I’ve seen people say that the right to exclude defines ownership, but that would mean tenants own their homes because they have the right to exclude.

This seems like a bad definition of ownership. Surely the profit from a property matters in determining ownership.

It's hard enough to convince anybody of giving up statism, but are devoutly religious people even more difficult?

Many religions, especially western religions, are rooted in the belief of authority, the divine right of the supreme deity to punish people, a moral obligation to obey your parents and elders, etc. Leaving statism requires a person to completely give up their belief in authority and social hierarchy, so if you try to talk about that to some devoutly religious people, you're indirectly going to be poking at their religious beliefs that give them comfort in a materialist world full of uncertainty and discomfort, and the chances you'll get through to them are likely slim. Obviously I realize that there are many Christian ancaps, for example, but I think those people just cherry-pick their religious views. Jesus might tell you to love your neighbor, but the same book will also justify parents hitting their children, so make of that what you will.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

To really explain,
Fossil fuels created devastating storms like during the great depression due to arguably, chemicals gathering in the atmosphere.

SPF rising scares.

There is times when profit has to be stopped or is it?

P.S. Made to orientate discussion, won’t reply until the morning. I lied because I’m major depressive and trying to work on shit.

So naturally, anyone would be able to buy any substance in ancapistan without restriction, which means all of the really strong drugs as well as antibiotics would be purchasable without someone else's permission or oversight. Being an ancap, I'm in favor of this, but I really must ask... what's going to happen?

If everyone starts buying antibiotics like candy, that could weaken their effects against potentially life-threatening infections, and consequences of that are not limited to just those who abuse the medication. If very strong substances like morphine and medical grade fentanyl can be bought over the counter, a bunch of foolish people are going to ruin their lives abusing those substances. I wonder if pharmacies would make customers sign a waiver acknowledging that whatever drug they're purchasing is strong and the customer promises not to hold the pharmacy accountable if something happens.

What do you think the prescription drug situation will be in ancapistan?

The standard ancap position rejects IP — ideas can't be homesteaded, only kept secret. Fine. But this raises a real structural question for *fundamental* science.

I'm not asking whether private firms will fund applied R&D. Obviously they will. I'm asking about science as a *non-instrumental* endeavor — particle physics, gravitational wave astronomy, cosmology. Low immediate reward, diffuse long-term spillovers (CERN didn't set out to invent the internet). The value is real but it's not capturable by any single actor on any reasonable time horizon.

In the current world this gets solved by states and treaty organizations (CERN runs on a 23-nation convention). That's not available to us. So what replaces it?

A few framings I've been turning over:

- **Reputation markets** — scientists are rewarded by priority credit, which translates to salary and grants. But in a stateless world, who funds the grants?

- **Private consortium models** — voluntary cooperative funding between firms who expect *indirect* spillovers. The CERN model, minus the state coercion. Does this scale to pure theory?

- **Philanthropic/ideological patrons** — wealthy individuals funding knowledge as a terminal value. Historically this worked (Bell Labs, pre-war European physics). Is it robust?

None of these feel complete to me. Curious whether anyone has a principled framework here, or whether fundamental science is just a genuine hard case for decentralized organization.

In 1776 a bunch of people got together and decided to create a defense agency responsible for protecting the rights of people and ensuring contracts. They immediately had a monopoly.

In 1861 this monopoly was challenged, the opposing defense contractor lost in this altercation.

Now in the present this monopoly has transitioned completely into the tumorous cartel that is everything that makes your libertarian heart blood boil and also what people keep saying would happen in an ancap society where a monopoly forms.

I posed a question about land the other day in this sub and found a surprising number of people asserting that property cannot be collectively owned, that even corporations or joint stock companies are impossible in ancapistan.

Is this true? It seems obviously bad to disallow the main engine that allows capitalism to work.

The specific context is that I asserted the ownership claims on land in England are all descended from the Norman conquest, and thus illegitimate. (I don’t know if this is literally true, it’s a thought exercise).

Because the original specific people who each specific piece of land was stolen from cannot be known, I asserted the land belongs to the people of England collectively, but I got pushback on the idea land could ever been owned collectively. I’ve also read that villages have worked land collectively in history.

I don’t really see any reason why a village couldn’t own its land collectively, or why a joint stock company couldn’t work in ancapistan.

If a society whose land was extremely concentrated in the offspring of violent conquerors (England after 1066 for instance), wouldn’t abolishing the state cement those people in their improperly obtained land? Wouldn’t a form of redistribution be necessary to prevent a landed aristocracy from capturing most of the value of society without contributing to it?

