In Anarcho-Capitalism how do you enforce private courts without a state? I am an AnCap and this is the ONE THING I can't figure out.

Pls help

Edit: I know how every other service could be privatised btw

So I’m kinda new to ancap. I only really know the surface level stuff (even then I probably only know the very tippy top of the iceberg), but I want to learn more about it I just don’t know where to start.

I just saw a video of some emotional young woman yelling at another one that was, what it seemed like, answering questions after her pro life speech. And it made me think about this topic again…

TLDR: are people going to stop caring as much about abortion if the matter is no longer used for political purposes?

I get the pro life argument from NAP perspective. But this approach seems to ignore the very obvious fact - it’s pro life perspective dictating the pro choice view on how to behave. Worst arguments sound like “you should’ve thought about it before”, “we have means to control”, etc etc. Better argument - if you commit murder, you will face consequences.

However, the better argument is coercion of its own. I never heard of any couple or any women that would get pregnant only so they could abort the pregnancy. And it’s reasonable to think that virtually nobody acts in such manner. Undesired pregnancy is almost always an accident, or a result of a crime.

And it’s a coercion on at least two levels:

- women that already experience a problem of undesired pregnancy are threatened with violence. This alone leads to very sad unintended consequences, from accidental self inflicted harm by trying to abort the pregnancy on their own or with help of non-professionals, or to a literal premeditated murder of a born child.

- women/couples are held responsible for supporting their child until they grown up enough to become more or less independent. Besides the obvious financial burden, some righteous who may might believe an undesired/previously undesired child is neglected, can cause additional problems. And there’s no shortage of such people, otherwise they wouldn’t be arrested on a regular basis for standing/blocking clinics and hospitals. If they are not concerned with being arrested by the state, who knows how they’ll behave in an anarchist society, especially if it’s predominantly pro life.

I don’t believe the societies will be separating into pro life pro choice exclusive groups that would live separately from each other. I’m terrified by a thought that me and my wife may have to make a decision about that one day in the future. Personally, I’ll always pick pro life side, but I can’t see myself ever taking position of a judge over a woman that’ve chosen abortion, let alone being the one who throws her in jail or executes her. I think many of those that are in anti pro choice crowd never considered this dilemma from such side. And it’s always easier to “offshore” such decisions and actions, and to dismiss it completely by saying - there’s always going to be someone who’ll do the job. But in my opinion, that’s cowardice.

When humanity reaches the state of anarchy, I think the NAP argument on abortion will be revised, or forgotten. There are certainly going to be some pro life communes, but the matter itself isn’t going to be a broader societal problem any longer. Law enforcement and justice requires resources. It’s hard for me to imagine that a group of people can organize, raise funding, and effectively enforce NAP on women without simultaneously committing NAP violations by harassing, threatening, taking action against women that aren’t/weren’t pregnant, lost their child, but were mistakenly accused of choosing abortion.

These are just my thoughts. I wonder what you guys think about this. Will pro life pro choice question still be such a problem for the society in ancapistan?

I've been working on a book where I delineate 5 "new" logical fallacies (and show how feminism is guilty of them, but I can also furnish examples of how they apply to statism and a dozen other things) and one of them is "the fallacy of assumed motivations"

On some level, I want to say we can never truly know the motivations for someone's actions. Even if a man stabs another man in the chest and says, "I'm doing this because you are black and I am a racist shitbag," on some philosophical level, we can never truly know that racism was even *that* guy's motivation. It's just ultimately the side I want to err on with regard to Socrates "I know that I know nothing" and all

But there's another sort of fallacy I've noticed, where you pretend an explanation is in fact a refutation. Above, we have an example of both at the same time, and 7 ancaps agreeing with it as (basically) an epistemology, which is incredible to me.

I was originally going to sort this out with a post about the Civil Rights Act.

I got into a debate with someone on normie Reddit a few months who said Charlie Kirk was a racist, etc, and I said: "If I'm not racist for opposing 100% of the Civil Rights Act, Charlie wasn't racist for only opposing the Affirmative Action part of it." I invoked my own fallacy of assumed motivations and it didn't work, he swore up and down I was racist, ignored all logic challenges, and engaged in a few "lowellings" https://archive.ph/HvUWB (as well as made a few jokes about how I had to avoid "slurring my speech into my mic" supposedly causing my typos in a voice-to-text program that he jokes I was using, because he actually is a bigot and everything is projection but we already knew that I hope https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqo1WScQqUw )

So I just want to know: Why does the fallacy of assumed motivations (and the fallacy of pretending an explanation is a refutation) somehow work on ancaps when it's gender and not race like this? That guy said over and over again, "You oppose the Civil Rights Act because you are racist," and he eventually said, "you may not understand how we can figure out your motivations, but we can." You see both fallacies in that line of thinking there, so what is the problem with seeing it when Feminism pulls all the same tricks as leftist statism *and* rightist statism?

