Jump to content

Anarcho-capitalism: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Vision Thing (talk | contribs)
→‎Dispute over the name "anarchism": this isn't connected with the subject
Vision Thing (talk | contribs)
→‎Dispute over the name "anarchism": Joe Peacott is not important for this section since he doesn't deny that ACs are anarchists and his objection is mentioned in other part of the of the article
Line 95: Line 95:
According to [http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html The Anarchist International], capitalism is an economic [[plutocracy]] that includes its own [[hierarchy]]. They place anarcho-capitalism outside of the anarchist movement, and into the classical liberal tradition "[[Plutarchy]] without statism = liberalism." Some anarchists espouse a form of [[labor theory of value]], which they put forth as one reason that [[profit]], [[Economic rent|rent]], and [[wage labour]] are [[exploitation|exploitive]]. While classical capitalists such as [[Adam Smith]] also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, state that value is subjective and adhere to [[marginalism]].
According to [http://www.anarchy.no/ai.html The Anarchist International], capitalism is an economic [[plutocracy]] that includes its own [[hierarchy]]. They place anarcho-capitalism outside of the anarchist movement, and into the classical liberal tradition "[[Plutarchy]] without statism = liberalism." Some anarchists espouse a form of [[labor theory of value]], which they put forth as one reason that [[profit]], [[Economic rent|rent]], and [[wage labour]] are [[exploitation|exploitive]]. While classical capitalists such as [[Adam Smith]] also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, state that value is subjective and adhere to [[marginalism]].
[[Joe Peacott]] has said that individualist anarchism is anti-capitalist, and contrasts it to anarcho-capitalism.<ref>[[Joe Peacott|Peacott, Joe]] (2003), [http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/econn/econn097.htm] Libertarian Alliance ISBN 1856375641</ref> However, American individualist anarchism is sometimes regarded as a form of "liberal-anarchism."<ref>Weisbord, Albert (1937) [http://www.weisbord.org/conquest10.htm ''American Liberal-Anarchism''] from ''The Conquest of Power'' (1937)</ref>
American individualist anarchism is sometimes regarded as a form of "liberal-anarchism."<ref>Weisbord, Albert (1937) [http://www.weisbord.org/conquest10.htm ''American Liberal-Anarchism''] from ''The Conquest of Power'' (1937)</ref>


Many academics put anarcho-capitalism closer to libertarianism rather than to other forms of anarchism.<ref>Goodwin, Barbara. '''Using Political Ideas''', p. 148.</ref> However, some, such as social sciences scholar [[Richard Sylvan]], notes anarcho-capitalism as one of "several recognized varieties of anarchism."<ref>Sylvan, Richard ''Anarchism''. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231,</ref>
Many academics put anarcho-capitalism closer to libertarianism rather than to other forms of anarchism.<ref>Goodwin, Barbara. '''Using Political Ideas''', p. 148.</ref> However, some, such as social sciences scholar [[Richard Sylvan]], notes anarcho-capitalism as one of "several recognized varieties of anarchism."<ref>Sylvan, Richard ''Anarchism''. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231,</ref>

Revision as of 18:25, 15 July 2006

The Libertatis Æquilibritas is one symbol used by anarcho-capitalists [1].

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty, and a prohibition against initiatory coercion and fraud. It sees the only just basis for law as arising from private property norms and an unlimited right of contract between sovereign individuals. Anarcho-capitalists reject the state as an unjustified monopolist and systematic aggressor against sovereign individuals, and would replace it with cooperatives, neighborhood associations, private businesses and similar non-monopolistic organizations. They embrace a form of anti-statist laissez-faire capitalism, and believe that all goods and services should be supplied through voluntary mechanisms like the free market. For anarcho-capitalists, property may only be transferred by trade, gift, or abandonment; confiscation is seen as an illegitimate method of acquiring property from others, whether performed by private individuals, groups, collectives, or the state.

The first well-known version of anarcho-capitalism to identify itself thus was developed by Austrian School economist and libertarian Murray Rothbard in the mid-20th century, synthesizing elements from Austrian School economics, classical liberalism and 19th century American individualist anarchism. While Rothbard bases his philosophy on natural law, others, such as David Friedman, take a pragmatic consequentialist approach by arguing that anarcho-capitalism should be implemented because such a system would have consequences superior to alternatives.

Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and those anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being just as essential to anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state. Many anarcho-capitalists have cited the laissez-faire market philosophy of the American individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner[1] as being predecessors to anarcho-capitalism.

Philosophy

The nonaggression axiom

The term anarcho-capitalism was most likely coined in the mid-1950s by the economist Murray Rothbard.[2] Other terms sometimes used for this philosophy, though not necessarily outside of anarcho-capitalist circles, include:

  • capitalist anarchism
  • anti-state capitalism
  • anti-state marketism
  • anarcho-liberalism
  • stateless capitalism
  • the private-law society[3]
  • radical capitalism[3]
  • right-anarchism[4]
  • free market anarchism
  • private-property anarchy[3]
  • stateless liberalism
A postage stamp celebrating the thousandth anniversary of the Icelandic parliament. According to a theory associated with the economist David Friedman, medieval Icelandic society had some features of anarcho-capitalism. Chieftancies could be bought and sold, and were not geographical monopolies; individuals could voluntarily choose membership in any chieftan's clan.

Anarcho-capitalism, as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom:

[...] The basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a selfowner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or "mixes his labor with." From these twin axioms — self-ownership and "homesteading" — stem the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society. This system establishes the right of every man to his own person, the right of donation, of bequest (and, concomitantly, the right to receive the bequest or inheritance), and the right of contractual exchange of property titles.[5]

In general, the nonaggression axiom can be said to be a prohibition against the initiation of force, or the threat of force, against persons (i.e., direct violence, assault, murder) or property (i.e., fraud, burglary, theft, taxation).[6] The initiation of force is usually referred to as aggression or coercion. The difference between anarcho-capitalists and other libertarians is largely one of the degree to which they take this axiom. Minarchist libertarians, such as most people involved in Libertarian political parties, would retain the state in some smaller and less invasive form, retaining at the very least public police, courts and military; others, however, might give further allowance for other government programs. In contrast, anarcho-capitalists reject any level of state intervention, defining the state as a coercive monopoly and, as the only entity in human society that derives its income from legal aggression, an entity that inherently violates the central axiom of libertarianism.[7] Some, such as Rothbard, accept the nonaggression axiom on an intrinsic moral or natural law basis. Others, such as Friedman, take a consequentialist or egoist approach; rather than maintaining that aggression is intrinsically immoral, they maintain that a law against aggression can only come about by contract between self-interested parties who agree to refrain from initiating coercion against each other. It is in terms of the non-aggression principle that Rothbard defined anarchism; he defined "anarchism as a system which provides no legal sanction for such aggression ['against person and property']" and said that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive coercion."[8] In an interview with New Banner, Rothbard said that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."[9]

Original appropriation

Central to anarcho-capitalism are the concepts of self-ownership and original appropriation:

Everyone is the proper owner of his own physical body as well as of all places and nature-given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means of his body, provided only that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. This ownership of "originally appropriated" places and goods by a person implies his right to use and transform these places and goods in any way he sees fit, provided only that he does not change thereby uninvitedly the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. In particular, once a place or good has been first appropriated by, in John Locke's phrase, 'mixing one's labor' with it, ownership in such places and goods can be acquired only by means of a voluntary — contractual — transfer of its property title from a previous to a later owner.[10]

Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common usage or various anarchist movements:

  • Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (includes opposition to the State)
  • Contract: a voluntary binding agreement between persons
  • Coercion: physical force or threat of such against persons or property
  • Capitalism: economic system where the means of production are privately owned, and where investments, production, distribution, income, and prices are determined through the operation of a free market rather than by government
  • Free market: a market where all decisions regarding transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services are voluntary
  • Fraud: inducing one to part with something of value through the use of dishonesty
  • State: an organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion
  • Voluntary: any action not influenced by coercion or fraud perpetrated by any human agency