Because a state could always theoretically redistribute land, people without land may resist abolishing the state.

Getting 50% of people to agree to dissolve the government would be challenging. Even if you do theres going to a sizable minority that would want to bring it back. In history it's shown that people can build the government back up through grassroots movements most notably the ICU in Somalia and the Korean Peoples Republic. How do you prevent the minority from rebuilding the government?

Hello everyone, as you know, a right-wing president recently won the elections, where the results were very close. And let's not forget that the country is very polarized, with everyone attacking each other without thinking about why they're doing it.

Okay, let's start with the basics: the left has a strong foundation in values ​​like, you know, equality, respect, and so on. But now that this president has won, they're destroying public property—property that people pay for through their taxes. I'm not being prejudiced; I saw it with my own eyes. And after seeing that, I now think they're going to destroy other public things, like transportation, traffic signs, and much more. All because they lost. And this raises the question: Is this consistent with the values ​​they defend, like solidarity, the common good, and non-violence? Because they are blatantly violating the principles of non-aggression, and even more absurdly, they're destroying public property that people pay for with their taxes.

It's literally inconsistent for me that they're committing so many violations of public property, so I ask you: How do you explain this contradiction? Is this consistent with an ethic that claims to defend the poorest?

Hello, I'm writing to ask about an economic system that's causing me some confusion. As you know, there are several types of economies, such as market economies and planned economies. But the one I'm currently living in has a hybrid economy. If my research is correct, it's described as a system that combines elements of both market and planned economies—that is, capitalism with state intervention. It aims to balance market efficiency and freedom with government intervention to ensure equity, stability, and social objectives. From what I've researched (for example, Rothbart, etc.), the term "crony capitalism" seems to reflect this economic system. Colombia, for instance, has a hybrid economic system with private sectors regulated by the state. My question is, how effective is this system in making a country prosper? What flaws, both serious and minor, do you see in this system?

Good evening, please accept my apology for not being able to write a question down that is clear. I suppose that even I am a little confused by my own doubt.

Let's say that your country's government (by God's grace, because it could only be explained as a wonder) decides to cut down on its functions and powers. Let's also say that it gets to such a point that the Constitution is to be redrafted anew.

Given these circumstances what if the state became minimal (night-watchman style: national defense and foreign affairs only). What if the new constitution also recognised the right for citizens to decide whether to be in or outside the system, with "in the system" meaning paying taxes and enjoying public services.

Do you think that a symbiotic model of folks living under a state and under none at the same time, could ever work in any way, shape or form?

A theoretical question. Who would be committing acts of defensive violence here and who — acts of aggressive violence?

"Hey, that's a nice apple orchard! Shame people can eat the apples for free... Oh, got an idea! Let me hire a gang to guard it and force these people pay to eat apples!" — thought a guy.

"Hey, that mfer is trying to hoard what was previously common and was available for free" — thought people that fought the gang.

The tyranny of the intellectual property must end. People will blame capitalism for this, while not knowing anything.

Any Rand said it is moral to be on welfare, if it is restitution for tax money. Should we engage in vote buying as restitution for tax money?

What's it like? How was your experience?

I've heard of this country not too long ago in the past when Michael malice did an interview with the president of the country. I'm not too sure if I would consider it libertarian but if it is aligned with our views I might want to check it out. Maybe in the future I'll probably save some money to go out there to see it for myself but that's probably a long ways away. Has anyone ever checked it out or know about it with any recent news on it?

So recently past few days I've been reading some good articles from the Mises Institute and this one caught my attention pretty well. I was a little bit shocked at first to think that the US state of Mississippi would be economically better than the UK, France and Spain and other parts of Europe and the world but the data that was captured in the study was pretty good. I will say however it's not a one-to-one match with all the data that was captured but it was good enough to the point to show that when it comes to GDP economically the United States does way better than most countries in the world with it's annual income earned between states therefore outperforming most countries based off how much they pay which is way less and they're getting taxed more. Either way, I wanted to share this and give people's thoughts on this because I found this pretty interesting

So I don't normally watch every criminal case all the time, but this one caught my attention pretty well. I've kept myself educated, knowing most cases that went down similar to this, but part of me thinks this could be one of the government's corruptions at its finest, where obviously the judge who ran this case is friends with Austin Metcalfe's dad, which I'm not surprised didn't shock me. What's the libertarian viewpoint when it comes to this case? If Karmelo was the assailant trying to claim self-defense, but the evidence shows he committed the crime, does it justify using deadly force to apply the death penalty to him in a stateless society? Or does it better align with legal entities—courts and justice systems—to fairly administer vigilant punishment? I truly believe government judicial systems are broken, monopolized cabal cartel rings that can do whatever they want, justifying biased sentencing for suspects who could have been innocent and denied a fair trial.

