Anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy based on the idea of individual sovereignty (or "self-ownership"), an unlimited right to private property, and a prohibition against the initiation of coercion or fraud against other persons or property, with contracts between sovereign individuals being the basis of law. From this is derived a rejection of the state (an entity claiming a territorial monopoly on the use of force) and the embrace of absolute laissez-faire capitalism. Anarcho-capitalists would protect individual liberty and property by replacing a government monopoly that is involuntarily funded through taxation, with private and competing businesses.
The philosophy embraces stateless capitalism as one of its foundational principles. The first well-known version of anarcho-capitalism to identify itself with this term was developed by Austrian School economists and libertarians Murray Rothbard and Walter Block in the mid-20th century as an attempted synthesis of 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 on the basis that such a system would have superior consequences than other alternatives.
Because of this embrace of capitalism, there is considerable tension between anarcho-capitalists and anarchists who see the rejection of capitalism as being just as essential to anarchist philosophy as rejection of the state. Many anarcho-capitalists believe that much of the source of dispute is a definitional problem, with the classical anarchists using the term "capitalism" in reference to state capitalism where government grants businesses monopoly rights and special privileges over individuals --something anarcho-capitalists oppose. In contrast, most anarchists believe that profit is exploitative based upon their interpreration of the labor theory of value, as opposed to the Austrian school's subjective theory of value to which anarcho-capitalists subscribe. Despite this tension, some anarcho-capitalists see their philosophy as evolving from the tradition of 19th century American individualist anarchism that includes classical liberal thinkers such as Lysander Spooner.
Anarcho-capitalism can be considered a radical development of classical liberalism. Its grounding in liberalism is demonstrated by the assertion of many anarcho-capitalists that the first anarcho-capitalist was Gustave de Molinari, who argued for a free market, and against a state monopoly on force, as early as 1849. While some current adherents of liberalism and anarchism wouldn't call Molinari an anarcho-capitalist, his thoughts were influential on Rothbard and his contemporaries.
Philosophy
|
The term anarcho-capitalism was most likely coined in the mid-50s by the economist Murray Rothbard[1]. Other terms used for this philosophy include:
|
The Non-Aggression Axiom
Anarcho-capitalism, as formulated by Rothbard and others, holds strongly to the central libertarian "non-aggression 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."[6]
In general, the non-aggression axiom can be said to be a prohibition against the initiation of force, or the threat of force, against persons (i.e. direct violence, murder, assault) or property (i.e. theft, fraud, burglary, taxation).[7] 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 public police, courts and military. In contrast, anarcho-capitalists reject even that level of state intervention, defining any 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. [8] Some, such as Rothbard, accept the non-aggression axiom on an intrinsic moral or natural law basis. Others such as David Friedman take a consequentialist or egoist approach; rather than maintaining that aggression is intrinsically immoral, they justify the non-aggression principle by concluding that it is in everyone's best self-interest to contract with others to refrain from initiating coercion.
|
Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common usage or various anarchist movements::
|
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."[9]
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".[10] 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 by seizure by some form of state. However, they do not believe that this history de-legitimizes current ownerships which are based on consensual transactions. They believe it is wrong to attempt to remedy past coercion by the use of present coercion (i.e. seizure or eviction), unless records and titles exist to confirm the theft and the rightful individual owner.
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"[11]
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."[12] 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 anarcho-capitalists 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, allowing discrimination or favoritism based on race, gender, language, sexual orientation, or any other categorization. Anarcho-capitalists maintain that the social structure would be self-regulating, since any disenfranchised group can avail themselves of boycott and/or protest, and other entrepreneurs will see their own interests (i.e. profit) in servicing the group.
Another important ramification is the fact that any social structure is permissible under anarcho-capitalism as long as it is formed by a contract between individuals. Therefore, radically different "governments" and sub-economies can form, creating a panarchic society. Individuals could live in a privately owned democracy, or republic, or even a monarchy, if they so choose.
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 [...]"[13] However, this is a very narrow definition that only shelters owners from debt by creditors that specifically agree to the arrangement. It doesn't 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[14] 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 into slavery. Other interpretations conclude that "banning" such contracts would in itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.[15]
Systems of justice
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."[16] 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.[17] Defense of those unable to pay for such protection would be financed by charitable organizations relying on voluntary donation rather than by state institutions relying on enforced taxation.