This is the root of anarcho-capitalist property rights, and where they differ from collectivist forms of anarchism. Original appropriation allows an individual to claim any "unused" property, including land, and by improving or otherwise using it, own it with the same absolute right as his own body. According to Rothbard, original appropriation of land is not legitimate by merely claiming it or building a fence around it; it is only by using land — by mixing one's labor with it — that original appropriation is legitimized: "Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be."[11] As a practical matter, in terms of the ownership of land, anarcho-capitalists recognize that there are few (if any) parcels of land left on Earth whose ownership was not at some point in time transferred as the result of coercion, usually through seizure by some form of state. However, unless records and titles exist to confirm the theft and the rightful individual owner most do not believe that this history de-legitimizes current ownerships which are based on consensual transactions.

By accepting an axiomatic definition of private property and property rights, anarcho-capitalists deny the legitimacy of a state on principle:

"For, apart from ruling out as unjustified all activities such as murder, homicide, rape, trespass, robbery, burglary, theft, and fraud, the ethics of private property is also incompatible with the existence of a state defined as an agency that possesses a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and/or the right to tax."[10]

The contractual society

The society envisioned by anarcho-capitalists has been called the Contractual Society; "[...] a society based purely on voluntary action, entirely un­hampered by violence or threats of violence."[11] Because this system relies on voluntary agreements (contracts) between individuals as the only legal framework, it is difficult to predict precisely what the particulars of this society would look like. Those particulars are disputed both among anarcho-capitalists and between them and their critics.

One particular ramification is that transfer of property and services must be voluntary on the part of both parties. No external entities can force an individual to accept or deny a particular transaction. An employer might offer insurance and death benefits to same-sex couples; another might refuse to recognize any union outside his or her own faith. Individuals would be free to enter into contractual agreements as they saw fit.

One social structure that is not permissible under anarcho-capitalism is one that attempts to claim greater sovereignty than the individuals that form it. The state is a prime example, but another is the modern corporation — defined as a legal entity that exists under a different legal code than individuals as a means to shelter the individuals who own and run the corporation from possible legal consequences of acts by the corporation. It is worth noting that Rothbard allows a narrower definition of a corporation: "Corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation [...]."[11] However, this is a very narrow definition that only shelters owners from debt by creditors that specifically agree to the arrangement; it also does not shelter other liability, such as from malfeasance or other wrongdoing.

There are limits to the right to contract under some interpretations of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard himself asserts that the right to contract is based in inalienable human rights[7] and therefore any contract that implicitly violates those rights can be voided at will, which would, for instance, prevent a person from permanently selling himself or herself into slavery. Other interpretations conclude that banning such contracts would in itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.[12]

Private law and order

Morris and Linda Tannehill, in The Market for Liberty, support natural law as the basis of an anarcho-capitalist society but "object to any statutory law whatsoever. They assert that all one has to do is ask if one is aggressing against another in order to decide if an act is right or wrong."[13] Murray Rothbard, on the other hand, while also supporting a natural prohibition on force and fraud, supports a commonly-agreed upon legal code. Unlike both the Tannehills and Rothbard, David Friedman proposes that "the systems of law would be produced for profit on the open market, just as books and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars."[14]

Anarcho-capitalists only believe in collective defense of individual liberty (i.e., courts, military or police forces) insofar as such groups are formed and paid for on an explicitly voluntary basis. According to Molinari, "Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the security industry would not be different from that of other industries."[15] Proponents point out that private systems of justice and defense already exist, naturally forming where the market is allowed to compensate for the failure of the state: private arbitration, security guards, neighborhood watch groups, and so on.[16] These private courts and police are sometimes referred to generically as Private Defense Agencies (PDAs.)

The defense of those unable to pay for such protection might be financed by charitable organizations relying on voluntary donation rather than by state institutions relying on coercive taxation, or by cooperative self-help by groups of individuals.[17]

Retributive justice, meaning retaliatory force, is often a component of the contracts imagined for an anarcho-capitalist society. Some believe prisons or indentured servitude would be justifiable institutions to deal with those who violate anarcho-capitalist property relations, while others believe exile or forced restitution are sufficient.[18]

The use of force

File:Bunkertrumbull.jpg
Many anarcho-capitalists admire the American Revolution and believe it is the only U.S. war that can be justified.

