Anarchapulco 2016 – The World’s First & Largest Anarcho-Capitalist Conference

anarchapulcoAnarchapulco is the world’s first and largest international Anarcho-Capitalist (ANCAP) conference. Held yearly in Acapulco, ANCAPS from around the world gravitate to Mexico for three days of speeches, presentations, panels, debates, musical acts, parties, and networking with the intention of creating a freer world and 7 billion governments on Earth.

Easiest way to get your first bitcoin (Ad)

H/T – Zen Gardner

  • Ulfhed Anar

    Ancraps are NOT anarchists.

    • the man

      I’m curious as to what the logic behind that is.

      • Anarchists who do not know the difference between crony capitalism and the free market or the difference between fiat currency and sound money.
        Imagine how ugly ancap could be if it utilized crony capitalism and fiat currency. Janet Yellen could fire up the printing presses tonight and go buy Montana tomorrow.

        • the man

          Ah, I see. I had always taken the difference of free market vs crony with regards to anarchism as ipso facto. Crony capitalism doesn’t abide by free association, therefore, not anarchism. Thank you for the clarification.

          • Some might argue that that’s too simplistic an answer. Some argue that if laws and courts are replaced by arbitration firms, why should an individual accept that verdict? And since one ‘buys’ justice, what assurances are there that the verdicts would be fair and impartial? If the verdicts are enforced by private protection agencies, it would seem likely, as some minarchists argue, that a dominant protective agency (the one offering the most powerful and comprehensive protection) would emerge through free competition. A de facto territorial monopoly would thus result from the competition among protective agencies which would then constitute a proto-State. The only difference between the ultra minimal State of a dominant protection agency and a minimal State would be that its services would be available only to those who buy them.

            Personally, as I said recently, I believe Locke came very close to being 100% correct in his ideas on how to organize society. He just failed to realize that Individuals can secure their Natural Rights through voluntary association and mutual aid.

            I also believe that the socialist anarchist argument that the free market can’t work because of man’s inherent greed will cancel out as even the most greedy and self-centered will realize they can’t sell a product that is not of sufficient quality that is fairly/competitively priced.

            Trick is, no one really knows how a free society/free market situation would actually workout but I think it’s safe to say, it definitely would not be a one-size-fits-all affair. Different communities would be free to organize as they see fit. About the only thing anarchists agree on is that the coercive system doesn’t work.

          • the man

            I personally believe the opposite with regards to FMC. If all humans are greedy, then the monopolistic firms we see now will have an inherent flaw: he who splits first garners a greater market share. Greed, as a deciding factor, will cut both ways therefore. We see this replete through examples from the black market. There are no “forever Dons”. Frank Lucas, Pablo Escobar, and El “Chapo” provide examples of this.

          • Well said.

          • Statists who reject anarchism in a kneejerk manner, invariably trot out the boogeyman of crime syndicates replacing government.

            Leave aside the fact that subcultures such as the Amish get along just fine without the US federal government and its “law and order”.

            Even if rival crime syndicates were to replace the US federal government, they would still be preferable, because at least one could defy them without worrying about “breaking the law” and being prosecuted with the complicity and approval of We the Sheeple.

          • the man

            Furthermore, violence could cut both ways. Piss off enough of the people your syndicate relies on and you find yourself thoroughly up the creek. Like the Templar cartel in Mexico vs The peoples defense force.

          • the man

            I enjoy how much the refutation of statist arguments generally boil down to this phrase: It already is that way
            B-b-but anarchy would mean tribes of people just constantly killing each other!
            B-b-b-but the economy might collapse!
            B-b-b-but it seems extremely unruly and inefficient process to build road and provide basic infrastructure!
            See: initial response.

          • Correct. Mainstream “intellechewals” conflate genuine capitalism, i.e., laissez faire capitalism, with capitalism in name only, i.e., crony capitalism.

            Contrary to the Conventional Wisdom, Big Business does NOT love genuine capitalism. Genuine capitalism means “dog eat dog” “cuthroat” competition among businesses. It means constantly being on your toes in case someone else is gaining on you. It’s too much hard work.

            What Big Business does love, is crony capitalism. That’s what the 12,000 lobbyists in Washington are there lobbying for — Big Government granted favors. Big Business / Big Government collusion. Bush-Cheney collusion with Halliburton.

            How many lobbyists are there lobbying for simple non-interference from a meddlesome Big Brother?

            You can probably count them on one hand.

          • the man

            You could probably count them without hands.

      • Ulfhed Anar

        Read about anarchism history, you’ll see

  • selfgovern

    selfgovern – it’s the only answer to endless wars brought about from ‘governments’.

  • PantherSequoia

    Absolutely ridiculous and NOT EVEN POSSIBLE. Anarchy means no rulers – capital reproduces itself and is inherently inegalitarian and authoritarian, as it rules over people.

Thank you for sharing.
Follow us to receive the latest updates.

Like Us On Facebook
Follow Us On Twitter

Send this to friend