|
Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and economic theory that
advocates the elimination of centralized states in favor of a system of private
property enforced by private agencies, free markets and the right-libertarian
interpretation of self-ownership, which extends the concept to include control
of private property as part of the self. In the absence of statute,
anarcho-capitalists ("ancaps" for short) hold that society tends to
contractually self-regulate and civilize through participation in the free
market which they describe as a voluntary society. In a theoretical
anarcho-capitalist society, the system of private property would still exist
and be enforced by private defense agencies and insurance companies selected by
customers which would operate competitively in an open market and fulfill the
roles of courts and the police. Anarcho-capitalists claim that various
theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism.
However, anarcho-capitalism was developed in the 20th century and the first
person to use the term anarcho-capitalism was Murray Rothbard. Rothbard
synthesized elements from the Austrian School, classical liberalism and
19th-century American individualist anarchists and mutualists Lysander Spooner
and Benjamin Tucker while rejecting their labor theory of value and the
anti-capitalist and socialist norms they derived from it. Rothbard's
anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon
"legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would
pledge themselves to follow". This legal code would recognize contracts,
private property, self-ownership and tort law in keeping with the
non-aggression principle.
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from anarchists and minarchists. The
latter advocate a night-watchman state limited to protecting individuals from
aggression and enforcing private property. On the other hand, anarchists
support personal property (defined in terms of possession and use, i.e.
mutualist usufruct) and oppose capital concentration, interest, monopoly,
private ownership of productive property such as the means of production
(capital, land and the means of labor), profit, rent, usury and wage slavery
which are viewed as inherent to capitalism and not rejected by
anarcho-capitalists. Anarchism's emphasis on anti-capitalism, egalitarianism
and for the extension of community and individuality sets it apart from
anarcho-capitalism and other types of economic libertarianism.
Anarcho-capitalists are seen as fraudulent and an oxymoron by most anarchist
schools of thought which reject the notion of capitalism, hierarchies and
private property. The anti-capitalism of classical anarchism has remained
prominent within contemporary anarchism, including individualist anarchism.
Philosophy:
According to Patrik Schumacher, the political ideology and programme of
Anarcho-capitalism envisages the radicalisation of the neoliberal "roll
back of the state", and calls for the extension of "entrepreneurial
freedom" and "competitive market rationality" to the point where
the scope for private enterprise is all-encompassing and "leaves no space
for state action whatsoever" The two principal moral approaches to
anarcho-capitalism differ in regard to whether anarcho-capitalist society is
justified on deontological or consequentialist ethics, or both. Natural-law
anarcho-capitalism as advocated by Murray Rothbard holds that a universal
system of rights can be derived from natural law. Other anarcho-capitalists do
not rely upon the idea of natural rights and present economic justifications
for a free-market capitalist society. This latter approach has been offered by
David D. Friedman in The Machinery of Freedom. Unlike other
anarcho-capitalists, most notably Rothbard, Friedman has never tried to deny
the theoretical cogency of the neoclassical literature on "market
failure", but he openly applies the theory to both market and government
institutions to compare the net result, nor has he been inclined to attack
economic efficiency as a normative benchmark. John Kosanke sees such a debate
as irrelevant. Kosanke believes that in the absence of statutory law the
non-aggression principle is "naturally" enforced because individuals
are automatically held accountable for their actions via tort and contract law.
Kosanke also argues that communities of sovereign individuals naturally expel
aggressors in the same way that ethical business practices are allegedly
naturally required among competing businesses that are subject to what he
describes as the "discipline of the marketplace". For Kosanke, the
only thing that needs to be debated is the nature of the contractual mechanism
that abolishes the state, or prevents it from coming into existence where new
communities form.
On the state:
Anarcho-capitalists opposition to the state is reflected in their goal of
keeping but privatizing all functions of the state. They see capitalism and the
"free market" as the basis for a free and prosperous society. Murray
Rothbard, who is credited with coining the term anarcho-capitalism, stated that
the difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is the
difference between "peaceful, voluntary exchange" and a collusive
partnership between business and government that uses coercion to subvert the
free market. Rothbard argued that all government services, including defense,
are inefficient because they lack a market-based pricing mechanism regulated by
"the voluntary decisions of consumers purchasing services that fulfill
their highest-priority needs" and by investors seeking the most profitable
enterprises to invest in.
Many anarcho-capitalists also argue that private defense and court agencies
would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Furthermore,
Linda and Morris Tannehill believe that no coercive monopoly of force can arise
on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in
favor of a competent protection and defense agency. Rothbard stated that he
based his philosophy on "natural law" grounds and provided economic
explanations of why he thinks anarcho-capitalism is preferable needed
(preferable to what?)] on pragmatic grounds as well. needed] David D. Friedman
says that he is not an absolutist rights theorist, but he is also "not a
utilitarian". However, Friedman believes that "utilitarian arguments
are usually the best way to defend libertarian views". Peter Leeson argues
that "the case for anarchy derives its strength from empirical evidence,
not theory"-Hermann Hoppe uses "argumentation ethics" for his
foundation of "private property anarchism" which is closer to
Rothbard's natural law approach.
Rothbard wrote: I define anarchist society as one where there is no legal
possibility for coercive aggression against the person or property of any
individual. Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such
aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the
coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory,
and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin
foci of invasions of individual rights.
Rothbard used the term anarcho-capitalism to distinguish his philosophy from
anarchism that opposes private property as well as to distinguish it from other
forms of individualist anarchism.
