From Polcompball Wiki
(Redirected from AnCap)
Jump to navigationJump to search
Historical Infobox Picture
This page's infobox picture was the first image uploaded to the wiki, please do not replace it.

"I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights."

Anarcho-Capitalism (AnCap), also called Private Property Anarchy, Private Law Society,[12] and Rothbardianism,[13] as well a bunch of other names,[14] is a political ideology, as well as a theoretical social order, based around Classical Liberal conception of property rights, individualism, and rejection of the state but lead to its logical conclusion, the elimination of it. It favours market-based alternatives for all services that most modern states currently provide, including roads,[15][16] education,[17][16] healthcare,[18][19] the issuing of currency and banking,[20][21][22] law,[23][24][25][26] security and national defense,[27][28][29][16][30] etc...

On the political compass diagram, Anarcho-Capitalism is consistently identified as being on the absolute bottom and on the absolute (economic) right, with the only ideology surpassing it on both regards being the fictional ideology, Avaritionism,[31] on cultural regards it is ambiguous and varies from person to person. Ancap has some fundamental theoretical conflicts with other anarchists, namely, left-wing anarchists believe that the state is the guarantor of private property, that law and police should be abolished, and that order is against free will. Ancaps's view in this regard is completely opposite: the state is an intruder on private property, retaining law and police, and order is beneficial to free will.


Proto-Anarcho-Capitalist Societies

Anarcho-Capitalist intellectuals have identified a set of historical societies to be in essence Anarcho-Capitalist in practice, or have practiced Anarcho-Capitalist ideas.

A relatively well-known example of proto-ancap society has been the Republic of Cospaia,[32] an Italian micropolity which existed outside of the reaches of both the Papal States and the Holy Roman Empire, and existed from 1440 and 1826. Cospaia lacked any centralised body which specialised in the initialisation of forced payment on others, the closest body which Cospaia had for a state (The council of Elders and Family Heads) was financed through a contribution of its volunteering members and only enforced its verdicts through disassociation.

Other examples of historical societies which practiced elements of Anarcho-Capitalist theory include the system of Brehon Law in Ireland[33] said to be an example of private law and which lasted from around the Bronze to the interregnum of Cromwell as well as the Italian city-state of Genoa which effectively practiced a system of private national defence.[34]

Coat of Arms of the Icelandic Commonwealth

By far the most well-known example of a Proto-Anarcho-Capitalist society has been the Icelandic Commonwealth (less formally known as medieval Iceland).[35][36]

David Friedman also holds in his book, "Legal systems very different from ours,"[24] that many societies have put in practice systems of private law, either where both prosecution and law enforcement were carried out privately, or, where prosecution was carried out privately but law enforcement was carried out by the state. Among the societies he says have had private law systems, either fully or partially, there are the afore mentioned Early Irish/Brehon and the Icelandic legal systems, but he also writes about Jewish law, Imperial Chinese Law, Feudal law, 18th Century English law, among others.

Bryan Caplan, in his Anarchist Theory FAQ (version 5.2)[37], states that both left-libertarians[38] and right-libertarians have written on the "nearly anarchistic" free cities of medieval Europe. The former emphasize the role of community and mutual aid in these cities, while the latter emphasize their relatively free markets and how nearly everything was provided by private (or "semi-private") producers, including law and defense in many cases.
Caplan says that, though anarcho-capitalists have written less on the subject, they generally praise Henri Pirenne's[39] and Harold Berman's[40] historical treatment. Others, such as Ryan McMaken[41] argue that the feudal system, in general, can be qualified as as a system of private law.

Other anarcho-capitalists also cite the American "Wild West"[42] as an illustration of anarcho-capitalist institutions. Others also note that, while the USA was never anarchist, pre-20th century America came the closest to its laissez-faire ideals than ever.
Murray Rothbard shows special interest in American colonial and revolution periods, publishing four volumes on the topic[8] and writing a fifth unpublished volume on the advantages of the Articles of the Confederation over the American Constitution.[43] There he writes, among many other things, about a brief period in Pennsylvania's history when the state was essentially disolved due to lack of interest.

Proto-Anarcho-Capitalist Thinkers

There have been a number of individuals that have been described as being very similar to anarcho-capitalism in their thought, primarily in the Classical Liberal tradition.

A notable figure that has been identified as one of the first people to advocate for an anarcho-capitalist system in a modern form was the Belgian economist of the French liberal school, and student of Frédéric Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), known for advocating a competitive market in the area of production of security services.[44] Molinari was also an abolitionist[45] and a critic of the French Revolution and the policy of Statism it had brought.[46][47]

A picture of Lysander Spooner. Who was a great influence on Rothbard's Philosophy.

A set of important figures to the development of Anarcho-Capitalist theory was the movement of Boston Anarchists, specifically Benjamin R. Tucker (1854-1939) and Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), to whom Murray Rothbard referred as "unsurpassed as political philosophers." He also stated that (he believed) politically, the differences between his ideal system and theirs were minor, but economically, that is, what he and they thought the economic consequences this political system would bring, the differences were substantial.[6]

Another figure, whose political writings could be considered partially proto-anarcho-capitalist, is Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), who pondered on the question of whether or not the evolution of society under a free market would lead to the abolishment of the state, although he himself did not come to a conclusion of whether it would or would not happen.[48]

Auberon Herbert (1834-1906), who was largely inspired by Herbert Spencer's writings, is a figure who is also considered a 'proto-anarcho-capitalist:'[12] Herbert is known to be the first person to use the term "Voluntarism" (or rather "Voluntaryism") within a political context, a term used by followers of Anarcho-Capitalism and other Libertarian circles to this day.[49] Auberon Herbert's doctrine is based on the complete voluntarisation of the role of government authority, and the creation of a system of "voluntary taxation," and the creation of a system based first, and foremost, on private property and self-ownership.[50] And, although Herbert largely dismissed the term, " Anarchist," he was described as a "true anarchist in everything but name" by Benjamin Tucker.[51]

Lastly, out of proto-anarcho-capitalist figures there is the American Geolibertarian author, Albert Jay Nock (1870-1945), whose politics are often described as Anarcho-Conservative. Nock has criticized all forms of Economic Interventionism, both in the form of Soviet Communism and the Social Democratic policies of the New Deal.[52][53]

Modern Anarcho-Capitalist Thinkers

Moving on to recent times, there are a number of thinkers that identify as "Anarcho-Capitalists," They have slight differences, but they all agree the state should be abolished, and laissez-faire capitalism is either the system compatible with the most amount of freedom or the system that would lead to the most generalized well-being, or (usually) both.

