I considered myself first a libertarian and then an anarcho-capitalist from about 15 to 27, so I&#x27;m pretty familiar with the arguments (though I&#x27;ll note that I&#x27;m no longer convinced by all of them).<p>The concept that involuntary debt is automatically bad is an axiom that most people who believed like I did start with. But it&#x27;s not the self-evident axiom that I once thought.<p>There are many cultures that consider children to have certain filial obligations (and some states in the US still have such laws), you might consider that wrong, but it&#x27;s not self-evident that it is.<p>There are also situations where the law considers continued enjoyment of some good or service to create an obligation to pay for that good or service regardless of whether the person enjoying it requested it in the first place. I don&#x27;t think this is self-evidently wrong either.<p>To explain why I&#x27;m not longer an anarcho-capitalist: As I got older, I started to realize that almost everything I&#x27;d accomplished was primarily a result of the situation I was born into. Intelligence and success are primarily a product of upbringing and genetics, not something I accomplished on my own that I should feel proud of.<p>I haven&#x27;t moved over to pure socialism, but I no longer feel that allocating wealth based purely on the circumstances of birth (because let&#x27;s face it, an individual&#x27;s ability to make money is based almost entirely on the circumstances of their birth.) is the best system.<p>There are times when capitalism is the best, most efficient system for everyone involved (even if it&#x27;s not the most egalitarian). But I&#x27;ve increasingly realized there are also time when capitalism reaches a local optimum. And I don&#x27;t think we should let ideology blind us to that.