Like classical liberalism, and unlike pacifism, anarcho-capitalism permits the use of force, as long as it is in the defense of persons or property. The permissible extent of this defensive use of force is an arguable point among anarcho-capitalists.

Another controversial application of defensive aggression is the act of revolutionary violence against tyrannical regimes. Many anarcho-capitalists admire the American Revolution as the legitimate act of individuals working together to fight against tyrannical restrictions of their liberties. In fact, according to Murray Rothbard, the American Revolutionary War was the only war involving the United States that could be justified.[19]

Conflicts within anarcho-capitalist theory

There is dispute on whether anarcho-capitalism is properly justifiable on deontological or consequentialist grounds. Natural-law anarcho-capitalism (such as that advocated by Rothbard) holds that rights can be determined through natural law and that consequences are not relevant to their determination. Consequentialists such as Friedman disagree, maintaining that rights are merely human constructs that rational humans create through contract as a result of concluding what sort of system leads to the best consequences.

Friedman describes an economic approach to anarcho-capitalism. His description differs with Rothbard's because it does not use moral arguments — i.e., it does not appeal to a theory of natural rights to justify itself. In Friedman's work, the economic argument is sufficient to derive the principles of anarcho-capitalism. Private defense or protection agencies and courts not only defend legal rights but supply the actual content of these rights and all claims on the free market. People will have the law system they pay for, and because of economic efficiency considerations resulting from individuals' utility functions, such law will tend to be libertarian in nature but will differ from place to place and from agency to agency depending on the tastes of the people who buy the law. Also unlike other anarcho-capitalists, most notably Rothbard, Friedman has never tried to deny the theoretical cogency of the neoclassical literature on "market failure," nor has he been inclined to attack economic efficiency as a normative benchmark.[16]

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Dispute over the name "anarchism"

Many anarchists strongly argue that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism, since they believe capitalism to be inherently authoritarian. Anarchists favor purely voluntary interaction and oppose coercive interactions, but anarcho-capitalists and their anarchist opponents disagree on whether certain actions are voluntary.

According to The Anarchist International, capitalism is an economic plutocracy that includes its own hierarchy. They place anarcho-capitalism outside of the anarchist movement, and into the classical liberal tradition "Plutarchy without statism = liberalism." Some anarchists espouse a form of labor theory of value, which they put forth as one reason that profit, rent, and wage labour are exploitive. While classical capitalists such as Adam Smith also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, state that value is subjective and adhere to marginalism.

American individualist anarchism is sometimes regarded as a form of "liberal-anarchism."[20]

Many academics put anarcho-capitalism closer to libertarianism rather than to other forms of anarchism.[21] However, some, such as social sciences scholar Richard Sylvan, notes anarcho-capitalism as one of "several recognized varieties of anarchism."[22]

"Left" and "Right" anarchism

Murray Bookchin in Social Anarchism Or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm, calls the divide between traditional anarchists and anarcho-capitalism as social anarchism versus lifestyle anarchism. Similarly Ulrike Heider calls the divide left anarchism versus right anarchism and places anarcho-capitalism on the far right.[23] Most contemporary anarcho-capitalists reject the standard linear model of ideologies in favor of a multidimensional model with a liberty-authority dimension[citation needed], though some, both advocates and opponents of anarcho-capitalism, maintain that anarchism itself is a left-wing ideology.

History and influences

Liberalism

Gustave de Molinari (1819–1912).

Classical liberalism is the primary influence with the longest history on anarcho-capitalist theory. Classical liberals have had two main themes since John Locke first expounded the philosophy: the liberty of man, and limitations of state power. The liberty of man was expressed in terms of natural rights, while limiting the state was based (for Locke) on a consent theory.