A picture of the formal creator of Anarcho-Capitalism, Murray Rothbard.

Most Anarcho-Capitalist thinkers are followers of the Austrian School of economics, such as: Murray Rothbard, the formal creator of Anarcho-Capitalism, Lew Rockwell, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, Roderick T. Long, etc. However, there are exceptions, such as David Friedman, Milton Friedman's son.

Anarcho-Capitalism can be divided between consequentialist and deontological. Friedman may be characterized as more of a consequentialist, who sees Anarcho-Capitalism as the best political system. On the other hand, Rothbard and his diciples criticize the state from an ethical standpoint (while also making practical critiques to it).

Controversial topics and Internal conflicts

Within the anarcho-capitalist movement (and more broadly, the libertarian movement) there are some disagreements worth metioning:


Abortion is an extremely divisive topic, specially when talking about it as a general concept without focusing on specifics. The libertarian ethics do not prescribe anything regarding abortion, and the subject is usually tackled based on the derived consequences of the non aggression principle. Many libertarian authors tackled the subject in different ways, usually building on the conclusion of previous authors.The end result is not a statement pro or against abortion, but a large number of things that need to be considered when tackling the subject.

The main hurdle to be overcome when discussing the subject is the impossibility of determining objectively the moment where the usual libertarian rights start applying to the developing human. It is universally agreed that a baby have rights just like any other human, but the assignment of rights to unborn people is extremely questionable, making the issue a necessarily gray area. This conclusion alone is enough to prevent any judicial convictions to be made against a person making the abortion, making it something necessarily legal in effect under an ancap framework.

However, gray area or not, abortion is still seen form or murder, depending on how the question of rights assignments is answered, and even though it is a "technically legal murder", it would still be a stigmatized practice by many. On the other hand, it is almost universally agreed that abortion is still different from other forms of murder, especially when discussing what should be done with people that violate this rule. Normal murder could result in the death penalty of the aggressor, which is a punishment widely seen as absurdly inappropriate for people that perform abortions.

This is true only under raw libertarianism with no private legislation in place, which is able to restrict the practice, which is seen as the main solution to the conflict. Private legislation on the subject is heavily encouraged to make this gray area clearer.

But there are still a lot of other issues that are part of this discussion, for example, just like you are able to expel people from your property, it is considered natural that you would be able to evict the fetus, which ends up dying due to no consequence of your own. It has no capability of surviving by itself, and you have no obligation to let it leech on you for sustenance.

This concept, however, was challenged by other libertarian authors that argue that this would be a violation of the proportionality principle, especially considering that you were responsible for placing the fetus there in the first place, knowing also that it would need your sustenance to survive. Therefore it is argued that expelling the fetus would be a form of entrapment, just like inviting someone to a helicopter and then expelling the person mid flight. On this discussion, there are details specific of each abortion case, that make this argument more or less compelling.

In conclusion, libertarian opinions on the subject usually range between something that is perfectly harmless that may even be a good thing to be encouraged, to a "technically legal murder" that should be heavily restricted through private legislation and should have severe social stigma attached to.

Family Institution

Most Anarcho-Capitalists see family as a natural institution that forms in all societies, and are a line of defense against the state, therefore the rights of parents over their households, such as the power to educate their children, is seen as extremely valuable and worth protecting. The more reactionary branches of Anarcho-Capitalism characterizes families as the basic unit of society from which the rest stems. They argue natural private law binds the household members into a hierarchical structure with members subordinated to the owner of the household (generally the father), and when children break up from this authority altogether they form new, independent households. This view of family and hierarchy is commented on by Hoppe on his article on Ludwig Von Haller.[54] Rothbard's seems to view this stance favorably, as evidenced by the following quote:

"The 'nation,' of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well. Contemporary libertarians often assume, mistakenly, that individuals are bound to each other only by the nexus of market exchange. They forget that everyone is necessarily born into a family, a language, and a culture. Every person is born into one or several overlapping communities, usually including an ethnic group, with specific values, cultures, religious beliefs, and traditions. He is generally born into a "country." He is always born into a specific historical context of time and place, meaning neighborhood and land area."

Some minority branches of Anarcho-Capitalism, characterized by being radically progressive are very sceptical about family institute (all three - extended patriarchal, extended matriarchal and nuclear), because of viewing those institutions as a source of social authority (which they oppose in every sense), and as the "main seeds of nationalism, statism, socialism, religion and authoritarianism in general", thus advocating for the elimination of the traditional family, forming "private gated polyamorous communes which children that can freely leave".

Children in Anarcho-Capitalism

The base Anarcho-Capitalist legal system does not have any prescriptions in regards to the particular treatment of children, mainly because it only focuses on the direct conclusions that are derived from the private property system. Because of that, children under a raw libertarian code of ethics are basically treated as having the same rights as adults under certain circumstances:

Children, specially younger children, usually lack cognitive ability to make complex decisions. This is not exclusive to children, and these quirks apply to any person that have difficulties in this area, including mental disability, illnesses, and even people under short term effects like unconscious people.

"To develop a theory of the rights of children, we must understand what the nature of a child is. First we recognise that it is not physical, but mental development which defines childhood—parapalegics such as Stephen Hawking are incapable of commanding their body to do certain tasks but they may still be adults. Though these disabled individuals lack certain abilities seen in most humans, they do not lack the characteristic mark of action, they merely lack the ability to wield many means which others take for granted. So it is psychological as opposed to physiological immaturity which is the defining mark of childhood."

