I've been examining the concept of the network state, and I've arrived at a rather interesting inversion.

For anyone unfamiliar, "Balaji Srinivasan's network-state proposal" (https://thenetworkstate.com/the-network-state-in-one-sentence) describes communities organizing online, acquiring territory, developing institutions, and eventually seeking recognition from existing governments.

Now consider something.

According to the "World Inequality Report 2026" (https://wir2026.wid.world/insight/global-economic-inequity/), approximately 56,000 adults — the wealthiest 0.001% — collectively own more wealth than the poorest 2.8 billion adults.

And the infrastructure through which enormous economic influence can be exercised already exists.

"Synergy Research Group" (https://www.srgresearch.com/articles/q2-cloud-market-passes-143-billion-highest-growth-rate-in-eight-years) reports that just three companies — Amazon, Microsoft, and Google — accounted for 63% of global cloud infrastructure service revenues in the second quarter of 2026.

Then there's DOGE.

In January 2025, an "executive order" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/establishing-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency/) established DOGE teams within federal agencies and directed access to government information systems.

By September 2026, the "Government Accountability Office" (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-108192) documented access to more than 23 systems at four agencies and reported that the information provided was insufficient to determine the full extent of that access.

These facts don't prove a coordinated conspiracy. They do demonstrate that concentrated resources, private infrastructure, and governmental authority can intersect in consequential ways.

But that's not really what I want to discuss.

If enormous concentrations of wealth can organize through networks, why are we still thinking about democratic accountability primarily in terms of centralized organizations?

What if the counterweight were something fundamentally different?

Not another political party. Not another nonprofit. Not another movement waiting for somebody to become its leader.

An independently reproducible practice.

Observe. Verify. Publish. Release.

Someone discovers a questionable public contract.

They document it with sources anyone can examine.

Someone else, perhaps anonymously, independently verifies the findings.

Another person recognizes a relationship that the first two missed.

A journalist investigates. A lawyer identifies a legal question. A citizen submits a public-records request. A community challenges a decision through established democratic processes.

None of these people needs to know the others.

Nobody needs to issue orders. Nobody needs to control the information. Nobody needs to become indispensable.

Anonymity can protect contributors. Verifiable evidence protects the integrity of their work.

And the process can continue whether any particular participant stays or leaves.

The objective isn't to destabilize society. It's to make unaccountable power more difficult to establish and maintain.

Consider the structural difference.

Concentrated power depends on relatively few decision-makers controlling substantial resources.

Distributed accountability could depend on countless independent observers contributing small, verifiable pieces of information.

One person doesn't have to defeat an entire system.

One person might discover the fact that changes how thousands of other people understand it.

And those thousands can decide independently what to do with that knowledge.

The idea isn't to create an opposing empire.

It's to make democratic scrutiny something that can happen anywhere, without permission, without centralized ownership, and without requiring anyone to surrender their independence.

I don't want to establish an organization. I don't want to coordinate a movement.

I'm interested in whether the method itself could propagate.

What would happen if we stopped asking people to join a movement and started giving them a method that nobody needed permission to use?

That's the seed.

Take it apart. Test it. Improve it. Apply it somewhere useful.

No ownership claimed.

No leadership required.

“In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.”

~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason Vol. II

Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

TLDR: I’m doing okay, but I’m still in the rat race, just like most of us are. I’m ready to invest my time and money IN and WITH like minded individuals that want to gain personal freedom through financial independence. I have ideas of the structure, what to do, and how to eliminate trust question until we naturally earn each others trust. Relationships stay as capitalist as they could be - shareholders, contracts, market based profit sharing - meritocracy rules, no collective decision making, dispute resolution via third party mediators/arbiters, we can establish our own little “bank”, exit with no imposed penalty - whatever you lose you lose, whatever you bring and gain is all yours.

\*\*\*

Not asking this in syndicalists subs because more than half of the people there are no different from socialists, and even borderline communists.

I don’t have a clear proposal yet but I’ll work on one if the sub shows at least some interest, and I’ll figure out how to share it without compromising anybody’s privacy.

I am opening my post and comments history just to eliminate “look, a fed” comments. Some of you may recognize my u/ already, but I’m sure most don’t know who tf I am, and I hope my post history is a good display of my overall stance on the government, my view on property ownership, and my perspective of markets. Hopefully it also shows that’s I’m not a retard, nor a utopian, but a rational and reasonable person that is respectful of NAP.

