The False Equivalence of Usage - Ancaps, Public Services, and the Consent Principle

"You use public roads, therefore you can't be an anarcho-capitalist!"

This tired gotcha reveals more about the speaker than the target. Society attacks ancaps as hypocrites for using government services while giving anti-capitalists a free pass for enthusiastically engaging with markets they claim to despise.

The difference isn't hypocrisy - it's consent.

The Ancap Position: Restitution, Not Endorsement

When an ancap uses a government road, they're not endorsing theft - they're attempting restitution. The money was already stolen through taxation. The service exists whether they use it or not. Refusing to use it means suffering both the theft AND forgoing any recovery.

Analogy: A thief steals your wallet and buys groceries for your kitchen. Eating the groceries doesn't endorse theft - it's salvaging value from what was already taken.

"But your usage is a vote of confidence!"

No. Government services operate without market feedback. Low bus ridership doesn't shut routes down, high library usage doesn't expand branches. Bureaucrats operate on political mandate, not market signals. Your usage sends no signal because there's no mechanism to receive it.

Eating stolen groceries doesn't tell the thief "steal again next month." The thief operates independently of your consumption. Tax extraction and service provision work the same way - separate processes, separate timelines.

You cannot retroactively consent to something that excluded you from inception. The policy was conceived, funded, and implemented without your input. Using the result doesn't legitimize the process - it's damage control.

The ancap isn't saying "I support government monopolies." They're saying "You already stole my money for this - I'll recover what I can rather than pay twice."

The Anti-Capitalist Contradiction: Actual Hypocrisy

Anti-capitalists voluntarily choose to engage with markets they claim to despise. No gun to their head. No coercive extraction. Pure choice.

They buy iPhones while condemning corporate profits. Use Amazon while decrying worker exploitation. Invest in index funds while advocating wealth redistribution. Start businesses while claiming entrepreneurship is immoral.

Every transaction is voluntary. Every purchase sends a market signal. Every dollar spent validates the system through revealed preference.

Unlike ancaps using coercively-funded services, anti-capitalists have alternatives. They could abstain. They choose not to.

Their participation directly supports what they oppose. This isn't restitution - it's voluntary validation.

Why This Matters

Consent is everything. Government services violate consent from inception through coercive taxation. Markets operate through voluntary exchange.

When you're forced to pay for something, using it afterward is damage control, not endorsement. When you voluntarily pay for something while claiming it's immoral, you reveal either philosophical inconsistency, moral hypocrisy, or intellectual confusion.

Anti-capitalist criticism carries no weight because their behavior contradicts their beliefs. They vote with their wallets for capitalism while condemning it with their voices. Their revealed preferences expose their stated beliefs as hollow.

The ancap maintains consistency: oppose coercion, attempt restitution where coercion has already occurred.

Conclusion

The equivalence collapses under scrutiny. Ancaps using public services: grudging restitution from systematic theft. Anti-capitalists using markets: voluntary participation in systems they oppose.

Why take seriously someone who demonstrates through their choices that they don't believe their own arguments?

When someone steals your money to buy you a sandwich, eating it doesn't make you complicit. It just makes you less hungry while you work toward a world where such theft no longer occurs.