In the 19th century, classical liberals led the attack against statism. One notable was Frederic Bastiat (The Law), who wrote, "The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." Henry David Thoreau wrote, "I heartily accept the motto, 'That government is best which governs least'; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, 'That government is best which governs not at all'; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."[24]

One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of privatizing protection of individual liberty and property was France's Jakob Mauvillon in the 18th century. Later, in the 1840s, Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari advocated the same. Molinari, in his essay The Production of Security, argued, "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity." Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical economics. Historian Ralph Raico asserts what that these liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism."[25] Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people — society — and the institutions of force — the State. This society versus state idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs. artificial society, liberty vs. authority, society of contract vs. society of authority, and industrial society vs. militant society, just to name a few.[15] The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings of Herbert Spencer, as well as in thinkers such as Paul Émile de Puydt and Auberon Herbert.

Ulrike Heider, in discussing the "anarcho-capitalists family tree," notes Max Stirner as the "founder of individualist anarchism" and "ancestor of laissez-faire liberalism."[26] According to Heider, Stirner wants to "abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members" and "derives his identity solely from property" with the question of property to be resolved by a 'war of all against all'." Stirner argued against the existence of the state in a fundamentally anti-collectivist way, to be replaced by a "Union of Egoists" but was not more explicit than that in his book The Ego and Its Own published in 1844.

Later, in the early 20th century, the mantle of anti-state liberalism was taken by the "Old Right". These were minarchist, antiwar, anti-imperialist, and (later) anti-New Dealers. Some of the most notable members of the Old Right were Albert Jay Nock, Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, Frank Chodorov, Garet Garrett, and H. L. Mencken. In the 1950s, the new "fusion conservatism", also called "cold war conservatism", took hold of the right wing in the U.S., stressing anti-communism. This induced the libertarian Old Right to split off from the right, and seek alliances with the (now left-wing) antiwar movement, and to start specifically libertarian organizations such as the (U.S.) Libertarian Party.

Individualist anarchism in the United States

Lysander Spooner (1808–87).

Anarcho-capitalism is influenced by the work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists, and is regarded as a form of individualist anarchism by several scholars.[27] Rothbard sought to meld the 19th-century individualist theory with the principles of Austrian economics: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics', a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung" (Egalitarianism). The 19th-century individualist anarchists espoused a labor theory of value, while the anarcho-capitalists adhere to a subjective theory, leading to differences over the legitimacy of profit. Anarchist historian Peter Marshall believes that anarcho-capitalists selectively interpret individualist anarchists texts, overlooking egalitarian implications.[28] For example, Tucker opposed vast concentrations of wealth, which he believed were made possible by government intervention and state protected monopolies. He believed the most dangerous state intervention was the protection of a "banking monopoly" which concentrated capital in the hands of the privileged elite. Though, he also argued that harmful monopolies that were created by government intervention could be maintained in the absence of government protection because of the accumulation of great wealth (see predatory pricing). Anarcho-capitalists also oppose governmental restrictions on banking. They, like all Austrian economists, believe that monopoly can only come about through government intervention. Most modern individualists, following in the footsteps of historical counterparts, reject capitalism in the sense of government-backed privilege for capital[citation needed]. Individualists anarchists have long argued that monopoly on credit and land interferes with the functioning of a free market economy. Although anarcho-capitalists disagree on the critical topics of profit, social egalitarianism, and the proper scope of private property, both schools of thought agree on other issues. Of particular importance to anarcho-capitalists and the individualists are the ideas of "sovereignty of the individual", a market economy, and the opposition to collectivism. Like the individualists, anarcho-capitalists believe that land may be originally appropriated by, and only by, occupation or use; however, most individualists believe it must continually be in use to retain title. Notable 19th-century American individualist anarchists include Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker.

The Austrian School

File:Murray Rothbard.JPG
Murray Rothbard (1926–95).

The Austrian School of economics was founded with the publication of Carl Menger's 1871 book Principles of Economics. Members of this school approach economics as an a priori system like logic or mathematics, rather than as an empirical science like geology. It attempts to discover axioms of human action (called "praxeology" in the Austrian tradition) and make deductions therefrom. Some of these praxeological axioms are:

  • Humans act purposefully.
  • Humans prefer more of a good to less.
  • Humans prefer to receive a good sooner rather than later.
  • Each party to a trade benefits ex ante.

These are macro-level generalizations, or heuristics, which are true for the many, but not necessarily true for any particular person.

