Are there any historical examples of Anarcho-Capitalism taking place or is it just a meme ideology...

Literally every capitalist country on Earth.

If you don't have police, banks, and other institutions, you don't have capitalism.

Literally the definition of a meme ideology for idiots who worship money and don't realise that they'll be the peasants slaving away for Lord Rothschild in the neofeudalist dystopia they want to bring about

post ancap memes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Cospaia
>The Republic of Cospaia did not have a formal government or official legal system. There were no jails and there was no standing army or police force within the tiny nation.

>he thinks the ancap memes are untruthful just because they're funny
The closest examples would be something like China under British domination where the British government let them turn the entire country into a shit hole drug den.

nope, to have ancap you need an anarchist culture, just like you need a democratic culture to have a democracy. Otherwise North Korea would be a democracy

the council of elders was a state, you always need a state, not saying it is right, it is just the way it is

there are examples of private solutions to just about every state solved problems just not found in one absolute society.

There are private solutions to slave labor? What about organized crime? Or predatory business practices that completely undermine the most important aspect of Capitalism, competition?

I am genuinely interested in these solutions if you can provide them.

>That based period of time right before literally any great society formally establishes a government, where everyone in the same geographical area is sharing freely.
FTFY

tribal life is communism

Meme ideology, capitalism in that situation would decay into neofeudalism in about half a second.

I don't understand why people cling so hard to failed memes like this one.

"Anarcho"-"capitalism" is literally early feudalism. So every example of early feudalism is an example.

>The State is the entity that has the monopoly on legitimate use of force over a given geographical area
>In feudalism this is the landlord (the king owned the country, rented it to his vassals who in turn lent it to their vassals/peasants
>Ancap ideology wants the same system (property owners have monopoly on use of force over their property) but can't accept that it would be functionally identical

PROTIP: When your landlord is the state, rent is taxation.

>tribal life is communism
Kind of. Certainly more communistic and cooperative than not. And certainly not anarcho-capitalist.

But to say that such societies were classless doesn't have a basis in historical or archaeological evidence.

Pls don't fall for the primitivism meme user.

What the fuck does cuckoldry even mean anymore.

People who unironically refer to the NAP should have the shit beaten out of them.

>capitalism isn't inherently violent

Of course it's a goddamn meme ideology, Queer Anarchism is where it's at

>life isn't inherently violent

Not under Communism.

>voluntary exchange is somehow violent

>collectivization without violence

>Capitalism
>Voluntary

It's the most voluntary system out there you moron.

>system
>voluntary

>the king owned the country, rented it to his vassals who in turn lent it to their vassals/peasants
No, completely opposite. The vassals who owned the land and aligned themselves with someone who's strong enough to protect them.

>Capitalism will never work without a centralizing authority to make sure that every transaction is done fairly.

Lex mercatoria

>banks
:^)

anarcho-anything is a meme

Kowloon.

This is the initial stage. At a certain point the protector becomes the owner though because ownership is only possible if you have the means to actually defend your property.

No because it's never been tried

Kowloon Walled City

SJW, leftist, commie or one of the various anything left of /pol/ words.

Then you have absolute monarchy, not feudal society.

That might be one possible end-result in case there is a monarch strong enough, or the sovereign princes weak enough, to unify the country, but you can perfectly maintain a status quo of several powerful princes that keep each other in check. Both has existed in history. However, power tends to accumulate. It is not something that remains distributed among countless individuals as the Anarcho-Capitalist model promises it would.