No, it’s a very bad point. Some peope confuse, on purpose, anarchy with tribalism. People like Byzantine would have you believe that theocracy and tribalism are anarchy. And that small scale gang warfare is the same thing as a free society.
Notice also that if aggression can’t be [objectively] defined then the whole topic of political philosophy is meaningless.
Anarcho capitalism should be classical liberalism minus the monopolistic state - that’s the concise definition. Actually the idea of getting rid of the monopolistic state IS part of classical liberalism. See The Production of Security
Anarcho capitalism is just fine as a name. Anarchy means no one rules - i.e. political freedom. Capitalism means private property and free trade. Capitalism also entails ‘capital accumulation’ - wealth and technology.
Libertarians are socially liberal and fiscally conservative…Make that into a consistent position (i.e. voluntaryism) and you have ancap.
It is only the State and its nuclear weapons that draws enough water to squash everybody underneath it into the flat, non-hierarchical society you desire.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, the proponents of various rights will bear the sole costs of their protection, rather than offloading them on the nuclear-armed central state. If protection of the ‘right’ you propound is cost-prohibitive, it will not be protected.
I was taking a different context, you are correct in your analysis, not of byz (I am not taking sides in a personal fight), that tribalism or theocracy are not Anarchy, and neither are small scale gangs warring for control…
This is what I was agreeing to as a point that Byz was making, that NAP is not suitable for definitive purposes, it presupposes what someone subjectively believes is aggression (abortion debate, etc.)
“Anarcho-capitalism” is a term used by it’s adherents and some students of political theory to describe an ideology mandating the abolition of all government, with existing governmentally-provided services (security services, for example) to be replaced with competing private defense agencies. Anarcho-capitalism sits at the extreme end of the overall US libertarian movement, in opposition to it’s more moderate brother minarchism.
Traditional anarchists are critical of anarcho-capitalism, as traditional anarchists desire the abolition of not only all government, but all business and all religion, and view the private defense agencies and strict property rights regime of anarcho-capitalism as authoritarian tyranny little different from any government.
Rothbard said that he used “anarcho-capitalism” to distinguish between other forms of capitalism (i.e. state-capitalism). As explicitly defined by Marx, “capitalism” is the same as “anarcho-capitalism”, however, Rothbard added the “anarcho-” to make it really clear that what he (Rothbard) was talking about what true free-market capitalism, not mercantilism.