askchapo

Ancaps don't want to tear down the state, they want to privatize it.

That saying has some weight to it.

And honestly, when you look at what actually happens when public services get restructured, it often feels less like liberation and more like reshuffling.

Like, sure. In theory, you could imagine worker co-ops, community health councils, or animal care collectives running things without top down control. And if those models were truly empowered, democratically managed, publicly accountable, and not dependent on profit, then maybe decentralization could mean something real. We already see glimpses of that in more socialist communities, mutual aid networks, and solidarity economies where people organize care, housing, and support outside both corporate markets and bureaucratic state systems.

But so much of what passes for privatization doesn't move toward that kind of grassroots self management. Instead, it hands over public assets and responsibilities to entities that aren't answerable to communities, don't operate transparently, and prioritize stability or returns over participation. The state doesn't disappear. It just steps behind the curtain, guaranteeing contracts, absorbing risk, and bailing things out when they fail.

So yeah, maybe the goal isn't to abolish the state so much as to hide its role while keeping the machinery running for select interests. And if that's the case, then calling it private feels more like branding than reality.

Real small government wouldn't need backstops, guarantees, or constant intervention. But we rarely see that. What we usually see is the state staying deeply involved, just less accountable. Meanwhile, the kinds of truly democratic, community run alternatives, the ones that actually reduce reliance on centralized power, get ignored or underfunded, even though they show it's possible to do things differently.