Ancaps & Christian Nationalists

• How can one reconcile Christian Nationalism with a desire to abolish or drastically weaken the state?
• How can Ancaps and Christian Nationalists work together in a spirit of mutual cooperation?

The potential alliance between Anarcho-Capitalists (Ancaps) and Christian Nationalists may seem paradoxical at first glance, but shared ideological underpinnings and mutual opposition to centralized state power create fertile ground for cooperation. Both groups view the modern secular state as an overreaching force that undermines moral autonomy and economic liberty. As libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard once argued, “The State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large,” a sentiment echoing Christian Nationalist critiques of governmental intrusion into spheres like education and healthcare. Their overlapping priorities—from dismantling bureaucratic regimes to fostering voluntary communities—suggest a pragmatic path toward collaboration.

Theological principles provide a foundation for reconciling Christian Nationalism with Anti-Statism. Jesus’s admonition to “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s” (Matthew 22:21) has been interpreted by thinkers like Christian reconstructionist R.J. Rushdoony as a call to limit state authority to mere arbitration, reserving moral governance for religious institutions. Similarly, the Eighth Commandment’s prohibition against theft (“Thou shalt not steal,” Exodus 20:15) aligns with Ancap philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s defense of private property as a natural right. Calvinist doctrines of predestination and prosperity theology further bridge this gap, framing self-reliance and economic success as divine virtues. John Winthrop’s 17th-century Massachusetts Bay Colony exemplified this synthesis, blending Puritan theology with localized governance—a model later echoed by Thomas Jefferson’s assertion that “the government is best which governs least.”

Practical cooperation could manifest through parallel institutions that bypass state control. Homeschooling networks, private arbitration systems, and health cooperatives already serve as prototypes for such efforts. Ancaps champion opt-in frameworks like cryptocurrency and polycentric legal systems, while Christian Nationalists advocate for faith-based governance akin to the Free State Project’s experiments in New Hampshire. Economist Gary North, a proponent of biblical economics, argues that “sound money and voluntary contracts are not just economic tools but moral imperatives.” Joint opposition to initiatives like central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and World Health Organization mandates offers immediate common cause, uniting both groups against perceived technocratic tyranny.

The ability to opt-out (with monies like gold, silver, bitcoin and monero) and move-out (by relocating to more favorable jurisdictions) is critical to the continuation and success of members of both groups.

Critics might question how a movement seeking moral order (Christian Nationalism) aligns with one prioritizing radical individualism (Anarcho-Capitalism). Yet zoning proposals, such as “sin cities” for secular libertines and “covenant communities” for traditionalists, could resolve this tension. Political theorist Curtis Yarvin notes, “The future of governance lies in competitive jurisdictions,” a vision shared by seasteading advocates like Patri Friedman. By partitioning physical or digital spaces into voluntary enclaves, both groups could coexist without compromising core values. As John Locke—whose natural rights philosophy intertwined with Protestant theology—wrote in 1689, “The care of souls cannot belong to the civil magistrate,” a principle affirming the separation of spiritual and civil authority.

Ultimately, the Ancap–Christian Nationalist alliance hinges on a shared diagnosis of state failure rather than full ideological congruence. Their cooperation would resemble the uneasy partnership between abolitionists and suffragettes in the 19th century: united by immediate goals but diverging in ultimate visions. By leveraging historical precedents, theological synergies, and innovative governance models, these movements could challenge the monopoly of the secular progressive state. As Romans 13:1 cautions, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities”—but when those authorities defy divine and natural law, both groups agree that resistance becomes a sacred duty.