Thought it was painfully obvious. My bad.
In the mean time calling something that has 'has laws, roads, trade, defense' Anarchy is the worst piece of marketing in the history of political philosophy.
What most Anarcho-capitalists actually mean when they refer to an 'Anarchic Society' is just a regular state without taxes. Sometimes their Utopia is a lot more oppressive than a regular western country, but as long as it tax free its oppression free.
Anyways, removing the state infrastructure has a poor anthropological record of spontaneously generating free markets and free people.
1. I'm not an AnCap.
2. What AnCaps advocate isn't a state without taxes. See polycentric/free market/customary legal "systems" they advocate, as do left-libertarian anarchists like myself.
3. Anarchy is a society (a group of individuals) organized voluntarily (according to the anti-coercion principles of the philosophy of anarchism)...panarchist synthesis in organization and economic relations of individuals. Past societies fit that description from at least 14,000 years ago to about 6,000 years ago, to my knowledge. It wasn't modern, it wasn't advanced, it wasn't wealthy, etc...but that's a function of advances in science mostly. You take their ideas, update slightly for modern scientific understanding (like technology and economics), and you get anarchy in any real sense of the word (not the chaotic sense). It's not a marketing ploy...it's facts about history that show we don't require a state for damned thing the state says only it can provide via coercion.
4. Anarchism is the only anti-utopian philosophy. All statist ideologies assume the world can be coerced into some Utopia. Read the story Utopia by the man who wrote it (More)...it describes a state communist colony of sorts (forced egalitarianism). Anarchism cannot be utopian because it doesn't seek uniformity...and uniformity in human organization and economic relations is clearly impossible (even when coerced). Anarchism sees this problem, and instead of coming up with yet another ideology to force conformity, or imagining uniformity can ever be achieved via voluntary interactions, they reject uniformity. Hence, anarchism is a non-homogenous philosophy. It's heavily diverse (as human preferences tend to be without threats to stop the diversity and force it into black or gray markets).
5. I don't know any AnCaps who preach any oppression at all. If they do, they can't be anarchists, logically. Calling pure liberty and a lack of coercion against innocents "oppression" is quite Orwellian.
6. Taxes ARE oppressive. It's forced labor, albeit indirectly. The original taxes were in Egypt...if you couldn't pay in crops or something else, you went into slavery until the debt to state was paid. This was usually for some months. But now, we just take a percentage of earnings, as to make the slavery less obvious...but you still work the first 2 days of a 5 day work week for the state with no choice in the matter. At the end of the year, you have labored under coercion for months. Citizenship in a state is just a euphemism for being a slightly more free slave. A lack of citizenship is often worse, as you still are a slave, but one without any real protections or limited freedom to move between plantations (nation-states).
7. And of course REMOVING state infrastructures has a poor record of spontaneously generating free markets or free people...just as removing any monopoly without first allowing competition to supplant need will lead to a lack of whatever the monopoly supplies (imagine a food production and distribution monopoly in state communism not being slowly replaced via market solutions, but instead being bombed out of existence; instant starvation for those dependent on that monopoly, of course). The state fails or is conquered, resulting in pure anomie (a lack of social norms due to overregulation or conversely a complete lack of law), and you blame the chaos on statelessness, not a failed or conquered state. How illogical. It isn't the absence of state that is the problem...it's the lack of enlightened transition to statelessness in the minds of the masses. Imagine skipping the intellectual aspects of the Enlightenment, and then just magically making all clergy disappear. No shit the people would just nominate new clergy...they are brainwashed, and that hasn't changed. The only way to tear power away from an institution, whether corporate, union, church, or state is to enlighten people so it can be taken apart and replaced by market alternatives SIMULTANEOUSLY. To pull the rug out from underneath a people via a failed state or conquered state, and yet expect free markets/free people to emerge, is like expecting the people to become Deists, atheists, and rational theists without the couple hundred years of intellectual change that occurred via the ideas of the Enlightenment.
8. If you think anarchists, of any type, wish to just wave a magic wand (even if we had one) and make the state disappear overnight, you misunderstand us completely. That would lead to the disaster you already mistakenly blame on a lack of a state. We seek a 2nd Enlightenment in the minds of the masses, leading to an orderly (but spontaneous) replacement of state coerced monopolies, monopsony, and cartels (for both the state and its cronies) via both for-profit and non-profit voluntary solutions.
9. If you think state socialism works, in a minimalist form (a minarchy is just state coerced collective ownership over the means of production in various markets, like defense, law, and roads), then why not advocate state socialism in every market (state communism)? I mean, why do you draw the line on your support for state socialism at just a few markets, if it is so good? Logical consistency is not the realm of minarchists.