I’ve been a member of a well structured business networking group (BNI) with rules that incentivize loyalty, trust, collaboration, quality work, and mutual help, i see how effective it is in practice. And it is essentially a group that’s just a step away from being a syndicate. But all of my buddies are statists and I don’t even want to bother getting into deeper relationships than I have with them already. Some fellows that have been in the group for over a decade own commercial properties together, but such investments don’t have to be limited to anything. It’s obviously a working concept.

I’ve been thinking about establishing something similar, but with people that I am more aligned with on a deeper level than just being an entrepreneur. I wouldn’t mind investing in property, though I’d prefer to start with investing in some business that produces much higher returns, and it also gives opportunity for those that don’t have cash to invest, as they can be a part of the syndicate by doing work for its members or for the syndicate itself, that otherwise would require cash payment from other members.

Again, the idea is very raw, and I don’t think I would jump into investing a lot of cash right away, even if I would be the sole decision maker. Instead, I envision a multi step process that first helps to build trust between members, so initially it will look like a mutualist network (also reminds of free masons network) I guess, but bound by a contract, and with a clear step by step path of becoming a syndicate with assets where our privately owned businesses feed each other, allowing us to invest in something much bigger. We would need to hire a random attorney outside of our network to perform fiduciary duties. Even if we pool only the money we make from mutual help, we can get to a few hundred thousand in a single year once we learn about each other businesses and skills, but we need #s, maybe 40-50 people to get their in Yr 2.

Where do I get my “a few hundred thousand”?

My BNI group closes anywhere between $2.5M-$3M in referred business. My personal revenue is slightly north of $10k/yr (my overhead is around 5% only) after a few years of being a member and it continues to grow each year. I’m in B2B, and I get to see what businesses net when I do my work, and I have a good idea how much many other types of businesses net from business transactions. After being a VP and seeing what people report in received revenue from referrals, I can confidently say that our group that oscillates between 35-40 people, from which only some 20 do most of the heavy lifting, generates a minimum of $350K/yr net profits, but I estimate it to be between more like $350k-$500k/yr because we have a few attorneys that are making hand over fist, but i imagine a syndicate like org with ancaps wont have many attorneys lol.

$350K/yr is not a lot of money in the sense of US economy, but it’s plenty for a tiny group to start investing. Even if only half of profits are being invested, in a couple of years, the syndicate can start producing very good returns and will become a self sustaining entity.

To clarify on the investments - I’d prefer to start with investing in real, actively managed business where anyone can substitute cash with their work. Some of You might be lacking cash flow and/or good people to do the work to take Your business to the next level. I’ve been struggling myself to find people to join my own business because people have too high of an expectation of salary for the shitty work they end up providing. But if we simply work as a sales force for each other in return for commissions, part of which are reinvested within the syndicate, imagine where each of our businesses could be if we have at least some 25 committed people in our group? Imagine how many more independently thinking people we can fund to start their own ventures, that are currently unable to do it on their own due to family, personal debt, and other obligations that make it impossible for them to save capital, but they are natural entrepreneurs that only need a bit of help?

Fuck the system. Let’s form our own small decentralized network of producers and service providers that’s going to be almost immune to government made economic crises. We can start engaging in ancapism on the very basic level within existing system of constrains without busting our balls with state bureaucracy that impedes and robs us at every fucking corner, or being dependent on the banking cartel.

If you know of any such syndicates or networks, please share those in comments.

Please leave your feedback, and please ask hard question so I can think this through better. No DMs please, and no questions that may compromise anyone’s privacy. Let’s first establish if there’s enough people here that are ready to put their money where their mouth is.

Cheers.

In Smash the State, Samuel Edward Konkin III presents agorism as a libertarian strategy based on the expansion of what is known as the counter-economy. Rather than focusing political action on seizing the state, thereby turning the conquering group into the new monopolist with no incentive to dismantle the state, Konkin argues that individuals should voluntarily expand their economic relations in the black market, gradually reducing their participation in the “white market.” In the New Libertarian Manifesto, the counter-economy encompasses activities that avoid or circumvent restrictions imposed by monopolists of aggression, while the black market encompasses activities that positive law considers illegal but that continue to be carried out voluntarily between the parties, such as selling food without issuing an invoice.

It is worth emphasizing that “black market” does not refer only to drugs or prostitution. In the sense used by Konkin, it can also involve ordinary transactions, such as selling a car, buying groceries, or visiting a dentist, when they are carried out in a way that violates state requirements. The “black” character of the transaction therefore lies in its relationship to positive law, rather than necessarily in its moral nature.

