Am I an Ancap? And what is Anarcho-Capitalism?

Throughout my history videos I've quoted from Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt and many more from the Austrian School of Economics. Does this mean I'm an AnCap? And what exactly is Anarcho-Capitalism? Let's find out.

This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

⏲️ Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).

- - - - -

📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚

- - - - -

⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐

This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from YouTube ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.

Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!

- - - - -

ABOUT TIK 📝

History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.

[karolgajko]

Hi TIK, great video!

During the pandemic I went deep into the "ancap hole", so I think I can answer few of your questions.

1. Is man always rational?
Short answer is yes, but we have to specify that it is a weaker definition (aka more stuff is applied to it) than what are we thinking of as rational in common speech. In misesian understanding, action is necessarily rational. That is when man has goals, he uses means that he thinks are the best to achieve them. It is impossible to think "I want A. If B then A, if C then not A. Therefore I'll do C to achieve A". It does not matter if the action actually results in fulfilment of the goal, what matters is what person is thinking, because it is driving his action.

2. Is there a market for a state?
No, because state is by definition coercive. If taxes are optional, so you can choose not to pay and use alternative services, it ceases to be a state. In the words of Murray Rothbard "the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion" (Anatomy of the State p11).

If you want the alternative name for ancap, to break negative conotation of anarchy and capitalism, there exists one: voluntaryism. And techically it is better description of what the ancaps stand for - society where all interacions are voluntary.

As you are already familiar with the "capitalism" part (thanks God for the Mises Institute), for the "anarchy" part I recommend Larken Rose. He has an active yt channel with lots of content regarding the subject of REAL anarchism and anti-statism, presented in an easy way for everyone to understand.


There are a lot of other good vids on yt on that topic too. I can link some more materials if someone is interested in exploring these ideas further.

[kalininyuri]

We had a kind of Ancap in Russia in 1990th. When state was very weak and it was possible to do business, a very successful and profitable business, without paying any taxes for years. And there were multiple law-enforcement agencies, in form of criminal groups, competing with each other to provide you protection services. Unfortunately, it was not as shiny as you described. They were not trying to compete by providing better services, but more often by just physically eliminating competition, and by forcing their services on you using threats and coercion.

[Weregus]

Just a minor correction: it is not called the Austrian school because Mises was from Austria, it's because of his predecessors like Menger, Böhm-Bawerk etc.

[isaactrio]

In the 19th century New York you had private firefighters companies competing, they became literal fronts for criminal groups, who would deliberately set your house on fire and then demand payment for them to put it out lol. That’s your “market of security” for you

[m_h]

Great, balanced take as always TIK. The answer is not necessarily global anarchy, rather DECENTRALIZATION. As Hans Herman Hoppe put it, there should be thousands of Lichtensteins. Thousands of little laboratories experimenting with systems of economics and trade so as to best observe which practices work and which ones we should avoid. The key is to keep them as voluntary associations, not coerced serfs.

[salokin]

I highly recommend you read into Bangladesh vs India regarding private vs Public. Much of Bangladesh's rapid development, including in widespread education, was based on private individual or private communal investments into what was needed.
Poor economics and Good economics for hard times delves into this.

[lovewin]

You seem familiar with the Mises Institute, so I'd call your attention to the fact that the people in that general "ecosystem" have sorta been coming around to acknowledge, in the past decade or so, the vital importance of topics like culture and religion when discussing politics and economics (Michael Rectenwald is a good example). What I recall from the 2000s was a lot more "pure NAP libertarianism" stuff.

In a nutshell, the discussions have been moving in the direction of: a high culture (high trust, individual responsibility, industriousness, high savings rate, etc.) is not simply downstream of political & economic liberty, but also a *requirement* for said liberty. A lot of writers throughout the ages have pointed out that a dissolute population is incapable of handling liberty, as we can see even today. So it's something of a chicken-and-egg problem.

[sirguy]

People never let actual term definitions get in their way- they go by “their truth” to define terms

[shaya_g]

3:15 "if the consumer wanted a bridge, and was willing to pay for it, then profit could be made by constructing the bridge... if no bridge exists, or isn't already under constuction by the market, then the consumer doesn't want or need that bridge".

Or alternatively:

1) There is no supplier capable of financing the production costs even if would be profitable overalll.
2) The local bridge builder has a toll booth on another bridge 5 miles away which he is not incentivised to compete with himself. Nobody else can build a bridge because this builder is willing to pay more for land suitable for the bridge then a bridge builder, because he would make the same profits with no construction costs as a normal bridge builder would make with these costs.
3) The people who would move into the area and benefit from the bridge haven't moved there yet because the bridge has not yet been built.

[jamestaylorb]

Another topic I would never have thought about without TIK. Awesome content! Keep it up

[michaelthayer]

The main problem I see with Anarcho-Capitalism and other similar ideologies is that the State is probably inevitable.
Whether by Force and Violence, or Ties of Kinship, or simple desire for Economies of Scale humans will always form into larger groups that morph into states.
Every race, religion, and creed throughout history has organized themselves into states. Perhaps it is a result of humanity's social nature that developed as an evolutionary response to danger by seeking strength in numbers.

[gusfring]

My biggest complaint about anarcho capitalism is how do you enforce anarchy?