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
The axiom of non-aggression is not necessarily a pacifist doctrine, it is a prohibition against the initiation of (interpersonal) force. Like classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism permits the use of force, as long as it is in the defense of persons or property.
However, the permissible extent of this defensive use of force is an arguable point between anarcho-capitalists. Some argue that the initiator of any aggressive act should be subject to a retributive counter-attack beyond what is solely necessary to repel the aggression. The counter-argument is that such a counterattack is only legitimate insofar as it was defined in an agreement between the parties.
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 Murry Rothbard, the American Revolutionary War was the only war involving the United States that could be justified.[19] But, illustrating their general ambivalence toward war, these same people also sharply criticize the revolutionaries for the means used — taxes, conscription, inflationary money — and the inadequacy of the result: a coercive government (a state).
While some anarcho-capitalists believe forceful resistance and revolutionary violence against the state is legitimate, most believe the use of force is a dangerous tool at best, and that violent insurrection should be a last resort.
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 though natural law and that consequences are not relevant to their determination. Consequentialists such as David 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. Many anarcho-capitalists also hold a subjective theory of rights, maintaining that the lack of a positive right to aggress is sufficient to hold up the derivative claims of the non-aggression principle.
David Friedman describes an economic approach to anarcho-capitalism. His description differs with Rothbard's because it doesn't 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 defence/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 Murray Rothbard, David 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. [20]
Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
Many anarchists who oppose private ownership of capital strongly maintain that anarcho-capitalism is not a form of anarchism. On other other hand many individualist anarchists do regard it as a form of anarchism.[21][22] One difficulty in resolving the issue is due to the user's definition of the words "anarchism" and "capitalism."
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. Conversely, many, including libertarians and anarcho-capitalists, most commonly use the term "anarchism" with a definition that simply refers to any philosophy that opposes all forms of government (without specifications regarding economic systems).
Also, there is some terminological confusion regarding "capitalism" as explained by individualist anarchist Larry Gambone, who says that when the classical 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."[23] Likewise, Wendy McElroy says that when traditional individualist anarchists refered to "capitalism" they "meant state capitalism the alliance of government and business."[24] This is something that anarcho-capitalists also oppose.
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, while accepting that anarcho-capitalism is a radical form of liberalism, question the coherence of such a statement, holding that if socialism and communism can have anarchist forms, then liberalism can as well. [25] For example, American individualist anarchism is sometimes regarded as a form of "liberal-anarchism." [26] Also, as anarchists by definition favor voluntary interaction, what anarcho-capitalists may perceive as being voluntary often does not accord with what the opposition believes to be voluntary (see sidebar for definitions).
Finally, most anarchists espouse the classical labor theory of value which they put forth as a basis for claiming that profit, rent, and wage labor are exploitive. While classical capitalists such as Adam Smith also accepted the labor theory of value, most modern economists, including anarcho-capitalists, maintain that value is subjective and hence adhere to marginalism.
"Left" and "Right" anarchism
The divide between anarcho-capitalism and anti-capitalist anarchist traditions has been termed as left anarchism versus right anarchism by some individuals, such as Ulrike Heider who placed anarcho-capitalism on the far right.[27] Murray Rothbard, in "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty," put anarcho-capitalism on the extreme left. Most contemporary anarchists reject the standard linear model of ideologies, in favor of a 2-dimensional model with a liberty-authority dimension. The political ideology diagram shows a view of this political spectrum more in line with anarcho-capitalist philosophy.
History and Influences
Liberalism
Anarcho-capitalist philosophy has drawn from many influences. The primary influence with the longest history is classical liberalism. 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. While Locke saw the State as evolving from society via a social contract, later more radical liberals saw a fundamental schism between society, the "natural" voluntary interactions of men, and State, the institution of brute force.
In the 18th century, liberal revolutionaries in Britain and America had opposed statism without grounding it in theory, while some French economists had theorized it without endorsing it. 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's liberalism might be considered evolutionary anarchism, as when he 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."[28]
The first liberal to 'explicitly' argue to abolish monopoly government was Gustave de Molinari in 1849. In his essay "The Production of Security," he 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. 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.[29] 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.
Later, in the early 20th century, the mantle of anti-state liberalism was taken by the "Old Right." These were minarchist, anti-war, 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 1950's, the new "fusion conservatism," also called cold war conservatism, took hold of the right wing in the US, stressing anti-communism, militarism, and economic interventionism. This induced the libertarian Old Right to split off from the right, and seek alliances with the (now left-wing) anti-war movement, and to start specifically libertarian organizations such as the (US) Libertarian Party.