Other terms sometimes used for this philosophy, though not necessarily outside
anarcho-capitalist circles, include:
Anarcho-liberalism Anti-state capitalism Anti-state marketism Capitalist
anarchism Free-market anarchism Individualist anarchism Market anarchism:
Natural order Neo-Feudalism Nonarchy Ordered anarchy Polycentric law
Private-law society. Private-property anarchy Propertarianism Pure capitalism
Radical capitalism Stateless capitalism Stateless liberalism Voluntaryism
Non-aggression principle:
Main article: Non-aggression principle:
Although anarcho-capitalists are against centralized states, most, not all,
hold that all people would naturally share and agree to a specific moral
theory. While the Friedmanian formulation of anarcho-capitalism is robust to
the presence of violence and in fact assumes some degree of violence will
occur, anarcho-capitalism as formulated by Rothbard and others holds strongly
to the central libertarian nonaggression axiom. Rothbard wrote: The basic axiom
of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self owner, having
absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else
may justly invade, or egress 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.
Rothbard's defense of the self-ownership principle stems from what he believed
to be his falsification of all other alternatives, namely that either a group
of people can own another group of people, or that no single person has full
ownership over one's self. Rothbard dismisses these two cases on the basis that
they cannot result in a universal ethic, i.e. a just natural law that can
govern all people, independent of place and time. The only alternative that
remains to Rothbard is self-ownership which he believes is both axiomatic and
universal. In general, the non-aggression axiom is described by Rothbard as a
prohibition against the initiation of force, or the threat of force, against
persons (in which he includes direct violence, assault and murder) or property
(in which he includes fraud, burglary, theft and taxation). 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 libertarian
political parties would retain the state in some smaller and less invasive
form, retaining at the very least public police, courts and military. However,
others might give further allowance for other government programs. In contrast,
Rothbard rejects any level of "state intervention", defining the
state as a coercive monopoly and as the only entity in human society that
derives its income from what he refers to as "legal aggression", an
entity that inherently violates the central axiom of libertarianism. Some
anarcho-capitalists such as Rothbard accept the non-aggression axiom on an
intrinsic moral or natural law basis. It is in terms of the non-aggression
principle that Rothbard defined his interpretation of anarchism, "a system
which provides no legal sanction for such aggression ['against person and
property']"; and wrote that "what anarchism proposes to do, then, is
to abolish the State, i.e. to abolish the regularized institution of aggressive
coercion". In an interview published in the American libertarian journal
The New Banner, Rothbard stated that "capitalism is the fullest expression
of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism".
Property:
Private property:
Anarcho-capitalists postulate the privatization of everything, including cities
with all their infrastructures, public spaces, streets and urban management
systems. Central to Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism are the concepts of
self-ownership and original appropriation that combines personal and private
property. Rothbard wrote: 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. Rothbard
however rejected the Lockean proviso, and followed the rule of "first
come, first served", without any consideration how much resources are left
for other individuals, which opposed John Locke's beliefs.
Anarcho-capitalism uses the following terms in ways that may differ from common
usage or various anarchist movements.
Anarchism: any philosophy that opposes all forms of initiatory coercion
(includes opposition to the state)
Contract: a voluntary binding agreement between persons
Coercion: physical force or threat of such against persons or property
Capitalism: economic system where the means of production are privately owned
and where investments, production, distribution, income and prices are
determined through the operation of a free market rather than by statutory
regulation
Free market: a market where all decisions regarding transfer of money, goods
(including capital goods) and services are voluntary Fraud: inducing one to
part with something of value through the use of dishonesty State: an
organization that taxes and engages in regularized and institutionalized
aggressive coercion
Voluntary: any action not influenced by coercion or fraud perpetrated by any
human agency Anarcho-capitalists advocate private ownership of the means of
production and the allocation of the product of labor created by workers within
the context of wage labour and the free market – that is through decisions
made by property and capital owners, regardless of what an individual needs or
does not need.
Original appropriation allows an individual to claim any never-before used
resources, including land and by improving or otherwise using it, own it with
the same "absolute right" as their own body, and retaining those
rights forever, regardless if the resource is still being used by them.
According to Rothbard, property can only come about through labor, therefore
original appropriation of land is not legitimate by merely claiming it or
building a fence around it—it is only by using land and 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". Rothbard argued that the resource need not continue to be used in
order for it to be the person's property as "for once his labor is mixed
with the natural resource, it remains his owned land. His labor has been
irretrievably mixed with the land, and the land is therefore his or his
assigns' in perpetuity". As a practical matter, anarcho-capitalists say
that in terms of the ownership of land there are few, if any, parcels of land
left on Earth whose ownership was not at some point in time obtained in
violation of the homestead principle "through seizure by the state or put
in private hands with the assistance of the state".
Rothbard wrote: It is not enough to call simply for defense of "the rights
of private property"; there must be an adequate theory of justice in
property rights, else any property that some State once decreed to be
"private" must now be defended by libertarians, no matter how unjust
the procedure or how mischievous its consequences.
In Justice and Property Right, Rothbard wrote that "any identifiable owner
(the original victim of theft or his heir) must be accorded his property".
In the case of slavery, Rothbard claimed that in many cases "the old
plantations and the heirs and descendants of the former slaves can be
identified, and the reparations can become highly specific indeed".
Rothbard believed slaves rightfully own any land they were forced to work on
under the homestead principle. If property is held by the state, Rothbard
advocated its confiscation and "return to the private sector",
writing that "any property in the hands of the State is in the hands of
thieves, and should be liberated as quickly as possible". Rothbard
proposed that state universities be seized by the students and faculty under
the homestead principle. Rothbard also supported expropriation of nominally
"private property" if it is the result of state-initiated force such
as businesses who receive grants and subsidies. Rothbard further proposed that
businesses who receive at least 50% of their funding from the state be
confiscated by the workers, writing: "What we libertarians object to,
then, is not government per se but crime, what we object to is unjust or
criminal property titles; what we are for is not 'private' property per se but
just, innocent, non-criminal private property". Similarly, Karl Hess wrote
that "libertarianism wants to advance principles of property but that it
in no way wishes to defend, willy nilly, all property which now is called
private ... Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title. All of
it is deeply intertwined with an immoral, coercive state system". By
accepting an axiomatic definition of private property and property rights,
anarcho-capitalists deny the legitimacy of a state on principle. Hans-Hermann
Hoppe argues: 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. Anarchists
view capitalism as an inherently authoritarian and hierarchical system and seek
the abolishment of private property. There is disagreement between anarchists
and anarcho-capitalists as the former generally rejects anarcho-capitalism as a
form of anarchism and considers anarcho-capitalism an oxymoron while the latter
holds that the abolishment of private property would require expropriation
which is "counterproductive to order" and would require a state in
their opinion.
