This is an excerpt from a discussion I had on the topic.
I think that anarcho-capitalism, in practice, is pretty stupid. The idea that privately controlled, profit-driven entities can be trusted to operate ethically, devoid of environmental and anti-trust regulation is plainly preposterous. It’s hysterical to imagine a reality where an anarcho-capitalist “state” is able to function stably without public affairs being compromised by private interests; it’s exceedingly clear from history that those who control the resources control the people – and when the said group of people aren’t democratically elected representatives, we’ve got a big problem in our hands. There isn’t much more to say about it, honestly – just take a look at how the Banana republics and the oligopolies of the world turned out.
However, I digress. Among the very few things I happen to agree with conservatives on, one of them is that the average human is incapable of appreciating “good” beyond the limits of their personal own life. The prospect of a society sacrificing the urges of individual greed for the sake of mutual benefit is disappointingly unrealistic. While there are a number of things I appreciate about anarchist-communism, I think the likes of it are simply unviable to implement peacefully. Spontaneous and radical ideological change is quite difficult to create among people without a central driving factor – and in the case of anarcho-communism, I think it would likely have to be an authoritarian governing (and indoctrinating) entity – a prospect I’m not particularly allured by. All the same, regardless, I’m quite interested to explore the possibility of such a society existing in the form of smaller, self-motivated and autarkic communes functioning under a bigger administrative entity to manage issues that may concern the health of the larger republic, like national diplomacy, defense or trade.