First, I want to say that I'm very happy with the way you are civilly discussing this. I've had constant bad faith arguments from practically everyone that's disagreed with me, and I think you are the first since I've made this account that's acted in good faith. Thank you.

It seems to me we have fundamentally different ideas of what capitalism is. To me, capital is savings - immediate consumption forgone to create something which provides more in the future. I haven’t yet encountered an argument that isn’t reducible to a complaint against the way market mechanisms interact when the government is involved.

The official view, is that capitalism is an economic system that allows the private ownership of capital(capital in this case is the means of production etc).

My view is that capitalism is just another form of authoritarianism involuntary hierarchy, that consolidates more power(money/capital) into fewer hands. It's inherently totalitarian and self strengthening.

Just like a large scope government will be corrupted easily, large corporations will ultimately end with the most bloodthirsty parasites at the top, as decent people will not be willing to be as ruthless.

I agree about reducing the maximum wieldable power to the greatest extent possible. I think we just disagree about what this actually looks like. The problem is that any institution which would deign to be the authority on this matter is the very one where power coalesces. A system wherein no one single entity has the ultimate authority is the only one that won’t get worse on this over time. The participants should be governed by the incentives inherent in the system, not the dictates of one of the participants.

To me, I want to see people chose to progressively reject power structures and power in all forms. Obviously it will take generations to build culture around it, and we will only meaningfully start while under duress as we currently are. I totally agree that institutions will be useless for the reduction in power, which is why cultural change and peaceful communication and education are key. There is a reason our masters want us fighting and uneducated.

Money/currency itself is inherently evil in the form that its power to corrupt and change things, it's easily abstractable, collectable, worshipable . Money itself, just like any institution has powers to progressively self corrupt, which is why I want to minimise them quickly.

Anarcho-pacifism is a very respectable political position, btw. I think studying economics from the Austrian school would at least give you a better idea of where ancaps are actually coming from.

Thanks :)

I've learned a bit about ancap theory, and am willing to do a bit more research and googlin'. The issue is that what I know, says: Ancaps are a co-option of anarchist thought, to hijack some anarchists, or slander the anarchist movement as a whole. I feel that ancap ideology makes no sense in the way of capitalism and anarchism being absolutely in disagreement with each other. Capital(ism)/money is naturally hierarchy forming in a very bad way.

I truly see ancaps, libertarians and conservatives as fundamentally being the same thing. The minimisation of government to maximise corporate powers. Their minimisation of government power is seen by us as the corruption of money, and corporate influence in politics.