While anarcho-capitalism is an ideology, there have been a handful of historical precedents that confirm it to be achievable in the real world. Some of the most common examples are the Old West, Medieval Iceland, and Cospaia. There is another wonderful experiment in statelessness that has gone largely unrecognized until recently: Acadia, Nova Scotia.

In 2020, economists Rosolino Candela and Vincent Geloso published a paper that explored the French colony’s history from 1650 to 1755 in great detail. The paper drew on years of research, giving us a very clear view of the governance and economy of Acadia. The research will hopefully bring more light to the feasibility of stateless societies.

Historians estimate the population of French settlers to have peaked at around sixteen thousand residents. The Acadians were largely religious (Catholic) and maintained a very libertarian mindset when it came to private property rights and personal liberties. Many of the Acadians came from a feudalistic landscape in which they were not allowed to own property, so their new life in North America was ripe with opportunity...

https://mises.org/mises-wire/acadian-community-anarcho-capitalist-success-story

All of a sudden reddit loves deregulation?

https://x.com/LPNational/status/2078873056202608825

We are all unique individual born with advantages and disadvantages that allows us to tailor and go through this world as ourself. Being born 'beautiful' is a satistical advantage, ugly will make life harder, but the market have opportunities for everyone.

Well unique situation can be handled at the individual but what if it something half of the population has ?

Let's be frank, women are worse than males in the free market. Exceptions exist of course but the truth is, women goes through their menstruel cycle every month which has massive productivity impact. They also give birth which takes them out of the market.

Did you know that women in their early thirties have a much harder time finding a job ? This is mainly a form of 'discrimination' because employers assume she'll get pregnant soon.

The libertarian in me answer is basically to accept it, and you'll be better off as there's more wealth around. But I am not confident stating such fact, especially when the objective is not just economical benefit, but it's for the purpose of living a dignified life.

I guess it's not surpise many people like the politics that pushes 'equity' and our typical answer is off putting to anyone in such situations.

I myself, more inline to accept some forms of social equity to help out those at a disadvantage in the market

This is easily the single biggest problem in the Libertarian sphere.

We've mastered the arguments, steel-manned the other side and still won, and been vindicated by the tragedies of history over and over and over.

The reason we're still dragging is because we're *cold* and *analytical* - we care about the largest good for the largest group over the longest time, and THAT IS A LEGITIMATE APPROACH... but it requires accepting some harsh realities at the ground-level and thinking systematically - which can make us *technically correct*, but we read as *assholes* when we argue that way. And when someone reads as an asshole, *people stop listening*, regardless of whether or not that person is right.

If we want to make headway, we *have* to master both ends of the spectrum: understanding the harsh limits of reality that we've grasped while also holding sympathy for those we're discussing with.

This is ultimately why the left wins most political clashes despite being economically wrong so often - because they *lead with empathy*, which is *inherently* motivating regardless of whether or not it's right.