Well, time to get hated again by a bunch of complete and total Neckbeards on the Internet.

I supported Black Lives Matter in one article which led to everything from the dregs of the Internet calling me a moron to death threats against me. I went out to call Murray Rothbard a bad influence for libertarians due to terrible political decisions and the reality that he wasn’t an actual economist as much as a play economist who achieved nothing. The reaction from the Rothbard articles led to a bunch of heavyset Neckbeards likely living in their mothers’ basements weeping and going “Murray! Murray! We will avenge you Murray!”. Even so, delighted by that article, I had conspiracy theorist and problem-starter Lew Rockwell attack, Tom Woods, who I actually respect quite a bit, call me out, and the delights of Christopher Cantwell apparently doing an attack on his podcast I didn’t bother to listen in on saying to my friends, “He’s fat, bald, poor, stupid and not important.” as my anthem for why I’d not respond to him.

In my effort to piss off the genetic undesirables of libertarianism, I am going to attack their ultimate fantasy. I’m going to say why anarcho-capitalism is a totally stupid idea.

Considering anarcho-capitalism as an idea, I look at it as something which will never happen, and I’d prefer to keep my head down on the debate from. It’s honestly just the same thing as people advocating for perfect communism or a world where unicorns with hot naked girls riding on them give out free gold and lobsters. It is this fantasy that we would somehow be able to survive with no actual government or central body of protection and order, but just through private protection groups and this false idea of Voluntaryism. It violates literally every course on human history and is something which has never existed, outside of this nonsense claim that there was a small part of Scotland in the 13th century that allowed optional tribes in government and that that was somehow close to anarchism (it wasn’t, at all).

I’ve had three questions for anarcho-capitalists over the years which remain pretty much unanswered. If anyone can offer a serious case for improvement, I’d actually think anarcho-capitalism would have a shot, but no one has come close. These questions are:

How Do We Achieve Anarcho-Capitalism?

Why Is Anarcho-Capitalism Better?

Why Would It Sustain Itself?

These are three really basic things and no ancaps have a qualified answer for them, outside of a mesh of stupid internet memes and dumb podcast that no one listens into.

1. How Do We Achieve Anarcho-Capitalism?

For this, they have absolutely jack in terms of answers. Literally nothing…

Some seem to want destined-to-fail presidential campaigns calling to end the government, which lead to .06% of the vote. Some seem to want minarchy before anarchy, but have no real plans on how to take minarchy into anarchy. Some seem to want a more pragmatic approach of technology phasing out government. And the most common one of complaining on the Internet, gaining 150 pounds, failing to ever get an actual job, having no life outside of an Internet cult you’re on, and growing a Neckbeard not being relevant (oh hey, Chris Cantwell!).

Yet knocking those ideas down:

Internet Troll: Stupid and makes you a loser.

Direct Anarchy: Would never work unless someone thinks it’s possible to lay off 15 million people, disrupt the banking system, eliminate all social security/Medicare and do so while abolishing the police and military, not envisioning how it’d lead to the real life version of The Walking Dead within 20 minutes.

Minarchy Before Anarchy: Will probably never work. Just because of the simple fact I’d doubt anyone would take the plunge into anarchy once they have achieved minarchy, and the likely success of it would make it so no group actually wants disruption.

Technology: Probably the best path, but not one of the anarchist dregs on the Internet will have any part in creating this technology. Also still sort of unlikely to ever happen.

2. Why Is Anarcho-Capitalism Even Better?

This is something rarely ever asked, but does make a valid point.

I hear many ancaps run around going “Yeah, anarchy forever!” However, I never really understand their exact pitch on what about having an ancap system is exactly better than what we have. There will still be bad people in the world. In fact, there would very likely be even more bad people in the world and more people thinking they could move into power. In this, they’d still have to spend quite a bit on collective services where money goes towards defense. It’d literally be the same cost of existence as with minarchy or basic libertarianism.

A lot of ancaps have cited competition as the benefit of anarcho-capitalism, making the claim that having private groups competing for protection is somehow better. I’d argue it fails on a logical level due to two reasons. The first reason is operating in a collective with more people in it contributing, can actually make it cheaper due to cost of purchase. Secondly and more importantly, having hundred of millions or billions of people belong to one group in the form of a government is better over hundreds of groups existing. This isn’t market principles, but with other companies, they focus on getting better and more well-handled for the purchase of people. This would be the same, but it also involves companies making more promises on the types of security offered, likely purchasing more weaponry and likely doing immoral things like basically becoming gangs. This would end up as far worse than a government, and very, very quickly lead to less efficiency.

3. Why Would It Sustain Itself?

This is the easiest reason to not go ancap.

The fact is that it will never be able to sustain itself. If the government did close down shop, we’d have a whomping four minutes until some player makes an effort to attack people, be it a formal government, a gang, or a bunch of religious psychopaths; they’d make it happen. The reaction would be these private groups trying to stop the threat and the outcome is things will likely get far less voluntary. This is how governments always get formed, expand to more people and become more like gangs. In time, some people would say “I opt out”, but also some will complain they still collect benefits. It’d be a total joke and the outcome is just a new government formed the moment anarchy happens.

Let’s move on, my final points.

Anarcho-capitalism is just radicalism for the sake of being radical. It is this view where people who have too much free time go when they become libertarian and just go “Oh, you’re a libertarian? Well, I’m this libertarian!” as some way to feel cool. It’s empty radicalism based in false principles. They use it to cloak the fact they just want to come off as edgy.

Yet in life, I do believe in libertarianism, but pragmatism is important. I believe in a moderately-sized defense, I believe we can maintain our basic welfare state and believe we can hold some small and easy to handle regulations with a government. However, I’m a guy saying we should cut the federal government 90% over the course of a decade, adopt laissez faire capitalism, have open borders, have some form of basic income open to people, and have a defense system which every year focuses on getting smaller and more efficient. I want a libertarian government that emphasizes always improving and running as a business. It can exist and I believe that’s where society is heading towards.

With that though, anarcho-capitalism is a very, very dumb idea.