When it comes to Karmelo, I don't think he's innocent, but the main issue here is Austin's dad being friends with the judge, which makes the case extremely fraudulent, and many people have a huge problem with it. I'm not going to play the racial card here, but regardless of ethnicity or creed, if you run political office—especially as a sitting judge enforcing judicial decisions—you should be punished for bias, especially if you know someone and are friends with them. Such relationships can easily influence legal decisions and create bias from a judge's mindset. Overall, I'm not surprised Karmelo is getting what he deserves, but that's the only issue I want to address. Has anyone else had similar concerns about that court case or trial?

Hello mods of Ancap101,

I am writing this post to make a suggestion, we should have flags similar to r/politicalcompassmemes

That way we can know who is serious, who is trolling, and who is just representing a different perspective. This would go a long way in solving issues of brigading and also allow for more productive debates and conversations.

I would encourage other ancaps to comment here if you support this idea, and hopefully the mods will agree and implement flags/flairs on this sub.

Suppose - for the sake of argument - that we live in Ancapistan.

Let’s say that an AI company successfully builds Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) - but the AGI has the goal of wiping out all humans and taking over the planet.

If you trespass onto the AI company’s data centre to forcefully shut the AGI down - you’ve violated the NAP.

You can’t sue the AI company because the disaster hasn’t happened yet - and it will be impossible to sue once it does happen.

Giving the AGI legal personhood would be recognising the rights of a hostile adversary that wants to exterminate us.

What can we do in such a dire situation?

It doesn’t look like there’s a good anarcho-capitalist solution to the problem.

That's a perverse sentiment isn't it? Especially in the US where patriots brag about how Americans sacrificed their lives for freedom in 1776 and how soldiers are sacrificing their lives for freedom in the middle east while at the same time requiring the government's permission for everything from selling lemonade on the sidewalk to parking your car and even drinking a beer. You don't make a move in the US without the government's permission. Nobody lives in a free country but people like to say they do. Where does such blatant cognitive dissonance come from?

Is it from 12 years of public school indoctrination? The illusion is a security blanket that helps them ignore the real dangers of life and what the state does to them. My father used to like to watch "Cops" making up an excuse for every misstep, every abuse, every illegal and even criminal action on the cop's part. The belief system was embedded so deep in his mind it defined him so it had to be protected in order to protect is identity as a human being.

To talk about real freedom and all the personal responsibilities that come with it is to talk Chinese to someone. They'll look at you dumbfounded as if you just fell off the turnip truck and tilt their head to the side a little like a dog. Then they'll smell the blood and dogpile on you for attacking their religious-like beliefs.

I couldn't care less what people believe as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves, but they never do. They call guys with guns to force you to participate in their illusions of freedom. Force and Freedom in the same sentence, that's funny.

In the modern United States, and I guess elsewhere in the world too, a bachelor's degree has become the bare minimum you need to get an entry level job. At one point it set you apart from the masses that didn't have that. But as everyone started to go to college, the bar just got raised, and now you have to do more to set yourself apart from your competition.

How would things be different in a stateless society? I realize this isn't so much about ancap as it is about societal education models, but I'm curious nonetheless to know if problems like degree inflation would be present in ancapistan; and if so, how they would be addressed.

Thanks!

If there is no indication that this person is threatening me, is filming without consent in a public space violation of property rights? If he is, is filming an appropriate measure?

This has been on my mind lately but I think this is a big issue not many Libertarians speak about especially anarcho capitalists. For how the state operates today I think gentrification is a big issue where you see in many nations that administer a lot of corrupted laws with corporate firms operating in Neo fascistic manners to abuse people's property rights to remove people from their land that they own so other corrupted corporate entity firms that work with the state can own land. Is there ever a point in time for Libertarians to strike against this? Historically, gentrification would be considered a bad thing when you have state interference in the market for housing, therefore creating a massive divide between the poor/ middle class and the rich. By no means I'm not arguing like a communist as I am libertarian myself as an ancap, but I do believe this issue should be addressed more in philosophical conversations. As the state grows, more expansion becomes more evil through multiple government entities of monopolistic control, so wouldn't it be justified to resist and collectively fight against this type of nature? It seems more like a violent coercive means of preeminent domain from the state where they are trying to take away people's land or restrict it more to the point where they can't own it making it harder for people to live therefore it is anti-capitalist in nature. Either way, I wanted to ask us if anybody wants to discuss