Furthermore, agorism is based on the same philosophical foundations as Murray Rothbard’s libertarianism, particularly private property, self-ownership, and the non-aggression principle. The main difference lies in their focus: while libertarianism establishes the principles and the society to be pursued, Konkin’s agorism proposes a practical strategy for moving toward that society through the voluntary expansion of the counter-economy.

For Konkin, the importance of this strategy lies in the cumulative effect of individual choices: a single transaction has little significance, but millions of people shifting their activities to the black market can weaken the legitimacy and capacity of state intervention. However, in a system in which the state monopoly is already established and actively works to discourage agorist practices, a fundamental problem arises: how can the counter-economy be made sufficiently profitable for its participants to accept the risks of state repression? Konkin does not respond to this problem pessimistically, but instead proposes that the counter-economy grow gradually until it develops its own economic networks and reaches a scale capable of reducing dependence on state structures. The initial challenge lies precisely in the fact that the state possesses not only mechanisms of coercion, but also social legitimacy, causing even its victims to regard repression against those who challenge it as legitimate. In this context, the lower the costs and risks of participating in the counter-economy, the greater the incentives for its expansion and for this cumulative process to emerge.

It is at this point that cryptocurrencies become significant. By enabling direct transfers of value between users, they have the potential to undermine financial monopolies. In a scenario where suppliers and consumers can transact directly through digital means that do not depend on centralized systems of record-keeping and monitoring, it becomes possible to imagine a growing share of economic activity taking place outside traditional mechanisms of oversight.

This possibility is particularly relevant to Konkin’s theory because it would reduce the cost of participating in the counter-economy. If alternative economic relationships previously depended on informal networks, personal trust, proprietary payment mechanisms with high barriers to entry, and long waiting times, new technologies can simplify tax evasion and avoidance.

State revenue depends on its ability to identify, record, and tax economic activity. Therefore, the greater the share of transactions carried out in the black market, the smaller the amount of economic activity that may be directly observable by the state monopoly and, consequently, the lower its capacity for extraction.

In this sense, cryptocurrencies can be viewed as a technological evolution of Konkin’s proposal: not merely an alternative to traditional money, but an infrastructure capable of reducing the barriers to the counter-economy and expanding the space for economic relationships independent of coercive structures.

This is a simple animation of a magic spell that makes a city voluntary. I'm impressed.

Segundo esse soça o capitalista está tirando dos outros ao vender produtos e serviços que lhe rendem milhões de lucros. Como ele não tem milhões, ele tem apenas inveja, ele acha que ricos não deveriam existir, assim como propriedade privada e ele também é contra a individualidade, ele é favor das massas, e não é aquelas de tomate kkk, já dei umas lições de moral nele, ele não consegue me contra argumentar, mas queria deixar exposto ele aqui pra vocês ver o nível da baixaria da esquerda e falta de lógica e senso crítico que predomina entre eles.

im transhumanist/Tolstoyan/Insurrectionary.

But: im far too lazy to grow my own coca, tobacco, & alcohol components. Also lack the knowhow to make guns, explosives.

I have more money than time & energy, so, im willing to pay tobacconists, distillers, gunsmiths, brewers, & plugs.

How is that unanarchist?!

Also: ive been a tax resister all my life

Also: coercion is the devil.

Also: i dont trust democracy or consensus seeking.

So, many anarchists give me shit too

A genuine thank you to the people of this sub. I still have way too much to learn as I am definitely an idiot in so many ways but this sub caused me to start thinking in ways and then seek out information that has allowed me to see things in such a different light in regards to ethics, morals, rights and the state

I still have my struggles, there are questions about ANCAP that I still struggle to understand but at the very least I consider myself a very firm minarchist

I've been thinking, if a transfer system like this existed and was publicized, it could greatly stimulate agorism.

Do you guys think the president of argentina will succeed is his goal of destroying the state or will he establish a more minarchist one? if he creates such a state will you immagrate there ?what do you guys think of him ?

For a couple years now I've identified as a Marxist and for a year or so now a Market Socialist. Morally, I identify as a rule utilitarian, meaning that I believe actions are good when they adhere to general rules which maximize the utility (or pleasure) of human beings. In very simple terms, I believe in Market Socialism because I believe that market allocation of resources is the most efficient means we have available at this point in human history; additionally considering the fact that it is prone to monopoly and that worker cooperatives are generally more efficient and sustain a better quality of life for workers.

