Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Liftarn (talk | contribs) at 12:51, 7 October 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page.
Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the guide to deletion.

Steps to list an article for deletion: {{subst:afd}} • Preloaded debate OR {{subst:afd2|pg=Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism|cat=|text=}} • {{subst:afd3|pg=Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism}} log

You must add a |reason= parameter to this Cleanup template – replace it with {{Cleanup|June 2006|reason=<Fill reason here>}}, or remove the Cleanup template.

This article discusses anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. Though anarcho-capitalism may satisfy some dictionary definitions of anarchism, and indeed the definitions given by most classical anarchists[citation needed], all traditional forms of anarchism expressly oppose "capitalism." Thus, many anti-capitalist sectarians dispute that anarcho-capitalism is a "true" form of anarchism.[1] Some writers on anarchism point out that anarcho-capitalism and other forms of anarchism are very different, relating it to libertarianism, but grudgingly admit that it is anarchism.[2] Peter Marshall, avoiding the dictionary definition, simply concludes that "few anarchists would accept 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp."[3] However, many scholars (including anti-capitalist anarchists) do consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism (usually as a form of individualist anarchism).[4]

What anarcho-capitalists say

Main article: Anarcho-capitalism

Rothbard sought to introduce Lockean property rights and marginalism into individualist anarchism:

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.[5]

Though Rothbard said "I am...strongly tempted to call myself an “individualist anarchist,” except for the fact that Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences," many scholars regard anarcho-capitalism as being a capitalist form of individualism anarchism.[6] Anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy does refer to herself as a "Rothbardian and an individualist anarchist."[7] Anti-capitalist anti-communist individualist anarchist Joe Peacott concurs that there are significant economic differences: "The anarchist capitalists...reject a key part of the thought of the [19th century] individualists...that rent, interest, and profit are ways to steal this wealth from its rightful owners."[8] However, some anarchists believe that being in support of free market capitalism exempts anarcho-capitalists from being anarchists, individualist or otherwise. Some individualist anarchists have continued to espouse the labor theory of value, finding profit to be unnatural and exploitative. In the mainstream, however, the popularity of the labor theory of value of classical economics was superseded by greater acceptance of the subjective theory of value of neo-classical economics. Eventually, Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalism" to define his anti-statist, laissez-faire capitalist philosophy.

As in 19th century individualist anarchism, in an anarcho-capitalist society, no authority would prohibit anyone from providing, through the free market, any service - even those services traditionally provided by state monopoly such as police, courts, and defense. However, unlike classical individualist anarchism that accepts the labor theory of value, anarcho-capitalism does not believe that laissez-faire would cause profit to disappear, nor does it consider profit, rent, interest to be exploitative but natural and beneficial.[9] Anarcho-capitalism also rejects the view from other anarchists that capitalism is itself a system of violent repression. Anarcho-capitalism has a theory of legitimacy that supports private property, as long as it is not attained by coercion.[10] Its leading proponents are Murray Rothbard and David Friedman and it has been influenced by non-anarchist libertarians such as Frederic Bastiat, Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick.

Terminological disputes

Anarchism

Many anarchists maintain strongly that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism due to their belief that anarchism is necessarily anti-capitalist as well as anti-statist.[11] They note that, historically, anarchism has always been opposed to capitalism, and that anarchists like Proudhon, Bakunin, Kroptkin and Tucker all called themselves socialists, and they argue that anarcho-capitalism "is judged to be anarchism largely because anarcho-capitalists say they are 'anarchists' and because they criticise the State."[12]

Both social anarchists and anarcho-capitalists note that "anarchy" etymologically means "without rulers".[13] Conventional anarchists interpret this to mean anything fitting the definition of ruler,[14] while anarcho-capitalists interpret it in a more restricted sense, to refer to any form of explicit government.

On the other hand, many scholars view anarcho-capitalism as a 20th-century modification of the type of individualist anarchism that was popular in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which was less radical than Stirnerite individualist anarchism. Scholar of political philosophy, Ian Adam, says "it is not in fact the case (as is sometimes thought) that anarcho-capitalism came out of the blue, without past or pedigree. It has a good deal in common with the earlier American tradition of individualist anarchism."[15] Anti-capitalist anarchists tend to reject such claims, noting that many of the individualist anarchists called themselves socialists, and that all had a vision of a free society at odds with capitalism.[16] However, the scholars making the assertion that anarcho-capitalism is a more recent form of individualist anarchism are aware that 19th century individualist anarchists were opposed to capitalism (and communism); the assertion is that anarcho-capitalism is a capitalist form of invidualist anarchism. In other words, <space>opposition to stateless capitalism is not a necessary condition of being an individualist forms of anarchism. One anti-capitalist individualist anarchist laments, "is time that anarchists recognise the valuable contributions of... individualist anarchist theory and take advantage of its ideas. It would be both futile and criminal to leave it to the capitalist libertarians…"[17]

