I think ancaps have very compelling arguments and I tend to agree with them. Corporations privatize their profits (to themselves) and socialize their risk (to

I think ancaps have very compelling arguments and I tend to agree with them. Corporations privatize their profits (to themselves) and socialize their risk (to government). Eliminate the ability to socialize their risk and it's incumbent upon corporations to respond to market forces, creating competition, reducing barriers of entry, etc. This all makes sense to me from a free-market perspective. From my experience the ancap positions are the most philosophically consistent, taking into account the large majority of economic and ethical variables. The only problem I have with ancaps is that they usually fail to acknowledge the third rail of politics and as such fall into the same trap as the libertarians. It's one thing to envision a system which minimizes authoritarianism and maximizes personal liberty. It's another thing to actually implement that system from where we are, not where we would like to be. For example, if we minimize (or abolish) government too early, we create a vacuum which invariably will be filled by existing corporate combines. I'll add this argument has been made before by ancaps against libertarianism, so the problem isn't exactly foreign to them. In contrast, break up the corporate combines without also reducing the power and authority of the state and we temporarily fix the monopoly problem while leaving the door wide open for the exact same thing to repeat (as we are seeing today). There are undoubtedly smarter people than me working on this problem but in my estimation it's absolutely critical for ancaps to outline incremental steps (in the correct order) towards the solution and not fall on their swords because those incremental steps may not represent the most philosophically pure end result from the outset (like what's happened with libertarians).