Common property :
Murray Rothbard (1926–1995), who coined the word anarcho-capitalism
As opposed to anarchists, most anarcho-capitalists reject the commons. However,
some of them propose that non-state public or community property can also exist
in an anarcho-capitalist society. For anarcho-capitalists, what is important is
that it is "acquired" and transferred without help or hindrance from
what the call the "compulsory state". Deontological
anarcho-capitalists believe that the only just and most economically beneficial
way to acquire property is through voluntary trade, gift, or labor-based
original appropriation, rather than through aggression or fraud.
Anarcho-capitalists state that there could be cases where common property may
develop in a Lockean natural rights framework. Anarcho-capitalists make the
example of a number of private businesses which may arise in an area, each
owning the land and buildings that they use, but they argue that the paths
between them become cleared and trodden incrementally through customer and
commercial movement. These thoroughfares may become valuable to the community,
but according to them ownership cannot be attributed to any single person and
original appropriation does not apply because many contributed the labor
necessary to create them. In order to prevent it from falling to the
"tragedy of the commons", anarcho-capitalists suggest transitioning
from common to private property, wherein an individual would make a
homesteading claim based on disuse, acquire title by assent of the community
consensus, form a corporation with other involved parties, or other means. Some
vast areas, except the scarce resources they contain, such as the air, rivers,
oceans, the Moon and orbital paths are considered by anarcho-capitalists as
largely unknowable by individuals and consider them to be property common to
all. However, they see challenges stemming from this idea such as whether an
individual might claim fishing rights in the area of a major shipping lane and
thereby forbid passage through it. In contrast, Hoppe's work on
anarcho-capitalist theory is based on the assumption that all property is
privately held, "including all streets, rivers, airports, and
harbors" which forms the foundation of his views on immigration.
Contractual society:
The society envisioned by anarcho-capitalists has been called the
"contractual society" which Rothbard described as "a society
based purely on voluntary action, entirely unhampered by violence or threats of
violence" The system relies on contracts between individuals as the legal
framework which would be enforced by private police and security forces as well
as private arbitrations. Rothbard argues that limited liability for
corporations could also exist through contract, arguing that
"[c]orporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free
associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market,
those men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is
limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation". However,
corporations created in this way would not be able to replicate the limit on
liabilities arising non-contractually such as liability in tort for
environmental disasters or personal injury which corporations currently enjoy.
Rothbard acknowledges that "limited liability for torts is the
illegitimate conferring of a special privilege". There are limits to the
right to contract under some interpretations of anarcho-capitalism. Rothbard
believes that the right to contract is based in inalienable rights and because
of this any contract that implicitly violates those rights can be voided at
will, preventing a person from permanently selling himself or herself into
unindentured slavery. However, Rothbard justifies the practice of child
selling. Other interpretations conclude that banning such contracts would in
itself be an unacceptably invasive interference in the right to contract.
Included in the right of contract is "the right to contract oneself out
for employment by others". While anarchists criticize wage labour
describing it as wage slavery, anarcho-capitalists view it as a consensual
contract. Some anarcho-capitalists prefer to see self-employment prevail over
wage labor. David D. Friedman has expressed preference for a society where
"almost everyone is self-employed" and "instead of corporations
there are large groups of entrepreneurs related by trade, not authority. Each
sells not his time, but what his time produces".
Law and order and the use of violence:
Different anarcho-capitalists propose different forms of anarcho-capitalism and
one area of disagreement is in the area of law. In The Market for Liberty,
Morris and Linda Tannehill object to any statutory law whatsoever. They argue
that all one has to do is ask if one is egressing against another in order to
decide if an act is right or wrong. However, while also supporting a
"natural prohibition" on force and fraud, Rothbard supports the
establishment of a mutually agreed-upon centralized libertarian legal code
which private courts would pledge to follow, as he presumes a high degree of
convergence amongst individuals about what constitutes natural justice. Unlike
both the Tannehills and Rothbard who see an ideological commonality of ethics
and morality as a requirement, David D. Friedman proposes that "the
systems of law will be produced for profit on the open market, just as books
and bras are produced today. There could be competition among different brands
of law, just as there is competition among different brands of cars".
Friedman says whether this would lead to a libertarian society "remains to
be proven". He says it is a possibility that very unlibertarian laws may
result, such as laws against drugs, but he thinks this would be rare. He
reasons that "if the value of a law to its supporters is less than its
cost to its victims, that law ... will not survive in an anarcho-capitalist
society". Anarcho-capitalists only accept 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. However, their complaint
is not just that the state's defensive services are funded by taxation, but
that the state assumes it is the only legitimate practitioner of physical
force—that is, they believe it forcibly prevents the private sector from
providing comprehensive security, such as a police, judicial and prison systems
to protect individuals from aggressors. Anarcho-capitalists believe that there
is nothing morally superior about the state which would grant it, but not
private individuals, a right to use physical force to restrain aggressors. If
competition in security provision were allowed to exist, prices would also be
lower and services would be better according to anarcho-capitalists. According
to Molinari: "Under a regime of liberty, the natural organization of the
security industry would not be different from that of other industries".
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", needed] namely private arbitration, security
guards, neighborhood watch groups and so on. These private courts and police
are sometimes referred to generically as private defense agencies (PDAs). The
defense of those unable to pay for such protection might be financed by
charitable organizations relying on voluntary donation rather than by state
institutions relying on taxation, or by cooperative self-help by groups of
individuals. Edward Stringham argues that private adjudication of disputes
could enable the market to internalize externalities and provide services that
customers desire. The death of general In the context of revolution, Rothbard
stated that the American Revolutionary War was the only war involving the
United States that could be justified. Some anarcho-capitalists such as
Rothbard feel that violent revolution is counter-productive and prefer
voluntary forms of economic secession to the extent possible. Like classical
liberalism and unlike anarcho-pacifism, anarcho-capitalism permits the use of
force as long as it is in the defense of persons or property. The permissible
extent of this defensive use of force is an arguable point among
anarcho-capitalists.