Capitalism

Many anarchists believe that anarchism and capitalism are incompatible. Anarchist author Iain McKay argues that individualism is essentially anti-capitalist and that anarcho-capitalists claims to the tradition require reading individualist anarchists out of context ([6]). Individualist anarchist Joe Peacott argues that individualism rejects capitalist economic arrangements.[7]

One set of approaches concludes that capitalism, by necessity, requires a state, and therefore capitalism cannot exist without a state. For example, Larry Gambone states, "for anarchists, capitalism is the result of the development of the state and therefore, all capitalism is in one sense, state capitalism." [8] He adds that when the anarchists use the term "capitalism," they are referring to those who have "gained wealth from the use of governmental power or from privileges granted by government."[18] Anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy says that when traditional individualist anarchists referred to "capitalism" they meant state capitalism, the alliance of government and business.[19]

The issue of contention then becomes whether or not capitalism can be created, or maintained, in the absence of a state that enforces non-possessive private property claims. Anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard made a difference between two contradictory concepts of capitalism, "free-market capitalism" characterized by voluntary exchange and "state capitalism" characterized by violent expropriation.[20] He believed that only free-market capitalism is true capitalism and as such "the fullest expression of anarchism".[21]

Capitalist structures

Social hierarchy and class distinction

Many anarchists argue that capitalism runs contrary to an egalitarian power structure, which is necessary to anarchism. They also argue that the system of wage labour, and hence capitalism, is authoritarian and coercive in nature, and oppose class distinction between labourers and employers.[22] A major line of reasoning is that employees are subject to the authority of their employer with respect to the latter's property and, because such an hierarchy could not be tolerated within an egalitarian power structure, it is essential to anarchism for such practices to be abolished. The writers of An Anarchist FAQ[23] argue that "social relations between capitalists and employees can never be equal, because private ownership of the means of production gives rise to social hierarchy and relations of coercive authority and subordination".[14]

Individualist anarchists also opposed class distinction, but do not object to private ownership of the means of production. For individualist anarchists, in a true free market, class distinctions between labourers and employers would be impossible, resulting in a classless society where people could easily choose between working as a freelancer, for a wage, taking part of a cooperative, or being an entrepreneur. Lysander Spooner wanted to maximize self-employment "either singly, or in partnerships",[24] and advocated that everyone should labor to receive an income. Benjamin Tucker wanted to eliminate the possibility of an employer receiving an income without himself laboring so that "every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers."[25]

Property

Many anarchists argue that anarcho-capitalism is contradictory, and say that the anarcho-capitalist definition of private property is uncomfortably similar to its definition of the state. For example, leading anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard argued that the state "arrogates to itself a monopoly of force… over a given area territorial area.", yet he also argued that "[o]bviously, in a free society, Smith has the ultimate decision-making power over his own just property, Jones over his, etc."[26]

Anarcho-capitalists acknowledge this similarity, but do not believe it to be contradictory, arguing that state territories are not acquired legitimately, but that private property is. Opponents emphasize that both the state, and private property (upon which capitalism is based), lead to the same authoritarian structures, and consequently neither should be considered anarchist. Moreover, both social and individualist anarchists note that current distributions of property have not been created by legitimate means and that the current system of property rights is the result of state and capitalist intervention.[14]

Anarchists also note that once land and capital are monopolised by a minority, attempts by those subject to this economic and social power to end it automatically become "aggression." As Kropotkin noted, "modern Individualism… [is] a powerful indictment against the dangers and wrongs of government, but its practical solution of the social problem… lead[s] us to inquire if the talk of 'No force' be merely an excuse for supporting landlord and capitalist domination."[27]

