I think anarcho-capitalism is essentially communism at a sma...

Brunswick

npub1c856kwjk524kef97hazw5e9jlkjq4333r6yxh2rtgefpd894ddpsmq6lkc

hex

46d96c1d6b345c24cd9d08c4d319ca1527ceb4b97084985999dbbf071e31df92

nevent

nevent1qqsydktvr44nghpyekws33xnr89p2f7wkjuhppyctxvah0c8rccalysprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsvr6dt8ft292mv5jlt7382vje0mfq2ccc3azrt4p45v5sknj6kksclnahny

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-04-19T12:30:41Z

↳ Reply to Cyph3rp9nk (npub1lnms53w04qt742qnhxag5d6awy7nz6055flnmjkr6jg39hm86dlq7arrnt)

For an anarcho-capitalist, if a man wants to sell his body parts while he’s still alive and end up without arms and legs, that’s fine. For me, that’s...

I think anarcho-capitalism is essentially communism at a smaller scale, with the added hypothesis that it could possibly be stable.

It begins with the observation that “man is always in a state of anarchy until he encounters the state,” but communism makes a very similar observation: “man begins his life in a communal society where his parents provide for his every need, and he acts in the ‘communal self-interest.’” Both are true, and both are only partially true.

This reflects a pattern of thought that identifies essential truths, distills a view of the world through a single idea, and then extrapolates an idyllic world where people are assumed to be “essentially good.” Marx and Rothbard are more similar than they are different, though this is difficult to see because they appeal to different aspects of self-interest and envy—Marx to envy of the rich, and Rothbard to resentment of the state. Both can be understood as engaging in forms of social engineering, presuming that people are more good than bad.

At root, their shared shortcoming is their rejection of a Christian anthropology. If one begins with the premise that all are fallen and require rebirth through Christ into true sonship with the Father, then the notion that man is, on average, “good” is a deception. An idyllic world cannot emerge from human systems alone, but only through the reign of Christ. In this view, government exists not to restrain those perfected in true freedom, but to govern those who are not. The perfect world, then, is not one managed by an improved social structure, but one in which all are redeemed.

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "46d96c1d6b345c24cd9d08c4d319ca1527ceb4b97084985999dbbf071e31df92",
  "pubkey": "c1e9ab3a56a2ab6ca4bebf44ea64b2fda40ac6311e886ba86b4652169cb56b43",
  "created_at": 1776601841,
  "tags": [
    [
      "alt",
      "A short note: I think anarcho-capitalism is essentially communis..."
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "94a7fa0456a2c9be037b03eb834ce9f3729a8d2ae77b870f123c1618d22b0444",
      "wss://nostr.mom/",
      "root",
      "fcf70a45cfa817eaa813b9ba8a375d713d3169f4a27f3dcac3d49112df67d37e"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "fcf70a45cfa817eaa813b9ba8a375d713d3169f4a27f3dcac3d49112df67d37e",
      "wss://bcast.girino.org/"
    ],
    [
      "r",
      "https://self-interest.’”/"
    ],
    [
      "client",
      "Amethyst"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "I think anarcho-capitalism is essentially communism at a smaller scale, with the added hypothesis that it could possibly be stable.\n\nIt begins with the observation that “man is always in a state of anarchy until he encounters the state,” but communism makes a very similar observation: “man begins his life in a communal society where his parents provide for his every need, and he acts in the ‘communal self-interest.’” Both are true, and both are only partially true.\n\nThis reflects a pattern of thought that identifies essential truths, distills a view of the world through a single idea, and then extrapolates an idyllic world where people are assumed to be “essentially good.” Marx and Rothbard are more similar than they are different, though this is difficult to see because they appeal to different aspects of self-interest and envy—Marx to envy of the rich, and Rothbard to resentment of the state. Both can be understood as engaging in forms of social engineering, presuming that people are more good than bad.\n\nAt root, their shared shortcoming is their rejection of a Christian anthropology. If one begins with the premise that all are fallen and require rebirth through Christ into true sonship with the Father, then the notion that man is, on average, “good” is a deception. An idyllic world cannot emerge from human systems alone, but only through the reign of Christ. In this view, government exists not to restrain those perfected in true freedom, but to govern those who are not. The perfect world, then, is not one managed by an improved social structure, but one in which all are redeemed.",
  "sig": "0452ef7612f75121508be6168d8cf56f3edb32c2aa6830e96c4fe34027fd261f8ec4fd57f7b4aadd69dfa11149cc254fde90824921297dfa7f9a79c374e837cb"
}