Retributive justice, meaning retaliatory force, is often a component of the
contracts imagined for an anarcho-capitalist society. According to Matthew
O'Keefee, some anarcho-capitalists 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. Bruce L. Benson argues that legal codes may impose
punitive damages for intentional torts in the interest of deterring crime.
Benson gives the example of a thief who breaks into a house by picking a lock.
Even if caught before taking anything, Benson argues that the thief would still
owe the victim for violating the sanctity of his property rights. Benson opines
that despite the lack of objectively measurable losses in such cases,
"standardized rules that are generally perceived to be fair by members of
the community would, in all likelihood, be established through precedent,
allowing judgments to specify payments that are reasonably appropriate for most
criminal offenses". Morris and Linda Tannehill raise a similar example,
saying that a bank robber who had an attack of conscience and returned the
money would still owe reparations for endangering the employees' and customers'
lives and safety, in addition to the costs of the defense agency answering the
teller's call for help. However, they believe that the robber's loss of
reputation would be even more damaging. They suggest that specialized companies
would list aggressors so that anyone wishing to do business with a man could
first check his record, provided they trust the veracity of the companies'
records. They further theorize that the bank robber would find insurance
companies listing him as a very poor risk and other firms would be reluctant to
enter into contracts with him.
Influences:
Murray Rothbard has listed different ideologies of which his interpretations,
he said, have influenced anarcho-capitalism. This includes his interpretation
of anarchism, and more precisely individualist anarchism; classical liberalism
and the Austrian School of economic thought. Scholars additionally associate
anarcho-capitalism with neo-classical liberalism, radical neoliberalism and
right-libertarianism.
Anarchism
Main article: Anarchism and capitalism
] In both its social and individualist forms, anarchism is usually considered
an anti-capitalist and radical left-wing or far-left movement that promotes
libertarian socialist economic theories such as collectivism, communism,
individualism, mutualism and syndicalism. Because anarchism is usually
described alongside libertarian Marxism as the libertarian wing of the
socialist movement and as having a historical association with anti-capitalism
and socialism, anarchists believe that capitalism is incompatible with social
and economic equality and therefore do not recognize anarcho-capitalism as an
anarchist school of thought. In particular, anarchists argue that capitalist
transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a
capitalist society requires coercion which is incompatible with an anarchist
society. The usage of libertarian is also in dispute. While both anarchists and
anarcho-capitalists have used it, libertarian was synonymous with anarchist
until the mid-20th century, when anarcho-capitalist theory developed.]
Anarcho-capitalists are distinguished from the dominant anarchist tradition by
their relation to property and capital. While both anarchism and
anarcho-capitalism share general antipathy towards power by government
authority, the latter exempts power wielded through free-market capitalism.
Anarchists, including egoists such as Max Stirner, have supported the
protection of an individual's freedom from powers of both government and
private property owners. In contrast, while condemning governmental
encroachment on personal liberties, anarcho-capitalists support freedoms based
on private property rights. Anarcho-capitalist theorist Murray Rothbard argued
that protesters should rent a street for protest from its owners. The abolition
of public amenities is a common theme in some anarcho-capitalist writings. As
anarcho-capitalism puts laissez-faire economics before economic equality, it is
commonly viewed as incompatible with the anti-capitalist and egalitarian
tradition of anarchism. Although anarcho-capitalist theory implies the
abolition of the state in favour of a fully laissez-faire economy, it lies
outside the tradition of anarchism. While using the language of anarchism,
anarcho-capitalism only shares anarchism's antipathy towards the state and not
anarchism's antipathy towards hierarchy as theorists expect from
anarcho-capitalist economic power relations. It follows a different paradigm
from anarchism and has a fundamentally different approach and goals. In spite
of the anarcho- in its title, anarcho-capitalism is more closely affiliated
with capitalism and right-libertarianism than with anarchism. Some within this
laissez-faire tradition reject the designation of anarcho-capitalism, believing
that capitalism may either refer to the laissez-faire market they support or
the government-regulated system that they oppose. Rothbard claimed that
anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism—the only form of
anarchism that could possibly exist in reality as he maintained that any other
form presupposes an authoritarian enforcement of political ideology such as
"redistribution of private property" which he attributed to
anarchism. According to this argument, the capitalist free market is "the
natural situation" that would result from people being free from state
authority and entails the establishment of all voluntary associations in
society such as cooperatives, non-profit organizations, businesses and so on.
Moreover, anarcho-capitalists as well as classical liberal minarchists argue
that the application of anarchist ideals as advocated by what they term
"left-wing anarchists" would require an authoritarian body of some
sort to impose it. Based on their understanding and interpretation of
anarchism, in order to forcefully prevent people from accumulating capital,
which they believe is a goal of anarchists, there would necessarily be a
redistributive organization of some sort which would have the authority to in
essence exact a tax and re-allocate the resulting resources to a larger group
of people. They conclude that this theoretical body would inherently have
political power and would be nothing short of a state. The difference between
such an arrangement and an anarcho-capitalist system is what
anarcho-capitalists see as the voluntary nature of organization within
anarcho-capitalism contrasted with a "centralized ideology" and a
"paired enforcement mechanism" which they believe would be necessary
under what they describe as a "coercively" egalitarian-anarchist
system. Despite their name, anarcho-capitalists are generally seen by
anarchists, who reject the notion of capitalism, hierarchies and private
property, as fraudulent and an oxymoron. Albert Meltzer argued that
anarcho-capitalism simply cannot be anarchism because capitalism and the state
are inextricably interlinked and because capitalism exhibits domineering
hierarchical structures such as that between an employer and an employee. Anna
Morgenstern approaches this topic from the opposite perspective, arguing that
anarcho-capitalists are not really capitalists because "mass concentration
of capital is impossible" without the state. According to Jeremy Jennings,
"[i]t is hard not to conclude that these ideas", referring to
anarcho-capitalism, argued to have "roots deep in classical
liberalism" more so than in anarchism, "are described as anarchist
only on the basis of a misunderstanding of what anarchism is". For
Jennings, "anarchism does not stand for the untrammelled freedom of the
individual (as the 'anarcho-capitalists' appear to believe) but, as we have
already seen, for the extension of individuality and community".
