Tenet 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right, you can live in the jungle and not have any contracts, or you can choose to live in a community and set up explicit rules among property owners, or on your own property. AnCaps can very well enforce contracts. This contract can prohibit the eviction of Children, unless they can be transferred safely to another Guardian.

Someone can offer to pay to become the new Guardian, but they are still bound by the same inherent condition of Guardianship - if they abuse the Child, they will owe compensation and may have their position contested in a manner similar to contesting the abuse of an unconscious individual.

The outsider can operate on the base assumption that the victim would want protection from aggression, and engage on their behalf until they regain control.

Tenet 2 points ago +2 / -0


A Rational Theory of the Rights of Children by Ian Hersum is an interesting entry.

In my mind, there should be a distinction of concepts:

The Child as a Latent Self-Owner:

  • They are a Self-Owner as a Human Being (HPC), and have the inherent potential to become a Legal and Moral Agent.
  • Their ownership is Latent, because their capacity for decision making is still in development, and is demonstrably insufficient for Self-Guardianship.
  • Guardianship, the positive of maintaining the rights of another Human that is incapable of doing so themselves.

With these givens, this follows:

  • Children are not owned, they cannot be "bought and sold" without aggression.

  • Children have Guardians, the position of a Guardian is distinct

  • Guardianship itself can be traded or established via homesteading.

  • Natural Parents are the default Guardians, but must gradually give up the extent of their control until the Child becomes an adult.

  • Guardianship should be considered similar to maintaining a Trust in a voluntary fashion. Any type of abuse of this trust can be evaluated similarly to any other form of aggressive violence.

  • Child abusers can be contested directly, or via arbitration if available, similarly to how anyone witnessing a crime can choose to step in and offer help to the victim.


  • Parents may decide to abandon a Child with someone capable of keeping them alive and protecting their rights. This is normally called an Orphanage and Adoption.
  • A person that finds an abandoned Child can work to provide and raise that child, this effort in itself providing them the justification to being considered the Guardian.
  • The more civilized and formal the location, the more notification is required for any Guardianship status changes, to avoid forestalling.
  • You can step in to stop aggression, and your actions can be evaluated for legality by observers and participants. The base assumption when rescuing a temporarily incapacitated individual is that they would want to be saved and taken care of until the time where their ability to make decisions is restored.

Reference: HPC - Homeostatic Property Cluster https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/#SpecHomePropClusKind Simple example: "Something that looks like a Duck, quacks like a Duck, and has the DNA of a duck, is most likely a Duck - even if it's missing a wing." When defining Humans in this manner, the temporary inability to make decisions does not deprive anyone of their inherent right as a latent self-owner or their potential for Legal and Moral Agency.

Tenet 2 points ago +2 / -0

That may be your desire, but I have the right to disagree and band together with other property owners to establish a Covenant Community, and secure a private border against ideologies and activities that detract from Human flourishing, and that oppose the protection of my rights.

I wish to disassociate with the delusional ideology of extreme Individualism.

I wish to affirm the Human nature of a guardian of children, community builder, group-survivor and promoter of supportive culture.

The rejection of the State is not the same as the rejection of a National identity.

The rejection of the State is not the same as the rejection of voluntary forms of Government.

Anarchism is the rejection of the Archon, the aggressive overlord. Anarchism is not Lawlessness or the prohibition on Voluntary Organization and Natural Hierarchy.

Consider this summary reference: https://mises.org/wire/getting-libertarianism-right

Tenet 0 points ago +1 / -1

Considering the #1 attack against the Right in the USA is to label them as Jew-haters, this may be a functional defense mechanism for a politician who cast his alignment with the populist right against major parts of the State.

This kind of pandering does look clumsy in 2022, particularly from a person that. in action, supports a policy that ultimately hurts both the USA and Israel: the stealing from US Citizens to fund the US Military Industry via support of Israel. It may have made some sense during the Cold War with the USSR, from 1960's to 2000's, but was always wrong on principle, and is now wasteful in practice.

Tenet 1 point ago +1 / -0

Anarchist Capitalism, or Voluntarism, or Free Market Anarchism, is the promotion of Human Agency as the primary axiom for determining what should be considered Legal. It is an objective legal theory, and resulting practice.

  1. Laws are by definition a form of conflict resolution. When two people decide not to fight over resources, and instead negotiate, they can objectively evaluate the status of an action. This evaluation is independent of their opinions, it is derived objectively.

  2. Body Autonomy necessarily leads to Homesteading as the only consistent definition of Property. When a person finds a resource in nature and works to modify and utilize it, they mix their labor with the resource. Anyone that shows up afterwards and challenges said ownership, is in fact placing a claim on this labor, and as consequence, on the body of the other person. The first person to find and utilize a resource is therefore the rightful owner.

  3. Free Trade (and Inheritance) is therefore the only other legal way property can be obtained. A person can trade goods for goods, or offer their help for a fixed price per time period.

  4. Aggression can therefore be defined as the initiation of violence that undermines another person's body autonomy. "Might Makes Right" is simply conflict, even if it masquerades as "law". Violence is only acceptable as a defense against aggression (this includes the ability to respond to threats before they deal damage, it is not pacifism). Anyone trying to justify Aggression has abandoned conflict resolution, and is defending being an outlaw.

These are, in my opinion, the necessary building blocks from which you can understand how Libertarians are different:

The State, as opposed to a Government, is an inherently illegal structure, defined by being based on Violence, where, at best the majority vote to abuse the minority, and, more typically, a minority of oligarch dominate everyone. The State, when analyzed consistently, is a form of progressive enslavement.

Some Libertarians believe that a Small State (a small amount of illegal and aggressive activity) is both possible to contain, and justified by some utilitarian calculus. They are Minarchists, and where many people start before they read the literature.

Some Libertarians believe that Reducing the State is a necessary step in the gradual conversion of society towards functional Anarchism, and get involved in State Politics to mitigate the damage, and fight the system from within. They can be consistent Anarchists if they indeed act to dismantle the state.

It is important to understand a distinction:

A Legal Government is one that is established by Property Owners to manage their own property. This can be a Private Property (Head of Family as owner), or a Covenant Community (Shareholders as owners, organized as they wish). (ref: Hoppe, "Getting Libertarianism Right").

Q: Who will build roads? A: Private companies (see Turnpike Roads, UK prior to 1880's; Covenant communities may require maintenance fees as part of the shareholder agreement).

Q: Who will provide healthcare? A: Private individuals and voluntary groups (look at the history of Lodge Doctors for one functional solution; look HSA's and groups like CrowdHealth). Insurance services work great when they are not distorted by State meddling.

Q: How is this different from the State and the Social Contract? A: It is voluntary, with Explicit contracts evaluated objectively for legality. The illusory "Social Contract" can be freely interpreted to go from as little as a 1% tax, to as much as Military Conscription (100% tax). Supporters of this concept are telling you they reserve the right to enslave you, either gradually or whenever they deem it necessary.

A State can always manufacture a vote to deprive you of your most basic right, and prevent you from leaving. A Covenant cannot prevent you from selling your share and moving to a competing community, or purchasing land independently and establishing your own.

Whenever a question is asked about how things are to be done - the fundamental answer is "The market, the people working within it, will read price signals to determine what services are needed and provide them".

However, since that seems alien to most people, and successful examples are carefully ignored by statist "educators", Free Market advocates must provide robust proposals, likely solutions, and examine past and present examples that achieve success. This is what is done in MISES institute, by popularizers and debaters.

I know this ended up being quite lengthy, but I hope the details are sufficiently interesting. I'm open to further questions and criticism.