Because of this cognitive difficulty, or difficulty making decisions in general, it opens the door for the concept of "Implied consent" and also "implied lack of consent". If someone is unconscious on a burning building and you go save them, it would be absurd to be accused of assault for kidnapping. It is heavily implied that any person who is in such situation would act in a self preserving way, so your assist is consensual, even if not verbalized.

On the same token, if a child consents to something they don't understand, like for example, being poisoned, it is heavily implied that this consent is not coming from an informed decision, but instead from their lack of understanding of the subject. Therefore any attempts by the child to consent to such thing would be legally void, and thus immediately invalidated by a heavy implication of incapability of consent.

The conflicts usually come from the subjective nature of the concept of "implied consent", and how far it could be pushed in the name of raising a child. There is no shortage of possible disagreement topics around this subject, so the answer amounts to custom.

"Under this rational theory, it is evident that any given age of consent or majority is necessarily arbitrary, whether a person is capable of expressing his will over a given domain is an entirely individual, not a collective issue. You should expect a person with severe mental impairments to become an adult only long after his far more able peers. An arbitrarily chosen universal age would imply the potential to violate both the rights of those who develop faster and those who develop slower than the chosen figure. That is to say, age is merely a proxy for psychological development, not its logical root. Furthermore, this theory differs from common attitudes in another way, in that it does not per se class corporal punishment as criminal—only if it is severe enough to inflict lasting physical or mental damage is it prohibited."

Corporal Punishments

Anarcho-capitalists believe that restitution to the victim is the most important thing in criminal justice. For example if a criminal steals something or damages something, the most important thing is for the criminal to give back the stolen item or pay for the damages. However how do you repay damages to a person's body? How much is a punch in the face worth?

Due to a lack of any objective ways to handle situations like these, ancaps are highly encouraged to create private legislation that contain arbitrary prescriptions like punishments, fines and expulsion to handle such cases, which need to be voluntarily agreed upon by all parties.

However in cases where the aggressor and the victim have no contractual relationship to each other, one proposed solution would be to inflict to the aggressor the same harm he inflicted on his victim, and allow the victim and the aggressor to negotiate an alternative form of compensation. For example if the aggressor punched the victim in the face, the victim would be entitled to punch back, but instead of punching back, the victim offered replacing the corporal punishment with a fine of a specific value, which was agreed upon by the aggressor.

This corporal punishment solution is considered a last resort and far from the ideal way to handle situations like these. The corporal punishment could also be replaced by "equivalent" punishment, especially in cases where the damage caused by the aggressor has "secondary effects", such as in the case of rape, crippling damage, and things of this sort. In these cases the secondary effects are handled by for example a payment equivalent to the loss of revenue caused by the lost limb, or something similar. Crippling back or raping back is considered to be extremely counter productive.

While this is a well accept among ancaps there are several gray areas within it where a lot of disagreement can happen, for example how do we even decide what equivalent is, and this becomes especially polemic when discussing the issue in current state run systems since the rules that could result in corporal punishments are arbitrary and imposed through aggressive violence. While some ancaps argue that corporal punishment is far better than prisons, due to the prisons being run with tax payer money, others see this being used by governments in extremely cruel and unusual ways.

Death Penalty

The general stance of Anarcho-Capitalist legal philosophy is that the death penalty is legitimate and does not violate the natural rights of the aggressor as he has forfeited some of these rights in the course of taking the rights of someone else. Thus a murderer forfeits his right to life and may be executed. This view was favored by Rothbard[56], Walter Block, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Raphael Lima Paulo Kogos, etc....

Intellectual Property

While this topic has no disagreements among Anarcho-Capitalists, there are some disagreements among libertarians. The general consensus in more recent times is that intellectual property is not a legitimate form of property, and shouldn't be protected as actual property rights of concrete goods.

The main libertarian proponent against intellectual property is Stephan Kinsella, among others such as Jeffrey Tucker and Roderick T. Long, who writes[57] that the Neo-Lockean principle of first appropriation, as basis of property, can only apply for scarce resources, since there can be no conflict regarding non-concrete and non-scarce goods. He also argues that one can only enforce intellectual property rights if one limits actual property rights over physical resources which are open to homesteading, thus IP would be little more than an arbitrary monopoly granted by the state that aggresses upon others' property rights.

Murray Rothbard takes the stance that intellectual property may actually hinder innovation, opposed to what most proponents of it seem to think, but this is just an economics stance. Politically, he argues that "infinite copyright contracts" would arise in an Anarcho-Capitalist society (and they could only arise if voluntarily agreed), and no government would be required to uphold these contracts as they would be upheld by private agencies.

On the other hand, there are thinkers such as Morris and Linda Tannehill[58], who argue that in an Anarcho-Capitalist society there would be private "data banks" whom inventors could buy insurance against unauthorized use from. These data banks would not only enforce the intellectual property rights, but they would also compensate the inventor for possible losses caused. However, though not an Anarcho-Capitalist, the biggest proponent of intellectual property rights within the libertarian movement has been Ayn Rand, who argued that "patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man's right to the product of his mind [...]"[59], though she argued that these rights, if held in perpetuity, would bring more bad than good.

Finally, there is the Anarcho-Capitalist author David Friedman, who takes a moderate position on the issue, saying that both sides make good points.

Individualist Anarchism

Within Individualist Anarchism, the two biggest proponents of intellectual property rights and against them respectively were Lysander Spooner[60] and Benjamin R. Tucker.[61]
Lysander Spooner defined wealth as anything that contributes towards a man's well-being, and property as simply wealth possessed, with an owner. He believed anything that met the criteria of contributing to human welfare could be appropriated and thus become property, including ideas.
On the other hand, Benjamin Tucker made a very similar critique of intellectual property as Stephan Kisella does: He saw property as useful for assigning the usage of scarce resources to different people, thus avoiding conflict, but since ideas aren’t concrete things to be held in property, and can be employed by different people at different places at the same time (for example, a recipe for a meal), he didn't believe their use should be restricted by patents or copyright.


