a transaction to be voluntary, it means for that transaction to be devoid of force and fraud for all parties. A convicted party can simply refuse to obey the judgment made by a voluntary private court; the party can simply withdraw their consent to fall under the private court's jurisdiction at any time. The private court must resort to force to make the convicted party comply with the judgment. This makes the means of enforcement involuntary for the convicted party, i.e. there exists something like a state. If the private court does not use force, then the property rights of the victim are not being adequately protected, i.e. there does not exist capitalism. This cannot be solved simply by signing a contract not to withdraw consent, because force must be used to make the involved parties comply with the terms of that contract itself. 

How does land come to be acquired in an anarcho-capitalist society? Anarcho-capitalists propose a system of homesteading, but that leads to problems. Since landlords would essentially be absolute rulers of their land, a landlord can devise any terms desired for other people to rent land from that landlord. A landlord can charge taxes but call it "rent", a landlord can intervene in other transactions between tenants, etc. A landlord becomes a state unto themselves. In fact, how can anarcho-capitalists prove that the current states are not landlords that acquired land through "legitimate" homesteading rules in the past? Anarcho-capitalists usually claim that states acquired land "illegitimately", such as through military conquest. But then they also claim that the current [[Ruling class|upper class]] acquired their land legitimately and not through illegitimate means such as conquest. Anarcho-capitalists use some [[double standard]] to justify land ownership by the upper class but not by the state.

===But who will pick the cotton?===
Most of the criticisms of anarcho-capitalism can be reduced to the idea that without a state, some important social or economic activities would not be possible. Among these activities are often mentioned: building the roads, [[law enforcement]], justice, [[universal healthcare]], and [[Public education|universal education]]. Regardless of whether or not those activities need the existence of a state, those criticisms miss an understanding of the philosophical point of view of anarcho-capitalism. From the anarcho-capitalism perspective, the state is immoral because it is based on the initiation of force, hence it violates the non-aggression principle, and therefore it must be abolished. Asking an anarcho-capitalist: "But without a state, who will build the roads?" is like asking an abolitionist: "But without [[slavery]], who will pick the cotton?", that is, both think that an institution (state or slavery, respectively) must be abolished because it is immoral, ''independently'' from the consequences; so that they could both answer: "It doesn't matter." In this regard, anarcho-capitalism is a [[Deontological ethics|deontological ethic]]; that is, it judges the morality of actions on the basis of rules, instead of [[Consequentialism|consequences]].

A possible rebuttal to this point is that people can voluntarily band together to build and maintain roads (but that reeks of collectivism), or that private agencies will take over the maintenance and building of roads and fund their work through tolls.

===The closure of the frontier===
Much land available for homesteading has already been occupied, although there is generally other land left over.<ref>http://www.curiousmeerkat.co.uk/questions/much-land-earth-inhabited</ref> That occupation was the genesis of the state, founded in order to protect agricultural settlements, which developed into the first organised agrarian societies.<ref>https://pure.au.dk/portal/files/44166015/Ultimate_Causes_of_State_Formation_accepted.pdf</ref> The historical circumstances for homesteading as justification for land ownership still exist at this point, where all claims are really founded in actual possession. See {{wpl|adverse possession}} and the concept of "time limits to civil actions".

The way that societies exist without coercion is in the natural capacity to leave that society and create a new one, often described as "voting with your feet". That may require a pristine, vast frontier such that émigrés from existing societies can sustain themselves, either as nomads or as settlers; or even simply moving down the road to occupy the vast swathes of empty land that make this large and bountiful planet. This frontier always exists, yet such frontiers are often absorbed by the exponential growth of human population and economic activity. The relationship of human-to-human and human-to-state is always in flux, with new forms evolving and others fading. Hence the entire concept of "anarcho-capitalism" is infantile nonsense, founded in a very obvious lack of real-world experience, and too much thinking.

===Externalities===
An externality exists when a third party is affected during an exchange between two agents. For example, a mining company that dumps its waste into a river, contaminating the water. The consumers who live far from the river will benefit from this arrangement, while people who live along the river are harmed by such a productive system.