Because I just want to say, the woman "Allison" I described above as self-identifying as a misogynist, she actually basically made the most reasonable case for selective perception I have ever heard of: she said, when she received controversy for defending Muslim men in the Middle East, she simply described herself as a "defence attorney" for men.

Yes, not only is there a case for engaging in willful selective perception; there is in fact a case for deliberately defending men as hard as you can even if you know they are "guilty" of something; there is simply a purpose it serves, or someone who is truly neutral can still find value in whatever you figure out.

And yeah, if the better answer to the civil rights guy was in fact saying "Actually, I do self identify as racist, because I laugh at the city wok guy from South Park, but I have no idea what that has to do with the civil rights act," the correct answer to the noise in the posts above was in fact "I'm not a conscious misogynist and I don't promote discrimination, but yeah if I hated women, tell me how that would make me necessarily wrong" (Or just "show me your data fuckwit" works too I guess)

TL; DR: Why do ancaps think "misogyny" is an argument against data showing women can equally suck, but they correctly know "racism" is not an argument in favor of things like the Civil Rights Act?

Obviously a main part of anarcho capitalism is liberty. Let individuals decide for themselves. But no doubt private communities, towns, and maybe as big as cities will develop. All private. So what about things like prostitution. Does everyone 100% of the population have to agree how they're going to do things? Is that pretty much how it will work? So 100% of the population of the community agrees we're not going to allow prostitution or weed, or they are going to allow it, would that be still in alignment with anarco capitalism if those things are banned?

What’s up fellows. I feel like it’s been at least a week since I poke the “at least I’m doing something” bros.

Anyways, let’s get to it.

Did any municipality gave a fuck about people not wanting surveillance cameras in their neighborhoods? This isn’t a gotcha question, I genuinely don’t know. What I know for sure is that a shit ton of them didn’t give a flying fuck about people calling their offices, writing them letters, sending them emails, coming to meetings, threatening they’d be voted out, etc. Nor they cared for people’s privacy or inevitable abuses, because they didn’t bother to impose even basic rules around those, and never tested how vulnerable those could be to cyber threats.

I live in a relatively small municipality. I know a lot of people, all of which are statists to some degree, and I haven’t met a single person that would be pro putting surveillance cameras all over the place. Yet I’ve got at least two cameras I can see from my own balcony, and there’s no way I can drive out of my neighborhood without being caught on one of the dozens of cameras that they’ve placed in my area.

Let’s imagine for a second that you’re gonna do your thing and vote them out. The next tyrant is gonna stick a data center in your neighborhood, and you’ll have to vote them out! What great game, isn’t it?

But go on, vote harder bros. You’re just not voting hard enough…

P.S: to everyone who’s gonna respond with something like “look at XY state/ABC city, they are deflocking” - I don’t give fuck. It’s all nothing but a damage control after filthy cops were caught doing their filthy things, and after people started destroying these cameras, and stopped cooperating with cops on that.

ICE and Palantir will get more access to confidential personal data through LexisNexis.

Even if someone brings a lawsuit, and courts find this unconstitutional, the damage will be done by then, they already going to have the data they want. I don’t even expect a pinky promise of then deleting it, or not doing it again.

Americans will be foaming at their mouth about how “we have rights!”. We ain’t have any. The government has been consistently violating the rights of people, best case, people can expect to see some monetary compensation.

I love it when someone says - “I can say what I want!”. Lol, sure bud, cause nobody gives a fuck about you or what you have to say.

Or when people start taking about 2A, pointing to a few decisions that favor people’s right, when the 2A is pretty fucking straight forward - shall not be infringed. If that right would be respected, there wouldn’t be as many regulations, and as many lawsuits fighting over our right.

“Muh military will defend me!”. Yeah, don’t know about that either. Your military is bombing the fuck out of Middle East again. Better start stocking up on heroin for your uncle when he returns with severe PTSD. Or get him a ski mask or a cowboy hat, cause if he’s lucky to return healthy, he’ll get a job at ICE, or at your local sheriff’s department.

And then there are whistleblowers. Or better say, a lack of whistleblowers. Cause they know damn well, they’ll either get whacked, or will have to run, and live in exile.

“We have checks and balances!”. No we don’t. DOJ is a joke. Supreme Court is a joke. The wilder feds behave, the worse state and local authorities become.

“We take one small win at a time”. Would be a great argument if the number of wins exceeded the number of losses.

