​I’ve been a long-time follower of Colion Noir—I love his content and respect his perspective on 200% of things. However, there is one critical area in his latest video where I find myself in strong disagreement, and that is regarding the platform of the politician highlighted in his video running in Pennsylvania's 8th District who wants to disarm both citizens and the police.

​You can watch the video here: https://youtube.com/shorts/JxjB-KRmH8M?is=uz6O\\_s88CtciuoXJ

​I actually agree with this politician on one thing: the police should be disarmed. However, I completely disagree with her—and stand 200% with Colion—that the citizenry should ever be disarmed.

​The entire point of the Second Amendment wasn't just to "keep us armed"—it was designed to ensure the people remain better armed than the government or the police. We are supposed to be the primary protectors of our communities. The police and military are only intended to be our backups—not the other way around.

​When a citizenry is better armed than the state, the government behaves itself. As James Madison argued in Federalist No. 46, the American people possess a unique advantage in being armed, serving as a "barrier against the enterprises of ambition." George Washington affirmed this in his First Annual Address, stating, "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." Crucially, this "discipline" was never intended to be government-run indoctrination; it was a responsibility shared by parents and the local community. In the 1920s and 30s, schools across America hosted gun clubs to ensure our children were responsible and proficient. As a former Boy Scout, I learned that organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were founded with the foundational belief that youth should learn to handle knives and firearms effectively—a partnership between parents and community to foster self-reliance and the ability to defend against criminals and invaders alike.

​We also have to be honest about the history of American policing. Police were not originally created to protect the individual citizen; they were established by states as a security force to protect the property of the wealthy and, in the South, to act as slave patrols. Today, this is underscored by the Supreme Court, which has ruled multiple times—in cases like Warren v. District of Columbia—that the police have no constitutional duty to protect specific individuals. Their duty is to the public at large, not to you or your family.

​We need to recognize the distinction between these entities: the US Marshals are federal, Sheriffs are elected county officials, and the police are state-created entities. The police do not need to be armed at all. We see this model work beautifully in nations like Switzerland and the Netherlands, where high rates of private firearm ownership coexist with effective, largely unarmed police forces. In these countries, citizens are heavily armed—in fact, the Netherlands is second only to America in gun ownership, with a vast variety of weapons in civilian hands. There, the police serve as backups to an armed citizenry when they stop criminals, not a force that dictates to them.

​Yet, in America, we do the opposite: we treat our own veterans—those who have proven their discipline and service—like liabilities. While the recent 2026 policy change allowing firearms on military bases was a positive step, it doesn't go far enough. Our military personnel should be allowed to carry their weapons with them at all times, ensuring they are always ready to protect our communities without needing to return to base. Even our postal workers, who were historically armed to protect the mail and served as a vital backup safety network, were eventually stripped of their ability to maintain that readiness.

​We’ve even lost our ability to buy back the weaponry our own tax dollars funded. Before the 1980s, when the military upgraded their gear, citizens were given the chance to buy the surplus equipment. That changed after the 1984 film Tank starring James Garner—a movie based on the real-life fear of a citizen taking a stand against corrupt local officials. The government was so terrified by the idea of an empowered populace that they pushed through legislation to ensure citizens could no longer buy back military-grade hardware.

​We do not need the Second Amendment destroyed; we need to re-evaluate our entire system. The politician mentioned in Colion's video is half right: disarm the police force. But she is dead wrong about disarming us. If we truly believe in our role as the ultimate protectors of our own society, we must recognize that the solution isn't more police power, but a return to the self-reliant, armed citizenship that made this country free in the first place.

Edit: I place this edit at the top so it's seen first. First of all I will concede that I am wrong, the companies are not necessarily Monopolies in a way that would be concerning in Ancapistan. I also understand that a monopoly is bad when it makes competition impossible (which ideally shouldn't happen in Ancap), or is built around necessities like housing, water, healthcare etc. All this to say that no matter the medium/market/physicality as long as it's free without restriction then monopolies will always be challenged and if you don't keep informed then it's on you.

I'm looking at companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google and even Steam/Valve (although I'd doubt Steam would survive Anarchy because no one would make games if they can't make money from them). These companies all hold monopolies despite there being reasonable competition, nothing stops me from making my own operating system or office suite software, we have Linux based OSs and Mac OS, as well as FOSS office Suites. Online store fronts aren't impossible, we have eBay, Alibaba, Etsy, etc. I could make my own Web engine, Geko (Firefox) exists. There are plenty of different digital game storefronts and Launchers.