Individualist anarchism
Main articles: American individualist anarchism Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism
Anarcho-capitalist thought claims influence from the work of the 19th century American individualist anarchists, although the extent of this influence is a matter of some controversy. Some of the most notable figures in this respect include Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. Albeit, they differ on the critical topic of profit, they agree on some other important issues. Of particular importance to anarcho-capitalists are the ideas of "sovereignty of the individual" (often called "self-ownership"), a right to private property in the product of one's labor (including in the form of capital), a market economy, the opposition to collectivism including collectivist conceptions of property, the opposition to physical force unless used in defense of liberty and property, and the advocacy of private defense such as "private police". In addition, like the 19th century individualists, anarcho-capitalists believe that land may be originally appropriated by, and only by, occupation or use (however, traditional individualists believe it must continually be in use to retain title).
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 [...]"[30]. 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"[31]. 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 all wealth produced by an individual, which he believed entailed a rejection of both collective ownership and capitalist private investment of property for profit. 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 obstructed by both the state and the capitalist persuit of profit; accepting the labor theory of value as a premise marks mutualism's main conflict with anarcho-capitalism. From an essay in The New Freewoman: "Anarchism is a word without meaning, unless it includes the liberty of the individual to control his product or whatever his product has brought him through exchange in a free market—that is, private property." Tucker characterized the economic demands of individualism as "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"[32]. 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.
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."[33]
The Austrian School
The Austrian school of economics was founded with the publication of Carl Menger's 1871 book, Principles of Economics. The Austrians 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.
- 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 (US) pro-capitalist sense. He was a trained economist, but also knowledgable in history and political philosophy. When young, he considered himself part of the Old Right, an anti-statist and anti-interventionist branch of the US 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 anti-war groups. Later, Rothbard was a founder of the US Libertarian Party. In the late fifties, Rothbard was briefly involved with Ayn Rand's objectivist group, 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.
See also: Roberta Modugno Crocetta: The anarcho-capitalist political theory of Murray N. Rothbard in its historical and intellectual context
Anarcho-capitalism in the real world
Anarcho capitalism is largely theoretical, and even sympathetic critics say that it is unlikely ever to be more than a utopian (or dystopian, depending on the critic) ideal. Despite this, some anarcho-capitalist philosophers point to actual societies to support their claim that stateless capitalism can function in practice.
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.”[34] and makes an argument that the Icelandic Commonwealth between 930 and 1262 was a functioning anarcho-capitalist society. Its citizens were free by medieval standards, and governed by small legislative bodies or clans (goðorð) where membership was on a voluntary basis and positions of leadership were a marketable commodity. Law enforcement was ultimately private: “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.” [35]
More recently, both critics and proponents of anarcho-capitalism have pointed to Somalia since 1991 as another example. Like the Iceland example, it has been called “a free market for the supply, adjudication and enforcement of law.”[36] Somalia has no functioning government, and therefore no regulations or licensing requirements for businesses, and no taxes on businesses or individuals. Those wishing protection from bandits may voluntarily pay warlords or security guards, and private courts resolve disputes. Since the collapse of the government, businesses have been doing much better. Though Somalia continues to be a poor country, the number of individuals living in abject poverty has diminished— surpassing its neighbors in this respect.
Infrastructure, such as roads (which are privately funded) are as numerous as those in neighboring countries where such things are funded by taxation. The private telecommunications structure is highly sophisticated, replete with internet cafes. The education system is private, with Somalis boasting higher literacy rates than their neighbors; higher education is also available (such as through Mogadishu University). Even publications of the World Bank have cited the ability of private enterprise to flourish in this environment.[37] Those who put forth Somalia as rough example of anarcho-capitalism cite studies and news reports that indicate that the people of Somalia are better off than people in other East African nations headed by governments, while critics tend to view the situation negatively as a perpetual civil war as occurred in recent history in Lebanon and Afghanistan.
Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism
|
Anarcho-capitalism is a radical development of liberalism. Therefore, the same general arguments for and against liberalism, laissez-faire capitalism and capitalism apply, excepting those points (such as the justice system) where anarcho-capitalism diverges from the classical liberal tradition.
