@lanodan You are making Eric S. Raymond very angry right now.
@lanodan
Anarcho-capitalism was created as a "bridge" between the "New Right" (classical liberals, Objectivists, etc) and the "Old Left" (left-anarchists). The idea was that all human association and institutions should be voluntary whether that be from privately owned companies, self-employeed individuals, worker co-ops, or non-profit organizations. There were originally people on both sides who were on board, but things feel apart when Rothbard sided with the Paleo-Conservatives, later in his life.
Though due to the fact that some people believe that it's contradictory to anarchism, some instead go for terms like Voluntaryist or Autarchist (rule of self).
>Like you'd replace police with private milicia, and from there they can claim they own everything between each others.
Ancaps believe that property can only be obtained either by trading or applying labor (or having someone voluntarily applying the labor for you) to unclaimed property, unlike the state which can claim whatever property they want as long as they have the means to take it and defend it.
>For example open marketplaces and other kind of bazaar would be essentially gone.
Not necessarily. You can still have collectively owned property if a group of people decided to apply labor to unclaimed property and declare that it is collectively owned. So you can still have open markets that nobody actually owns but anyone can set up a stand.
The so called "left-rothbardians" believe that any property that was owned by the state (think public parks and plazas) should belong to everyone if the state is abolished.
But violence isn't a thing only states can contract. And violence allows to force trades, like are you unaware of mafias?
And it's why for me unclaimed property is a complete myth if you don't get rid of monopolies on violence.
@lanodan Mafias and states are considered the same thing by libertarian principles. Both are NAP violators.
Anyway, I honestly don't care what political or economic system people choose to live by. While I would like to see a modern ancap society come into being (which we probably will see with things like seasteading). I wouldn't force the entire world to live like that. It's better to have smaller micro-societies with their own ideologies to see what works and what doesn't than to argue about how the whole world should live.
Like the ideal of independent villages/towns isn't really compatible with capitalism, because at some point you should find a balance between production and needs, meaning ability to use much less margins, useful to be competitive. And in the end should mean not acquiring more capital, only giving back as much as you take.
I'd rather not have copyright (and patents) either but I don't want copyright abolition without also a lot of other kinds of abolitions because otherwise we're pretty much doomed to having no devices that we own.
And for me ancap is missing the entire point of why anarchism got created in industrial revolution, most of the problems the state poses also exists with megacorps (and association of both is horribly awful).
Like you'd replace police with private milicia, and from there they can claim they own everything between each others.
For example open marketplaces and other kind of bazaar would be essentially gone.