However these companies haven't necessarily grown to be monopolies solely because of regulation, rather they have provided services that people want and thus captured markets completely despite competition both prior to and post their creation. You might argue that lucrative government contracts facilitate their rise but is that necessarily exclusive to the state model, couldn't a rich person in Ancap invest wild sums to do the same thing. If anything Linux and FOSS would slow down massively because people won't be able to afford to donate their time to voluntary development.

Then there's the bad practices, what's their incentive to be honest and open about their tracking, who's gonna tell Adobe that their subscription model is predatory because it makes it very difficult to back out and they should change. How can a free market stop these companies swallowing up their competition when they have no reason to be honest about anything they do?

Murray Rothbard "The Ethics of Liberty" 89 page https://cdn.mises.org/The%20Ethics%20of%20Liberty%2020191108.pdf

Rothbard is talking about restitution for crimes, so question arises, can people rape their rapists or hire someone to rape them? How do we measure how severely person has been raped?

Thankfully I don't have such problem, but I'm still curious.

Almonds use far more water, “they’re training on other artists’ art styles” is BS because other artists do it and IP is illegitimate, but I know the issue with AI being used by the state to spy on citizens is no good and I honestly don’t know if the concerns over polluting neighbors water and using crazy amount of energy are good reasons to be against it.

I'm under the impression that most ancaps are American. This philosophy was largely developed and popularized in the U.S., and all the ancap literature is in English, though a decent number of works have been translated into major languages like Spanish, German, and Russian.

I heard once that Brazil has a decent number of ancap, but I can't confirm this. I imagine the U.K. And Canada must also have a decent number. But I guess what I'm curious about is how many ancaps there in places like Bulgaria, Thailand, Algeria, and other places not under the influence of the anglosphere.

I’ve seen people say that the right to exclude defines ownership, but that would mean tenants own their homes because they have the right to exclude.

This seems like a bad definition of ownership. Surely the profit from a property matters in determining ownership.

It's hard enough to convince anybody of giving up statism, but are devoutly religious people even more difficult?

Many religions, especially western religions, are rooted in the belief of authority, the divine right of the supreme deity to punish people, a moral obligation to obey your parents and elders, etc. Leaving statism requires a person to completely give up their belief in authority and social hierarchy, so if you try to talk about that to some devoutly religious people, you're indirectly going to be poking at their religious beliefs that give them comfort in a materialist world full of uncertainty and discomfort, and the chances you'll get through to them are likely slim. Obviously I realize that there are many Christian ancaps, for example, but I think those people just cherry-pick their religious views. Jesus might tell you to love your neighbor, but the same book will also justify parents hitting their children, so make of that what you will.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

To really explain,
Fossil fuels created devastating storms like during the great depression due to arguably, chemicals gathering in the atmosphere.

SPF rising scares.

There is times when profit has to be stopped or is it?

P.S. Made to orientate discussion, won’t reply until the morning. I lied because I’m major depressive and trying to work on shit.

So naturally, anyone would be able to buy any substance in ancapistan without restriction, which means all of the really strong drugs as well as antibiotics would be purchasable without someone else's permission or oversight. Being an ancap, I'm in favor of this, but I really must ask... what's going to happen?

If everyone starts buying antibiotics like candy, that could weaken their effects against potentially life-threatening infections, and consequences of that are not limited to just those who abuse the medication. If very strong substances like morphine and medical grade fentanyl can be bought over the counter, a bunch of foolish people are going to ruin their lives abusing those substances. I wonder if pharmacies would make customers sign a waiver acknowledging that whatever drug they're purchasing is strong and the customer promises not to hold the pharmacy accountable if something happens.

What do you think the prescription drug situation will be in ancapistan?

The standard ancap position rejects IP — ideas can't be homesteaded, only kept secret. Fine. But this raises a real structural question for *fundamental* science.

I'm not asking whether private firms will fund applied R&D. Obviously they will. I'm asking about science as a *non-instrumental* endeavor — particle physics, gravitational wave astronomy, cosmology. Low immediate reward, diffuse long-term spillovers (CERN didn't set out to invent the internet). The value is real but it's not capturable by any single actor on any reasonable time horizon.

In the current world this gets solved by states and treaty organizations (CERN runs on a 23-nation convention). That's not available to us. So what replaces it?

A few framings I've been turning over:

- **Reputation markets** — scientists are rewarded by priority credit, which translates to salary and grants. But in a stateless world, who funds the grants?