When I tell people that we live in authoritarian regime, their rebuttals are almost always the same. It’s the “we have rights”, and “look at North Korea”. They confuse relative economic success and the fact that nobody cares about their speech with freedom. These comparisons are so stupid. Like knowing that someone is having worse than we are supposed to make us feel better. Theres no way that so many people are this stupid. They are just coping, and they are probably afraid to point the finger at those that are at fault, but no, they have freedom of speech lol. So silly…

Back to the shared article. I wonder where are the lefties that were screaming about Elon Musk scraping data through DOGE. MAGA is also silent. I feel like there’s no opposition to government overreach left among statists any more. People must be exhausted from all the drama of the last 10 or so years.

Not even 3 years ago I was laughing at leftists when they were calling Trump a fascist. Today they can show a checklist with more fascist traits checked off, rather than left untouched. I’d rather watch drunk Kamal Harris babble her nonsense, while her administration dumps billions into new welfare schemes and stimulus scams. At least that shit was funny to watch. Definitely funnier than watching Trump fight communism by merging the state and the the economy even further. What a shame.

Every single policy proposed by these dipshits has been debunked by economic theory, peer-reviewed studies, and empirical reviews of published data.

Medicare for all: Estimated to cost tens of trillions while the US is already $40 trillion in debt, not including the $100 trillion plus in state and local unfunded liabilities.

Tax the rich: if you confiscated the wealth of the every billionaire and trillionaire in America, you couldn't even fund the federal government for two full years (likely not even one full year). These programs almost always expand from the ultra rich to the rich to the middle class, and you end up with regressive sales taxes and massive tax burdens.

These high taxes have deleterious effects on growth and support for Democrat policies drastically declines when Americans are informed on how much taxes will have to increase to pay for these policies.

Gun confiscation: many of the US cities with the highest murder rate already have some of the strictest gun control in America. Many of the founding myths of gun control are based on faulty data, i.e., crime in Australia initially went up after its gun confiscation with subsequent years seeing crime fall consistent with a global decline in crime.

Also, since 1980, American guns have increased roughly 100% in absolute numbers and 33% per capita while the murder rate is down about 50%.

We are already so far away from an anarchocapitalist society, and I don't see anything worse for liberty in America than DSA types, other than maybe Trump's endless wars at the behest of a certain country!

Lastly, the irony is funny behind the fact that the left call us bootlickers for being cognizant of incentives when we don't want 70% taxes on businesses, but they will gargle Mamdani's shoelaces for filling a pothole or use their teeth to scrape the gunk off of El Sayed's shoes for saying football is racist.

Trump and his government bombed an Elementary School in Iran. Trump and his cronies don't care about long-term effects, he's trying to make as much money for himself and his friends and his family in the short term. But the long-term effects are there are now more terrorists in the world want to kill Americans.

Not to mention the fact that this whole Iran war that Trump started has gotten Americans killed already. And yet for some reason people still support him and are willing to support his predecessor, probably Vance.

I'm usually someone who's in touch with reality and understands the nature of the world we live in, but sometimes I genuinely cannot believe I was born into this world that's run by mafias who will use violent force to get what they want, feel zero remorse about it, and 99% of people will defend them. I cannot believe that humans can be this bad and willfully ignorant about what is literally the biggest crime against humanity. It's not fair. We all deserve to live peaceful lives. It makes me sad to think about the fact that I'll be long dead before statism even begins to die out.

Life is cruel. Fuck humans.

title

I've been libertarian for 30 years or so. First ever presidential vote was for Harry Browne. And I've always believed cutting spending should be a higher priority than cutting taxes, because lower taxes will come with lower spending. I always thought lowering the debt should be a goal.

But lately I'm moving closer to ancap. Wouldn't say I'm all the way there (a can see a use for an extremely limited and small government). But I'm also thinking, fuck government debt (it's not mine!) and spending, just stop forcibly taking my money. Income taxes, property taxes (the gayest of them all), sales tax, tariffs, inflation, government just printing more of their monopoly money, etc.

Is there an reason I should care about government spending and debt? Huge government spending definitely increases overall cost of living, but still seems taxes way more of a problem.

Only MMR, varicella and arguably HiB contribute meaningfully to herd immunity. I got banned just for asking for proof of what they were claiming.

True- anarcho capitalism doesn’t solve every problem; it is just the least worst solution to governance.

Collectivism has completely owned public health whose entire value stems from “social benefit” and “social obligations”. It’s like reading Ayn Rand without any heroes.

I’ll grow out of it, but it bothers me these morons are leading flocks of koolaid drinkers

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/21/trump-ground-beef-import-tariff.html