Individualist anarchists, including Benjamin Tucker, tend to reject the anarcho-capitalist Lockean position in favour of the anarchist position of "occupancy and use" (or "possession", to use Proudhon's term), particularly in land. One notable exception is Lysander Spooner, who does not require that land use be "continual" to retain ownership.[28] Similarly, anarcho-capitalist Rothbard argued that one must "use the land, to cultivate it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it." and did not require continual use to retain ownership. However, most individualist anarchists accepted Proudhon's position on land: "What I cannot accept, regarding land, is that the work put in gives a right to ownership of what has been worked on." If there was a shortage of land, he "accept[ed] equal division. Anything else… is an abuse."[29] Anarchists critics of "anarcho-capitalism" also note that Proudhon's "What is Property?" explicitly refutes the position on land ownership supported by Spooner and anarcho-capitalists.[30]

Individualist believe that an employer should pay one who labors his "full produce" rather than retaining a portion as profit. Individualists like Lysander Spooner argued that workers could maintain the "full" product of their labor through universal self-employment. Anarcho-capitalists neither advocate nor expect universal self-employment. While individualists regard self-employment as a way to outcompete and erode the profit-making capitalist system, anarcho-capitalists see it as an option for an individual to make more money "within" the capitalist system, hence perpetuating it. While individualists anarchists regard profit deducted from pay as exploitative, they do not advocate interfering with individuals contracting as employee and employer if they desire, though they argue that in a laissez-faire economy no one would rationally accept any economic relationships that included profit taking. This is because they believe that the proliferation of competition would obviate the necessity to settle for such an arrangement.

Markets

Many individualist anarchists argue that a truly free market would result in a non-capitalist anarchism, without social or economic hierarchy. The contemporary individualist Kevin A. Carson holds that capitalism is founded on "an act of robbery as massive as feudalism," and argues that capitalism could not exist in the absence of a state. Carson argues that if a truly free market were to have been put in effect it would have resulted in a system where the ability to extract a profit from labor and capital would be negligible as "a system of power in which ownership and control are divorced from labor -- could not survive in a free market.".[31] Anarcho-capitalists disagree, with most stating that this economic system would be marked by hierarchy, inequality as well as interest, rent and profit.

Right-libertarians, Carson argues, "take existing property relations and class power as a given." Carson, like previous individualist anarchists, thinks that the "modern worker, like the slave or the serf, is the victim of ongoing robbery; he works in an enterprise built from past stolen labor" and so they are "justified in taking direct control of production, and keeping the entire product of his [or her] labor."[31] Anarcho-capitalists would consider such expropriation as coercion.

Since anarchists by definition favour voluntary interaction, anarcho-capitalists have argued from a different definition of "voluntary" than has been historically used by anarchists. This has lead to disputes over whether anarcho-capitalists support a genuinely "free market." Anarcho-capitalists (and capitalists in general) understand a trade to be voluntary if there is no physical coercion or threat. Opponents take into account other forms of coercion, such as economic coercion, arguing that an environment of property domination coerces individuals into accepting trades that are not optimal to them because their choices are being actively restricted by others.

Anarchists reject institutions such as interest, rent, and profit as being intrusive and exploitative, and thus they believe that they should be abolished. They maintain that such institutions were made possible, in part, by state restrictions on banking and currency issuance as well as titles to land, and by vast accumulations of wealth which arise in capitalism and interfere with the free economy. Anarcho-capitalists do not believe that interest, rent, or profit are exploitative, arguing they are compatible with free markets, and claiming these institutions would prevail without government interference. However, like individualist anarchists, some anarcho-capitalists believe that in a free market, or "natural order," interest rates would substantially fall, but more due to falling time preference [9].

Rights

(Needs information on social anarchism in these areas)

Egalitarianism

Social anarchists are opposed to concentrations of wealth as this, they argue, results in economic power and limits the individual freedom of others. They argue that inequalities in wealth results in a situation where the many have little choice but to sell their liberty.

Anarcho-capitalists and individualist anarchists both explicitly support the liberty of some individuals to be wealthier than others, in contrast to some collectivist philosophies that are based in economic egalitarianism. However, while individualists believe that the vast concentrations of wealth created by government interference in the market cannot be remedied through abolition of government alone, they do believe it would be much more dispersed so that there would not be a significant chasm between the rich and the poor --and this they tend to see as beneficial. Some make a point of this while others explicitly object to any goal of equalizing wealth[citation needed]. In contrast, Anarcho-capitalist philosophy does not evince general concern for wealth egalitarianism. In speculating about a possible anarchist society Benjamin Tucker held that defense associations could decide for themselves how much land they would protect; in an example, he postuled possession of no more than ten acres. (Property Under Anarchism)