Even in the early days, Austrian economics was used as a theoretical weapon against socialism and statist socialist policy. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, a colleague of Menger, wrote one of the first critiques of socialism ever written in his treatise The Exploitation Theory of Socialism-Communism. Later, Friedrich Hayek wrote The Road to Serfdom, asserting that a command economy destroys the information function of prices, and that authority over the economy leads to totalitarianism. Another very influential Austrian economist was Ludwig von Mises, author of the praxeological work Human Action.

Murray Rothbard, a student of Mises, is the man who attempted to meld Austrian economics with classical liberalism and individualist anarchism, and is credited with coining the term "anarcho-capitalism". He was probably the first to use "libertarian" in its current (U.S.) pro-capitalist sense. He was a trained economist, but also knowledgeable in history and political philosophy. When young, he considered himself part of the Old Right, an anti-statist and anti-interventionist branch of the U.S. Republican party. When interventionist cold warriors of the National Review, such as William Buckley, gained influence in the Republican party in the 1950s, Rothbard quit that group and formed an alliance with left-wing antiwar groups. Later, Rothbard was a founder of the U.S. Libertarian Party. In the late 1950s, Rothbard was briefly involved with Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but later had a falling out. Rothbard's books, such as Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, The Ethics of Liberty, and For a New Liberty, are considered by some to be classics of natural law libertarian thought.


Anarcho-capitalism in the real world

19th century interpretation of the Althing in the Icelandic Commonwealth, which authors such as David Friedman and Roderick Long believe to have some features of anarcho-capitalist society.

Anarcho-capitalism is largely theoretical, and even sympathetic critics say that it is unlikely ever to be more than a utopian ideal. Despite this, some anarcho-capitalist philosophers point to actual societies to support their claim that stateless capitalism can function in practice.

Medieval Iceland

According to David Friedman, "Medieval Icelandic institutions have several peculiar and interesting characteristics; they might almost have been invented by a mad economist to test the lengths to which market systems could supplant government in its most fundamental functions."[29] While not asserting that it was an anarcho-capitalist system, he argues that the Icelandic Commonwealth between 930 and 1262 had "some features" of an anarcho-capitalist society--while there was a single legal system, enforcement of law was entirely private — and so provides some evidence of how such a society would function. "Even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially "public" offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system."[29]

However, some disagree with this assessment, arguing that Medieval Iceland was a communal rather than individualist society - [p]eople of a communitarian nature... have reason to be attracted [to Medieval Iceland]... The economy barely knew the existence of markets. Social relations preceded economic relations. [30] and that when a free market finally did arise, that it was the cause of the end of the republic - "During the 12th century, wealth and power began to accumulate in the hands of a few chiefs, and by 1220, six prominent families ruled the entire country. It was the internecine power struggle among these families, shrewdly exploited by King Haakon IV of Norway, that finally brought the old republic to an end."[31]

Modern Somalia

A marketplace in Somalia, in 1992, during the Somali Civil War

More recently, Somalia is cited by some as a real-world example of a stateless capitalist economy and a legal system. Since 1991, Somalia as a whole has had no internationally recognized government. Large areas of the country are ruled by unrecognized mini-states such as Somaliland, Puntland, and Southwestern Somalia. The remaining area, including the capital Mogadishu, is divided up into smaller territories ruled by competing warlords. In many areas there are thus no formal regulations or licensing requirements for businesses, and individuals and businesses pay money to private security guards and local warlords rather than 'taxes' to a constituted state.

The legal system, and most of the educational institutions and social services, fell under the control of religious institutions, which often received significant funding and support from international Islamic charities. In 2005, these clerical organizations united to form the Islamic Court Union, after the secular warlords began to challenge the sharia based judicial institutions. In June 2006, after the Second Battle of Mogadishu, the ICU gained control of Mogadishu and its surrounding districts.

Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism

Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism fall into several categories: practical criticisms which claim that anarcho-capitalism is unworkable in practice; critiques which claim that capitalism requires a coercive state to exist and that a society can be anarchist or capitalist, but not both; general critiques of the morality of capitalism and liberalism which also apply to anarcho-capitalism; and a utilitarian critique which claims that anarcho-capitalism would not maximize utility.