Practical questions
Critics often assert that anarcho-capitalism will degenerate into plutocracy or feudalism in practice. They argue that it is a rational economic decision for organizations with the ability to exert coercion (private police, security and military forces) to exploit groups with less power. In this kind of environment, piracy, military imperialism, and slavery can be very profitable. Taken to its logical extreme, this argument assumes that allowing such "security" organizations to exert coercive power will inevitably lead to their becoming a de-facto state. The anarcho-capitalist would respond that in the absence of what they call "victim disarmament" (gun control), such domination would be expensive even for the most powerful, who would instead prefer peaceful trade with all.
Minarchist and statist critics often argue that the free rider problem makes anarcho-capitalism (and, by extension, any anti-statist political system) fundamentally unworkable in modern societies. They typically argue that there are some vital goods or services — such as civil or military defense, management of common environmental resources, or the provision of public goods such as roads or lighthouses — that cannot be effectively delivered without the backing of a government exercising effective territorial control, and so that abolishing the state as anarcho-capitalists demand will either lead to catastrophe or to the eventual re-establishment of monopoly governments as a necessary means to solving the coordination problems that the abolition of the state created. One counter-argument by free market economists, such as Alex Tabarrok, emphasizes the private use of dominant assurance contracts. Some Anarcho-Capitalists also contend that the ‘problem’ of ‘public goods’ is illusory and its invocation merely misunderstands the potential individual production of such goods.
Moral questions
Anarcho-capitalists consider a choice or action to be "voluntary," in a moral sense, so long as that choice or action is not influenced by coercion or fraud perpetrated by another individual. They also believe that maintaining private property claims is always defensive so long as that property was obtained in a way they believe to be legitimate. Thus, so long as an employee and employer agree to terms, employment is regarded as voluntary regardless of the circumstances of property restriction surrouding it. Some critics say this ignores constraints on action due to non-human factors, such as the need for food and shelter. Thus, if a person requires employment in order to feed and house himself, it is said that the employer-employee relationship cannot be voluntary, because the employeer restricts the use of resources from the employee in such a way that he cannot meet his needs. This is essentially a semantic argument over the term "voluntary." Anarcho-capitalists simply do not use the term in that latter sense in their philosophy, believing that sense to be morally irrelevant. Other critics argue that employment is involuntary because the distributions of wealth that make it necessary for some individuals to serve others by way of contract are supported by the enforcement of coercive private property systems. This is a deeper argument relating to distributive justice. Some of these critics appeal to an end-state theory of justice, while anarcho-capitalists (and propertarians in general) appeal to an entitlement theory. Other critics regard private property itself to either be an aggressive institution or a potential aggressive one, rather than necessarily a defensive one, and thus reject claims that relationships based on unequal private property relations could be "voluntary".
Critics also point out that anarcho-capitalist ethics does not entail any positive moral obligation to help others in need (see altruism, the ethical doctrine). Like other right libertarians, anarcho-capitalists may argue that no such moral obligation exists or argue that if a moral obligation to help others does exist that there is an overarching moral obligation to refrain from initiating coercion on individuals to enforce it. Anarcho-capitalists believe that helping others should be a matter of free personal choice, and do not recognise any form of social obligation arising from an individual's presence in a society. They, like all right libertarians, believe in a distinction between negative and positive rights in which negative rights should be recognized as being legitimate, and positive rights rejected. Critics often dismiss this stance as being unethical or selfish, or reject the legitimacy of the distinction between "positive" and "negative" rights.
Property ownership rights and their extent are a source of contention among different philosophies. Most see the rights as less absolute than anarcho-capitalists do. The main issues are 1) what kinds of things are valid property, and 2) what constitutes abandonment of property. The first is contentious even among anarcho-capitalists: there is disagreement over the validity of intellectual property[38] - non-tangible goods that are not economically scarce. Some supporters of private property but critics of anarcho-capitalism may question whether unused land is valid property (Agorism,Georgism, Geolibertarianism, Individualist anarchism). The second issue, what constitutes abandonment, is a common objection among socialists who don't believe in absentee ownership. Anarcho-capitalists have strong abandonment criteria - one maintains ownership (more or less) until one agrees to trade or gift it. The critics of this view tend have weaker abandonment criteria, e.g. one loses ownership (more or less) when one stops personally using it. Also, the idea of original appropriation is anathema to most types of socialism, as well as any philosophy that takes common ownership of land and natural resources as a premise. There are also philosophies who view any ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral and illegitimate, thus rejecting anarcho-capitalism as a philosophy that takes private ownership of land as a premise.