Individualists, unlike anarcho-capitalists, view economic relations from a worker oriented viewpoint, and thus reject the separation of society into a class of workers and capitalist owners, arguing (in Tucker's words) that society should be organized with, "no man able to live in idleness on an income from capital." [The Individualist Anarchists, p. 276]

Use of force

All anarchists subscribe to the general rule that physical force should not be initiated, but reserved for defense. Some of the 19th century individualist anarchists, such Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner based their individualism on natural law, but many were "egoists," believing that no rights exist without contract that results out of individual self-interest. Benjamin Tucker says: "I see no reason, as far as moral obligation is concerned, why one [man] should not sub-ordinate or destroy the other. But if each of these men can be made to see that the other's free life is helpful to him, then they will agree not to invade each other; in other words, they will equalize their existences, or rights to existence by contract. . . . Before contract is the right of might. Contract is the voluntary suspension of the right to might. The power secured by such suspension we may call the right of contract. These two rights -the right of might and the right of contract -are the only rights that ever have been or ever can be. So-called moral rights have no existence." Anarcho-capitalist David Friedman also subscribes to a contractual view of rights, as opposed to capitalist-anarchist Murray Rothbard's natural law basis.

Defence

Anarcho-capitalists advocate private competition in defense, and in a sense require it due to their emphasis on private property, interest, rent and profit. Rothbard defines "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."[32] However, anarchists are unimpressed by this claim. They simply reply that this is privatising, not abolishing, the state; David Weick, for instance, argues that it would be better called "feudalism". Similarly, anarchists ask who defines what is and is not a "legal sanction" and what is and is not "aggressive coercion."[33]

While individualist anarchists expect that one would defend their own property through possession, some, such as Tucker and Spooner, support private defense to protect property [10]. Tucker differentates protection from rent or tax, because the primary form of protection would be possessive, saying that "defense is a service like any other service; that it is labor both useful and desired, and therefore an economic commodity subject to the law of supply and demand;" (Instead of a Book).

Profit and theory of value

Anarchists traditionally have argued that profit, rent and interest are exploitative. Some anarchists, like Proudhon, Bakunin and Tucker, base this in the labour theory of value while others, like Kropotkin and Malatesta, did not. While classical economists such as Adam Smith also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, espouse a subjective theory of value and marginalism - that value of commodities and labor is variable and based on factors outside the means of production, such as scarcity, and the subjective value to potential buyers.

In the eyes of traditional anarchism, profit is derived by paying labor less than its full product, with the employer retaining the difference, and is considered exploitative. For anarcho-capitalists, both employer and employee profit by giving what they value less (equipment and labor, respectively) for what they value more (labour and wages, respectively) or else they would not agree to trade, and therefore the agreement is not considered exploitative by anarcho-capitalists.

Individualists depart from anarcho-capitalists in arguing that all wages should be equal insofar as labor is commensurate, in accordance with the principle of "cost the limit of price." Thus, they hold that wages should be paid in "full," with no deductions for profit to the employer. Anarcho-capitalists, believing that the value of any particular labor is subjective, and should be ultimately decided by mutual agreement, have no opposition whatsoever to employers profiting from the labor of their employees. Individualists believe that more employment opportunities would be available if government did not enforce a credit monopoly and land monopoly, as low-interest or no-interest loans would be readily available to the general public, and that profiting in wage labor would be nearly impossible due to increased competition on the part of businesses to attract labor.

Most individualists adhere to an intrinsic or modified labor theory of value, while the anarcho-capitalists hold to a subjective theory of value, resulting in the former opposing profit as being exploitative and the latter supporting it. According to the subjective theory of value, one can legitimately purchase an hour of labor for less than what that hour of labor produced if such a price is agreed upon by both parties and, hence, transferring profit from the laborer who created it to the purchaser of that labor.

For individualist anarchists, the proper price of labor is identical to the full produce of that labor. Therefore, the price is not contingent (or according to a modified theory not entirely contingent) upon subjective valuations – one hour of labor ought, all things being equal, be paid with what one hour of labor that someone else produces, rendering profit impossible.

