What are some good anarcho-capitalist books?

Why are ancaps against the state anyway? Doesnt it protect private property?

The only book that is not absolute shit is Democracy the god that failed. The only reason that book is good is because his arguments in favor of monarchy.

Nozick

>The Art of the Argument
>Western Civilization's Last Stand
Just wonder how these two group of words can coincide

They think a widespread system of private property doesn't require centralized force to maintain itself since "natural rights" apparently actually really exist if you jut believe hard enough.

This is the left wing conception of anarchy, having no rulers qualifies as an anarchy.
Horizontal hierarchies or voluntary vertical hierarchies are perfectly valid.

Attached: Illuminatus1sted.jpg (220x326, 22K)

Here's the list OP
This is because Ancap evolved out of classical liberalism of the Adam Smith variety.
Ayn is not an Ancap, she's a small govt libertarian type aka minarchist.
Nozick isn't Ancap, Friedman rails against him in 'on liberty,' especially in the edition where Hoppe has the foreword.
Ancaps don't yet have a central 'dogma.'
Read two different Ancap authors and they will likely have a different take on something, prime example being intelectual rights.
A system of insurers and decentralised, privatised law is mostly the ideal, though the most optimistic outcome is honestly going to be some sort of regionalism with local parliaments giving representation on national levels.
>They think a widespread system of public property doesn't require centralised force to maintain itself since 'equality,' apparently actually really exist if you just believe hard enough.

Attached: Ancap main.jpg (2426x2676, 711K)

That is simply chaos, user.
Anarchism is when you challenge all unjustifiable hierarchies. There are some perfectly justifiable ones.

Capital can only exist in an authoritarian structure.
Someone has to divide it, lay claim to it, protect it.

That’s about all any “an cap” can manage though. Therefore I still call them Ayncap

>we're still gonna have laws lol, we're just not gonna enforce them

Realistically it would be the opposite, I think. That is, a lack of rules with a lot of rulers. How does anarcho-capitalism not end with corporate tribal gang warfare in the wasteland that used to be civilization?

Is this just not a case of assuming the worst? I mean every system seems to trend toward something like a cyberpunk dystopia. The coming neoliberal one in this timeline is angling toward social brownie points.

Maybe its assuming the worst but I don't see how this wouldn't happen right away. When I hear "anarcho-capitalism" I immediately picture Jeff Bezos, but with his own militia and private ownership of the entire West Coast.

Why do ancaps (and most libertarians in general) think that if we take away the state, corporatism will stop and everyone will abide by the free market? isn't saying corporations take advantage of the state an admission of the incentive at play, the state is only a tool in this line of argument so taking it away does not take their incentive to do so, they will simply find other ways

They argue against a state that prevents companies from doing whatever the fuck they want, on every other front they love the state because they have no real thought out stance (cause else they wouldn't be ancaps)

Based actually educated poster

Ancaps see corporatism as a secondary problem to govt. Since govt props up the largest corps with welfare, legislation and a monopoly on violence.
They're most strongly opposed to corporate welfare. Using the govt to steal money and give it to corps is an unforgivable violation of morality and meritocracy (Ancaps are utterly unrestrained Meritocrats). Get rid off corporate welfare -> most corps die off quickly or are forced to amend to fix budgets -> corps are forced (or are more easily swayed) by the whims of the people.
Further, Ancaps see corps ultimately as having formed from legitimate voluntary associations whereas the govt has formed from involuntary coerced action. Thus if they are to strike at either pillar it makes more sense from their perspective to strike at govt.
Ancaps don't expect perfect obedience to the 'the free market,' since human nature means people will always act unscrupulously. They just think that this is a fairer system overall than the one we currently have.
'Other ways,' might be legitimate since Ancaps conjecture that A) a true monopoly is impossible to acquire in the real world and B) that monoplies/duopolies might actually be a good thing for the consumer (see the monopoly on the anti-monopoly commission as an example).

By definition it steals it
Stop talking about things you don’t understand
Anarchism is the absence of government. Unless you think anarchism must abolish parenting? That does been like it would be a sustainable position for left anarchists I admit

>ancap
>against state

pick one

Anything from Feudalist era Europe.

ancaps are basically Ebeneezer scrooge from a Christmas carol.
But also they appropriated anarchists aesthetics because they are immature morons.
also they dont realize that anarchism = a destruction of hierarchies and capitalism exploits workers.

I mean, is there an ideology as stupid as ancaps?

I mean like, even neocons arent that stupid

Corporations are pure legal entities, without a state to charter them they wouldn't exist. Instead of a real alternative to the extremely economically efficient form of organizations that are limited liability corporations ancraps believe in archaic forms of organization like partnerships.

