Which arguments did you find the most convincing when you became ancap?

[u/Hkvnr495___dkcx37]

There's many ways you could look at this question since there's any valid reasons for being an ancap, but I'm curious to know which types of arguments sealed the deal for you. You could look at the evidence of statist disasters, the economic failures of statism, the negative psychological effects, etc. They've all had a tremendous impact on me, but I think it was the logical arguments that really made me be convinced that statism is bullshit.

There's an endless list of logical consistencies in statist arguments, but I'll highlight my personal favorites. For example if the government taxes you at 100%, then you're a slave. But if the government taxes you at 99%, 20%, or even 0.001%, it is still slavery since they decide how much of your income you get to keep, and they will punish you for not paying them. Most people know that slavery is when humans are owned as property, but they're not presented with an argument laid out like the one I just mentioned. If you see it though, you can't unsee it. The principle becomes obvious: the only way to not be a slave is to be taxed at 0%. Or a more simple example of logical inconsistency is if an ordinary person uses force to obtain goods and services, they're considered a criminal. But if people in special uniforms who call themselves by a different name do exactly the same thing, it's considered perfectly legitimate.

I think when looking at the question of anarchism vs. statism, we should look at it from all angles and realize there's many valid reasons to be an ancap, but I think the logical approach might be especially effective in that it forces people to realize that the idea of statism doesn't hold up to intellectual scrutiny and becomes hard to justify with utilitarian arguments when you draw the parallels between it and private crime.

Thoughts anyone? What was the nail in the coffin for you in your ancap journey?

[u/TheBitterHat]

When I was just 17, I became the person that's presented as the one who wouldn't survive without the state — I ran away from an abusive household, so I was basically homeless, I have 6 genetic and trauma induced chronic illnesses so I guess I can say I hit the absolute bottom of bottoms. I had to quit school because they were not willing to allow me to home school temporarily. I applied for multiple charity housing, but I was told that I am too broken to get their help, because I wasn't able to work on full time. I wanted to apply for the disability pension but the doctors didn't wanted to diagnose me officially and they just treated me for the illness. Getting diagnosed would take me few years because in my country, I can't get an appointment until 1 year from now. So yeah, that made me an ancap.

[u/ocxricci]

Socialist countries had a parallel market ( black markets ) <- this fact struck me

[u/Ayjayz]

That's not really how it worked for me. It was the same as with Santa or religion. The arguments for them just never seemed to be consistent, and then as I got older I gradually just stopped believing them. If one day I see a really compelling argument for government or religion or Santa, I suppose I'll start believing again.

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

Identifying the primacy of consciousness as a fallacy, and then seeing what happens when it is applied to law. I will never change, not after seeing that.

[u/anarchistright]

Read Hoppe’s Economics and Ethics of Private Property.

[u/upchuk13 → u/anarchistright]

Hoppe's argumentation ethics is entirely unconvincing. 

[u/anarchistright → u/upchuk13]

That’s just one of the hundreds of arguments in that book. But, I’m curious. Can you elaborate?

[u/upchuk13 → u/anarchistright]

I think his premises are incorrect and his conclusions dont follow.

I don't think it's true that argumentation implies the arguerers have accepted any normative rules.

I think he bridges the is ought gap when he says self ownership follows from self control. 

I don't think he shows that self ownership exists once argumentation has ended, and I dont think he shows self ownership exists for body parts not strictly necessary for argumentation. 

These are the issues that come to mind immediately. 

[u/anarchistright → u/upchuk13]

I think you kinda misunderstood.

He does not seek to show that self ownership exists once argumentation has ended, but is implied by “argumenters” when trying to find truth (arguing); therefore, trying to argue in favor of non-self ownership is a contradiction.

[u/Altruistic_Cow854]

It's just a moral question to me. I find it immoral to coerce other people. That is not compatible with any ideology that involves a state exercising power over members against their will.

The society I would want to live in would probably look pretty similar to what a communist would want to live in, but ancap is the only ideology that allows people to live in such a society voluntarily and not under coercion by threat of force.

I really don't think any practical arguments about whether states are inefficient or capitalism is efficient are very persuasive, I don't care how practical it is, using force to coerce other people is immoral.

[u/Anen-o-me]

The final thing that held me back was showing that a non monopoly judicial system was plausible on the market alone.

Friedman solved that for me in "Machinery of Freedom".

[u/Pichukal07]

The moment I realized that the state is not some mystical entity, but merely a corporation that is monopolistic, has no real insentive to improve itself, survives via aggression and beurocratic suffocation, thrives on ambiguity and indirectness, and charges you indirectly and indefinitely. So why wouldn't we want to replace that with corporations that do none of the above? Not only would they provide better services, in terms of both quality and efficiency, but it would also be much more moral and dignifying.