Similar philosophies

Anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism

Anarchism is seen as a form of individualist anarchism by many scholars.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40] All of the classical individualist anarchists opposed profit-making and, hence, capitalism as it is commonly defined today. Nevertheless, anarcho-capitalism, which has no opposition to profit, is sometimes regarded as a form of individualist anarchism in recent times. For example, contemporary individualist anarchist Daniel Burton, who believes that most modern day individualist anarchists are class war anti-capitalists, nonetheless says that anarcho-capitalism is a type of individualist anarchism Individualist anarchism vs. Anarcho-capitalism. Individualist Anarchist Laurance Labadie argued that Rothbard "upholds presumably in his courts the very economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and conflict."[41] Wendy McElroy calls herself both an individualist anarchist and an anarcho-capitalist, and Italian anarcho-capitalist Guglielmo Piombini regards anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism (Per l'Anarco-Capitalismo). Historian Ralph Raico regards it as "a form of individualist anarchism" (Authentic German Liberalism...). Simon Tormey, in his book Anti-Capitalism: A Beginner's Guide places no anti-capitalist restriction on being an individualist anarchist: "Pro-capitalist anarchism is, as one might expect, particularly prevalent in the US where it feeds on the strong individualist and libertarian currents that have always been a part of the American political imaginary. To return to the point, however, there are individualist anarchists who are most certainly not anti-capitalist and there are those who may well be."

Some anarcho-capitalists argue that their philosophy is related to individualist anarchism. They believe a major difficulty in resolving the debate is due to the conflicting definitions of the words "anarchism" and "capitalism" as used by the two sides. The traditions that object to the term anarcho-capitalism tend to use the term "anarchism" to refer to political movements that are both anti-statist and anti-capitalist.[citation needed] Conversely, libertarians and anarcho-capitalists most commonly use the term "anarchism" to refers to any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion (without specifications regarding economic systems).[42] However, even this is disputed, as many anarchists argue that capitalism is inherently coercive.[14]

Lysander Spooner's articles, such as No Treason and the Letter to Thomas Bayard, were widely reprinted in early anarcho-capitalist journals, and his ideas — especially his individualist critique of the state and his defense of the right to ignore or withdraw from it — were often cited by anarcho-capitalists. Spooner was staunchly opposed to government interference in economic matters, and supported a "right to acquire property [...] as one of the natural, inherent, inalienable rights of men [...] one which government has no power to infringe [...]".[43] Like all anarchists, he opposed government regulation: "All legislative restraints upon the rate of interest are arbitrary and tyrannical restraints upon a man's natural capacity amid natural right to hire capital, upon which to bestow his labor."[44] He was particularly vocal, however, in opposing any collusion between banks and government, and argued that the monopolistic privileges that the government granted to a few bankers were the source of many social and economic ills.

Benjamin Tucker supported private ownership of the product of labor, which he believed entailed a rejection of both collective and capitalist ownership. He was a staunch advocate of the mutualist form of recompensing labor, which holds to "Cost the limit of price". He also advocated a free market economy, which he believed was prohibited by capitalist monopoly of credit and land backed by the state. He believed that anyone who wishes should be allowed to engage in the banking business and issue their private currency without needing special permission from government, and that unused land should not be restricted to those who wished to use it. He believed that if these and other coercive actions were eliminated that profit in economic transactions would be rendered nearly impossible because of increased availability of capital to all individuals and resulting increased competition in business. Accepting the labor theory of value and the resulting "cost principle" as a premise marks one of mutualism's main conflicts with anarcho-capitalism. Although his self-identification as a socialist and sympathy for the labor movement led to hostility from some early anarcho-capitalists such as Robert LeFevre, others, such as Murray Rothbard, embraced his critique of the state and claimed that he defined his "socialism" not in terms of opposition to a free market or private property, but in opposition to government privileges for business. However, individualists argue that capitalism cannot be maintained in the absence of the state. For example, Kevin Carson argues, "As a mutualist anarchist, I believe that expropriation of surplus value — i.e., capitalism — cannot occur without state coercion to maintain the privilege of usurer, landlord, and capitalist. It was for this reason that the free market mutualist Benjamin Tucker — from whom right-libertarians selectively borrow — regarded himself as a libertarian socialist." Tucker characterized the economic demands of Proudhon and Warren by saying, "though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few [...] Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez-faire the universal rule."[45]

Anarcho-capitalism is sometimes viewed by those sympathetic to it as a form of individualist anarchism, despite the fact that the original individualist anarchists universally rejected capitalism (i.e., they opposed profit, which is seen as a fundamental characteristic of capitalism). Organizations such as mutualist.org remain dedicated to "free market anticapitalism," while individualists like Larry Gambone explicitly state that all capitalism is state capitalism. Nonetheless, anarcho-capitalist Wendy McElroy considers herself to be an individualist, while admitting that the original individualists were universally anticapitalist. In addition, historian Guglielmo Piombini refers anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, though he offers no support for this statement. Collectivist anarchist author Iain McKay and historian Peter Sabatini both argue that anarcho-capitalism is fundamentally opposed to individualist anarchism.