This issue is and has historically been quite controversial, almost as much as abortion, within libertarian circles. Culturally right conservative factions have positions and views opposed to open borders and free migration, and more closely aligned with Right-nationalists . They argue that, in the absense of the state, everything would be privately owned, and thus there wouldn't be any such thing as open borders; they ideally want property owners and communities to decide who can enter or not in their property. This mustn't be interpreted as saying that immigration don't increase productivity or that they decrease wages[62], as their objection generally[63] is not about economics, but rather is more concerned about social cohesion in a libertarian social order, and the rights of owners to decide who enters and uses their property, seeing open borders in the regular sense as a form of trespassing (and forced integration).
They don't see open borders as comparable with free trade since immigration, opposite to trade, doesn't need to be agreed with by both parties. Those who advocate for this position also argue against the concept of a natural "right to travel".

The other side of the argument is mostly made up of progressives and the culturally left, there are the libertarians that favour open borders and free immigration in state systems, with some few also proposing this for an Anarcho-Capitalist society. It's worth noting that Murray Rothbard initially favoured this last position, opening the think-tank "Cato Institute" for promoting this idea in a libertarian perspective, which nowadays still does, but his ideas would later shift to the conception of private property borders and the more "rightist" position[55] that would very influential in the Paleo-Alliance circles, taking for example the Paleolibertarian think-tank Mises Institute and Rothbard's pupil, Hans-Hermann Hoppe[64][65].

On how to Achieve an Anarcho-Capitalist Society

  • Reforms - Some Anarcho-Capitalists believe that revolution is not the right way to achieve a better society. They favor, instead, different forms of reform such as entryism and democracy
  • Non Violent Revolution - Examples being Crypto-Anarchism and Agorism. It works together with peacefully spreading Anarcho-Capitalist ideas, partly through the separation of school and state.
  • Violent Revolution - Some Anarcho-Capitalist groups and individuals propose the violent overthrow of government and the seizure of the state's assets.
  • Secession - Hoppeans argue that the natural order can be achieved through radical political decentralization.
  • Some beliefs that markets competitivity along with technology development will eventually make the state obsolete so human progress through markets mechanisms will naturally abolish it.


Libertarianism treats marriage as a way in which individuals associate in society, which shouldn't be controlled by the state advocating generally for the privatization of it, which brings along with it a number of customary rights and duties. This doesn't necessarily go against the more traditional definition of an unbreakable bond, wherein marriage is a spiritual union rather than a legal one.

As such, it can't be said that there is a " libertarian stance on marriage" in general, besides the idea of marriage as a non-legalistic union. The reason is that marriage transcends the scope of libertarian philosophy, which is legal-political, and doesn't, by itself, give the answers to situations unconcerned with matters of assigning property rights.
A catholic libertarian , for instance, may see marriage as defined traditionally, while an atheistic one may see marriage as no more than a social convention.

Foundations and beliefs

One of the fundamental beliefs that Anarcho-Capitalists hold is that the existence of the state, defined as a monopoly of protection and law-enforcement over a given territory, must lead to a more inefficient management of scarce resources, and a necessarily more violent and less productive system compared to one based on private property, even at producing security. They also make a praxeological argument in favor of the abolition of taxation (and consequently, the state), saying that any form of theft decreases stock of present goods of the individuals affected, thus increasing their time-preference (preference for present over future goods), but taxation, being constant and not considered theft by a majority of the population, not only increases time-preferences but changes its pattern (also decreasing, at an unknown rate, the future stock of goods), making people less forward-thinking, making investment less rewarding and slowing or even reversing the civilization effect that a lower social time-preferece rate causes.[66]

Those could be considered the more economistic arguments against the state that Anarcho-Capitalists make, but most also make an juridical critique of the state. With regards to legal philosophy, Anarcho-Capitalists argue that all use of force, when not employed in self-defence, is justified ground for retaliation from the victim. They define coercion as any initiation force, or threat thereof, over another individual's property (which includes their body).
The idea that there is a natural right to own oneself and appropriate the natural resources one employs before anyone else (one's private property), for Rothbard, stems from the fact that it's impossible to establish universal ethical norms if one is to deny this fact; if the notion of self-ownership and neo-lockean property appropriation is refused, there appears a set of untermensch and ubermensch and that set of universal ethical norms is no longer valid.
On the other hand, for Hoppe, property rights stem from the fact that arguing against propertarian ethics inevitably leads to performative contradictions; just by engaging in argumentation, he says, one must recognize private property rights as an a priori condition of argumentation. Certain other anarcho-capitalists are considered "ethical intuitionists", one example being Michael Huemer, who believes natural rights exists since they can be naturally intuited.[67]
Because of this foundational philosophical view (which is deduced differently though almost universally agreed for, besides consequentialist Anarcho-Capitalists), Anarcho-Capitalists necessarily view taxation as theft, and any form of theft as illegitimate. And they belive the same for any violent regulation on individuals' behavior or control over their property which doesn't result from a contractually-binding, voluntary relationship.
In fact, because they don't see majority rule as a legitimate form of electing representatives (since voluntary contracts must be unanimous), anarcho-capitalists argue against democracy, viewing subjection through democracy as no better than subjection through any other kind of government, some even arguing for monarchism as a preferable system.[66][68]
The Anarcho-Capitalist would take this view to its logical conclusion as to say that the state itself should be dismantled, as there is no legitimate contract binding government and citizens together, and much less one that everyone has signed.[69]

From these general principles, we can move onto more specific ones. Anarcho-Capitalism, as a political system, has 4 main foundations:

  1. Absolute property rights and absolute privatization.
  2. Absolute political decentralization, eventually reaching the individual.
  3. Absolute de-monopolization - dismantling of the monopoly of violence (state).
  4. Rejection of all physical aggression as legitimate. (Non-aggression principle) N.A.P


Flag of Voluntaryism

Voluntaryism is a political ideology inhabiting the bottom right of the compass, with no specific cultural implications. It is one of the only Anarchist ideologies, alongside Autarchy, that doesn't call itself Anarchist.