An anarchocapitalist can argue with the [[Coase theorem]] that the efficient arrangement can be arrived at through market exchanges alone. However,  the condition that the theorem establishes to arrive at an efficient private arrangement is the absence of transaction costs, and this may not always occur in practice, as the Coase theorem only works when property rights are well-defined and transaction costs are low. In cases that it does not apply, a third party must establish rules that force private costs to equal social costs. This third part is the state, and the main form used to arrive at the economically efficient arrangement is called {{wpl|Pigouvian tax}}.

===Public goods and the free-rider problem===
Public goods are goods that are neither rival nor excludable. These goods are goods whose usufruct by one person does not prevent another person from also using them, as well as they are goods whose possibility of excluding those who do not pay for their production or maintenance is practically nil. Goods of this type, if provided solely by the market, are under-produced, as they are susceptible to the free-rider problem.

The free-rider problem characterizes a situation in which those who do not pay for the supply of a good use it anyway, and, as a result its production is sub-optimal. The army is the most obvious example of a public good. Let's suppose that there is a nation whose funding of national defense is on an entirely voluntary basis. What will happen? The most rational action from a person's point of view is not to pay anything, because that if they do, the marginal benefit they will receive from a marginal improvement in national defense is less than the marginal cost of the outlay. But if they don't pay for it, they still enjoy the benefits of having such good. However, what happens when everyone thinks like this? Ultimately, if all people act thinking only for themselves, there is no national defense at all. Again the only way to resolve this issue is when an agent is capable of coercing everyone else to pay the necessary quota to match marginal costs to marginal benefits. (aka the state collecting taxes).

Alternatively, people can band together for a common purpose out of, say, a common interest or out of altruistic concerns. The {{wpl|Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy}} notes that the {{wpl|American League to Abolish Capital Punishment}} have a "personal stake in the [[death penalty]]." Likewise, the scores of people willing to die for a cause goes against rationality theory. Voluntary collectivism can be a powerful alternative to coercive measures.<ref>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/</ref>{{efn|Of course, other motivations can be posited to join such activity. But the point still remains that voluntary collectivism, whether motivated through selfish means or otherwise, can be an alternative to purely coercive means.}}

==Historical examples==
The number of years an area, in ancient times, had a state correlates with their 2005 GDP per capita at 0.23. This increases to 0.48 when adjusting for ancestry.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20130612070855/http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty_pages/romain.wacziarg/downloads/roots.pdf (Spolaore and Wacziarg, 2012)]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Free State Project]]
*[[Galambosianism]]
*[[Libertarianism]]
*[[Laissez-faire]]
*[[Libertarian paradise]]
*[[List of forms of government]]
*[[Micronation]]s, which some "anarcho-capitalists" have tried starting.  Expressing their opposition to the state by trying to start a new state
*[[National anarchism]] — The other movement falling under the umbrella term of 'anarchism' that most other anarchists despise. Decide for yourself which is more morally reprehensible!
*[[Private defense agency]]
*[[Rugged individualism]]
*[[Murray Rothbard]]
*[[Seasteading]], a similar if not identical notion to micronations

==External links==
*[http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/anarfaq.htm Anarcho-Capitalist FAQ], Bryan Caplan
*[https://web.archive.org/web/19980206142510/http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/lba.html Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy], Peter Sabatini
*[http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism], Peter Marshall
*[http://anarchism.www7.50megs.com/10.html Anarchism and Capitalism], Andrew Flood
*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfghLQE3F4 Welcome to the Private Police Force], ''A Bit of Fry and Laurie''.
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20160421234915/http://www.thedakotahomestead.com/ The Dakota Homestead], Nick Bata
==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}
==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

[[Category:Anarchism]] 
[[Category:Alt-lite]]
[[Category:Austrian school]]
[[Category:Crank magnetism]]
[[Category:Economic philosophies]]
[[Category:Forms of government]]
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Misnomers]]
[[Category:Political philosophies]]

Categories: Anarchism, Alt-lite, Austrian school, Crank magnetism, Economic philosophies, Forms of government, Libertarianism, Misnomers, Political philosophies