Similarly, Barbara Goodwin, Emeritus Professor of Politics at the University of
East Anglia, Norwich, argues that anarcho-capitalism's "true place is in
the group of right-wing libertarians", not in anarchism. Nonetheless, some
right-libertarian scholars like Michael Huemer, who identify with the ideology,
describe anarcho-capitalism as a "variety of anarchism". While both
anarchism and anarcho-capitalism are in opposition to the state, it is a
necessary but not sufficient condition because anarchists and
anarcho-capitalists interpret state-rejection differently.
Austrian school economist David Prychitko, in the context of anarcho-capitalism
says that "while society without a state is necessary for full-fledged
anarchy, it is nevertheless insufficient". According to Ruth Kinna,
anarcho-capitalists are anti-statists who draw more on right-wing liberal
theory and the Austrian School than anarchist traditions. Kinna writes that
"[i]n order to highlight the clear distinction between the two
positions", anarchists describe anarcho-capitalists as
"propertarians". Anarcho-capitalism is usually seen as part of the
New Right.
Classical liberalism:
Main article: Classical liberalism:
In his essay The Production of Security, Gustave de Molinari argued that
"[n]o government should have the right to prevent another government from
going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come
exclusively to it for this commodity". Molinari and this new type of
anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical
economics. Historian and libertarian Ralph Raico argues that what these liberal
philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or,
as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism".
Unlike the liberalism of John Locke which saw the state as evolving from
society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the
voluntary interactions of people, i.e. society; and the institutions of force,
i.e. the state. This society vs. state idea was expressed in various ways such
as 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. 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.
Ruth Kinna writes that anarcho-capitalism is a term coined by Murray Rothbard
to describe "a commitment to unregulated private property and
laissez-faire economics, prioritizing the liberty-rights of individuals,
unfettered by government regulation, to accumulate, consume and determine the
patterns of their lives as they see fit". According to Kinna,
anarcho-capitalists "will sometimes label themselves market anarchists
because they recognize the negative connotations of 'capitalism'. But the
literatures of anarcho-capitalism draw on classical liberal theory,
particularly the Austrian School – Friedrich von Hayek and Ludwig von
Mises – rather than recognizable anarchist traditions. Ayn Rand's
laissez-faire, anti-government, corporate philosophy – objectivism –
is sometimes associated with anarcho-capitalism". Other scholars similarly
associate anarcho-capitalism with anti-state classical liberalism,
neo-classical liberalism, radical neoliberalism and right-libertarianism.
Individualist anarchism:
Main article: Individualist anarchism:
Lysander Spooner, an American individualist anarchist and anti-capitalist
mutualist, who is claimed to have influenced anarcho-capitalism Murray
Rothbard, a student of Ludwig von Mises, stated that he was influenced by the
work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists. In the winter of
1949, Rothbard decided to reject minimal state laissez-faire and embrace his
interpretation of individualist anarchism. In 1965, Rothbard wrote that
"Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker were unsurpassed as political
philosophers and nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of
the largely forgotten legacy they left to political philosophy". However,
Rothbard thought that they had a faulty understanding of economics as the 19th
century individualist anarchists had a labor theory of value as influenced by
the classical economists and was a student of Austrian School economics which
does not agree with the labor theory of value. Rothbard sought to meld
19th-century American individualist anarchists' advocacy of economic
individualism and free markets with the principles of Austrian School
economics, arguing that "[t]here 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". Rothbard held that the economic consequences
of the political system they advocate would not result in an economy with
people being paid in proportion to labor amounts, nor would profit and interest
disappear as they expected. Tucker thought that unregulated banking and money
issuance would cause increases in the money supply so that interest rates would
drop to zero or near to it. Peter Marshall states that "anarcho-capitalism
overlooks the egalitarian implications of traditional individualist anarchists
like Spooner and Tucker". In "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An
Economist's View", Rothbard explained his disagreements. Rothbard
disagreed with Tucker that it would cause the money supply to increase because
he believed that the money supply in a free market would be self-regulating. If
it were not, then Rothbard argued inflation would occur so it is not
necessarily desirable to increase the money supply in the first place. Rothbard
claimed that Tucker was wrong to think that interest would disappear regardless
because he believed people in general do not wish to lend their money to others
without compensation, so there is no reason why this would change just because
banking was unregulated. Tucker held a labor theory of value and thought that
in a free market people would be paid in proportion to how much labor they
exerted and that exploitation or usury was taking place if they were not. As
Tucker explained in State Socialism and Anarchism, his theory was that
unregulated banking would cause more money to be available and that this would
allow proliferation of new businesses which would in turn raise demand for
labor. This led Tucker to believe that the labor theory of value would be
vindicated and equal amounts of labor would receive equal pay. As an Austrian
School economist, Rothbard did not agree with the labor theory and believed
that prices of goods and services are proportional to marginal utility rather
than to labor amounts in the free market. He did not think that there was
anything exploitative about people receiving an income according to how much
"buyers of their services value their labor" or what that labor
produces. Benjamin Tucker, another individualist anarchist, who identified as a
socialist and his individualist anarchism as anarchistic socialism versus state
socialism, said to have influenced anarcho-capitalism Without the labor theory
of value, some argue that 19th-century individualist anarchists approximate the
modern movement of anarcho-capitalism, although this has been contested or
rejected. As economic theory changed, the popularity of the labor theory of
classical economics was superseded by the subjective theory of value of
neoclassical economics and Rothbard combined Mises' Austrian School of
economics with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state
he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th
century such as Tucker and Spooner. In the mid-1950s, Rothbard wrote "Are
Libertarians 'Anarchists'?", concerned with differentiating himself from
communist and socialistic economic views of anarchists, including the
individualist anarchists of the 19th century, concluding that "we are not
anarchists and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological
ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear
that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical
central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive.
Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist." Joe
Peacott, an American individualist anarchist in the mutualist tradition,
criticizes anarcho-capitalists for trying to hegemonize the individualist
anarchism label and make appear as if all individualist anarchists are in favor
of capitalism. Peacott states that "individualists, both past and present,
agree with the communist anarchists that present-day capitalism is based on
economic coercion, not on voluntary contract. Rent and interest are mainstays
of modern capitalism, and are protected and enforced by the state. Without
these two unjust institutions, capitalism could not exist". Anarchist
activists and scholars do not consider anarcho-capitalism as a part of the
anarchist movement because anarchism has historically been an anti-capitalist
movement and see it as incompatible with capitalist forms. Although some regard
anarcho-capitalism as a form of individualist anarchism, many others disagree
or contest the existence of an individualist–socialist divide because
individualist anarchism is largely libertarian socialist. In coming to terms
that anarchism identified with socialism, Rothbard wrote that individualist
anarchism is different from anarcho-capitalism and other capitalist theories
due to the individualist anarchists retaining the labor theory of value and
socialist doctrines. Similarly, many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a
form of anarchism or that capitalism is compatible with anarchism.
The Palgrave Handbook of Anarchism writes that "[a]s Benjamin Franks
rightly points out, individualisms that defend or reinforce hierarchical forms
such as the economic-power relations of anarcho-capitalism are incompatible
with practices of social anarchism based on developing immanent goods which
contest such as inequalities". Laurence Davis cautiously asks "[I]s
anarcho-capitalism really a form of anarchism or instead a wholly different
ideological paradigm whose adherents have attempted to expropriate the language
of anarchism for their own anti-anarchist ends?" Davis cites Iain McKay,
"whom Franks cites as an authority to support his contention that
'academic analysis has followed activist currents in rejecting the view that
anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with social anarchism'", as arguing
"quite emphatically on the very pages cited by Franks that
anarcho-capitalism is by no means a type of anarchism". McKay writes that
"[i]t is important to stress that anarchist opposition to the so-called
capitalist 'anarchists' does not reflect some kind of debate within anarchism,
as many of these types like to pretend, but a debate between anarchism and its
old enemy capitalism. ... Equally, given that anarchists and
'anarcho'-capitalists have fundamentally different analyses and goals it is
hardly 'sectarian' to point this out". Davis writes that "Franks
asserts without supporting evidence that most major forms of individualist
anarchism have been largely anarcho-capitalist in content, and concludes from
this premise that most forms of individualism are incompatible with
anarchism". Davis argues that "the conclusion is unsustainable
because the premise is false, depending as it does for any validity it might
have on the further assumption that anarcho-capitalism is indeed a form of
anarchism. If we reject this view, then we must also reject the individual
anarchist versus the communal anarchist 'chasm' style of argument that follows
from it". Davis maintains that "the ideological core of anarchism is
the belief that society can and should be organized without hierarchy and
domination. Historically, anarchists have struggles against a wide range of
regimes of domination, from capitalism, the state system, patriarchy,
heterosexism, and the domination of nature to colonialism, the war system,
slavery, fascism, white supremacy, and certain forms of organized
religion". According to Davis, "[w]hile these visions range from the
predominantly individualistic to the predominantly communitarian, features
common to virtually all include an emphasis on self-management and
self-regulatory methods of organization, voluntary association, decentralized
society, based on the principle of free association, in which people will
manage and govern themselves" Finally, Davis includes a footnote stating
that "[i]ndividualist anarchism may plausibly be re regarded as a form of
both socialism and anarchism. Whether the individualist anarchists were
consistent anarchists (and socialists) is another question entirely. ... McKay
comments as follows: 'any individualist anarchism which support wage labour is
inconsistent anarchism. It can easily be made consistent anarchism by applying
its own principles consistently. In contrast 'anarcho'-capitalism rejects so
many of the basic, underlying, principles of anarchism ... that it cannot be
made consistent with the ideals of anarchism'".
Historical precedents:
Several right-libertarians have discussed historical precedents of what they
believe were examples of anarcho-capitalism.
Free cities of medieval Europe :
Economist and libertarian scholar Bryan Caplan considers the free cities of
medieval Europe as examples of "anarchist" or "nearly
anarchistic" societies, further arguing: One case that has inspired both
sorts of anarchists is that of the free cities of medieval Europe. The first
weak link in the chain of feudalism, these free cities became Europe's centers
of economic development, trade, art, and culture. They provided a haven for
runaway serfs, who could often legally gain their freedom if they avoided
re-capture for a year and a day. And they offer many examples of how people can
form mutual-aid associations for protection, insurance, and community. Of
course, left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists take a somewhat different
perspective on the free cities: the former emphasize the communitarian and
egalitarian concerns of the free cities, while the latter point to the
relatively unregulated nature of their markets and the wide range of services
(often including defense, security, and legal services) which were provided
privately or semi-privately.
Medieval Iceland:
19th century interpretation of the Althing in the Icelandic Commonwealth which
authors such as David D. Friedman and Roderick T. Long believe to have some
features of anarcho-capitalist society According to the libertarian theorist
David D. Friedman, "[m]edieval 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". While not directly labeling
it anarcho-capitalist, Friedman argues that the legal system of the Icelandic
Commonwealth comes close to being a real-world anarcho-capitalist legal system
Although noting that there was a single legal system, Friedman argues that
enforcement of law was entirely private and highly capitalist, providing some
evidence of how such a society would function. Friedman further wrote that
"[e]ven 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".