It's main belief is that aggression is never, ever, justified to be initiated in a non-defensive way, and seeing taxation as robbery it believes it should be voluntary (services provided by public entities would be financed voluntarily and compete with private organizations).

However, unlike Anarcho-Capitalism, and being a mostly semantical issue, they define "government" as every kind of organization, while the state is the monopoly of violence.

It was founded in 1908 in Auberon Herbert's (posthumous) writing, "The Voluntaryist Creed", though these views were also exposed in previous works. It is probably among the first, full theoretical interpretations of a society completely based on liberty and property rights (probably only preceded by "The Production of Security" by Gustave de Molinari in 1849, and "Social Statistics" by Herbert Spencer in 1851), which greatly influenced Rothbard's thought.

Despite its creator never describing himself as an " Anarchist", he was called an "Anarchist in everything but name" by Benjamin Tucker, after his death in 1906.


Classical Rothbardianism

Classical Rothbardianism is an ideology based on the classical views of economic historian, Austrian economist, philosopher and reputed founder of anarcho-capitalism Murray Newton Rothbard, who, even if most anarcho-capitalist theorists agree with most of his lessons, some lessons end up being rejected or ignored by many theorists.

He published a considerable amount of political philosophy books that contain most of his political views, the best known being Anatomy of the State, The Ethics of Liberty, Man, Economy and State and the Libertarian Manifesto.

  • Anatomy of the State - One of the most notable works, which, in this book, Rothbard argues that the state would be the monopoly of force and violence and an institution that would violate what individuals would categorize as honest and moral. Rothbard tries to debunk (in his view) false auras of goodness and wrong notions about the state that would serve to favor it, such as that the state would represent the people.
  • The Ethics of Freedom - Another notable work, in which, in this book, he argues how ethics and morals would still exist in society without state intervention. In general, he defends an anarchist theory that even with the non-interference of the state, society would still live in an accepted manner as moral, without a state restricting freedoms to do so.
  • Man, Economy and State - One of the most important books of the Austrian school, working on macro and microeconomics with a set of axioms, curiously, the last eight chapters were removed for various reasons, but later they were published as Power and the Market in 1970. The book advocates as little government intervention as possible (at the anarchist level), valuing entrepreneurship, and a maximum laissez-faire economy.
    • Power and Market: Government and the Economy - As already mentioned, it was supposed to be part of Man, Economy and State, but it had been withdrawn for several reasons, including political reasons. In this book, he tries to differentiate private markets from intervened markets, also defending that we do not live in free markets, but in intervened ones. He also claims that regulations and plutocracy are caused by state and political reasons, also from an anarchist anti-state point of view.
  • For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto - One of his best-known works, in which most of the anarcho-capitalist philosophy with a strong opposition to the left was emphasized. In this book, he addresses issues based on classical liberals such as Adam Smith and John Locke, also tracing libertarian origins with them and up to the American Revolution of 1765, as both would be a "revolution" to "the old order that dominated their subjects for centuries" . He also argues that conservatism came about to destroy the "liberal spirit" and that they wanted a hierarchical government with privileged elites. In the book, one of the main characteristics of anarcho-capitalism appears, the NAP (non-aggression principle), in which if an aggressor or a group attacked or injured a peaceful individual, they would be inherently wrong; whose book he emphasizes that the state would not follow this principle because it is already above the moral law. The book was held by many theorists to be responsible for today's "hardcore libertarianism", along with Robert Nozick and Ayn Rand.

Rothbard's beliefs also include his appreciation for the American revolution (which led to the name of his book "Conceived in Liberty") and anti-imperialism, isolationism,[Note 5][70] anti-zionism[71], his defense of black separatism,[Note 6][72][73][9] and his early pro-choice statements.[Note 7][16]

Personality and Behaviour

AnCap is usually portrayed as AnCap Picardia memes personified, which tells you everything: His general absurd behavior is usually rationalized by the fact not a lot of people really want to believe in his ideology.

Stylistic Notes

This isn't Anarchyball, so no balding AnCap please.

How to Draw

Flag of Anarcho-Capitalism

The flag of anarcho-capitalism is a diagonal bicolour of Gold and Black, representing Capitalism (and hard money), and Anarchism, respectively. The origins of the flag of anarcho-capitalism date back to Robert LeFevre's 'Freedom School' in Colorado that, in the years 1963-1964, held a winter and spring long 'Phrontistery,' in which the Anarcho-Capitalist flag was first shown in public.[74]

  1. Draw a ball with eyes.
  2. Draw a diagonal Bicolour with Gold or Yellow at the top and Black at the bottom.

And you should be done.

Color Name HEX RGB
Black #141414 20, 20, 20
Yellow #FDFD00 253, 253, 0


Freedom Partners

  • Libertarianism - I agree with many things he says, but just a small state? The mere existence of the state is a threat to life, liberty, and property.
  • Minarchism - My moderate brother.
  • Capitalism - Duh.
  • Panarchism - Voluntary adscription governments competing between them? Absolutely based.But it seems to me that all countries are terrible today.
  • Pink Capitalism - My gay sibling and more culturally left equivalent.
  • Hoppeanism - My more culturally right equivalent. End Hoppephobia![75]
  • Paleolibertarianism - Pretty much the same as Libertarian, but conservative. We both like Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell.
  • National Libertarianism - Modern libertarians often disregard nations by forgetting that everyone is born into family, with a language, and a culture, part of one or several ethnic group(s), and with specific values and traditions.[55]
  • Austrian School - Based economics!
  • Left-Wing Market Anarchism - You want to abolish private property? Forbid wage labor? No? Then what is left-wing about you?
  • Libertarian Feminism - Understands that unrestrained free markets are good for women and minorities to exercise their freedom.
  • Eco-Capitalism - Private property rights is the best way to deal with contamination.
  • Seibtism - Good girl.
  • Yellow Unionism - Best type of trade unions.
  • Korwinism - Crazy Polish statist friend and business partner.
  • Nilssonian Anarcho-Fascism - The only fascist that can enter into my property, he's a great pal.
  • Buchananism - Great pal and ally even if you're a statist.
  • Isolationism - The state loves wars and globalism is statist.
  • Helvetic Model - Also Switzerland and Liechenstein are deeply based.