[kimberlyowen]

Nicely done. Your ability to explain concepts is exceptional.

[jingbadatti]

My question is always just: why would a market for security be a market? What would stop it from instantly devolving into security companies effectively owning you because if you stop paying them you get raided? All that security companies need to do to get your business is to keep other security companies out of the territory.

[donttread]

Great video! Loving seeing vids on AnCap. The greatest promoter of AnCaps is the state itself and its actions.

[StickNik]

You hit the nail on the head when you asked about the market demand for a state. That was unknowingly a sticking point I had when entertaining ancap ideals and how you would practically implement them. The only other thing I would say is that the bridge might have been requested by some grandma or whoever writing in to a politician, the key problem that needs to be solved is to give an alternative for a community to pool resources to contribute to road or bridge they think would be good, but that isn't what is typically government.

[KnewitzHofbau]

You are best identified as a Libertarian. Believe it or not, Brazil boasts a significant "Ancap" community, which, in turn, is highly diverse in terms of ideas. Consequently, to encompass this diversity, we commonly refer to ourselves as Libertarians. Overall you're in the right direction reading Mises, Rothbard and Hayek.

To answer your question:
If there's a market for a State, can we deny the market?
No, individuals should have the freedom to choose which state they want to be a part of, without being automatically bound by birthright. Currently, this contractual obligation exists, but it should be abolished. States would operate in a decentralized manner, competing like enterprises to attract immigrants by offering higher standards of living. Essentially, envision a large condominium with its own laws, police force, education and welfare system.

A common misconception is that we are against the existence of the state altogether. In reality, we are opposed to the state's monopoly. Consider the inability to choose whether or not to pay taxes—failure to comply would result in imprisonment. This represents a monopolistic control.
Envisioning how an ancapistan would function can be challenging. However, I believe it would involve microstates the size of cities, where companies would operate freely, providing employment opportunities and services to these cities, nothing like we don't see it today, because capitalism just works.

[raphaellapointe]

Competing judicial systems... How would that even work? Laws work because they are the same across a nation/state/city, not because they are subject to competition. Unless the legislative branch is public, but you'd need a state for that. Competing fire departments...could work...I prefer to pay for that service through taxes than by each individual service, but it could be done. The problem would be that if you don't have money and your house is burning, you're fucked same goes for police and healthcare.

Also, without regulation, there would be nothing preventing private police forces from sending hired robbers to your house only to make you pay for their services. Who's gonna prevent them from doing that? The private legislation? What if another private legislation/judicial system says they can? And who said it was illegal for a robber to enter your house in the first place?

And how would private miliaries compete? All out private warfare? I suppose you're going to say no, but if they do...who's gonna stop them? Someone's really gonna arrest a whole army with tanks and airplanes? If I was an entrepreneur, I would NEVER invest in an economy like that. That would be suicidal.

This just could never work. An ancap economy would always turn into something else because without a state, you end up with a power vacuum and something will always end up filling it. You wouldn't even need demand for a state. The most likely scenario is that one of these private armies would outcompete the others and seize power by force, turning an ancap utopia into a military dictatorship. Power corrupts. But power is not only in the hands of government. Large private businesses also have power and are also subject to corruption. One of them would inevitably dream of becoming the next state.

And btw, you said the state should not get involved in the building of a bridge and that an entrepreneur should build it for a profit instead. That's great, but what is the only way to profit on a road or bridge? Oh right, toll gates. Toll gates everywhere. You would need to stop every 500m meters sometimes less. You might even have a toll gate right before an intersection, and immediately bump into another after turning, because the other road is owned by a different company...


I understand you are frustrated with the way things are right now, but there are cases where taxes and states are the best if not the only option. Yes, you need to pay someone to regulate, to tax and stuff like that, but think of the chaotic and inefficient nightmare that would be a private road system swarming with toll gates. What's worse is that this would also extend to pedestrian walkways as someone would need to make profit on that too.

Anyway, ancapism is NOT the solution to the worlds problems. I firmly believe that both public and private entities need to exist as that means both of them have power, yet none have all of it. A form of competition if you will where one can never truly destroy the other for good.

Instead of getting rid of the state, I think we should push for the individual citizen having more input over what that state does. A direct democracy like Switzerland could be the answer, maybe you should look into that TIK (if you haven't already).

[shanevollm]

As an AnCap, I'm impressed by this bit of honesty on your part.

[OmegaSupremeWCheese]

As a card carrying Mises caucus member, I've followed your channel for a while, this warms my heart to see more conversations behind Anarchism. I appreciate this, thank you for the candor.
To answer your question on if one irrational or enough irrational men want a state will it destroy Ancapistan. I struggle with this very same question, I've often said Ancapistan won't survive two-three generations, as soon as "free stuff" becomes attractive and a loud enough voice your perfect market based society is lost. I feel that is where you need the "Darth Vader" of Anarchism involved - being Hans Herman Hoppe, and his famous "physical removal" line. Anrcho Capitalism is merely an economic model, and AnCaps tend to fall into the trap that Objectivists do in thinking their magical ideology is enough to support a society, you're still missing the shared culture and morals to maintain a society, great economics models are not enough, you frankly need a gatekeeper, you need propaganda you need many of the things Anarchists rebel against in society, such as the dreaded boarders.