1/- Just realized that I kind of treat anarcho-capitalist literature the way some people (usually not libertarians) talk about Econ 101. As in, read all this, digest it & only then will I tell you why large portions of it are wrong. (Not endorsing the analogous view of Econ 101).

2/- I don't think defense and arbitration agencies are the full story on law and protection without the state, but they're an important part of the picture, and one that you kind of already have to have on hand before getting into the other parts.

3/- Nothing about standard ancap literature actually *says* they're the whole story, either, but it's very easy to read e.g. the Machinery of Freedom and come away thinking that 100% of defense will be provided by explicitly commercial enterprises.

4/- Moreover, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I think good and proper market anarchism is best understood by having anarcho-capitalism (or more precisely, capitalism-indifferent anarchism) in mind, and then explaining the differences.

5/- It's very hard for most people even able to conceive of actual anarchisms to think of anything but ancap, ancom and *maybe* primitivism as Ideal Types. Non-reactionary ancaps are clearly the closest to us, so it's best to have that as the model to start with & step back from.

6/- That said, I think the residue of anarcho-capitalism leaves some clear mental blocks. One is framing property as always 100% private w/ crisp, clear delineations in boundaries. People like Holcombe do acknowledge public property in anarcho-capitalism, but as an afterthought.

7/- Also, brains shutting down at the thought that contracts might be contestable, unions, etc. *If possible*, it's best to develop some way to present the Real Deal to people without having to go through standard anarcho-capitalism first.

8/- I don't know how to do that yet, because left-wing market anarchism is a lot more complicated to explain than ordinary anarcho-hyphenisms. Even the term assumes you already know why affixing "market" onto "anarchism" matters, & then what adding "left-wing" onto that does.

9/- I also have mixed thoughts about the term itself! "Left-wing" feels like something being grafted onto "market anarchism," rather than each naturally emerging from shared core. It encourages thinking of either "what if David Friedman +unions" or "what if Kropotkin +property."

10/- And then we're back to the beginning, because what I realized is that that ("what if David Friedman +unions") is kind of how I default to explaining things to people. It's very imperfect!

11/- I also think that for the intellectual bloodline of radical libertarianism to live, it needs some serious thoughts on how to incorporate commons, voice, and a lot of stuff libertarianism usually emphasizes escape from the darksides of. Ostroms are obv place to start here.

12/- And the left-libertarian approach, again, feels unstable, like just grafting two unrelated things onto one another. We need a deeper integration that presents itself as a very obvious integration upon seeing it for the first time. I'm rambling now, but I hope it makes sense.