Commenting on its political structure, libertarian scholar Roderick T. Long
writes: The legal system's administration, insofar as it had one, lay in the
hands of a parliament of about 40 officers whom historians call, however
inadequately, "chieftains". This parliament had no budget and no
employees; it met only two weeks per year. In addition to their parliamentary
role, chieftains were empowered in their own local districts to appoint judges
and to keep the peace; this latter job was handled on an essentially
fee-for-service basis. The enforcement of judicial decisions was largely a
matter of self-help (hence Iceland's reputation as a land of constant private
feuding), but those who lacked the might to enforce their rights could sell
their court-decreed claims for compensation to someone more powerful, usually a
chieftain; hence even the poor and friendless could not be victimized with
impunity. The basis of a chieftain's power within the political order was the
power he already possessed outside it, in civil society. The office of
chieftaincy was private property, and could be bought or sold; hence
chieftaincies tended to track private wealth. But wealth alone was not enough.
As economic historian Birgir Solvason notes in his masterful study of the
period, "just buying the chieftainship was no guarantee of power";
the mere office by itself was "almost worthless" unless the chieftain
could "convince some free-farmers to follow him". Chieftains did not
hold authority over territorially-defined districts, but competed for clients
with other chieftains from the same geographical area. Long suggests that the
system of free contract between farmers and chieftains was threatened when
harassment from Norwegian kings that began around AD 1000 forced the people of
Iceland to accept Christianity as the national religion. This paved the way for
the introduction of a compulsory tax in AD 1096 which was to be paid to the
local chieftain who owned a churchstead. Long further believes that this gave
an unfair advantage to some chieftains who at least in part did not need to
rely upon the voluntary support of their clients in order to receive some
income which gradually lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few
big chieftains, enabling them to restrict competition and eventually establish
effective monopolies. Although the Commonwealth was politically stable for over
three centuries, Long suggests that the downfall of the Icelandic system was
brought about "not through having too much privatization, but through
having too little". Long writes: [T]he Free State failed, not through
having too much privatization, but through having too little. The tithe, and
particularly the portion allotted to churchstead maintenance, represented a
monopolistic, non-competitive element in the system. The introduction of the
tithe was in turn made possible by yet another non-competitive element: the
establishment of an official state church which everyone was legally bound to
support. Finally, buying up chieftaincies would have availed little if there
had been free entry into the chieftaincy profession; instead, the number of
chieftains was set by law, and the creation of new chieftaincies could be
approved only by parliament – i.e., by the existing chieftains, who were
naturally less than eager to encourage competitors. It is precisely those
respects in which the Free State was least privatized and decentralized that
led to its downfall – while its more privatized aspects delayed that
downfall for three centuries
American Old West:
According to Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill, the Old West in the United
States in the period of 1830 to 1900 was similar to anarcho-capitalism in that
"private agencies provided the necessary basis for an orderly society in
which property was protected and conflicts were resolved" and that the
common popular perception that the Old West was chaotic with little respect for
property rights is incorrect. Since squatters had no claim to western lands
under federal law, extra-legal organizations formed to fill the void. Benson
explains: The land clubs and claim associations each adopted their own written
contract setting out the laws that provided the means for defining and
protecting property rights in the land. They established procedures for
registration of land claims, as well as for protection of those claims against
outsiders, and for adjudication of internal disputes that arose. The reciprocal
arrangements for protection would be maintained only if a member complied with
the association's rules and its court's rulings. Anyone who refused would be
ostracized. Boycott by a land club meant that an individual had no protection
against aggression other than what he could provide himself. According to
Anderson, "[d]efining anarcho-capitalist to mean minimal government with
property rights developed from the bottom up, the western frontier was
anarcho-capitalistic. People on the frontier invented institutions that fit the
resource constraints they faced".
Gaelic Ireland:
In his work For a New Liberty, Murray Rothbard has claimed ancient Gaelic
Ireland as an example of nearly anarcho-capitalist society. In his depiction,
citing the work of Professor Joseph Peden, the basic political unit of ancient
Ireland was the tuath, which is portrayed as "a body of persons
voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes" with its territorial
claim being limited to "the sum total of the landed properties of its
members". Civil disputes were settled by private arbiters called
"brehons" and the compensation to be paid to the wronged party was
insured through voluntary surety relationships. Commenting on the
"kings" of tuaths, Rothbard stated: The king was elected by the tuath
from within a royal kin-group (the derbfine), which carried the hereditary
priestly function. Politically, however, the king had strictly limited
functions: he was the military leader of the tuath, and he presided over the
tuath assemblies. But he could only conduct war or peace negotiations as agent
of the assemblies; and he was in no sense sovereign and had no rights of
administering justice over tuath members. He could not legislate, and when he
himself was party to a lawsuit, he had to submit his case to an independent
judicial arbiter.
Law merchant, admiralty law and early common law Some libertarians have cited
law merchant, admiralty law and early common law as examples of
anarcho-capitalism. In his work Power and Market, Rothbard stated: The law
merchant, admiralty law, and much of the common law began to be developed by
privately competitive judges, who were sought out by litigants for their
expertise in understanding the legal areas involved. The fairs of Champagne and
the great marts of international trade in the Middle Ages enjoyed freely
competitive courts, and people could patronize those that they deemed most
accurate and efficient.
Somalia from 1991 to 2006 :
Main article: History of Somalia (1991–2006):
Economist Alex Tabarrok claimed that Somalia in its stateless period provided a
"unique test of the theory of anarchy", in some aspects near of that
espoused by anarcho-capitalists David D. Friedman and Murray Rothbard.
Nonetheless, both anarchists and some anarcho-capitalists argue that Somalia
was not an anarchist society.
