Individually we all desire security, and in the absence of a state the only way to obtain any measure of that, is to collectively refrain from doing things that would adversely impact upon one another. We can only be truly free when everyone is also equally free, thus anarchy is implicitly bound together by a collective desire for social cohesion. This is neatly encapsulated in a tenet known as the Golden Principle, which also forms the philosophical foundation of every major religion.
The particular wording of the Golden Principle most pertinent to anarchism is:
“Treat others with the same measure of respect as you yourself would wish to be afforded.”
The political term for this is “social egalitarianism”, and neither relates to equality of outcome nor equality of opportunity… but instead to equal treatment. This necessitates being non-judgemental, respectful of one another, and levelling any social structures intended to uphold inequality.
The Golden Principle is not even remotely synonymous with the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), because it not only frames human relations in terms of respect rather than aggression, but also seeks to abolish coercive structures. Moreover the Golden Principle is intended to work subjectively, and in doing so impels people to consult their conscience and assess how their actions will be perceived by others. This is crucial because it’s entirely possible to adversely impact on someone without overtly aggressing against them, and that’s very risky in a society where security is dependent on harmony rather than who has the biggest gang on their side.
This then begs the question as to why anyone who professes to desire a free society would then suggest a framework dependent on [somehow] imposing property rights and advocating non-aggression, rather than one predicated on mutual respect? The answer is that such people seek totality of freedom for themselves, as opposed to equality of freedom for everyone… and this includes the freedom to enslave others.
In a society where individual security is dependent on collective respect, absentee ownership would be pretty damn insecure thus rendering it non-viable. So called ‘anarcho-capitalists’ have essentially diverged from the pragmatic political theory of how to implement a free society (anarchism), into a fantastical laissez-faire ideology where everyone collectively undertakes never to overthrow their oppressors.
The bottom line is this: usury necessitates a state, not a principle – it really does. If someone aims to gouge a living from rentseeking, profitseeking, or moneylending then the last thing they should be considering is abolishing the same monopoly on force that serves to facilitate all that. The taxes capitalists resent paying so much, primarily go towards maintaining the coercive social structures that are critically conducive to their goals.
Government might seen horribly wasteful, but there’s actually a method to its madness – it’s about conning the oppressed into paying for their own oppression under the illusion of democracy. If you’re being made to pay for all this, then it’s because you’re a slave to capitalism, rather than an oppressed master of it.
There’s a clear choice here, and it’s between seeking a free society, and seeking rent. Your call.