Tolerable N.A.P Violators and Commies

  • Anarchism - “We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.” - Murray Rothbard[76]
    • However, in this article, Rothbard explores "whether libertarians are anarchists," listing three types of anarchism: anarcho-communism, anarcho-pacifism, and Tucker's market anarchy ism. Rothbard criticized the first two, and noting that Tucker never called himself an anarchist. Finally came to this conclusion. He refused anarchism Until Karl Hess come up the word "anarcho-capitalism" in 1969.
  • Anarcho-Individualism - You share and respect your love for individualism; collectivism is truly a damaging and an unnatural mindset. (Wait, what do you mean wage labor is immoral?!)Also, stop sympathizing with the left, socialism is incompatible with individualism.
  • Left-Rothbardianism - Your egalitarian sentiments are a revolt against human nature.[77]
  • Anarcho-Pacifism - You're cute and the only other person who supports Adam Kokesh 202024.But stop saying that capitalism breeds violence, capitalism is peaceful and violence is committed by commies.
  • Avaritionism - Basically me on LSD and crack but without the NAP. NAP is based; otherwise, it's just chaos.
  • Authoritarian Capitalism -Capitalism is a free economy, aren't you just him? At least we can still cooperate.
  • Chicago School - We would get along a whole lot better if you simply dropped that whole Monetarism thingy and stopped being so neoclassical.
  • Neoliberalism - Fellow capitalism fan, but please stop violating the NAP so much.
  • Classical Liberalism - No taxation without representation? How about NO TAXATION?
  • Conservative Liberalism - Stop ignoring me! TAXATION IS THEFT! 1776! No step on snek!
  • Reactionary Liberalism - Old Paleocon , utopic is to believe that state can make something good, and once again, please drop the connections to feudalism.
  • Reactionary Libertarianism - I appreciate your libertarianism, but can you drop that whole feudalism thing?
  • Hayekism - Reduced taxation?! how about NO TAXATION, you Keynesian, Commie scum!
  • Objectivism - A walking contradiction and a borderline sect.
  • Liberal Feminism - Fellow capitalism fan, but Libertarian feminism's ideas are better. Sorry, not sorry.
  • Geolibertarianism - Just a more tolerable version of Georgism.
  • Mutualism - Another free-market lover, except the whole socialism thingy is quite cringe (he does spit some facts every once in a while, though[78][79][80]).
  • Queer Anarchism - Pink Capitalism's ideas are better. Sorry, not sorry. Thanks for buying my merch on pride month though.
  • Anarcho-Egoism - In one side your views are borderline leftist with ignoring property rights and NAP violations, but in other side you don't believe in egalitarianism and collectivism. So, literally 50/50.
  • National Anarchism - Stupid anti-capitalist but I really like your love for decentralization and freedom of association.
  • Paleoconservatism - Yes,the good ol' american right. We used to get along fine but now he became a statist protectionist.[66]
  • Alt-Lite - I appreciate your support for capitalism, but can you please distance yourself from that scumbag and stop harassing my sibling?
  • Capitalist Communism - 50% of the time, he is right. If only he was cut in half
  • Dengism - Most based commie I have ever seen: Even though you are a filthy statist, you at LEAST allow markets to prosper, and also, you have child-run sweat-shops, so you are cool in my book.
  • Juche - Well, I know he's an tyrannical commie and all that, but he hates taxes, smokes weed and also my frequent recreational McNuke customer; I kind of have to respect the guy.
  • Titoism - "The principle in the Communist countries should be: land to the peasants and the factories to the workers."[81]
  • Guevarism - You're a cringe tankie but Rothbard praised you apparently? Also, me and my partners made a lot of money selling your face on shirts.
  • Pol Potism - Tyrannical genocidal commi- wait, you blew up the central bank of Cambodia?
  • Posadism - Always a reliable recreational McNuke customer; no matter how drastic, business is business.
  • Soulism/Acid Communism - Great customers, regardless of our views on economics.
  • Neoreactionarism - Formalism is absolutely based, yet you still support the state.
  • Classical Conservatism - Right-wing statist, although Powell was based.
  • National Conservatism - Right-nationalist statist, some of you are somewhat based though.
  • National Liberalism - Same as above but classical liberal, which makes him better, also Farage is based.
  • Pinochetism - You're a dictator that threw commies out of helicopters? That's horrifying, but totally based!
  • Right-Wing Populism - You can be useful, but please be less statist.
  • Right Reformism - Same for you. Also, be more radical.
  • Trumpism - Filthy statist and protectionist, but keep those tax and regulation cuts coming.
  • Police Statism - Police State is bad but private security is good.
  • Stratocracy - Military State is bad but private militaries are based!
  • Theocracies - Government imposing a religion is disgusting but if it is in voluntary property rights/contractual based communities I don't have any problem.
  • State Atheism - Same as above but anti-religion.
  • Leopold II Thought - He's not me, commies. His massacres used a great deal of the Belgian treasury. But without the NAP violations he can be based.
  • Sargonism - Classlib who has awesome takes EU, redtards, and globetards, but too statist and democratic.
  • Thatcherism - Not perfect but at least you kicked Keynesianism’s ass out of Britain and in your last days you were against the EU.
  • Agorism - Black market was no threat to the state but may have helped extend its lifespan!