Criticism:
State, justice and defense Anarchists such as Brian Morris argue that
anarcho-capitalism does not in fact get rid of the state. He says that
anarcho-capitalists "simply replaced the state with private security
firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term is normally
understood". In "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy", anarchist Peter
Sabatini notes: Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority
perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state.
However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown
that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless
private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and
law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors. ... Rothbard
sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with
more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal,
just as they do now. Similarly, Bob Black argues that an anarcho-capitalist
wants to "abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it
something else". He states that they do not denounce what the state does,
they just "object to who's doing it". It has also been argued that
anarcho-capitalism dissolves into city states. Randall G. Holcombe argues that
anarcho-capitalism turns justice into a commodity as private defense and court
firms would favour those who pay more for their services. He argues that
defense agencies could form cartels and oppress people without fear of
competition. Philosopher Albert Meltzer argued that since anarcho-capitalism
promotes the idea of private armies, it actually supports a "limited
State". He contends that it "is only possible to conceive of
Anarchism which is free, communistic and offering no economic necessity for
repression of countering it". Robert Nozick argues that a competitive
legal system would evolve toward a monopoly government even without violating
individuals rights in the process. In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Nozick argues
that an anarcho-capitalist society would inevitably transform into a minarchist
state through the eventual emergence of a monopolistic private defense and
judicial agency that no longer faces competition. He argues that
anarcho-capitalism results in an unstable system that would not endure in the
real world. While anarcho-capitalists such as Roy Childs and Murray Rothbard
have rejected Nozick's arguments, John Jefferson actually advocates Nozick's
argument and states that such events would best operate in laissez-faire. Paul
Birch argues that legal disputes involving several jurisdictions and different
legal systems will be too complex and costly, therefore the largest private
protection business in a territory will develop into a natural monopoly. Robert
Ellickson presented a Hayekian case against anarcho-capitalism, calling it a
"pipe-dream" and stating that anarcho-capitalists "by imagining
a stable system of competing private associations, ignore both the
inevitability of territorial monopolists in governance, and the importance of
institutions to constrain those monopolists' abuses". Rights and freedom
Negative and positive rights are rights that oblige either action (positive
rights) or inaction (negative rights). Anarcho-capitalists believe that
negative rights should be recognized as legitimate, but positive rights should
be rejected as an intrusion. Some critics reject the distinction between
positive and negative rights. Peter Marshall also states that the
anarcho-capitalist definition of freedom is entirely negative and that it
cannot guarantee the positive freedom of individual autonomy and independence.
About anarcho-capitalism, Noam Chomsky says: Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion,
is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead to forms of
tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human history. There isn't
the slightest possibility that its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be
implemented, because they would quickly destroy any society that made this
colossal error. The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and
his starving subject is a sick joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic
seminar exploring the consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere
else. Economics and property Anarchists argue that certain capitalist
transactions are not voluntary and that maintaining the class structure of a
capitalist society requires coercion which violates anarchist principles.
Anthropologist David Graeber noted his skepticism about anarcho-capitalism
along the same lines, arguing: To be honest I'm pretty skeptical about the idea
of anarcho-capitalism. If a-caps imagine a world divided into property-holding
employers and property-less wage laborers, but with no systematic coercive
mechanisms[;] well, I just can't see how it would work. You always see a-caps
saying "if I want to hire someone to pick my tomatoes, how are you going
to stop me without using coercion?" Notice how you never see anyone say
"if I want to hire myself out to pick someone else's tomatoes, how are you
going to stop me?" Historically nobody ever did wage labor like that if
they had pretty much [any] other option. Some critics argue that the
anarcho-capitalist concept of voluntary choice ignores constraints due to both
human and non-human factors such as the need for food and shelter as well as
active restriction of both used and unused resources by those enforcing
property claims. If a person requires employment in order to feed and house
himself, the employer–employee relationship could be considered
involuntary. Another criticism is that employment is involuntary because the
economic system that makes it necessary for some individuals to serve others is
supported by the enforcement of coercive private property relations. Some
philosophies view any ownership claims on land and natural resources as immoral
and illegitimate. Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger criticizes
anarcho-capitalism by arguing that "capitalism requires government",
questioning who or what would enforce treaties and contracts. Julian Assange
rejects anarcho-capitalism as a "misnomer", denying the perceived
"virtues" of capitalism and the possibility of any substantive
connection between anti-statism, capitalism and emancipatory praxis. Some
right-libertarian critics of anarcho-capitalism who support the full
privatization of capital such as geolibertarians argue that land and the raw
materials of nature remain a distinct factor of production and cannot be justly
converted to private property because they are not products of human labor.
Some socialists, including market anarchists and mutualists, adamantly oppose
absentee ownership. Anarcho-capitalists have strong abandonment criteria,
namely that one maintains ownership until one agrees to trade or gift it.
Anti-state critics of this view posit comparatively weak abandonment criteria,
arguing that one loses ownership when one stops personally occupying and using
it as well as the idea of perpetually binding original appropriation is
anathema to traditional schools of anarchism.
Literature:
Nonfiction:
The following is a partial list of notable nonfiction works discussing
anarcho-capitalism.
Murray Rothbard, founder of anarcho-capitalism: Man, Economy, and State
Power and Market The Ethics of Liberty For a New Liberty David D.
Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom Michael Huemer, The Problem of
Political Authority Linda and Morris Tannehill, The Market for
Liberty Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Anarcho-Capitalism: An Annotated
Bibliography The Economics and Ethics of Private Property A Theory of
Socialism and Capitalism Democracy: The God That Failed Bruce L.
Benson, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The StateTo Serve and
Protect: Privatization and Community in Criminal Justice Auberon Herbert,
The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State Albert Jay Nock, Our
Enemy, the State, Franz Oppenheimer's thesis applied to early United States
history Herbert Spencer, Social Statics George H. Smith, "Justice
Entrepreneurship in a Free Market" Edward P. Stringham, Anarchy and the
Law: The Political Economy of Choice Gerard Casey, Libertarian Anarchy: Against
the State
|
|
