I should have been clearer: I'm not advocating anarcho-capitalism, just having an academic discussion. My point was that a state isn't necessary to enforce contracts, although the competing entities that would theoretically replace the state are quite state-like in many ways as you point out. The Icelandic Commonwealth was anarcho-capitalistic though, wasn't it (anarchy + property rights)? Worked okay for a few hundred years.

I do see your point that anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchism, though. The societies they envision are radically different.

Fair enough. Sorry, dealing with an endless stream of ancaps who demand that yes, they are 'the real' anarchists and yes, their vision of the future would lead to grand utopia.

> The Icelandic Commonwealth was anarcho-capitalistic though, wasn't it (anarchy + property rights)? Worked okay for a few hundred years.

I do know that Iceland is discussed in these circles, and I only know that both sides go "yes it is no it isn't." I haven't studied it enough to make my own call. Primarily, as far as I'm concerned, if it takes a state form, it's just as bad, so I haven't spent any time in this area."

> Anarcho-capitalism is ahistoric, silly, degenerate, and impossible.

So is anarcho-anything.

Judging by your profile and blog you seem to be politically interested enough to be able to motivate that comment.

Or I'm I just a victim of your "Trolling hard on HN" bullet-point?

I know you're trolling, but for the benefit of everyone else, anarchism actually existed in real-world Catalonia, the Ukraine, and arguably in Paris, in the real world, for multiple years. You are factually incorrect.

Sure, and the an-caps point to Medieval Iceland.

I don't have a ton of interest in repeating left-anarchist/anarcho-capitalist arguments with you though. It's clear you have the left-anarchist bullet points down.

I chalk up my anarchist period to indiscretions of youth. Nowadays I am more concerned about choice and innovation in government than in abolishing government.