N.A.P Violators and Commies

  • Marxism–Leninism - An ideology that only exists to oppress and enslave. He's governmental tyranny at its worst. All you commies do is worship St*lin, justify war crimes, simp for Marx, and beg for bread.
  • Whiny Commie - It's an oxymoron to be anсom, because communism means economic authoritarianism while capitalism means economic anarchism. This ideology is just Marxism–Leninism but enforced by the majority. Thanks for buying my drugs, though.
  • State Socialism - LITERALLY ALL LEFTISTS!!!
  • Stalinism - Practice of the above. Monster that caused nothing but hunger and terror.
  • Anarcho-Syndicalism - What? It's just a more communist-looking ancom. How many ancom clones even are there?! (Psst, wanna buy this hoodie?)
  • Feudalism - I AM NOTHING LIKE HIM FOR FUCK'S SAKE! People keep calling him an older form of me though, so he must be doing something right .
  • Reactionary Socialism - Are you not just him again?
  • Nazism - My opposite: You are an authoritarian socialist.
  • Alt-Right - Aren't you that scum above again?
  • Strasserism & National Bolshevism - Nazism but in a more literal and worse sense.
  • Fascism - Cringe totalitarian collectivist.
  • Anarcho-Fascism - You're literally just a commie troll to make me look stupid, aren't you?
  • Keynesian School - Statist cuck who's devaluating our currency and ruining the economy!
  • Corporatocracy - Big corporations can be just as exploitative (not only to the free market but to people's lives) as an authoritarian government. Also, we're not the same!
  • Plutocracy - What makes you think that I should simp for you? Just because you're rich doesn't mean you're automatically OK in my book! You'll be just like any other government officials.
  • Monetarism - END THE FED! You cancerous NAP-violator!
  • Succdem - Silly succdem likes big government and more regulation. Also, YOU'RE A COMMIE!
  • Georgism - Damn the land commies! At least you're a fellow capitalist, though.
  • Social Libertarianism - You call yourself a lolbert yet want the government to give you my money, perfidious socialist!
  • Neoconservatism - Yo, so I heard you like to go to foreign countries and kill all their people for your statist agenda?! Bro, what the hell is wrong with you?! It's totally not the same when I use child slavery in the third world!
  • Democratic Socialism - Bernie is a tyrannical commie! Screw your dream welfare state: He's literally trying to turn the U.S. into a planned economy! Do you WANT our country to turn into the next Soviet Union?!
  • Ochlocracy - Hive-Mind-lite that doesn't care about the individual and violates the NAP.
  • Hive-Mind Collectivism - The future the goddamn commies want!
  • Marxist Feminism - Only unrestrained markets can liberate women! Get to helicopter miss.
  • Regulationism - Your socialist solutions only worsen the situation, the state can't solve anything!
  • Libertarian Socialism -You claim to be a small government, but you propose to do a lot of things that the government needs to do! Oxymoron! Just being against taxes and being pro-gun doesn't make you a libertarian.
  • Eugenicism - A NAP violator who does not understand choice.
  • Insurrectionary Anarchism - Ancom, but likes to violate the NAP even more! But he is based.
  • Post-Leftism - Anti-Capitalist, Insurrectionist, likes Stealing, and is Anti-Work? What is even "post-left" about you?
  • Left-Wing Populism - Demagogic commie scum!
  • Illegalism - Stealing wealth is EVIL! Especially cringe your left variant, which does this to share. But stealing from government and crony idiots is based action against them. Also - wanna buy some guns and ammunition from me?
  • Globalism - You basically want a world state which is gross, also your "free" trade agreements are a garbage[82].
  • Social Liberalism - The New Deal was one of the worst things that happened to USA.
  • EU Model - A mistake that will transform into a superstate and the Euro is a mess!
  • Fully Automated Gay Space Communism - Yes, full scale automation, AI management and robots is great, but they don't bring communism magically. Also even if you have access to the natural resources of the entire galaxy, you still can't satisfy the unlimited greed of humans. And last note - please read about "Gamification of economics"[83].
    • Actually, we got rid of unlimited greed of "humans" via transhumanist technology so screw you.
    • So, you think that "greed" is a biological trait just like this scumbag?
  • Anarcho-Nihilism - Why you violate the NAP and hate private property rights? You claim you hate leftists too but if you go against markets and property you are one of them.
  • Ego-Communism - Oxymoron in square. Individual never be free in collectivist society!
  • Protectionism - Communism-lite with nazbol influences. Really awful, and cause market disasters in the long run.
  • Environmentalism - They accuse it will charging money to breathe the air under ANCAP – so what is the AIR TAX you create?



Alternative designs

Comics and Artwork

Further Information

For overlapping political theory, see:

Classical Liberalism Austrian School Anarcho-Individualism Libertarianism
Objectivism Hoppeanism Agorism


AnCap Reading Guide

The Fundamentals of Libertarian Ethics by LiquidZulu






Online Communities




  1. ‘‘Yes, I agree 100% with that! The difference between the Revolutionary War and an interstate war is that, in the first place, an interstate war is a war of one government against another – it’s a war that aggresses against the innocent civilians of the opposite government, it’s a war that increases taxes at home, and conscription usually, to pay for it. Revolutionary war is a war against the state apparatus, a war from below by the armed public. It doesn’t have to injure innocent civilians, and it usually doesn’t. It often does not involve taxes or conscription – if it does, it does so on a very small scale.’’ - Rothbard
  2. Based on Reddit memes involving AnCaps and Libertarians to support pedophilia due to freedom of speech and (often) opposing age of consent laws
  3. Anarcho-Capitalist theorists hold both conservative and progressive views. Libertarianism, being an incomplete philosophy (only concerned with legal and political matters) doesn't contemplate moral or sociological issues. Rather, libertarianism is incorporated into individuals' overarching philosophies.
  4. "Race That" (1995) Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
  5. Even though he opposes interstate wars, he is still in favor of revolutions and civil wars, using the American revolution as an example of a just war. He is also opposed to the rise of the American state and blames Woodrow Wilson for America's foreign policy.
  6. According to him black people could flourish among them without the "oppressive power" and white power structure, but he also ended up criticizing integrationists and what he called "liberals", such as Martin Luther King Jr, showing himself as favorable to some of Malcolm X's opinions.
  7. Although he would later advocate, alongside christian right and paleolibertarians for overthrowing Roe V. Wade.
  8. Now known as "Ceadda of Mercia".