Utilitarian critics simply argue that anarcho-capitalism does not maximize utility; contending that it would fall far short of that goal. This kind of criticism comes from a variety of different political views and ideologies, and different critics have different views on which other system does or would do a better job of bringing the greatest benefits to the greatest number of people. Anarcho-capitalists consider the non-aggression axiom to be a "side-constraint" on civilized human action[39], or a necessary condition for human society to be beneficial (Herbert Spencer, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard), and thus should not be used as a trade-off for vague utilitarian values.
Notes
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1988) "What’s Wrong with Liberty Poll; or, How I Became a Libertarian", Liberty, July 1988, p.53
- ^ Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2001) "Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated Bibliography" Retrieved 23 May 2005
- ^ Ibid.
- ^ Ibid.
- ^ Wall, Richard (2004) "Who's Afraid of Noam Chomsky?" Retrieved 19 May 2005
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1982.1) "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution" Cato Journal 2, No. 1 (Spring 1982): pp. 55-99. Retrieved 20 May 2005
- ^ 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
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1982.2) The Ethics of Liberty Humanities Press ISBN 0814775063:p162 Retrieved 20 May 2005
- ^ Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (2002) "Rothbardian Ethics" Retrieved 23 May 2005
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1962) Man, Economy & State with Power and Market Ludwig von Mises Institute ISBN 0945466307:ch2 Retrieved 19 May 2005
- ^ (Hoppe 2002)
- ^ (Rothbard 1962)
- ^ Ibid, ch15
- ^ (Rothbard 1982.2)
- ^ Nozick, Robert (1973) Anarchy, State, and Utopia
- ^ Molinari, Gustave de (1849) The Production of Security (trans. J. Huston McCulloch) Retrieved 19 May 2005
- ^ Friedman, David D. (1973) The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to a Radical Capitalism Harper & Row ISBN 0060910100:ch29
- ^ O’Keeffe, Matthew (1989) "Retribution versus Restitution" Legal Notes No.5, Libertarian Alliance ISBN 1870614224 Retrieved 19 May 2005
- ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (1973.2) Interview Reason Feb 1973, Retrieved 10 August 2005
- ^ (Friedman 1973)
- ^ Peacott, Joe (1991), Joe Individualism Reconsidered B.A.D. Press ISBN 1127241176
- ^ Preston, Keith (2002) Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise
- ^ Gambone, Larry (1998) "What is Anarchism?" Total Liberty Volume 1 Number 3 Autumn 1998, Retrieved 10 August 2005
- ^ McElroy, Wendy (1999) Anarchism: Two Kinds
- ^ Gardner, Richard A. (2002) On Peter Sabatini's "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" Ifeminists May 14 2002
- ^ Weisbord, Albert (1937) American Liberal-Anarchism from The Conquest of Power (1937)
- ^ Heider, Ulrike (1994) Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green City Lights Books ISBN 0872862895 Retrieved 19 May 2005
- ^ Thoreau, Henry David (1849) Civil Disobedience
- ^ (Molinari 1849)
- ^ Spooner, Lysander (1843) Constitutional law, Relative to Credit, Currency, and Banking Retrieved 19 May 2005
- ^ Spooner, Lysander (1846) Poverty: Its Illegal Causes and Cure Retrieved 19 May 2005
- ^ 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
- ^ Yarros, Victor Our Revolution; Essays and Interpretations p.80
- ^ Friedman, David (1979) Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case, Retrieved 12 August 2005
- ^ Ibid.
- ^ van Notten, Michael (2000) From Nation-State To Stateless Nation: The Somali Experience, Retrieved 12 August 2005
- ^ Nenova, Tatiana and Harford, Tim (2004) Anarchy and Invention (PDF) Public Policy Journal Note Number 280, Retrieved 12 August 2005
- ^ McElroy, Wendy (1995) Intellectual Property:The Late Nineteenth Century Libertarian Debate Libertarian Heritage No. 14 ISBN 1856372812 Retrieved 24 June 2005
- ^ (Nozick 1973)
References
- Spooner, Lysander (1867) No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority Retrieved 19 May 2005
- 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
- Tucker, Benjamin (1926) Labor and its Pay Retrieved 20 May 2005
- Gustave de Molinari and the Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition
- Murray N. Rothbard: For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto
- Murray N. Rothbard: The Ethics of Liberty
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe: A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism
- Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Democracy: The God That Failed
- Bruce Benson: The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State
- Linda and Morris Tannehill: The Market For Liberty
External links
Anarcho-capitalist websites
- Anarchism.Net sells books
- Ancapistan Network comes with an ancap start-up, articles and links
- Anti-State.com[40], has one of the more active forums and infrequent theoretical and practical articles.