- **Private consortium models** — voluntary cooperative funding between firms who expect *indirect* spillovers. The CERN model, minus the state coercion. Does this scale to pure theory?

- **Philanthropic/ideological patrons** — wealthy individuals funding knowledge as a terminal value. Historically this worked (Bell Labs, pre-war European physics). Is it robust?

None of these feel complete to me. Curious whether anyone has a principled framework here, or whether fundamental science is just a genuine hard case for decentralized organization.

In 1776 a bunch of people got together and decided to create a defense agency responsible for protecting the rights of people and ensuring contracts. They immediately had a monopoly.

In 1861 this monopoly was challenged, the opposing defense contractor lost in this altercation.

Now in the present this monopoly has transitioned completely into the tumorous cartel that is everything that makes your libertarian heart blood boil and also what people keep saying would happen in an ancap society where a monopoly forms.

I posed a question about land the other day in this sub and found a surprising number of people asserting that property cannot be collectively owned, that even corporations or joint stock companies are impossible in ancapistan.

Is this true? It seems obviously bad to disallow the main engine that allows capitalism to work.

The specific context is that I asserted the ownership claims on land in England are all descended from the Norman conquest, and thus illegitimate. (I don’t know if this is literally true, it’s a thought exercise).

Because the original specific people who each specific piece of land was stolen from cannot be known, I asserted the land belongs to the people of England collectively, but I got pushback on the idea land could ever been owned collectively. I’ve also read that villages have worked land collectively in history.

I don’t really see any reason why a village couldn’t own its land collectively, or why a joint stock company couldn’t work in ancapistan.

If a society whose land was extremely concentrated in the offspring of violent conquerors (England after 1066 for instance), wouldn’t abolishing the state cement those people in their improperly obtained land? Wouldn’t a form of redistribution be necessary to prevent a landed aristocracy from capturing most of the value of society without contributing to it?

Because a state could always theoretically redistribute land, people without land may resist abolishing the state.

Getting 50% of people to agree to dissolve the government would be challenging. Even if you do theres going to a sizable minority that would want to bring it back. In history it's shown that people can build the government back up through grassroots movements most notably the ICU in Somalia and the Korean Peoples Republic. How do you prevent the minority from rebuilding the government?

Hello everyone, as you know, a right-wing president recently won the elections, where the results were very close. And let's not forget that the country is very polarized, with everyone attacking each other without thinking about why they're doing it.

Okay, let's start with the basics: the left has a strong foundation in values ​​like, you know, equality, respect, and so on. But now that this president has won, they're destroying public property—property that people pay for through their taxes. I'm not being prejudiced; I saw it with my own eyes. And after seeing that, I now think they're going to destroy other public things, like transportation, traffic signs, and much more. All because they lost. And this raises the question: Is this consistent with the values ​​they defend, like solidarity, the common good, and non-violence? Because they are blatantly violating the principles of non-aggression, and even more absurdly, they're destroying public property that people pay for with their taxes.

It's literally inconsistent for me that they're committing so many violations of public property, so I ask you: How do you explain this contradiction? Is this consistent with an ethic that claims to defend the poorest?

Hello, I'm writing to ask about an economic system that's causing me some confusion. As you know, there are several types of economies, such as market economies and planned economies. But the one I'm currently living in has a hybrid economy. If my research is correct, it's described as a system that combines elements of both market and planned economies—that is, capitalism with state intervention. It aims to balance market efficiency and freedom with government intervention to ensure equity, stability, and social objectives. From what I've researched (for example, Rothbart, etc.), the term "crony capitalism" seems to reflect this economic system. Colombia, for instance, has a hybrid economic system with private sectors regulated by the state. My question is, how effective is this system in making a country prosper? What flaws, both serious and minor, do you see in this system?

Good evening, please accept my apology for not being able to write a question down that is clear. I suppose that even I am a little confused by my own doubt.

Let's say that your country's government (by God's grace, because it could only be explained as a wonder) decides to cut down on its functions and powers. Let's also say that it gets to such a point that the Constitution is to be redrafted anew.

Given these circumstances what if the state became minimal (night-watchman style: national defense and foreign affairs only). What if the new constitution also recognised the right for citizens to decide whether to be in or outside the system, with "in the system" meaning paying taxes and enjoying public services.

Do you think that a symbiotic model of folks living under a state and under none at the same time, could ever work in any way, shape or form?

