Ok so I understand you are not actually defending an idea of anarcho-capitalism but capitalism and rotation of power, just as it is right now, is that correct?
I agree that interventions can make things worst, but I think this is especially the case when it enables a minority to take power.
Also, there is a sweet contradiction here as every shift is the result of some people (in a given context) wanting to intervene to realise their vision of the world.
I am sorry but I am not that educated … I am usually just against the overreach of governments onto trades/markets.
Is that far away from anarcho-capitalism?
It's ok, nice of you to admit.
From what I understand, combining anarchism and capitalist makes you abolish the state and let free markets organise all aspects of society, based on the foundation of private property. So on top of that everything is based on private interactions (private courts, private police, etc.).
Being closer from this or other forms of anarchism is your say. For instance you can have anarcho-communism, which is based on commons but with no centralization by a state. And a lot of possibilies between the two.
Other people argue that the state is inevitable if defined as how people organize together as a society... In this case the question becomes how to have an anarchist state, ie a state without a ruler.