The similarity to anarcho-capitalism in regard to private defense of liberty and property is probably best seen in a quote by 19th-century individualist anarchist Victor Yarros:

Anarchism means no government, but it does not mean no laws and no coercion. This may seem paradoxical, but the paradox vanishes when the Anarchist definition of government is kept in view. Anarchists oppose government, not because they disbelieve in punishment of crime and resistance to aggression, but because they disbelieve in compulsory protection. Protection and taxation without consent is itself invasion; hence Anarchism favors a system of voluntary taxation and protection.[46]

While the claim is controversial, some scholars regard anarcho-capitalism as being a form of individualism anarchism.[47] However, other scholars, and many individualist anarchists themselves, do not accept anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, individualist or not, as they assert that anarchism is fundamentally opposed to capitalism.[48][49] As individualist anarchist Joe Peacott says:

there is, however, another group within the anarchist movement that rejects both communal and capitalist economic arrangements. These are the individualists, who originated in the United States in the 1800s.[50]

Individualist anarchists have continued to espouse the labor theory of value, finding profit to be unnatural and exploitative. In the mainstream, however, the popularity of the labor theory of value of classical economics was superseded by greater acceptance of the subjective theory of value of neo-classical economics. Eventually, in the 1950s, Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalism" to define his anti-statist, laissez-faire capitalist philosophy.

Rothbard noted that while "strongly tempted," he could not call his ideology "individualist anarchism" because "Spooner and Tucker have in a sense preempted that name for their doctrine and that from that doctrine I have certain differences." Rothbard also supported unregulated banking, as Tucker and other individualists did, but believed that Tucker and Spooner had a flawed understanding of economics to believe that unregulated banking would eliminate profit from interest. Tucker says interest rates are ultimately determined by the time value of money, rather than the supply of money and that interest/profit would still exist in a free banking environment. He says: "it has been particularly distressing to me as an ardent admirer of Spooner and Tucker to find that their followers have emphasized and concentrated on their totally fallacious monetary views almost to the [exclusion of all else and even bring them forth as a panacea for all economic and social ills." [11] Rothbard suggested that individualist anarchists drop the labor theory of value which he believed to be erroneous and leading to a false conclusion that profit was exploitative or unnatural in laissez-faire. Rothbard sought to introduce Lockean property rights and marginalism into individualist anarchism:

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.[5]

Rothbard also rejected Tucker and Spooner's support of a system where there is no written law. He says, "There would be no rational or objective body of law which the juries would in any sense—even morally—be bound to consult, nor even any judicial precedents, since each jury would have the power to decide both the facts and the law of every case strictly ad hoc. With no guides or standards to follow, even juries with the best of will could not be expected to arrive at just or even libertarian decisions." Instead, he argues, "It would not be a very difficult task for Libertarian lawyers and jurists to arrive at a rational and objective code of libertarian legal principles and procedures."[5]}}

Individualist anarchist Laurance Labadie argued however:

Mere common sense would suggest that any court would be influenced by experience; and any free-market court or judge would in the very nature of things have some precedents guiding them in their instructions to a jury. But since no case is exactly the same, a jury would have considerable say about the heinousness of the offence in each case, realising that circumstances alter cases, and prescribing penalty accordingly. This appeared to Spooner and Tucker to be a more flexible and equitable administration of justice possible or feasible, human beings being what they are...

But when Mr. Rothbard quibbles about the jurisprudential ideas of Spooner and Tucker, and at the same time upholds presumably in his courts the very economic evils which are at bottom the very reason for human contention and conflict, he would seem to be a man who chokes at a gnat while swallowing a camel.[51]

However, this criticism is specific to Rothbard's suggested version of anarcho-capitalism. There are anarcho-capitalists who oppose the existence of all statutory law, such as Morris and Linda Tannehill[citation needed]. Individualist anarchism is a broad philosophy with various theorists having their own suggested versions.

