[ursuscamp]

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.

[hnbad]

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.

[ursuscamp]

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.

[JAlexoid]

AnCap ideology is flaky at best. Effectively there's little difference between different anarchist utopias.

In all cases it's explicitly community driven, because no claim on on property can withstand disagreement with the local community.

Take land ownership - it's de facto not enforceable without either government or communal support.

[hnbad]

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.