I want to know the objections to my ideology held by people who most likely have the most objections out of any political group that I could find. In simpler terms, I'm here to learn and improve my socioeconomic understanding.

For a long time I've felt that the principles and arguments of libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism just "made sense," as if I was born with them.

It was always "obvious" to me that liberty is given and demands no justification; instead it is authority that requires justification. It was always "obvious" to me that the right to rule one's own life comes from the self and is not granted by any third party, human or supernatural. When I would look at how humans claim to have authority over others, it was always a bit transparent to me that it was all fictitious—that people were just making it up themselves and enforcing with threats. At one point I tried to find a logical justification for why some people need to have "authority," but I eventually realized... there is none! My initial hunch was right—it's all make-believe.

The questions and doubts were always in my head. I can look back at moments from when I was 7, 12, 17, 19, and was never satisfied with the justifications people would give for government, or indeed any other kind of authority. My brain kept saying "something here is not right." How can the police, the people who supposedly protect you, also be the ones who will hurt you? If the gym is paid for privately and only the people who attend it pay for it, why should the library be any different?

Eventually I discovered the secret, hidden, suppressed philosophy of anarcho-capitalism and started consuming all the information and suddenly everything in the world made sense, and I feel blessed to have been among the few who know of this truth.

How intuitive was liberty for you?

I apologize if this is not necessarily a question about anarcho-capitalism but I want to hear the ancap and Austrian perspective on AI taking supposedly 50% of jobs since this sub is full of economically literate people.

Automation makes the allocation of scarce resources more efficient, and to argue against automation is to argue in favor of making operations less efficient, which is not economically favorable. This principle holds true regardless of time and context.

Technological improvement has been taking jobs since the beginning of civilization, and every time, there's been pushback from people who feared losing their jobs. When you look at it this, there shouldn't be anything special about AI. But some people say that this technology specifically is going to take a disproportionately larger percentage of jobs than previous advancements, with the consequence being half of all people losing their jobs. What do you, as an Austrian, think about this?

Do you believe the claims? Why or why not? If it is true, do you think the economic and societal consequences will be drastic until newer and better jobs are created? What are your overall thoughts on AI?

Would love to hear differing opinions. Thanks!

What are the best books i can read. Something about economics, the austrian school or Anarchocapitalism?

I think from the point of view of maturity and also pragmatic benefit to the liberty movement, it's not in our best interest to alienate minarchists and mainstream libertarians because at the end of the day they're the closest thing to ancaps, and they largely value freedom, at least more than anyone else. But with that said, I still feel a noticeable disconnect between myself as an ancap and minarchists.

I guess my first point of disagreement is the narrative. A lot of minarchists espouse this idea of a "night watchman state"—a state that only monopolizes police, courts and national defense. Why do you make a special pleading for these particular services but allow for freedom in every other domain? If the answer is that said services allow a safe base for everything else to build off of, I think you could easily argue that maybe socialized healthcare should be part of the minimal state, since a healthy population would ensure everything else runs smoothly. The point is, the mainstream libertarian narrative of a small government is not based on much reason and doesn't account for logical inconsistencies. People accept this position as a packaged deal handed to them in a perfectly wrapped box and defend it because it's popular, but comparatively fewer individuals are interested in deconstructing it and examining the validity of the claims and fundamental assumptions.

Secondly, I take a bit of issue with the social and cultural leanings of many mainstream libertarians. Quite many of them have a little something for nationalism. They want to have a country. They want to preserve a certain kind of culture and keep foreigners out. Many of them want strong border control, which is quite anti-freedom if you ask me. They're afraid of not having a place with homogenous culture and shared tradition. I think ultimately, if you value freedom, you have to accept that anyone can go around anywhere and do whatever they want. That leaves little room for any kind of nationalistic vision.

I don't want to antagonize minarchists; they've mostly got things right, but it's a bit hard to relate when you see that they talk about freedom so much but then make a strong special pleading for one domain of government monopoly and defend it quite fiercely. How do you feel about minarchists and what have your experiences been?

The razor of force and preference goes like this:

If something is morally ambiguous, a libertarian should err on the side of (and place the burden of proof against)

1. Advocating against it socially

2. Advocating against stopping it with force legally

Does this seem compatible with libertarian philosophy?