  1. "Rothband on War",
  2. Turns out, Anarcho-Capitalism ISN'T "Anarchy" by TIKhistory
  3. 3.0 3.1 The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism by David Friedman (1973).
  4. Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'? by Murray Rothbard
  5. NBU Social Values
  6. 6.0 6.1 The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View by Murray N. Rothbard
  7. A Soviet Foreign Policy: A Revisionist Perspective by Murray Rothbard
  8. 8.0 8.1 Conceived in Liberty, Vol. I-IV by Murray N. Rothbard
  9. 9.0 9.1 From Christianity to Black Power, Rothbard Offers a Unique View by Lipton Matthew
  10. A fascinating Jewish response on anarcho capitalism by Rafi Farber
  11. The libertarian message of Rose Island, video by Libertarian View
  12. 12.0 12.1 Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Biography by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  13. Rothbardianism in Iraq? by Robert P. Murphy
  14. Anarcho-capitalism, On the state Wikipedia
  15. The Privatization of Roads and Highways by Walter Block
  16. 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray Rothbard
  17. Education: Free and Compulsory by Murray Rothbard
  18. How Government "Solved" the Health Care Crisis: Medical Insurance that Worked — Until Government "Fixed" It by Roderick T. Long
  19. Government Medical "Insurance" by Murray Rothbard
  20. Free banking theory, history, and a Laissez-Faire model by Larry J. Sechrest.
  21. The Case for a 100 Percent Gold Dollar by Murray Rothbard
  22. Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles by Jesus Huerta de Soto
  23. Reflections on Legal Polycentrism by Gerard N. Casey
  24. 24.0 24.1 Legal systems very different from ours by David Friedman (2019).
  25. Chaos Theory by Robert P. Murphy
  26. The Idea of a Private Law Society by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  27. The Production of Security by Gustave de Molinari
  28. The Private Production of Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  29. The Myth of National Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and others
  30. The Great Fiction, 2nd Edition, ch. 13-15 (p.187-227); by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  31. Very Detailed Political Compass by u/u01aua1
  32. The Republic of Cospaia: An Anarchist Renassance City by Ellie McFarland
  33. Private Law in the Emerald Isle by Finbar Feehan-Fitzgerald
  34. Private Defense in the History of Genoa by Matteo Salonia
  35. Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government by Thomas Whiston
  36. The Vikings were Libertarians by Roderick T. Long
  37. Anarchist FAQ (version 5.2) by Bryan Caplan
  38. Mutual Aid, Ch. 5 "Mutual Aid in the Medieval City and Ch. 6 "Mutual Aid in the Medieval City (continued)" by Peter Kropotkin
  39. Medieval Cities by Henri Pirenne
  40. Law and Revolution by Harold Berman
  41. Feudalism: A System of Private Law by Ryan McMaken
  42. The Not So Wild, Wild West by Terry Anderson and P.J. Hill
  43. Conceived in Liberty, Vol. V by Murray N. Rothbard
  44. The Production of Security by Gustave De Molinari
  45. Gustave De Molinari and the Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 by David M. Hart
  46. Neither the Wars or the Leaders were Great, by Ralph Raico
  47. Gustave De Molinari's profile on the Mises Institute by Gary Galles
  48. Social Statics; or the Conditions Essential to Human Happiness by Herbert Spencer
  49. r/VoluntaristMemes
  50. Auberon Herbert on compulsorary taxation as the "citadel" of state power (1885)
  51. Liberty, Volume 15, Number 6, Page 16 by Benjamin Tucker
  52. On Doing the Right Thing by Albert Jay Nock
  53. Our Enemy, The State by Albert J. Nock
  54. "The Idea of a Private Law Society: The Case of Ludwig Von Haller" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
  55. 55.0 55.1 55.2 Nations by Consent by Murray Rothbard
  56. Libertarian Position Capital Punishment by Murray N. Rothbard
  57. Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsell
  58. The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill
  59. Capitalism: The Uknown Ideal by Ayn Rand
  60. The Law of Intellectual Property by Lysander Spooner
  61. The Attitude of Anarchism towards Industrial Combinations by Benjamin R. Tucker
  62. Democracy: The God that Failed ch. 7 sec. 1; by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  63. The Problem with Aggregate "Calculations" of the Value of Immigration by Gor Mkrtchian
  64. The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  65. On Free Immigration and Forced Integration by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  66. 66.0 66.1 66.2 Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  67. Ethical Intuitionism by Michael Huemer
  68. From Aristocracy, To Monarchy, To Democracy by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  69. No Treason by Lysander Spooner
  70. The New Isolationism An interview with Murray Rothbard and Leonard Liggio
  71. The Libertarian Forum - Vol. 8.11 - "Is Dayan Just Another Rommel?: The Radical Case Against Zionism" by Joseph R. Stromberg - Edited by Murray Rothbard
  72. The Black Revolution by Murray Rothbard
  73. An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard by Justin Raimondo
  74. Bertrayal of the American Right, page 188, by Murray Rothbard
  75. Hoppephobia by Rothbard (1990).
  77. Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Human Nature by Murray N. Rothbard.
  78. “The Solution of the Social Problem” by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon; Chapter V: “The Bank of the People”; Para. 5.
  79. “The Bastiat-Proudhon Debate on Interest” – Letter 3; Proudhon to Bastiat, November 19th, 1849
  80. “Confessions of a Revolutionary” by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon; Chapter XI: “Who am I?”
  81. Confiscation and the Homestead Principle by Murray Rothbard (1969).
  82. The NAFTA "Free" Trade Hoax by Murray N. Rothbard
  83. The Gamification of the Entire Economy: How the New World Is Being Designed by Nuno Fabiao