The following is a copy of comments made by HowlingStatic in an earlier discussion in r/AnCap. There comments are long, but I personally found to be well written and a fascinating read. I also believe there is a relevant discussion to be had in context of culture and Anarcho-Capitalism / Voluntarism.

...or it's more like the point where a health problem begins to cause you enough pain that you become aware of it, and can't ignore it anymore.

What seems to be falling away is this long-term disease of conservative thinking where people insisted the United States was basically a good place, with a good government that sometimes went astray.

More and more you hear people basically declaring it all rotten to the core, even if they haven't made the obvious step to seeing the problem as states, generally speaking. I have seen more and more middle-aged white guys with jobs, houses, and families, basically moving from the "government needs reform" to "government is fucked."

One place I hope to see some more serious battle is with the so-called Constitutionalists. On one hand, you consider those people low down on your list of worries, but on the other, there are premises in their thinking which are antithetical to liberty. Namely:

(a) The US Constitution takes government as a given.

(b) Constitutions aren't worth the paper they're written or printed on if they can just be ignored - which they can, and which they have been.

(c) Constitutions are subordinate to, or derived from, a basic conception of rights and individual autonomy. When a Constitution allows room for the state to meddle in the private affairs of individuals, it serves the purpose of statism. Ours does, and every one I've ever read does (hey, just amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol, and then it's okay!). People invert this too often. As much as Constitutionalists pay lip service to the idea that rights (god-given, derived from a philosophical principle, or otherwise) are the basis of this whole discussion, they don't sound like it when they talk about the Constitution.

I made the point elsewhere that conservatives have little to do with anarchism or libertarianism, despite similarities on the surface, and I stand by that fact. Conservatives - among them the Constitutionalists - must be shown the sad house of cards on which their philosophy sits.

I think a lot of conservatives are too craven to make the intellectual step to anarchism. I don't think they like the word "anarchist" (which is understandable), and they don't like the realignment, reshuffling, and in fact disorder any kind of transition to statelesness would cause them. I also think conservatives - not all, but many - believe man is, at heart, a depraved animal who needs to be "kept in line."

Not the conservative himself, of course, but everyone else. The wolves at the door. And that is one reason - a bleak conception of human nature - why many conservatives can't transition. It is that the fear of unfettered individuals exceeds that of the state (itself comprised of mostly corrupt individuals, but that's another story).

Jesse Ventura, I am fairly certain, is not a coward in any sense of the word. If my punk-ass can wake up one day and say, "There is no moral justification for the state," I have hope for him.

I expect a personality like his would be warmly embraced, if not among anarchists, than at least by minarchist libertarians. Which would be a positive step in the right direction.

Some people like me are still conservative in the sense that we wish to conserve our family and social traditions from our ancestors. Im still anarchist though. Kudos on calling out the illogic nature of state-conservativism - Market_Anarchist

The only question I ever have about this, and the only one that matters, isn't so much what you do in your home or what holidays you celebrate or the foods you eat, or even the personal morality you teach your kids, but how you react when someone with your politics (NAP) moves next door who is the exact opposite.

And more to the point in a non-political context, how you feel about it personally. Like in my case, I wouldn't care if an evangelical moved next door. Or a Muslim. I find myself actually uncomfortable in monocultures where people tend to be like me.

You know that song Ballad of a Thin Man? I am the opposite of Mr. Jones in that song. I want to walk out the door and have unexpected things happen. I want my assumptions challenged. I like walking in diverse cities where the smell changes every few hundred feet and you hear different languages being spoken.

Where I am not comfortable is in places where I worry I could be assaulted or imprisoned for being me. Beyond that though, how a person chooses to conduct their personal lives are not a concern to me, or more specifically, it is amazing the amount of tolerance and respect that is possible in an environment where people aren't at each others' throats over it.

As for my own ancestors and their tradition, I examine each for its applicability and worth, and adopt it without regard for what is traditional. I have basically thrown tradition as a justification for anything out the window. But if eating the foods and singing the songs and conducting myself in a certain way in public is both traditional and makes sense, then all that's good. Unfortunately, my ancestral background is Russian, Polish, and Slovak, cultures I have little affinity for personally. Maybe that is one of the things that works against my sense of tradition. My family came to the US in the early 1900s, before the Russian Revolution, and everyone from my grandparents to me grew up without having ever even been anywhere but the US. So there's not much American tradition to draw from other than work for a living, maintain personal integrity and honor, and be self-sufficient - all of which are not only compatible with but root concepts in anarcho-capitalism. However, the food, the folk music and dancing, ugh...How often I wished I was Irish or Italian or something. When I think of "the old country" - which is hilarious terminology in the modern age for someone descended from generations of Americans - I think of, basically, Britain. The Industrial Revolution, the Royal Society, the rise of modern science, and Enlightenment Age of Reason thinkers. It is odd; I consider that "traditional" but all of the pierogies in the world - and I do like them, they're maybe the exception to my cultural disdain for my own background - will not make me misty-eyed and earnest speaking. John Locke, however, well, that's another story.

While the way I think would have certainly alienated my ancestors, I don't think there's much in my day-to-day conduct that would. I have been lucky to come from a long line of honorable people, and having that tradition makes striving to be that way easier, and possibly more gratifying.

But had I come from a line of thieving bastards, I wouldn't give any thought to breaking tradition. As for the potential many conservatives think they see for a diverse society to corrupt their youth, my immediate thought is how weak and unappealing one's values must be if they really fear that. I'm a secular person but I wouldn't be bothered by my kid hanging out with religious kids, or even going to their churches out of curiosity.

I have found that too many self-identified conservatives, however, are scared shitless of me and the supposed influence I could have on society and gasp their children. Which says a lot more about their beliefs than it does mine.

BTW I am a white middle class guy living in the suburbs. I am the product of a lowercase-c conservative environment and probably come off as somewhat conservative. My point being; I have no hostility toward that and am actually quite used to it. I guess my only issue is that there seems to be a bit too much of it, but a lot of that is a matter of choice of where I live -- that is to say, in areas which are not shot through with crime and degeneracy.