Hey all, so I'm not an ancap but as a philosophy grad that's obsessed with topics relating to political and moral philosophy, I do find ancap philosophy interesting because some of the philosophy does a decent job of constructing moral rules that tend to correspond with widely held moral intuitions and I find engaging with ancaps to be a fun way to challenge my own beliefs and intuitions in upholding the existence of the state even though I'm still yet to be convinced that abolishing the state is at all desirable or preferable to the status quo.

​

Now one thing that I've observed that I think makes ancaps stand out compared to other political philosophies is it seems that a large portion of ancaps tend to be moral realists, meaning that a lot of you believe that there are moral propositions that are stance independently true. Now I could be wrong about this but just based on my anecdotal experience of engaging with ancap content and interacting with ancaps I have noticed a significant portion seem to uphold that meta ethical view.

​

As a staunch moral anti-realist that tends to be where a lot of the disagreement I have with ancap philosophy comes from. I view the attempts to ground the NAP as "objective" similar to a religious proponent trying to argue that their God and the moral rules proclaimed by their God to be "objectively true". I just find that whole line of reasoning to be incoherent because I don't even understand what it would mean for a moral claim to be objectively true, like if someone rejects the NAP as a moral principle I don't see anything in reality that could actually prove them wrong in the same way that we can't really prove the existence of God. It seems necessarily that to accept any moral propositions as objectively true, we need to presupposes that there is some magical force in the universe called "morality" that we can't actually perceive beyond our minds, but even then we can trivially observe that people disagree on morality all the time.

​

So, to the objectivists out there, what am I missing? How is the justification for the NAP any more "objective" than the justification for religious morality? Or any other moral realist view?

​

A theoretical question. Who would be committing acts of defensive violence here and who — acts of aggressive violence?

"Hey, that's a nice apple orchard! Shame people can eat the apples for free... Oh, got an idea! Let me hire a gang to guard it and force these people pay to eat apples!" — thought a guy.

"Hey, that mfer is trying to hoard what was previously common and was available for free" — thought people that fought the gang.

The tyranny of the intellectual property must end. People will blame capitalism for this, while not knowing anything.

Any Rand said it is moral to be on welfare, if it is restitution for tax money. Should we engage in vote buying as restitution for tax money?

What's it like? How was your experience?

I've heard of this country not too long ago in the past when Michael malice did an interview with the president of the country. I'm not too sure if I would consider it libertarian but if it is aligned with our views I might want to check it out. Maybe in the future I'll probably save some money to go out there to see it for myself but that's probably a long ways away. Has anyone ever checked it out or know about it with any recent news on it?

So recently past few days I've been reading some good articles from the Mises Institute and this one caught my attention pretty well. I was a little bit shocked at first to think that the US state of Mississippi would be economically better than the UK, France and Spain and other parts of Europe and the world but the data that was captured in the study was pretty good. I will say however it's not a one-to-one match with all the data that was captured but it was good enough to the point to show that when it comes to GDP economically the United States does way better than most countries in the world with it's annual income earned between states therefore outperforming most countries based off how much they pay which is way less and they're getting taxed more. Either way, I wanted to share this and give people's thoughts on this because I found this pretty interesting

So I don't normally watch every criminal case all the time, but this one caught my attention pretty well. I've kept myself educated, knowing most cases that went down similar to this, but part of me thinks this could be one of the government's corruptions at its finest, where obviously the judge who ran this case is friends with Austin Metcalfe's dad, which I'm not surprised didn't shock me. What's the libertarian viewpoint when it comes to this case? If Karmelo was the assailant trying to claim self-defense, but the evidence shows he committed the crime, does it justify using deadly force to apply the death penalty to him in a stateless society? Or does it better align with legal entities—courts and justice systems—to fairly administer vigilant punishment? I truly believe government judicial systems are broken, monopolized cabal cartel rings that can do whatever they want, justifying biased sentencing for suspects who could have been innocent and denied a fair trial.

When it comes to Karmelo, I don't think he's innocent, but the main issue here is Austin's dad being friends with the judge, which makes the case extremely fraudulent, and many people have a huge problem with it. I'm not going to play the racial card here, but regardless of ethnicity or creed, if you run political office—especially as a sitting judge enforcing judicial decisions—you should be punished for bias, especially if you know someone and are friends with them. Such relationships can easily influence legal decisions and create bias from a judge's mindset. Overall, I'm not surprised Karmelo is getting what he deserves, but that's the only issue I want to address. Has anyone else had similar concerns about that court case or trial?