Various minarchist liberatarians, including Objectivists, argue that in the absence of a state, an anarcho-capitalist society would degenerate into a "war of all against all"; others argue that the free rider problem makes provision of protection service in an anarcho-capitalist society impractical.

Many anarchists and socialists argue that certain capitalist transactions are not voluntary, and maintaining the capitalist character of a society requires coercion incompatible with an anarchist society. Socialists and other anti-capitalists also argue that a capitalist society, anarchist or not, has severe moral and/or practical failings which render it undesirable.

Anarcho-capitalist literature

Nonfiction

The following is a partial list of notable nonfiction works discussing anarcho-capitalism.

Fiction

Anarcho-capitalism has been examined in certain works of literature, particularly science fiction. an example being Robert A. Heinlein's 1966 novel The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, where he explores what he terms "rational anarchism."

Notes

  1. ^ http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html
  2. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1988) "What's Wrong with Liberty Poll; or, How I Became a Libertarian", Liberty, July 1988, p.53
  3. ^ a b c Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2001) "Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography" Retrieved 23 May 2005
  4. ^ Wall, Richard (2004) "Who's Afraid of Noam Chomsky?" Retrieved 19 May 2005
  5. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1982) "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution" Cato Journal 2, No. 1 (Spring 1982): pp. 55-99. Retrieved 20 May 2005
  6. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1973) For a new Liberty Collier Books, A Division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York: pp.24-25. Retrieved 20 May 2005
  7. ^ a b Rothbard, Murray N. (1982) The Ethics of Liberty Humanities Press ISBN 0814775063:p162 Retrieved 20 May 2005
  8. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1975) Society Without A State (pdf) Libertarian Forum newsletter (January 1975)
  9. ^ Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal (25 February 1972)
  10. ^ a b Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2002) "Rothbardian Ethics" Retrieved 23 May 2005
  11. ^ a b c Rothbard, Murray N. (1962) Man, Economy & State with Power and Market Ludwig von Mises Institute ISBN 0945466307 ch2 Retrieved 19 May 2005
  12. ^ Nozick, Robert (1973) Anarchy, State, and Utopia
  13. ^ Brown, Susan Love, The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture, edited by James G. Carrier, Berg/Oxford, 1997, p. 113.
  14. ^ Friedman, David. The Machinery of Freedom. Second edition. La Salle, Ill, Open Court, pp. 116-117.
  15. ^ a b Molinari, Gustave de (1849) (trans. J. Huston McCulloch) Retrieved 19 May 2005
  16. ^ a b Friedman, David D. (1973) The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism Harper & Row ISBN 0060910100 ch29
  17. ^ "For a New Liberty", by Murray N. Rothbard
  18. ^ O'Keeffe, Matthew (1989) "Retribution versus Restitution" Legal Notes No.5, Libertarian Alliance ISBN 1870614224 Retrieved 19 May 2005
  19. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1973) Interview Reason Feb 1973, Retrieved 10 August 2005
  20. ^ Weisbord, Albert (1937) American Liberal-Anarchism from The Conquest of Power (1937)
  21. ^ Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, p. 148.
  22. ^ Sylvan, Richard Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231,
  23. ^ Heider, Ulrike (1994) Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green City Lights Books ISBN 0872862895 Retrieved 19 May 2005
  24. ^ Thoreau, Henry David (1849) Civil Disobedience
  25. ^ Raico, Ralph (2004) Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS
  26. ^ Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right and Green, San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1994, pp. 95-96
  27. ^ 1) Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004. 2)Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism, Transaction Books, NJ 1979. 3) Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004. 4) Levy, Carl. Anarchism, MS Encarta Encyclopedia. 5) Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994.
  28. ^ http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html
  29. ^ a b Friedman, David D. (1979) Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case, Retrieved 12 August 2005
  30. ^ William Ian Miller, "Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law and Society in Saga Iceland", p. 306
  31. ^ Hallberg Hallmundsson, an article on Iceland in the "Encyclopaedia Americana"

References

See also

Books

General

Anarcho-capitalist websites and articles

Criticisms

Criticisms by other radical capitalists

Other


Template:Link FA