Yes it's a form of moralism where everyone would bear full legal liability and it would be next to impossible to organize anything on a large scale. Nuts like Murray Rothbard in fact believe basic institutions underpinning modern economies, like factual reserve banking, would be "illegal" and credit would be limited by hard assets like physical gold. Quo bono?

* fractional reserve banking

I must preface this by saying that I think anarcho-capitalism is a retarded ideology that if implemented, would inherently lead to an authoritarian system dictated by the heads of business. I also think anarcho-capitalism is an incoherent term, because it stands for everything historical anarchism opposed. I'm fine with you being a fiscal conservative, but ancap makes no fucking sense. While I'm not quite an anarchist, I am sympathetic to green anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism.

With that out of the way, Neal Stephenson. One of the best modern science fiction writers, and his books actually turned a lot of people onto anarcho-capitalism (for better or worse... probably worse).

Attached: 91Vy63eUhHL.jpg (1556x2475, 706K)

Any documentation about African Warlords will do

It's the worst of all options

Did you know that regulations create monopolies? The more you know.

based good faith poster

are there any people on the left who prefer austrian economics with their own ideas / ideas of the left added to it?

>ifunny.co
The great minds of Ancapism strike again

Attached: 22398514985.jpg (1111x1500, 170K)

Someone told me that anarchism doesn't mean no hierarchies just no unjust hierarchies

No because the further left you go, the more that they want government regulating shit, especially the economy. Left by definition means government regulation

I don't see how you can be on the "left" and see any form of "rent" as a valid economic category since that would be to accept the logic of absentee ownership. "Profit" can be rationalized but Austrianisms understanding is flawed, Robert Anton Wilson points this out:
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-illuminating-discord-an-interview-with-robert-anton-wilson
>Land-rent, or ground-rent, is the most illegitimate aspect of the rent con, of course, and the main target of Tucker’s criticisms. The whole concept of any rent, however, appears somewhat dubious to me, since it seems to presuppose “the accumulation of property in a few aristocratic heaps, at the expense of a great deal of democratic bare ground in between,” as Ezra Heywood said. (Heywood’s writings on this subject, and other aspects of libertarianism, are at least as important as Tucker’s and Spooner’s.) People rent, chiefly, when they cannot afford to purchase outright — when ground-rent, interest and other inequalities haver already created a master-class of aristocrat-owners and a servile class of peasants or proles. I would expect to see rent wither away as the democratization of credit abolishes poverty.
...
>This may sound polemic, but it is literally true. The Henry George Schools have a book, Land Title Origins: A Tale of Force and Fraud, in which you can look up, wherever you live in the United States, exactly the acts of force and fraud (murder and robbery) by which land “ownership” was transferred from the Indian tribes to the current receivers of the stolen property. Now, the third alternative, contract, has never been tried, to the best of my knowledge. The only land contracts which I, or any other Tuckerites or Sternerites, would sign in freedom, without force being used against us, would be to our own interest, not to the interest of the landlords. In other words, we simply would not sign a contract giving up ownership of this planet, or any other, to a small group of the Elite who claim they have some better title to ownership than the rest of us have. If you would sign such a contract, I can only hint gently that you are more easily defrauded than we are.
...
>Of course, since Austrian ideas exist as factors in human behavior, I will admit that some people, hoodwinked by those ideas, will continue to pay rent even in freedom, for a while at least. But I think that, after a time, observing that their Tuckerite neighbors are not submitting to this imposture, they would come to their senses and cease paying tribute to the self-elected “owners” of limitless space, on this and other planets, and in interplanetary communities.

>what is anarcho-communism
>what are workers' councils

The Ancap Manifesto

Attached: lpd.png (1348x1243, 317K)

>He is an actual ancap
>He is not even memeing
>I thought they only existed in legends or ayn rand's head
>He thinks anarchism is just lol no state and everything alright

Neck yourself nigger

Unironically a great short comedy.

Lmao

Nonexistance of a state is a defining feature of communism, so...

not all forms of communism tho, but yeah most communist forms don't have any state

Damn, bitcoin is up 45x since when that story was posted ($90 back then, to $4000 now). And 1.5 years ago it was actually up 220.
Seems like the libs and ancaps are always right in the end.

Can't see the ponzi scheme for the blockchain.

I'm pretty sure you're mixing up the "left" and the liberals
liberalism wants a state, left doesn't (except for authoritarian left ofc)

Don’t need state protect when I’ve got a private milita.

is this biz? They are clearly funnier than this board

Read: A shotgun blast to your forehead
By: You and a shotgun of your choosing

You're welcome

Yea Forums just hates freedom

The extreme left is no government (anarchy), slightly to the right of that is single-tiered government made of the entire population which I guess is some kind of hivemind, I don't know. I think the reason you see it that way is because the process of moving to the left further unifies the people with the government, with classical liberalism being appropriately near-left.

>Stop talking about things you don’t understand
Oh the ironing