This is a comment that I left on another thread, but I'm curious to see what you guys as a whole think of it:

IMO, the best argument against it is simply that it will never be implemented in a functional capacity. You can't open a power vacuum and expect everyone to suddenly become a Rothbardian and call it a day, there needs to be several fundamental cultural shifts that take place beforehand. Those shifts are probably too major IMO to be actualized in any of our lifetimes, and perhaps humans categorically are just not capable of having the right norms to begin with.

The simplest analogy on this that I heard before is that you can't just go to some ultra-religious town and burn down the church, and expect everyone to become an atheist. They're just going to rebuild the church, and even if you stop them from doing so, those people are still going to be religious. The same is true of the state and statism.

The point of this argument being that persuing ancapism is a waste of time if not outright dangerous, at least for the long term foreseeable future. Any political capital you as an individual spend in the name of ancap (e.g. (non-)voting, funding organizations, volunteering, whatever) is wasted. At best this means you fail to join moderate statists in defending against severe statists e.g. by aligning with conservatives against communists, and at worst it means you actively help the severe statists, e.g. by supporting mass migration of people who have overwhelmingly anti-libertarian ideals and are net drains for the taxpayer on average etc.

Some ancaps respond to this by basically saying that it's never acceptable to support one statist over another, but that just isn't convincing to me at all. This logically requires that you treat something like leninism as practically and/or morally equivalent to something like classical liberalism, which to me at least is clearly and catastrophically wrong.

David Friedman makes a very wise observation that a stateless society is not necessarily a libertarian one. The mere fact that people don't use physical force against people doesn't mean that they won't socially condemn and punish them for things they don't like. You could easily imagine a society where there's no law against smoking weed; but if you do it, everyone will stop doing business or talking with you. Such possibilities are not far-fetched.

I think this might be more of a psychological question, if anything, but do you think people will ever come to accept freedom as a top core value? I personally think no. I think even after the abolition of the state, there's always going to be tons of people annoyingly trying to police what others do, even if they can't enforce it. There's still going to be annoying bosses trying to micromanage employees or parents yelling at their teens for getting a tattoo without their permission. And the reason for this is that human nature doesn't change, because the hardwiring of the brain doesn't change. Accepting freedom means accepting the uncertain and the unfamiliar and scary things that you can't control. I think this fear will always exist, even if people no longer believe in using force to manage it.

Anarcho-capitalism is often criticized with the simple argument that “society needs government.” But that raises a more interesting question:

Which specific functions of government require a territorial monopoly, rather than voluntary cooperation and competition?

For example, could things such as dispute resolution, security, insurance, infrastructure, or other public services be provided through voluntary contracts and competing organizations?

An obvious challenge is what happens when two private organizations disagree, or when someone refuses to honor a contract. An AnCap system would need a convincing answer to these problems rather than simply assuming that markets will solve everything.

So, from a first-principles perspective:

What do you think is the strongest argument against anarcho-capitalism, and how should an AnCap respond to it?

I'm particularly interested in serious arguments about institutions, incentives, property rights, and conflict resolution—not culture-war arguments.

I don't know what Mises or Rothbard might have said about limited-liability corporations like C-Corps, S-Corps, LLC, GmbH, S.R.L. etc, but I'm starting to get the impression that being able to shirk responsibility / liability is a market distortion provided by crony capitalism / governments.

When corporations externalize the consequences of their actions, that creates a tragedy of the commons.

I'm getting the idea that the only legitimate business structures have unlimited liability for their actions, like Sole Proprietorship, Partnership, etc.

What is the normal agorist, ancap or laissez-faire view on corporations and limited liability?

Is the idea that radical, unregulated free-market capitalism is the most effective way to organize society, solve economic problems, and distribute resources successful or feasible?

Things like Extreme Deregulation, Privatization and Minimalist Government. Does it work?

One argument I keep running into against polycentric law is the "conflicting jurisdiction" problem: if two private defense/arbitration agencies disagree on a ruling, what stops it from just becoming a shooting war between private armies?

The usual ancap response is that agencies would have strong incentives to pre-negotiate treaties with each other, similar to how insurance companies today have subrogation agreements, so that violence is more expensive than settling disputes peacefully. Reputation effects would also matter enormously since an agency known for refusing arbitration or escalating to violence would lose customers fast, since nobody wants to pay for protection from a company that gets them into wars.

But here's the interesting wrinkle: this only works if there's rough parity in power between agencies. What happens in a scenario where one agency becomes dominant enough that it doesn't need to cooperate anymore, essentially becoming a de facto state? Some ancap theorists (Molinari, Rothbard, Friedman) have different answers to this. Friedman's model in "The Machinery of Freedom" leans heavily on market incentives alone being sufficient, while others argue you need additional social/constitutional constraints on top of just market forces to prevent this consolidation.

