From the few interviews I've watched, he seems like a real life manifestation of an Ayn Rand hero character. I doubt he has any public sector or welfare in his plans
Ayn Rand heroes are all sophisticated, educated artists and artisans. This man is more like a psychotic Ron Paul (I say this with some affection). He's an anarchist and very Austrian in his economics affiliation. Definitely not an affiliation that Objectivists favored at all.
He's not an anarchist. The creator of the mislabel "anarchocapitalism" was himself an Ayn Rand fan until she basically told him he wasn't an anarchist and he decided to take that personally. Anarchism is the abolition of hierarchical systems of power. "Anarchocapitalism" only refers to the abolition of the state while maintaining all other hierarchical systems and capitalism in particular.
You can not enforce property claims without violence. "Anarchocapitalists" either handwave this with private armies (which is just feudalism with extra steps) or insist on everyone following the Non-Aggression Principle, which is nonsense without a system of enforcement. The more honest types usually fall back to minarchy, i.e. having a small state that basically only consists of a legal system and police force to enforce property claims and resolve disputes.
Heck, the person who came up with the name opposed not only taxes but also the civil rights movement and universal suffrage. The only coherent ideological thread in his life was not wanting to pay taxes, not wanting to have to follow regulations and being convinced he was very smart.
I'm well aware of the argument that left-wing anarchists make that anarcho-capitalism isn't real anarchism. As per usual, only left-wing anarchists care about this semantic argument. Anarcho-capitalists keep using that term, and 99.9% of the rest of world doesn't know, and wouldn't care even if you explained your point of view to them.
Also, is Murray Rothbard like Voldemort to you? You seem to refuse to even say his name.
Most people on HN likely don't know who Murray Rothbard is and he didn't have any coherent ideology or philosophy so he's not interesting beyond being the guy who came up with the label.
Anarchism is by definition "left-wing". If flat earthers redefined "globe" to mean a saucer shaped object and the media started to run with that because flat earthers made for "good content", opposing that usage wouldn't be dismissed as "arguing semantics" either. Sometimes it's important that words mean things. Heck, the entire political right in the US has spent the past years making the changing meanings of words their main issue. Clearly "arguing semantics" matters sometimes.
Calling yourself "anarcho-capitalist" is like calling yourself "punk" because you're knee-deep in Sex Pistols merch. It's using a label as a fashion accessory, not a political statement. Clearly you think political labels have some use or else you wouldn't refer to "left-wing" anarchists.
There's no historical basis for the label "anarcho-capitalism". Ancaps claim they're building on individualist anarchism if asked to justify their label but even Stirner was to the left of them. "Anarcho-capitalism" isn't promoting individualist anarchism, it's promoting autocracy. Anarchism is the absence of oppression and power hierarchies, "anarcho-capitalism" is the absence of regulations and limitations on individual power, relying on The Market instead of Divine Right as a justifying cause.
"Anarcho-capitalism" is not only not "real anarchism", it's not any anarchism, just like throwing bricks at Starbucks windows is neither necessary nor sufficient (i.e. almost entirely orthogonal) for being an anarchist.
He is also a populist, who would not even allow a abortion, to a 10 year old rape victim. (that was a literal question and answer in an interview with him). Oh and he would allow the selling of children.
So I would question the consistency of his freedom ideology. If you use the state to enfore strict law on abortion, meaning deciding over other peoples bodies, how will you do so without a state? Or why do so, when you do not want a state at all?
That’s an incredibly bold claim. When did he say that and what was the context?
> If you use the state to enfore strict law on abortion, meaning deciding over other peoples bodies, how will you do so without a state? Or why do so, when you do not want a state at all?
If you consider the top job of government is to protect life, it flows pretty naturally. Just because you personally don’t agree with it does not mean it’s irrational.
"That’s an incredibly bold claim. When did he say that and what was the context?"
See Wikipedia:
"In a June 2022 interview, when asked about his stance on the sale of children, Milei initially said that "it depends"
But being a populist, apparently he took that back after some public outcry.
And when you want to abolish the whole state, then it is really not rational to use the state to enforce some radical ideology with the help of the state in my opinion. But I won't discuss forcing a 10 year old rape victim to carry a baby in the name of life here any further.
Wikipedia cites 'latin-american.news', a two-year-old domain with a global website rank of 10,989,423. For comparison, 'thelaundryspot.com', the official website of a laundromat in Austin, TX, has a global rank of 8,737,785.
This might as well be a sourced from the Wikipedia admin's blog.
edit: Lol, in the last hour, the awful source was removed and the ridiculous quote removed. The wiki now reads:
"When questioned on the topic of selling children, Milei initially responded ambiguously [womp womp] but later clarified his opposition, stating, "Obviously, I do not agree with the sale of children.""
Anarcho-capitalism provides suitable conditions for strongmen, religious leaders, little feudal lords to impose their views on the less powerful, so I don't necessarily view a contradiction.
The lords are smaller scale, have more of an absolute power, not bound by things like laws and such.
To me, it seems like a repeat of history, we had an anarcho-capitalist society already, but people started to self-organize into larger groups with rules, tradition, processes ⇾ states.
The guy's Wikipedia page[1] is a wild ride. Let's see: He's a cosplayer. He's telepathic. He speaks to dogs, both dead and alive ones. He speaks to dead people, too, including Ayn Rand. He has seen the resurrection of Christ three times, but he can't talk about it. He met a lion, as a gladiator in the Roman Colosseum 2,000 years ago.
Anarcho-capitalism is a nonsense label to allow libertarians to cosplay as anarchists without having to give up on their positions of power. It seemingly only exists so rich people can be against paying taxes or having to follow laws and regulations while getting to pretend they're revolutionaries "fighting the system".
When is the last time you saw a "think of the kids" argument offered in good faith? I honestly can't remember. Anarcho-capitalists' ideal is a "consent society", free from coercion (state or otherwise). Children cannot meaningfully consent and thus selling them is not "consistent" with anarcho-capitalism.
> When is the last time you saw a "think of the kids" argument offered in good faith?
Right there, when I made one?
But no, what you're claiming doesn't align with other proponents of the ideology I've seen. They are only opposed to state coercion, but market pressures can certainly be coercive and they don't resist that.
And by what mechanism would anarcho-capitalists prevent the selling of children or child labor? They don't hold that the state has such a power. Children also don't consent to be even their parents' wards, so the consent of children is not a sufficient framework to construct a basis of opposition.
Markets don't have the will to decline child exploitation and anarcho-capitalism doesn't invest an entity with the power to prevent it. Individuals may honestly say they don't want it but the system offers nothing to oppose the incentives that will cause it.
Depends. It is not a single coherent ideology. Most anarchocapitalists regard property and property of ones own body to be sacred. That would disallow selling children as you cannot own them in the first place. They own themself.