Related philosophies

Though the modern form of anarcho-capitalism did not exist in Tucker's day, there was a similar philosophy called voluntaryism popularized by Auberon Herbert. Tucker criticized Herbert's support of profit, but believed that Herbert's anti-statism would nevertheless result in a profitless economy.[52] Herbert refused to call himself an anarchist, arguing that "we are governmentalists"'. He strongly opposed the idea that initiation of force may somehow become legitimate merely by constituting a majority, reasoning that "If we are self-owners (and it is absurd, it is doing violence to reason, to suppose that we are not), neither an individual, nor a majority, nor a government can have rights of ownership in other men." He did, however, support government "formally constituted by the nation, employing in this matter of force the majority method." Moreover, he argued that the state would remain in his system, for while "the state should compel no services and exact no payments by force," it "should be free to conduct many useful undertakings... in competition with all voluntary agencies... in dependence on voluntary payments."[53]

The 19th century French economist Gustave de Molinari, although he proposed the replacement of the state in a fashion quite similar to anarcho-capitalism, refused to call himself an anarchist, even though France had a significant anarchist movement and had produced the first self-proclaimed anarchist in Proudhon.

Notes

  1. ^ Treatments in major secondary sources to this effect include:
    • Anarchism, Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006 (UK version) http://uk.encarta.msn.com © 1997-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved
    • Anarchism. Britannica Student Encyclopedia. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica Premium Service. 10 Sept. 2006 <http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9272850>.
    • Anarchism, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition 2006, Columbia University Press.
  2. ^ Jennings, Jeremy. Contemporary Political Ideologies, Roger Eatwell and Anthony Wright (eds.), p. 142. Goodwin, Barbara. Using Political Ideas, p. 148
  3. ^ Marshall, Peter. Chapter 36, Demanding the Impossible
  4. ^ Such accounts specifying anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism include:
    • Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
    • Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21, 2002.
    • Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, 1991.
    • Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
    • Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135
    • Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN 0-7487-7096-8, p. 91
    • Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
    • Ostergaard, Geofrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications [1]
    • Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
    • Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 39
    • Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004.
    • Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
    • Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243
    • Sources saying anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism in general: * Sylvan, Richard. Anarchism. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.231 * Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism. Transaction Books, New Brunswick, NJ 1979, p. 7 * DeLeon, David. The American as Anarchist: Reflections of Indigenous Radicalism, Chapter: The Beginning of Another Cycle, John Hopkins University Press, 1979, p. 117 * 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. 99 * Kearney, Richard. Continental Philosophy in the 20th Century, Routledge (UK) (2003), p. 336 * Sargent, Lyman Tower. Extremism in America: A Reader, NYU Press (1995), p. 11 * Dahl, Robert Alan. Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press (1991), p. 38
  5. ^ a b c "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View" [2]
  6. ^ Such accounts specifying anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism include:
    • Alan and Trombley, Stephen (Eds.) Bullock, The Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought, W. W. Norton & Company (1999), p. 30
    • Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21, 2002.
    • Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, 1991.
    • Barry, Norman. Modern Political Theory, 2000, Palgrave, p. 70
    • Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today, Manchester University Press (2002) ISBN 0-7190-6020-6, p. 135
    • Grant, Moyra. Key Ideas in Politics, Nelson Thomas 2003 ISBN 0-7487-7096-8, p. 91
    • Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
    • Geoffrey Ostergaard. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pledge Union Publications [3]
    • Avrich, Paul. Anarchist Voices: An Oral History of Anarchism in America, Abridged Paperback Edition (1996), p. 282
    • Sheehan, Sean. Anarchism, Reaktion Books, 2004, p. 39
    • Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004. pp. 118-119
    • Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
    • Offer, John. Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments, Routledge (UK) (2000), p. 243
  7. ^ McElroy, Wendy. The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens (2005)
  8. ^ Peacott, Joe "An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought" (Libertarian Alliance (2003) ISBN 1-85637-564-1
  9. ^ Rothbard, Murray. The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View [4]
