That's sort of what I'm driving at. I would note that anarcho-capitalists are not pro social hierarchy which is a central belief in right wing political philosophy. Murray Rothbard described the ideology as being neither of the left nor fo the right, basically saying that self ownership is incompatible with both traditions.

Notwithstanding Thiel isn't and anarcho-capitalist, he seems in practice to be almost a neoconservative. He describes himself as a "conservative libertarian", but has wrapped himself up in the war state and the surveillance industry, both of which are HIGHLY at odds with any kind of libertarianism. Thiel is much more like Liz Cheney than say Ron Paul.

> anarcho-capitalists are not pro social hierarchy

Are you sure about that? I mean, I believe they don't explicitly argue for it. But the ones I've come across seem to be practically in favor of the sort of wealth concentration and freedom of the rich to do as they please that they seem to be effectively in favor of strong social hierarchy.

Some of them are natural law types and some are definitely misanthropic but they are all opposed to central authority and hierarchy. The high concentration of wealth we see today seems to be met with Teo main responses by the more well read ancaps I know. They either view it as the result of government capture or in some cases the reward for finding a great idea first. I think it’s a weak spot for them ideologically, personally.

Interesting. Thanks for the reply.

In which case, it sounds like they're perfectly ok with authority and hierarchy as long as they see it as "fairly" achieved via amassing wealth in ways that they deem moral, yes?

I'd certainly agree that's a weakness, in that it really seems to undercut the "anarcho" portion.

I think they'd see it as fine as long as you don't come to it by force, either your own or the government's. Generally these folks seem to think that in a free market that it's easy to be toppled by upstarts and hard to become very large without the state helping you. Would that be the case? I have no clue.

I mean, anarchy is about removing the central state first and foremost. The economics bit is where these folks differ from the traditional anarchists.

Huh. That's not my impression of anarchism. Not the people I've met for sure. And given the long history of anarchism in labor activism, I have a hard time believing it was ever purely about "the central state".

I'm obviously simplifying a complicated topic quite a bit. I'm leaving out the whole distinction to be made around Anarcho-syndicalism which is the labor organizing focused strain of anarchy, however these folks are very much against the state. These folks are sometimes historically called left-libertarians and have a strong historical claim on the term libertarian itself. But again, they all don't like the state. There are also collectivist and communist anarchists, however the latter may even be possible.