- Bertrand Lemennicier, a renowned French anarcho-capitalist economist and his links (English and French)
- Cuthhyra is a resource promoting anarcho-capitalism through essays, humour, quotes, links and more.
- Catallarchy
- Bryan Caplan's "Anarchism Theory FAQ" is written from the perspective of an anarcho-capitalist.
- LewRockwell.com is a widely read anarcho-capitalist news site with a Catholic slant.
- The Molinari Institute
- Murray Rothbard: A Legacy of Liberty
- Panarchy, another way of considering things that is considered by some ultimately equivalent to anarcho-capitalism.
- David Hart's Gustave De Molinari And The Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition
- Liberalia, an anarcho-capitalist site
- The contrast of anarcho-capitalist and individualist anarchism is a matter of some debate. For one anarcho-capitalist view, see A Brief Introduction to Philosophical Anarchism.
- Samizdata is a group blog by "...a varied group [ that includes ] wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists"
- Strike The Root is an anarcho-capitalist news site with an atheistic slant.
- Why I Call Myself A Free Market Anarchist And Why I Am One by Brian Miklethwait
- Libertari.org Italian libertarian/anarcho-capitalist site
- Bureaucrash
- Stephan Kinsella: What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist, January 20, 2004, LewRockwell.com
Opposing views
- The Anarchist International Website Retrieved 20 May 2005
- Section F of the Anarchist FAQ is a left anarchist critique of anarcho-capitalism.
- Jeff Draughn's Between Anarchism and Libertarianism: Defining a New Movement is a contemporary left anarchist critique of anarcho-capitalism
- The "Critiques Of Libertarianism" website contains critiques of both libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism.
- Within libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism is contrasted with minarchism. Criticisms of anarcho-capitalism by minarchists include Robert J. Binidotto's The Contradiction in Anarchism, and Paul Birch's A Fatal Instability in Anarcho-Capitalism? and Anarcho-Capitalism Dissolves into City States.
- Collection of critical articles
Other
- For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard
- Block, Walter (2003) "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism" Retrieved 20 May 2005
- Anarchism, Capitalism, and Anarcho-Capitalism from anarchism.net
- Anarchy and Invention: How Does Somalia's Private Sector Cope Without Government? (PDF version) Something resembling rudimentary anarcho-capitalism is developing organically in Somalia HTML version
- Telecoms thriving in lawless Somalia Somali telecommunications infrastructure without government.
- SomaliAnarchy - "Defending and Celebrating Somalis' Freedom and Prosperity" Forum and news source for discussion of real-world approximation of anarcho-capitalism now functioning in Somalia
- American Anarchism 19th Century Individualist Anarchists influence on Anarcho-Capitalism
- American Liberal-Anarchism from The Conquest of Power, by Albert Weisbord
- The Philosophy of Liberty (animated)
- Economic Means to Freedom - Part IV: 25 Anarcho-Capitalist Things You Can Do Now!, by Frederick Mann
- The liberal theory of power : a solution to complete anarcho-capitalism with effective solutions to the public good problem and to practical implementation ; it is planned to be implemented by software on the web.
- Private Property Anarchists and Anarcho-Socialists: Can We Get Along? by Gene Callahan
- On Peter Sabatini's "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" by Richard A. Gardner
See also
Related Subjects
- Anarcho-capitalist literature
- Anarcho-capitalist terminology and symbolism
- Classical liberalism
- Crypto-anarchism: The development of the internet and cryptographic methods raises a new possibility for unregulated trades on the internet (or 'in cyberspace') called crypto-anarchism. Crypto-anarchism is still in its infancy, and it is not clear how closely it will resemble libertarianism, anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism.
- American individualist anarchism
- Liberalism
- Market liberalism
- Libertarianism
- Anarchism
- Panarchism
- Free market
- Icelandic Commonwealth - According to a theory associated with the economist David Friedman, Icelandic society was anarcho-capitalist from 930 to 1262.