  10. ^ Rothbard, Murray (1969) Consfiscation and the Homestead Principle The Libertatian Forum Vol. I, No. VI (June 15, 1969) Retrieved 5 August 2006
  11. ^ Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; Albert Meltzer, Anarchism: Arguments for and Against; Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power; David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Brian Morris, Anthropology and Anarchism; Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (no. 45); Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Donald Rooum, What is Anarchism?; Bob Black, The Libertarian as Conservative'; Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction
  12. ^ Peter Sabatini, Social Anarchism, no. 23, p. 100
  13. ^ Online Etymology Dictionary entry for "anarchy"
  14. ^ a b c d McKay, Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave et al B.4 How does capitalism affect liberty? An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.4. Accessed March, 2006. Cite error: The named reference "anarchist-coercive" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  15. ^ (Adams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester University Press. 2002. page 132)
  16. ^ Peter Marshall, Demanding the Impossible; John Clark, The Anarchist Moment; David Weick, Anarchist Justice; Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy
  17. ^ J. W. Baker, "Native American Anarchism," The Raven, pp. 43-62, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 61-2
  18. ^ Gambone, Larry (1998) "ANY TIME NOW"
  19. ^ McElroy, Wendy (1999) Anarchism: Two Kinds
  20. ^ "A Future of Peace and Capitalism by Murray N. Rothbard
  21. ^ Exclusive Interview With Murray Rothbard The New Banner: A Fortnightly Libertarian Journal (25 February 1972)
  22. ^ David Weick, Anarchist Justice, pp. 223-224; Peter Sabatini, Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy; Kropotkin, Anarchism;
  23. ^ McKay, Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave et al An Anarchist FAQ index An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.4 Accessed March, 2006.
  24. ^ Lysander Spooner, "A Letter to Grover Cleveland", p. 41
  25. ^ Tucker, Benjamin. "Labor and Its Pay" Individual Liberty: Selections From the Writings of Benjamin R. Tucker, Vanguard Press, New York, 1926, Kraus Reprint Co., Millwood, NY, 1973.
  26. ^ Rothbard, Murray. 'The Ethics of Liberty', Humanities Press, Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1982, p. 170 and p. 173
  27. ^ Kropotkin, Peter. Act for Yourselves, Freedom Press London (1988), p98.
  28. ^ Watner, Carl. Spooner Vs. Liberty in The Libertarian Forum. March 1975. Volume VII, No 3. ISSN: 0047-4517. pp. 5-6.
  29. ^ Selected Writings of P.-J. Proudhon, p. 129
  30. ^ McKay, Iain; Elkin, Gary; Neal, Dave et al F.1 Are "Anarcho"-capitalists really anarchists? An Anarchist FAQ Version 11.6. Accessed June, 2006.
  31. ^ a b Carson, Kevin A. (2002) The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand Red Lion Press, Retrieved 8 August 2005
  32. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1975) Society Without A State (pdf) Libertarian Forum newsletter (January 1975)
  33. ^ Pennock and Chapman, "Anarchist Justice", Nomos XIX, eds.
  34. ^ Tormey, Simon. Anti-Capitalism, One World, 2004.
  35. ^ Perlin, Terry M. Contemporary Anarchism, Transaction Books, NJ 1979.
  36. ^ Raico, Ralph. Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th Century, Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee, Unité associée au CNRS, 2004.
  37. ^ Heider, Ulrike. Anarchism:Left, Right, and Green, City Lights, 1994. p. 3.
  38. ^ Outhwaite, William. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought, Anarchism entry, p. 21, 2002.
  39. ^ Bottomore, Tom. Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Anarchism entry, 1991.
  40. ^ Ostergaard, Geofrey. Resisting the Nation State - the anarchist and pacifist tradition, Anarchism As A Tradition of Political Thought. Peace Pedge Union Publications [5]
  41. ^ quoted by Mildred J. Loomis and Mark A. Sullivan, "Laurance Labadie: Keeper Of The Flame", pp. 116-30, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 124
  42. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1975) Society Without A State (pdf) Libertarian Forum newsletter (January 1975)
  43. ^ Spooner, Lysander (1843) Constitutional law, Relative to Credit, Currency, and Banking Retrieved 19 May 2005
  44. ^ Spooner, Lysander (1846) Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Cure Retrieved 19 May 2005
  45. ^ Tucker, Benjamin (1888) State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ Liberty 5.16, no. 120 (10 March 1888), pp. 2-3.Retrieved 20 May 2005
  46. ^ Yarros, Victor Our Revolution; Essays and Interpretations p.80
  47. ^ 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.
  48. ^ "Anarchism," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2006
  49. ^ Carson, Kevin A. (2001) "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand" Red Lion Press
  50. ^ Peacott, Joe "An Overview of Individualist Anarchist Thought" (Libertarian Alliance (2003) ISBN 1-85637-564-1
  51. ^ (quoted by Mildred J. Loomis and Mark A. Sullivan, "Laurance Labadie: Keeper Of The Flame", pp. 116-30, Benjamin R. Tucker and the Champions of Liberty, Coughlin, Hamilton and Sullivan (eds.), p. 124)
  52. ^ Tucker, Benjamin. Auberon Herbert And His Work Liberty, Vol. 3, No. 10, Saturday, May 23 1885, Whole No. 62
  53. ^ Herbert, Auberon. '

See also

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism&oldid=80019015"