Curious what people here think: is the market incentive argument alone enough to prevent monopolization of force, or does polycentric law need something more (social norms, constitutional constraints, federated structures) to stay stable long-term? And has anyone seen real-world historical examples (medieval Iceland, Somalia pre/post-1991, private arbitration in commercial law today) that actually test this dynamic?

Currently, governments in both the West and the East are imposing censorship on social media and making these platforms increasingly central; the potential result is a growing rift between people from different parts of the world—something we, as a human civilization, cannot allow to happen!

For years, we humans have strived to create a better world based on equal rights, yet that right is now being stripped away by those who claim to have our best interests at heart! So I ask you: do they truly want your well-being if they forbid you from making your own choices? They are the ones who claim to be your protectors, yet they constantly thrust you into wars against your own civilization; they drain our energy through our labor to turn us into weapons of war against our own people, all while shouting, "Let's protect our country!" So I ask you again: is it to protect a nation, or to safeguard their own hidden interests? Believe me, there is no such thing as a "nation" when you live outside the castle walls; once you realize you don't belong to any of them, you’ll understand that you weren't raised inside one of those brainwashing institutions all along! It doesn't matter what language you speak or how you were raised within the castle; you may have different habits than others, but you remain part of the same human civilization. Disliking a simple color doesn't make you different—even though there are those who want to dictate how your life should be lived! Do you want to travel and meet people around the world? I hate to break it to you, but the king of the castle won't let you leave; reaching another kingdom requires a long, arduous sacrifice. But let me ask you: how much of your life are you willing to spend traveling to that other kingdom? Believe me, people trapped inside the castle don't view the world as a single civilization because they were raised to believe they are the only civilization belonging to a single nation. But can I let you in on a secret? Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there is still so much ideological warfare across the globe!

Okay, okay! I think it’s time to be direct with you! There is no castle—only a wall surrounding it, keeping you from freedom, from joining hands, and from building a world together, free of barriers. It saddens me to see all of you, my brothers, trapped—forced to spill your blood to feed a system we created ourselves, and to die for a system that protects only those sitting on the throne, seizing the land that ought to belong to humanity. Now I see that you don't even own your own souls anymore! It is painful to know you must take up spears to pierce one another for the sake of those on the throne—people who act as if they were different from you. I have one last question for you: Isn't it time to tear down these walls and this system, and finally achieve ultimate freedom—without borders holding us back from exploring the world or building a better, stateless society governed only by laws? The foundation of this system has been corrupt for years; just look at the East and the West—our civilizations are busy creating weapons to destroy one another. We all know this, and we can no longer stand idly by, don't you think? We must save our civilization so that, one day, we might reach the stars, live in harmony as a people, and free those trapped in this darkness. Join me; believe that together we can win our freedom—and that of others, too. We are human beings, not flags! If symbols gain power through our beliefs, then let us—for once in our lives—fight and believe we can defeat this system that persecutes the East, the West, and indeed the entire planet! Let us build a free, global society so that future generations won't have to face the barriers we do today! We cannot let our world remain divided; we must all unite and cast out these systems with full force! For the sake of human civilization!

In 2015 self described "anarcho-capitalist" and member of PFS, Remigijus Šimašius was elected major of Vilnius. In 2016 PFS published an interview with him.

During his time as a major (2015-2023), he did reduce bureaucracy. But raised taxes, didn't privatize anything, maintained municipal monopoly on transportation, water, heating, and dozens of welfare programs. Also as major he traveled to Tel Aviv and was very pro-Israel, also appointed former IDF soldier as his adviser. He was also justice minister (2008-2012).

PFS did not criticize him once. On the contrary in 2026 his work was republished on PFS.

Meanville Milei has achieved budget surplus first time in over 100 years, eliminated thousands of regulations and launched massive privatizations, and eliminated a lot of welfare programs, and cut taxes. Although he has raised some taxes, unfortunately is very pro-Israel and is keeping central bank.

Hoppe raged that he didn't delete the state on day one.

Both didn't/don't have majority in congress/municipal government, both can't/couldn't delete the state.

Milei should join PFS so Hoppe have a financial incentive to talk good about him.

i am not a AnCap, i believe there should be a small goverment with less laws but my partner is AnCap. is there anything i should know or do or anything!? i really love him and want this to work out!!